Dealing With An 800 Pound Gorilla
The Chronicle of Philanthropy just announced that giving is up 10.8% at America’s top 400 charities. Rah, Rah, Rah!
However, elsewhere in the universe, if you’re a small nonprofit in your local community or region trying to raise funds for, say, homeless shelters or a health services charity or an arts group, might this be your worst nightmare … ?
The ‘800 pound gorilla’ charity that vacuums up the lion’s share of charitable dollars, leaving everyone else scrambling for the crumbs.
Maybe they got there because they were first. Maybe they have a charismatic leader. Maybe they have the most deserving cause. Maybe they’re just smarter fundraisers.
Take the situation in Lewiston-Auburn, Maine — commonly called the ‘Cities of the Androscoggin’. Population: 59,647.
Here, as reported in More nonprofits, less money to go around, the ‘culprit’ is the Patrick Dempsey Center for Cancer Hope and Healing:
“While thousands gathered to run, walk, cycle and Patrick-gaze last month — raising $1.1 million for the Patrick Dempsey Center for Cancer Hope & Healing — some area nonprofits quietly say they’ve felt the pinch of the Dempsey Challenge’s phenomenal success the past six years. It’s an awkward situation. They’re all out to do good, but there’s only so much donor money to go around.
“The Lewiston-Auburn area is very, very saturated,” said one local organizer with a national nonprofit who asked not to be named. In reaching out for sponsorship for their last event, the organizer heard several times, “‘We’re supporting the Dempsey Center.’ Kudos to them, because they do an excellent job at what they do. (But) our area is so small, the resources are so tapped.”
Sound familiar to you community fundraisers?
Later in the piece, pointing out that the number of nonprofits in the US has increased 25% from 2001 to 2011, a local economist comments:
“In some ways, it’s not unlike being a small business and having a big-box store move to town, said professor James McConnon in the University of Maine School of Economics.
‘My own advice is to focus on what you have control over and what you do well, and be open to change,’ he said. ‘Be flexible and nimble’.”
Maine has 6,500 registered charities serving a population of 1,328,188 — one charity for every 204 citizens.
Is that too many? Possibly, even probably, but that’s an academic question, isn’t it?
Each charity in Lewiston-Auburn must play the hand it’s dealt. No ‘charities czar’ is going to come along and weed the garden of ‘superfluous’ or ‘under-performing’ or ‘duplicate’ charities.
So Professor McConnon is probably right, all the individual charity can do is focus on what it can control. Make its case as powerfully as it can. Build and strengthen relationships. Make certain its fundraising tactics are state-of-the art.
And maybe find its own Patrick Dempsey.
What more can you advise?
Tom
7 responses to “Dealing With An 800 Pound Gorilla”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Fundraising is not for the faint of heart – it is about vision bigger than life, a killer offer, and being where your donors are – every channel. If no vision, you perish. Offer is ho-hum, no leverage, forget about it. If you are not in the channels your donors are in, you lose to those that are.
It is hard when there’s a big, successful charity that grabs everyone’s attention. It would be nice to see larger donors – individual and institutional lead by really looking at the community’s needs and spreading the funding around a bit.
But honestly? Complaining doesn’t do any good.
I have always thought smaller organizations have a chance to excel in donor care. When you have fewer donors, you can (and should) be treating them like family. (The family you really like). That personal connection can be so powerful. And loyal donors aren’t as likely to be pulled away by a pretty face.
So it comes down to the usual – invest enough in fundraising to at least be sure there’s staff and skill sufficient to give donors the attention they deserve.
It’s the same picture in the UK. This article pubished today on the Guardian says only a few hundred charities of the 160,000 registered in the UK account for over half of all voluntary income; over half of charities are community, volunteer-run.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/apr/24/top-1000-charities-donations-britain
Is it a problem? Probably not. Success in fundraising is down to nature of the cause, connection to people, and then investment in and performance of fundraising activity. When overall giving is going up, I’m not too swayed by the “cannibalism” argument that some charities are sucking the air out for others. Yes, some people may budget their giving, but people continue to dig deep when they are moved to do so, and many still don’t give at all. Which makes it all the more important to make sure your own charity story is as compelling and urgent as possible, is relevant and moves people, and that you’re sensible with the opportunities you get. Above all, sustain the relationships you already have.
Nonprofits need to find their donors and build. I get weary listening to those who blame others’ success for their failure. I have several clients on the top 400 and many of them blame others on the top 400 for their not being higher on the list. It is a grass is always greener perspective. I have one who moved up 71 spots on the Top 400 by paying attention to their business.
I am weary of the “outside circumstances” excuse–someone else is gobbling up all the donors, the economy is in a rough place, name your story. It may be a reality, but it certainly not something to lead with or something that should drive your thinking. Be nimble, indeed; know your case; be able to redirect the conversation. If someone says, “I’m giving to the Dempsey Center”, how about an answer that offers “That’s great, they are doing a wonderful job helping that community. We here at the local homeless shelter/arts organization/etc. are also saving people’s lives, enhancing children’s learning opportunities, whatever it is.” The parallel of big box store and small business is excellent and one I’ve experienced. Be incredibly good at who you are and know how to engage people in that.
Here’s what the data says: “The top 4% of charities received 66.4% of total dollars given (the top two bars), up from 49.15% in 1990. The contributions received by small organizations at the bottom stayed flat or even lost ground.”
From :Where has all the philanthropy gone, more and more to the biggest See my analysis at http://www.ceffect.com/2014/07/02/where-has-the-philanthropy-gone/
I don’t think this is an issue about complaining. I think it reflects the reality of the huge staff and other investments the largest organizations are able to devote to fundraising.
I think as a sector, we’ve got to have a conversation about this sectoral inequality and what it means for our communities. And who philanthropy benefits.
It seems to me that one of the challenges we face is this: Government funding of everything – social services, arts, education, etc. – continues to decline. Nonprofits step in to try to fill the void, but donors still have not stepped up their giving. The percent of GDP composed of philanthropy has been flat for many years.
So, society continues to lose out as more and more income goes to the top, and those who have fail to give more to help the have nots. This means that there is about the same amount of money to go around for increasing needs and larger numbers of nonprofits to help meet those needs.
Clearly, those of us raising the funds in order to address the needs need to focus on our own work and do our best.
At the same time, perhaps it is time to find ways truly to increase the pool of funds and truly offset the reduction in government funds and increase in wealth?