Tag Archives | Non Profit Quarterly

Tweet Me Your Gift Now

By Joe Patti | on September 10, 2012 | 0

Non-Profit Quarterly (NPQ) had a piece today encouraging people to pay attention to the fact that Chinese are using social media service Weibo to give directly to the needy. The NPQ piece is in reaction to a Washington Post article about how recent charity scandals had turned a lot of Chinese off from giving to the state approved charities. Now people are using services like Weibo (China’s Twitter/Facebook hybrid social media service) to give to people directly, even though it is illegal to do so.

The scandals have shaken public confidence so badly that the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in June that giving in 2011 was down to $7.9 billion from $9.5 billion in 2010. The Chronicle’s numbers come from a story on the state run China Daily which attributed the drop to a number of factors in addition to the scandals, including the economic downturn and general giving practices in China.

“In China, people’s willingness to give is ‘disaster-driven’ while in the US, donating is a habit.”

He added that the Chinese philanthropic sector’s over dependency on corporations could be another possible explanation to understand the dramatic changes in donations.

“Our research shows that companies, especially private companies, are dominant contributors. Last year, many export companies suffered from the global economic downturn, so they didn’t have much money to donate,” said Deng.”

What interested most about these stories wasn’t so much that people are using social media to give. We already know that is becoming a bigger factor in giving in the U.S. and recent laws are making it easier to crowd fund projects.

What I was paying attention to was that people were giving via social media even though they acknowledged that it is no more transparent and just as ripe for exploitation as giving to an official charity. In fact, some Chinese observed that personality and good looks seemed to motivate giving more than need in a few cases.

There seemed to be a psychological factor inherent to giving to someone directly that gave people a higher degree of confidence in the act of donating.

The US doesn’t have scandals the size of those in China, but there is still a lot of conversation about administrative overhead and Non Profit CEO salaries. Even though these criteria are generally unfair, they can still motivate giving decisions.

There is an old adage that people don’t give to organizations, they give to people. Based on these stories about China and some general observations I have had about the way people generally behave in the US, non profit arts organizations may find they need to provide giving mechanisms that give people a much more immediate sense of connection and response than in the past.

In addition to the ability to give online, an arts organization may need to allow people to give via their smartphones so that patrons can donate during a performance and immediately gain the sense that they are supporting that actor/singer/dancer that just came onstage. If the person walks off stage before they can give, it may be too late.

Two years ago during a public radio fund drive I was so moved by the quality of the show I was listening to, I pulled over into a parking lot to make my pledge because the show was almost over and I felt like I needed to make my pledge before it ended. There wasn’t really any reason not to wait until I got home because the money was going to the station and not the show directly and I already knew I was going to give again that year—But I just had to show my support for that show!

As people become accustomed to giving to things like Kickstarter projects, non profit arts organizations may find themselves having to solicit donations specifically for each project they plan to do rather than based on a general promise to do quality work as has been typical.

Arts organizations may be faced with the dilemma of positioning their programs this way. Restricted donations have always been a problem for non-profits. Do you want to be faced with having every $25 donation restricted to a specific project because people are more motivated to give to something to which they feel a direct connection?

You might as well have a for-profit structure if you are going to have market demand dictate what is funded, eh?

Stuff To Ponder: Oh The Hats You Will Wear

By Joe Patti | on April 24, 2012 | 0

The Non-Profit Quarterly had an article this week, “Why Every Nonprofit Has a New Job Title: Publisher.” It really resonated with the way I had been feeling lately. Back when I started in my arts career, I didn’t do so much writing as I do now. Sure, as the new guy I had to write press releases and brochure text, but that was on occasion and scheduled by the marketing calendar.

Now I am writing everyday. It isn’t just this blog. I am creating social media updates, ~~composing emails~~ , no make that designing emails given their highly graphic nature these days, writing press releases, brochure content, web site content, uploading images to other social media sites. Some of it is produced on a schedule, but more frequently it is produced spontaneously as events unfold so that the information is timely and fresh.

