From the Chronicle of Philanthropy, here’s a list of America’s Top 50 donors in 2011, the amounts given and the lucky charities.

These 50 donors gave $10.4 billion … although #1, Margaret Cargill, an heir to the fortune of her grandfather’s Cargill Corporation (agriculture and food production), gave $6 billion of that in a bequest to her two foundations (which give to the American Red Cross, Nature Conservancy, YMCA and Public Broadcasting Service, among others).

Twenty-nine donors gave $50 million or more.

My favorite is Paul Allen, the Microsoft co-founder. Wonderfully eclectic giving — arts, social services, a rock music museum, Native Americans entrepreneurship, a science fiction museum, and neuroscience. He’s the guy on this list I’d most want to have dinner with.

Tom

So we feel duty bound to bring you attention to this successful fundraising event — for the Humane Society for Southwest Washington. The event attracted more than 700 people and netted $500,000. Yes, the news article says ‘netted’!

That sounds like a decent evening to me. Then the article notes that the previous year’s event raised nearly $1.2 million, but that included a $400k match from local biz owners.

Apparently live and silent auctions played a key role, with more than 300 items up for grabs in the silent auction.

How was this pulled off? “More than 40 sponsors, both individuals and businesses, contributed more than $100,000 to underwrite the event that was put on by a team of 150 volunteers and staff.”

No question about it … events are really hard work. And the questions raised by Godin are appropriate.

But Seth … this sure sounds like a tribe-building event to me.

Tom

The headline flagged that the Met had raised $182 million in donations. This amount was fully 50% more than it had raised just the year before.

Now there’s a success story for you!

Unfortunately the article delivered no specifics into how the Met pulled this off. The only additional details were that about half the amount was in pledges, and that the contributions came from 49,100 donors.

Obviously the Met has one hell of a high-dollar fundraising program, benefiting from a proximate audience overflowing with wealth even in weak economic times.

By the way, the math works out to an average gift of $3,707. Eat your heart out! That means a heap of six and seven figure gifts.

The article did however convey some key background points.

First, the Met director, Peter Gelb, had embarked on a strategy based on spending money to make money. A risky call in view of the Met’s overall fiscal condition.

Second, that money went into improving the product and expanding its reach (via High Def theater distribution), implementing an ambitious vision.

Perhaps three fundraising insights here.

1. To grow revenue you do need to invest more … sometimes risky, but no way around that law of nature.

2. The quality of the product matters.

3. Vision matters … and big visions (credibly grounded) score the most points.

Tom

He argues: “…the gala is actually corrupting. Attendees are usually driven by social and selfish motivations to attend, and thus the philanthropic element of giving–just to give–is removed.” Of course, one could argue that many ‘big checks’ are so-motivated, at least in part, even when handed over in the privacy of a well-appointed study.

The closest he gets to conceding any purpose to charity galas is this: “Do elements of our community need gala-like events to lubricate their social interactions? Quite probably. It’s a tradition, particularly in certain cities and tribes.”

WOW!

Personally I’ve always thought that these events were simply the least efficient way to raise money imaginable. But I’ve never actually trashed them, because I do believe they can have some ‘tribe-building’ value (with the benefits Godin normally ascribes to tribes), if not done ‘over the top’ and not massively staff consuming and distracting. Peer-to-peer reinforcement has its place.

Godin doesn’t take comments (361 readers did ‘like’ the post on Facebook, and 179 retweets), so I thought perhaps some Agitator readers might want to have a go at his critique here.

Have at it!

Tom

I opened this recent article in Fundraising Success with great anticipation — 16 Provocative Ideas That Will Raise More Money. Helluva promise. This was supposed to be the best of the IFP International Conference on Fundraising. Who could resist?!

But then I read the article.

Here’s the list:

1. Go all out for monthly donors on your homepage*
2. Focus on fewer — not more donors*
3. Encourage restricted giving
4. Get rid of the words
5. Get rid of ‘unmet needs,’ ‘programs,’ ‘services’
6. Make your case like a series of ads
7. Hire more fundraisers
8. Give your fundraising staff raises
9. Get rid of the raise money now mind-set*
10. You must give your staff management training
11. Get rid of lousy board members now
12. Be blatant
13. Stop talking about the money you need*
14. Become a shrink when dealing with volunteers
15. Don’t believe your prospect, when he says, “I’m just a plain ol’ country boy”
16. Close down some programs

This is the best advice on offer?!

I’ve placed an asterisk on the four that — in amended versions — might make my top ten list of “ideas that will raise more money.”

Go all out for monthly donors on your homepage — HUGE opportunity, but a tough sell on the home page … it can introduce, but better make sure the jump page really hammers home the case. I suspect that’s what was meant.

Focus on fewer — not more donors — to a point. You know Roger and I always recommend sifting through that file … and spending money on demonstrably valuable donors. But most organizations do need/want to grow. Learn how to clone those ‘best’ donors.

Get rid of the raise money now mind-set — see, to some degree, this is the counterpoint to the previous item. “Money now” would say focus on fewer donors. This is a balancing act folks. And yes, it is possible to prospect for quality. Think lifetime value (i.e., the future), and invest accordingly.

Stop talking about the money you need — this one I buy totally. ‘Need’ is all about your clients or the folks you’re trying to help or the problem you’re solving. It’s not about your bills … unless we’re talking about sustainer giving, where loyalty to your organization begins to come more into play.

Harumpff!

Any of the other twelve you think should be on my list?

Tom

How about this list …

1. Current net cost per new donor, by acquisition media (Most nonprofits must subsidize prospecting, so it’s OK for this number to be a negative one … but how negative?!).

