It’s INTERMISSION TIME in our Good Enough Is Not Good Enough series. (Part 1 here; Part 2 here).

We conceived the series for two reasons:

• We wanted to share some of the significant discoveries or findings that are emerging because of research. Particularly discoveries that have significant potential for increasing retention, donor commitment and lifetime value.
• It’s long been clear lots of thinking folks are yearning for something different. Not new and shiny tech-oriented things, but meaningful new or additional approaches in dealing more effectively in enriching the donors’ experience and, in turn, deepening their commitment to organizations they support.

The Delivery vs. Discovery Paradox

While you’d have to be a Neanderthal to not realize that the same-old-same-old will only get us so far (and Agitator readers sure don’t fit into that taxonomy), many astute and forward-looking fundraisers are caught on the horns of a dilemma:

“On the one hand I’d like to discover, explore and apply some of these new findings and approaches. On the other hand, I have to deliver on this year’s numbers and can’t take that risk.

And quite frankly we fool ourselves if we believe the same folks who have to deliver the bottom line can also find the time to undertake new approaches like the ones I’m outlining in the Good Enough Is Not Good Enough series.

Of course, there’s always some testing that can be done within the most current fundraising structures. But, I’ll admit the sorts of approaches involving donor identity, experience, and commitment outlined in this series require both markedly different approaches and time to see how they work.

No sane fundraiser would simply abandon their current approach that may not be ideal but will at least ‘meet the number’ in favor of exploring something new. Something that requires you expose a number of your donors to the ‘new’, remove them from exposure to the ‘old’, and then run the experiment for a year or so to determine which approach works best.

Unlike a direct mail package, list or offer test that may produce some incremental gains, the process of breaking through with a new mindset, a new set of methods and some new metrics involves change and risk.

Of course, I believe maintaining the status quo is the greatest risk of all and that while doing business as usual may enable you to grow the tip of the iceberg, it won’t do much to increase the base size of the iceberg.

So, what’s a fundraiser to do?

Design a Separate Crucible for Change.

A short story to illustrate what I’m suggesting.

In 1943, the U.S. Army’s air command met with Lockheed Aircraft to express its dire need for a jet fighter to counter a rapidly growing German jet threat.

A month later a young engineer and his team of young engineers delivered a proposal for the XP-80 Shooting Star jet fighter. 143 days later the team had designed and built the plane itself.

What allowed the team to work so effectively and efficiently quite contrary to Lockeed’s normal and lengthy bureaucratic process? A separate, small organizational structure that became known as the Skunk Works.

Its characteristics? A small team in an entirely separate space from the main organization (in this case a circus tent) … a ‘get it done’ attitude … and a simple set of rules and practices focused on innovation, discovery and fast execution.

Clearly, not every organization can afford to undertake such an operation even if they want to. Is that really the case? When I think about the number of older, established, mid-sized and large organizations that are stuck on the no-growth plateau or facing an actual decline I think the question should be: Can they really afford not to set up their own Skunk Works? Crucible for change by any other name.

In short, as I report on what new research and discoveries I’m not recommending you stop everything and turn to the new. You can’t rebuild the battle ship overnight.

What I am recommending is that you think about how you can internally organize or externally hire an expeditionary force to work on new approaches to donor identity, experience and commitment.

I’m now watching 7 mid and large-sized organizations undertake significant skunk works-like pilot projects. So far the results are impressive; proving to me that you can enlarge the base of the iceberg while, at the same time continuing to add ice to the tip.

What thoughts have you given, or what actual steps have you taken in this direction? Please share.

Roger