Grouper Eats Shark
A couple of days ago I posted on the plight of small charities contending in a limited fundraising market with an over-sized competitor — Dealing With An 800 Pound Gorilla.
In the situation described, the ‘gorilla’ was a local healthcare charity raising a bit over $1 million in Maine, where there are about 6,500 registered charities. Let’s examine the small charity fundraising context a bit using this report, The Maine Nonprofit Sector Impact, 2013.
Amazingly, the nonprofit sector is the second largest industry in Maine, employing 1 in 7 of the state’s workers in 2011 and generating $3.5 billion in wages.
But 92% of the charities had annual budgets less than $1 million, 88% less than $500,000, 75% less than $100,000, and 56% less than $50,000.
This is life in the real fundraising world.
I’ll bet virtually none of Maine’s nonprofits with budgets less than $500,000 (remember, that’s 88% of the total) have even a single staffer entirely dedicated to fundraising. Those groups are lucky to get any sliver of Maine’s donor pie. And remember, we’re not even considering the donations extracted from Maine donors that flow far beyond Maine’s borders!
Who in those 5,720 organizations might be reading The Agitator’s harangues on donor retention?! Or Jeff Brooks ranting about wasting money on awareness campaigns?! Who might be watching fundraising webinars or going to the conferences in New York or Amsterdam?
Maybe most of the 12% of Maine nonprofits with $500,000+ budget do have a dedicated fundraising staffer. That might translate to 780 fundraisers assuming an average of one per organization. How many of those have any significant training in the art and science of fundraising?
I’m not knockin’ Maine nonprofits or their fundraising and fundraisers. I’m just saying it’s a tough job being the little guy, no matter how noble your cause … no matter how earnest you might be about improving your tactics.
In reading the comments on my Gorilla post, some spoke of small nonprofits as basically needing to simply grit their teeth, not blame ‘external’ factors, and just ‘get on with it’. Some others, like Gayle Gifford, were a bit more sympathetic and lamented the stagnant size of the US philanthropic pie and its concentration in fewer and fewer hands.
I lean toward the latter comments, but realize those are conditions outside the ability (or priority, given the imperatives of daily survival) of individual nonprofits to influence. Yes indeed, they have no choice but to just get on with it, or cease to exist.
Speaking of ceasing to exist, keep in mind that in Maine’s case, only 3% of charities have budgets greater than $5 million per year. That’s 195 organizations — the sharks amidst the minnows. One wonders how secure even some of those sharks might be?
As this video illustrates, even the occasional shark gets swallowed by the grouper!
Tom
3 responses to “Grouper Eats Shark”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Whether “help” is more engaging or not really depends on the framing and context. The word help can sometimes weaken the perceived agency of the supporter, making their role feel secondary rather than central (your point). On the other hand, help can also signal collaboration rather than implying full ownership of the outcome, which might […]
Read Full Answer
Great question! Here’s how behavioral science can help unpack what might be happening: Pain of Paying: Even a small extra charge can make giving feel more transactional than emotional, potentially reducing generosity. Fairness Concerns: Some donors might perceive donor cover as a surcharge rather than a contribution to the cause. If they feel the charity […]
Read Full Answer
The choice between “Your gift CAN…” and “Your gift WILL…” taps into the psychological framing of certainty vs. possibility. Currently, there is no academic research directly comparing these two framings in charitable appeals. However, I suspect no framing is universally better—the outcome likely depends on your target audience and the campaign’s goal. Here are some thoughts: Certainty Framing – […]
Read Full Answer
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
Gayle’s point about the size of the “stagnant size of the U.S. philanthropic pie” is hugely important. As Giving USA shows us, the % of GDP has remained between 1.8% and 2.3% for 40 years. Sure total $ raised increases. But such a small % of what people have, of what is available? That’s very sad.
That’s why I think the new Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy at Plymouth University, U.K. is so exciting. This centre is devoted to growing philanthropy. Eliminating that stagnant pie size. Adrian Sargeant, fundraising research guru is the centre director. And the research director is Jen Shang, the world’s first philanthropic psychologist. And The Agitator’s own Roger Craver is involved, too.
I’m a fundraiser who lived in Maine for 10 years. For 3 of those, I worked at the local University and for longer than that I volunteered in my community as a Board Member and Chair of the local nonprofit library (annual budget $35,000).
I can tell you that nearly none of those $500K and less orgs have paid fundraising staff. Many of the very small organizations have redundant missions.
The good news is that the nonprofit merger is on the rise in Maine, in both big and small organizations. Read about small ones here: http://bangordailynews.com/2009/07/16/news/merger-creates-new-down-east-conservancy/
And way back in 1992 public TV and radio deciding to all be “Maine Public Broadcasting Network” here: http://www.thecolbyecho.com/local/maine-public-broadcasting
The TV and radio merger wasn’t apparent for a long while, as the branding wasn’t changed until the mid 2000s.
The big nonprofits are largely the Universities and hospitals.
After a while, I began telecommuting for other (larger) organizations instead of working in Maine because of the absence of Development jobs in smaller organizations. The organizations that have decided to afford fundraising staff can’t offer much in the way of pay.
So you’re right — the number of fundraisers out there to worry about retention is slim. Even worse, I did a graduate study on the number of nonprofits in Maine that use a donor database. The number that didn’t was stunning. Worse, many didn’t know that in order to fundraise in the state they needed to be registered with the State of Maine.
But Mainers are plucky! Organizations from churches to land trusts will have dinners and bake sales and just about anything they can think of in order to pursue their missions. In a very, very dear way, Maine communities resonate a culture of philanthropy that any fundraiser would be lucky to experience. I know I was, and I miss it just about every day.
Greetings from Maine!
First, for the record, I an avid devote of The Agitator. I am also a fundraiser with a graduate degree in strategic fundraising and philanthropy. While I would really like to take advantage of the many opportunities to attend webinars that come across my inbox on a daily basis, fundraising is the priority.
I work for one of Maine’s NPO’s with a budget less than $500,000. My shop is small – myself and an assistant. We are fortunate however that 100% of our time is devoted to fundraising – annual appeal, planned and major gifts, capital campaigns and special events – all areas.
I have been a fundraiser for 14 years, working with/for small to mid-sized (by Maine standards) nonprofits. Fundraising here, and no doubt other rural states, is challenging. Those of us who are able to claim and degree of success in terms of donor cultivation and stewardship and advancing the mission tend to be resilient, seemingly resistant to burn out.
While my work and that of my colleagues is rewarding, I have found a common ground in that fundraising isn’t the only challenge we face. Another reality, one that is rarely mentioned, is the degree by which a good number of nonprofit CEO’s and board members who fail understand their respective roles in the art and science of fundraising.
Time and time again I’ve witnessed and experienced, nonprofit leaders who when faced with diminished funding determine it’s time to hire a fundraiser. That sole individual is then is saddled with the unrealistic responsibility of being a miracle worker, with little if any resources.
Thank you for bringing the reality of fundraising in Maine and other rural states into the conversation. It’s about time.