No, this isn’t a moral posting about how it is better to give than get during Christmas.
I have been writing a lot recently about the transactional view of arts and culture, namely value is based in economic exchange either directly or in terms of the economic activity it may generate.
Given that context, I was interested to read Joan Garry’s video/blog post expressing a similar view about fund raising and the belief people won’t give unless they get something in return. She uses the example of two hypothetical pitches to a friend. In the first, she asks someone to attend a $500/plate fund raising event, extolling the virtues of the organization it it will support. In the second, she simply asks for a $500 donation, again citing the value of the organization it will support.
Okay. There they are, both of them. One of them is going to cost… If he buys a ticket $500. It’s going to cost the organization at least thirty cents on every dollar. On the other hand, maybe I bought him a cup of coffee, maybe he even paid. One of those gifts will stick and one of them will not. If Joe’s not available next year he won’t go to that gala, right? If he gives the gift of $500, what happens? Then about six or nine months from now I have a touch point with him where I tell him something remarkable, a great story about something that happened at the Ronald McDonald House and at the end of that email I will say, “Your fingerprints are all over that work.”
Hear the difference? Feel it? See it? For some reason it’s so much harder for board members. They think selling a ticket to an event that it’s a I can’t ask somebody to spend $500 unless I’m giving them something in return. What they’re missing is that by making that $500 gift out right Joe is getting something in return. Right? The donors get as much as they give. Maybe more, because they get an opportunity to be invited into a community of people who care about an issue that is meaningful in Joe’s community. That should be easier than selling them a ticket to an event, where there might be a b-list celebrity.
I am sure she is not unaware that some times people attend big gala fundraiser in order to leverage being seen there by others into some sort of advantage. A large number of non-profit organizations would probably be happier to remain focused on their central goals and employ a direct ask with a higher ROI rather than diverting staffing time, energy and money toward executing an event.
If we want to argue about cost effectiveness and overhead ratio as a basis of giving, this might be one area in which these conversations have some validity. But it is probably also the area in which that economics based argument would fail in the face of a board or staff’s emotion based conviction that people won’t give otherwise.
Despite it being widely known that one person will give without expecting anything in return…
I prefer giving without a paid event—the events are always boring and sometimes irritating.
A better model is to have optional events for donors, not tied to the donation itself. For example, Santa Cruz Shakespeare invites their donors to a season-announcement party, which serves the dual purpose of rewarding donors and getting publicity for the new season by having an event.
I am reminded of the overfjustification effect, in that when rewards are given for things we otherwise do for their own sake our motivations can become confused and we end up devaluing the thing that really mattered. This is a good discussion:
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/12/14/the-overjustification-effect/
This is how easily our intrinsic motivations succumb to extrinsic influence and perhaps part of why we struggle to keep our eyes on intrinsic values in general. We are so easily distracted by the baubles and trophies that we forget why we were doing things in the first place.