I’ve seen a number of fundraisers proffer their wish lists or predictions for 2011, and would like to pass some along. The Agitator will even offer some too (after we’ve read everybody else’s, of course!).

Here are some thoughts from Fraser Green at Good Works. He calls his essay New Year Nostradamus. After he talks about some cosmic issues like globalization and ‘The End of Certainty’ he gets to his seven marketing/fundraising predictions:

1. The PUSH market will become the PULL market. He’s embracing Seth Godin’s notion of the end of ‘interruption marketing’ … the old paradigm where marketers called the shots. Fraser notes that: a) it’s much easier for today’s prospects to tune us out; and b) they will … only the pre-Boomers hesitate to say NO! All succeeding generations have no such reluctance to tell us to get lost.

2. Messages That Shine. He says: “The donors of the future are going to demand a much higher degree of eloquence from all of us. We’re going to have to articulate – clearly and passionately – who we help, how well we do it and how donors impact the cause.” In other words, more attention to what we say than to the techniques of how we say it.

3. The Luther Effect. Martin Luther said, skip the middleman, relate to God directly. Fraser says: “Your donors are feeling a growing hunger to connect directly – with the people you serve through your mission – without your charity getting in their way.” The challenge — how does your nonprofit stay relevant to your donors, when in many cases they could connect or act directly on behalf of their philanthropic interests?

4. Mergers, Takeovers and Acquisitions. Comments Fraser: “Donors want results. They want effective use of their money. They’re giving to make change happen. If that change will happen faster through mergers and streamlining, why don’t we give donors what they want?”

5. The Hourglass Effect. He thinks local and global causes and charities will succeed. I get his point, but I’m not convinced … I believe there are plenty of uniquely national problems to sort out, with nonprofits playing a critical role.

6. Loyals, Houseguests and Fair Weather Friends. Says Fraser: “In the future, we’re going to have to use scalpels rather than axes to segment our databases – and to send appropriate offers to the right people for the right reasons at the right times.” For example, he questions whether it’s really feasible to convert a ‘disaster donor’ into a loyalist.

7. Inverse Possessive. Fraser: “…we’re going to stop thinking of donors as somehow ‘belonging’ to us – and start thinking of our charities as the organizations that our donors have chosen to engage with … We will accept that we have to earn their gift, their support and ultimately – their loyalty. Over. And over. And over again.”

Excellent points, all further developed in Fraser’s thoughtful essay. I plan to explore points 2, 3 and 4 a bit in the future. Why?

Because I think:

re #2: More and more fundraising creative sucks, or at best is recognizably (to the donor) formulaic.

re #3: Many nonprofits haven’t a clue as to how expendable they really are in today’s information-rich, web-connected context.

re #4: Like it or not, scale matters for those nonprofits that do remain relevant. Yes, there’s always something to be learned, and the insight or innovation might need to come from a tiny start-up. But c’mon folks, the problems are HUGE and the resistance to change is MIGHTY.

Fundraisers control #2; as marketers, you should drive the discussion of #3 in your organization; and you should engage with open, pragmatic minds, as opposed to protecting turf, when opportunity #4 arrives on the table.

Tom