There are a lot of tools which make it much easier for people to connect with what we do from wherever on earth they may be. Servicing them is a lot harder than it used to be.

There seems to be something of a confluence of discussion around this topic lately. Thomas Cott circulated a series of posts about the media arts organizations use to communicate with this week. I was particularly interested to learn email is still more valuable than social media as a marketing tool. I reminisced a little reading Trevor O’Donnell’s recollection of the 80s as a simpler time for creating marketing materials.

Don’t believe John McWhorter’s claim in the New York Times that “in the proper sense, e-mail and texting are not writing at all.” Maybe he ain’t doing it right, because it certainly feels like I am investing as much time as required when I do it on behalf of my venue.

Even in an increasingly visual media environment, you have to be a skilled writer and do much more of it than in the past. The talent required now is bringing writing, video, images, music together to tell a compelling story. People who made movies may claim this is old hat for them, but this sort of production is no longer their sole province. Now people like you an I can participate in production in places where highly paid professionals once walked.

It is probably good for all of us to remember that last bit as we look askance at Pro-Ams encroaching on our performing and visual arts territory thinking they can produce and participate in our sphere as well as we can.

Truth is, we are probably doing the same thing in respect to graphic design, music and video making among other areas. We now have the confidence to experiment ourselves. We aren’t necessarily as good as the professionals we used to/might have had to pay for the same service, but we are satisfied we are making a good show of it.

(Apologies to Dr. Suess)

You Don’t Tell Me What To Give, Don’t Tell Me What To Say

By Joe Patti | on February 7, 2012 | 0

An interesting question was posed to Kelly Kleiman, the Nonprofiteer, about the practice of suggesting donors increase their giving from the previous year. The writer was offended at being told what to give the next year. Kleiman attributes the origins of the practice to universities who, anticipating the increased fortunes of their graduates as the moved along in their careers, asked for slightly greater amounts as the years progressed.

This seems like a great thing and, in fact, is the reason individual giving is such an important source of funds to organizations: while foundations often won’t continue their support unless you do something new and different for every grant, most individuals will just keep on giving unless you affirmatively offend them.

But what you’re saying is that the request for elevated support is just such an affirmative offense.

The problem is that the cost of everything continues to go up, and unless the monetary inflow goes up at the same time the agencies you support will find themselves seriously behind the 8-ball. Perhaps the agencies requesting your increased support would do better if they reminded you of that—”We haven’t been able to give our actors a raise for five years while their rents and grocery bills just keep on rising”—rather than beginning with a flat-out demand that you do more.

I thought the question and answer gave some interesting insight into the whole practice of “upselling” donors from year to year as well providing some guidance about how make the request a little more graciously.

What made me cringe was the second part of the writer’s question/complaint.

“And this year, when, as a board member, I was given the fundraising “ask” letters that were going out under my name to my personal contacts, I felt especially irritated to see the request for a specific additional amount. I would certainly never have written my friends directly with this request.”

Kleiman responds that the writer is within their rights to feel upset that such a request was going out under their name. It put me in mind of a piece from the Non-Profit Quarterly I wrote on this summer. The author, Simone Joyaux, referred to the practice of having board members solicit donations from family and friends ,as trespassing. She claims it leverages personal relationships rather than an interest in a cause and ends up alienating both the board member and their friends.

Joyaux noted that giving based on trespassing is generally shallow and not likely to persist after the board member has transitioned away from the organization. Unless, of course, the person solicited is genuinely interested in the organization’s cause. In which case it is better to have conversations and identify that interest initially rather than blindly solicit everyone in a board member’s address book.

This post title inspired by Lesley Gore

Will Buffet Family Foundation Influence Other Funders?

By Joe Patti | on September 12, 2011 | 0

Non-Profit Quarterly linked to an interview in Fast Company in which Warren Buffet’s grandson talks about his approach to philanthropy as he takes up the reins of the family foundation.

As I read the interview, I vacillated between mild dread where I hoped no one else decided to adopt the approach and feeling that his approach was sensible and might provide leadership that would strengthen the general non-profit infrastructure in the United States.