2. Number of new donors who were acquired at that net cost in past twelve months, by media; and number that can be reasonably projected for next twelve months (What is your viable universe looking like?).

3. First-year retention rate for new donors, by acquisition media (The linchpin of future value).

4. Percent of file participating in monthly giving/sustainer program (Do they really love you?).

5. Net lifetime value of donor (projected over, say, three to five years), by acquisition media (How else can you know how much to invest in acquisition? How else can you tell if your recruiting is well-targeted?).

6. Annual measure of ‘bonus money’ (Maybe someone else gets to count it, but it’s yours!):

• Dollar value of bequests generated from ‘small gift’ donor file;
• Dollar value of major gift donors (say, $1000+) generated from ‘small gift’ donor file.

7. Growth in e-relationships over past twelve months (No immediate dollar value here; this is meant to suggest fundraising potential):

• Unique visitors to website(s);
• Email address file size (actives only);
• Social media friends, followers, etc.

8. All of the above with their respective most recent three-year trends.

I can think of a lot of additional numbers that I would like to know. But those above, especially when reviewed in the context of any available comparables from my nonprofit’s fundraising sector, would be plenty to get me started on assessing where my program stood and what improvements to focus upon.

Any additional ‘must know’ numbers you think I should have?

Tom

P.S. Roger would note that these are largely ‘backward’ looking measures. Useful for benchmarking, assessing year-over-year progress, making basic diagnostics, and useful — to a point — in guiding future fundraising strategy and tactics. But with respect to the latter, made more powerful if combined with the latest data overlays and modeling tools that permit house files to be better plumbed. That’s what DonorTrends is all about.

But this comes pretty close.

Last week The Agitator wrote back-to-back articles on Finding Stories for Fundraising and Nonprofit KPIs.Think of these as addressing the right and left side of the brain respectively — emotion and reasoning.

In the latter piece, I suggested that the “winning combination” for fundraisers was marrying stories and results.

Then like magic, to illustrate the point, Bethanie Constant sent me this report — UMFS Outcomes 2009 — from her organization, United Methodist Family Services of Virginia.

The goal of UMFS — if they’ll forgive my oversimplification — is to move troubled youth into progressively less restrictive environments while offering them deeper relationships … with positive results that endure.

Offering a comprehensive range of measures, with key indicators benchmarked against relevant ‘best practices’ and standards, this report documents just how successful UMFS is at achieving that outcome. Additionally, it brings the outcomes to life by combining them with compelling stories about their clients.

It’s a terrific report … pretty damn close to perfection! How could a donor not be both moved and impressed? I urge you to take a look.

Bethanie and your colleagues at UMFS … you deserve a raise!

Tom

P.S. It’s not an Annual Report, so there are no financials indicating what was spent to achieve these results. But for my money, all Bethanie needs to do is slap a cover letter on this Outcomes Report with a few key budget comments and a pointer to the right section of UMFS’ website.

1. The important giving potential of mid-level donors is explored here, with Kristin McCurry of MINDset Direct as our guest expert. These are the donors who tend to get lost between your direct response and major gifts programs.

2. Roger discusses planned giving with Phyllis Freedman of Smart Giving here. They cover overall strategy, segmentation, donor stewardship, and measuring success.

3. Feeling the heat from your nonprofit competitors? Roger discusses ‘Mission Competition’ here with David Lawson of DonorTrends. Learn how to determine your nonprofit’s ‘Giving Share’ and how to use that intelligence to inform your fundraising strategy.

4. And finally, catch-up on the world of mobile fundraising and engagement with Roger and Stephen King of Direct Intelligence here. And while you’re at it, take a look at our Agitator Mobile app.

Each webinar is one hour in length, with slides.

Check them out.

Tom & Roger

[Admission: I used to work there.]

An article titled Honoring A Quiet Hero jumped out at me.

It tells the story of an EDF donor, Anita Goldner, who had made small annual contributions to EDF for 25 years. When she died at age 58 from cancer, she left a gift of $1 million to EDF. According to EDF, the gift “came as a complete surprise to all. No one knew she had named EDF as a beneficiary in her will.”

This story, which most fundraisers have heard their own version of, raises two points.

First, you always wonder when your hear these stories, how could no one know the donor’s commitment or potential? The truth is, in the past, the tools and data didn’t exist to spot potential major donors like Anita from amongst thousands of modest donors to an organization, unless perhaps they displayed obvious wealth. [Anita didn't ... she taught college math for 30 years.]

The gifts just ‘happened’.

But now the analytic tools do exist, including some developed by my fellow-travelers at DonorTrends. Sure, they won’t identify all the prospects, but without question they will significantly improve your ability to target and cultivate.

Second, savvy development officers realize that the “small donor” pool supporting their organization is not a competitor, and not the poor country cousin. Instead, they recognize and nurture it as their seed bed. That was the case at EDF, with Paula Hayes as head of development. Paula always supported investment in the EDF membership program … because she knew how many major gift and bequest prospects were generated from that membership.

Does your development director appreciate that point? If not, tell her this story.

Tom

The tools I described that can give you a look at your donors’ actual giving to other organizations — and tell you how much you’re leaving on the table — have been developed by DonorTrends, parent of The Agitator.

Here are three actions readers can take immediately to find out more or get started:

1. Download a sample Giving Analysis Profile (GAP) Report.  This report quickly allows you to evaluate how your organization is doing compared to others.  It is provided free of charge so organizations can satisfy themselves as to the value in the data.

2. Contact Corky for more information:  cmiller@donortrends.com or 1.866.948.9363.

3. Ready to get started? Click to upload your donorfile and your free GAP report will be available for your review within ten business days.

Honestly, I think you’ll be impressed.

Tom