In the last few days I’ve seen two columns, one in the NY Times and one in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, that I consider ‘must read’ for nonprofit fundraisers and communicators (and their CEOs). The first sets the context for the second.

In the NY Times, Arthur Brooks, CEO of The American Enterprise Institute, wrote Why Fund-Raising Is Fun. After citing evidence that giving increases happiness more than spending, and explaining the psychology involved, Arthur observes:

“…the real magic of fund-raising goes even deeper than temporary happiness or extra income. It creates meaning. Donors possess two disconnected commodities: material wealth and sincere convictions. Alone, these commodities are difficult to combine. But fund-raisers facilitate an alchemy of virtue: They empower those with financial resources to convert the dross of their money into the gold of a better society.

…

Nonprofit leaders serve others, and help build causes. But just as important, by providing opportunities to give, they empower us to breathe more meaning into our lives.”

My take-away: Fundraising taps conviction and gives meaning. We’re dealing with people’s core values.

But is it always fun? Not to World Vision these days, a group struggling over which core values to endorse.

In the Chronicle, Joy Portella wrote a superb analysis, World Vision’s Flip-Flop on Hiring Married Gays Shows a Stunning Lack of Foresight. She talks about the need for nonprofits to understand precisely what their brand is all about and to plan potentially disruptive changes carefully. The back story of course is that World Vision recently announced it would hire married gays, then reversed the decision in days after conservative religious backlash.

Joy comments:

“Most important for World Vision was the loss of public confidence in its image. At the conclusion of the 48-hour whiplash, a range of audiences—aid watchers, Evangelicals, secular child sponsors—were left wondering: What is World Vision? What does it really stand for?

…

As tensions increase between the views of secular society and some religions on issues such as gay marriage, organizations must make conscious determinations about where they stand. Is your organization first and foremost about a certain brand of faith? Or do you want to appeal to a diverse base of supporters to fulfill your mission? How do you communicate this critical decision to the audiences that matter to you, and how do you prepare for potential blowback?

For now, World Vision has decided to stick with its traditional Christian base, but the decision seems to have been desperate rather than thoughtful. Other groups can and should do better.”

Years ago, Christian Children’s Fund made the decision to downplay its Christian roots and became Child Fund in order to raise child support funds from a wider audience. Many more children have benefited as a result of that decision.

World Vision can choose however it likes ‘between’ religious or secular if those value sets appear to conflict. And in making that choice they define their brand. But at the end of the day, it is the donor who is the keeper of the brand. The donor either perceives the organization as an enabler to help actualize his or her values and aspirations … or they don’t, in which case they don’t give.

And with that, I’ll repeat Arthur Brooks’ conclusion:

“Nonprofit leaders serve others, and help build causes. But just as important, by providing opportunities to give, they empower us to breathe more meaning into our lives.”

Tom