What made me most uneasy was his focus on quantity over quality.

“The first question, for instance, is “Assuming we are successful, how many people would we reach directly with the funding of this gift?” Proposals gets 3 points for affecting +1 million people, 2 for greater than 100,000, and 1 for less than 100,000. Those proposals with a less ambitious scope can secure a coveted spot on the portfolio team by being particularly unique or cost-efficient.”

While he does allow for funding of smaller efficient and effective organizations, I just wonder if that will get lost in the desire to report numbers served and therefore reinforce the idea that you have fudge numbers and always report success or lose funding.

Where this is coming from for him is wanting to get away from non-profits making emotional appeals and move toward discussing the complex factors which contribute to the problems the non-profit is trying to address.

“In the philanthropic world, the problem is the product, in the business world, the product is the solution.” says Buffett, who argues that NGOs are forced to “sell suffering.” The needless focus on sappy narratives often overlooks sophisticated solutions that can’t be easily marketed with a T-shirt-clad celebrity holding a small child.”

This is where I feel he is most sensible because he is determined to fund every step in the chain to addressing a problem, including the unsexy areas. But to do that, he wants the redundant organizations to either get out of the business, partner with other groups or refocus themselves.

“…rather than dolling out cash to independent, uncoordinated actors with the most heart-string-tugging story, they could take on an entire social problems (like food security or breast cancer) by systematically lining up nonprofits to tackle each part of the causal chain, from federal policy to victim resources.

“If you are an NGO, doing the exact same thing as another NGO, and that other NGO is doing better than you’re doing it, then you are in business for the wrong reason,” Buffett says in an exasperated rant against the individualist nature of charities. Overlapping operations, he says, not only waste money through redundant overhead, but keep brilliant minds occupied with logistical distractions that sap their potential impact.

“We will give you money to execute your mission,” Buffett says, “if you work together and identify the most cost-effective and successful ways to achieve that.”

Meanwhile, looking at the entire causal chain of a crisis is key to revealing missing links in the solution, such as political or logistical hurdles that are essential to success, but not appealing enough to raise dollars.”

Granted, the focus of the foundation he is leading is on agriculture, water and feeding school children rather than arts and culture. However, the practices of a Buffet family foundation is bound to have widespread influence with funders in other areas. It is possible that other foundations may use the same criteria.

Given that the question about whether there are too many arts organizations in existence has been a hot topic of late, it is conceivable that funders are already thinking along these lines.

So let me ask-

-how many arts organizations would seriously discuss merging or refocusing if a major funder told them they were redunant and less effective than another organization?

-how many might consider abandoning major activities that were redundant if the funder offered major support to expand in their areas of strength?

-would the arts in your community be more vibrant if there were groups that focused specifically on different niches within the chain? Such as:

-organization that handed advocacy for the arts with local government
-organization that focused on advocacy for the arts in education in conjunction with other advocacy groups
-organizations that purely perform
-organization that coordinates outreaches to schools by designing programs that emphasize the strengths of the performance and presenting groups

There are more functions that different groups might handle, of course, but this serves as a good example. You might look at this and think about how difficult it would be with all these tasks so decentralized, but think about how more schools would benefit if there was an organization that was making an effort to provide uniform coverage of your entire city/county. How much easier would it be for artists to make a living in the community if there was an organization that was hiring them to do outreaches in schools or connecting artists with students seeking instruction.

All this in an environment made conducive for these activities by groups who solely focused on influencing law and policy in government and school boards. Their advocacy is made credible by the existence of organizations who attract and employ strong performers and other organizations who develop exemplary education/outreach programs and train the artists to execute them effectively.

This approach may decentralize efforts and require a lot of cooperation between different groups, but does improve on the current situation where everyone does a little of everything with different degrees of success provided they have the funding and personnel. As Howard Buffet acknowledges, there is a lot of unsexy infrastructure that no one really wants to fund that is crucial to the success of non-profit efforts. What a boon it would be if someone would fund all those places at a level smart people would be willing to engage in the work.