Recent news of the fundraising results of Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign — $33 million in the last three months from a base of 2.2 million donors who give an average of $27 — got me thinking about the various problems and opportunities faced by vastly different types of organizations.

I imagined some board member(s) somewhere in Nonprofit Land grilling the development director: “If Bernie Sanders can attract 2 million donors we should at least be able to get a few hundred thousand! What’s wrong?”

Among the distinct types of organizations — candidate committees and ‘normal’ charities (health care, conservation, disease, food banks, higher ed, etc.) are on the extreme ends of the spectrum. A third — the advocacy/issue organization — is somewhere in the middle when it comes to the skills and mindset necessary for success.

A candidate organization is time-limited by the date for an election, with results driven largely by the news cycle. A ‘normal’ nonprofit is not nearly as time-dependent nor, with the exception of relief organizations, as dependent on the news.

Most Advocacy organizations live somewhere in between — dependent on the intensity and nature of the news, but also faced with the need to maintain an effective shelf life far beyond a single election day, legislative battle or court decision.

So when it comes to boards or fundraisers setting expectations or measuring success there are quite different dynamics at work.

For example, candidate committees of the presidential type don’t have to worry too much about multi-year Donor Retention and Lifetime Value. They worry about maximizing income in the brief period of the campaign; the future be damned.

Just the opposite is true for ‘Normal’ Charities and Advocacy groups. Not only must they take full advantage of the here-and-now news cycle, but they have to hold on to and increase the lifetime value of donors acquired in ‘hot’ times so they can effectively advance their mission over the long term.

I decided to write this post when I heard from one of the country’s top copywriters, who had produced an exceptionally effective acquisition package for an Advocacy organization that’s been in the headlines month after month. In this case the prospecting package was actually making a substantial profit — something that in ‘normal’, non-headline times almost never happens these days.

For more than 40 years Tom and I launched or helped build many of the house names among liberal or progressive Advocacy groups. Greenpeace, Planned Parenthood, Common Cause, Sierra Club, ACLU, Amnesty International and dozens more.

Based on that experience — and in the heat of the highly charged climate (reproductive rights, gun control, immigration, climate change to name a few of the highly charged issues) — here are a few rules to bear in mind when it comes to expectations and success.

• Making a profit or even breaking even on acquisition is the exception, not the rule. Generally, between $25 and $60 in investment over and above the acquisition gift is required to bring in significant numbers of new donors. If you’re making money in prospecting you’re doing too little!

• What is important to understand is that ‘success’ in acquisition for Advocacy groups like those I mentioned above is directly related to the political climate. If the bad guys — your opponents — are on the rampage, acquisition returns go through the roof. When your side is winning or has won, then acquisition returns plummet.

• The reason for this of course is that when the battle is on caring folks who favor your side of the issue rise to the occasion to support your organization.

But then comes the less understood part of the equation. Holding on to these new donors. Why? Because many of the donors acquired in this climate (I call them ‘flash philanthropists’; Tom calls them ‘sunshine soldiers’) are also very likely to leave when the immediate battle is over. Not unlike tsunami or earthquake donors to relief organizations.

For the most part these flash philanthropists are single-issue donors interested in one topic or one fight. So, the principal challenge in retaining them for the long haul requires effort on the organization’s part to expose them to and interest them in broader or different topics the organization also works on. Not an easy feat.

Some historic examples from the work life of Belford and Craver. In 1980 following the election of Ronald Reagan and with the rise of the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority the right wing’s Human Life Amendment was introduced in Congress to outlaw abortion. Acquisition returns for Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL went through the ceiling. But when pro-choice Bill Clinton was elected returns plummeted.

And the same phenomenon occurred with the ACLU when Ed Meese with his anti-liberties cant was appointed Attorney General. Membership in ACLU over a two-year period nearly doubled, but dropped back to its normal level when he left office.

Ditto for the National Organization for Women during the fight to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Ditto for Greenpeace and the Sierra Club over the anti-environmental actions of Jim Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior.

So, bottom line: Take advantage of the climate. Don’t be content at ‘making’ money on acquisition. Seize the opportunity to drive up the volumes to bring in a maximum number of donors. AND … plan to make a substantial investment in retaining those donors.

Roger