I work at a monolithic non-profit, where we really are eradicating disease, educating future leaders, saving lives millions at a time, and making the world a better place. Really. This December we will wrap up a remarkably successful fundraising campaign that is on pace to exceed $3.5 billion.
I also work, on a volunteer or academic basis, with smaller non-profits that lack the super-power reputation and the tradition of giving within an established constituency. This summer one organization struggled to raise just a few thousand dollars, falling short of our goal and leaving many discouraged. The main problem was a lack of articulated need, as well as an unmotivated core of individuals tasked with making the asks despite being given communications assets and talking points.
Looking back, I see that the smaller organization’s micro-campaign might have benefited from the same principles that guide the strategy behind the larger organization’s. As an article, “Changing the World: Why its important for all fund-raising campaigns to follow the lead of the big ones and stress results, not need,” said:
Wage a billion-dollar campaign, and the campaign is about the message, and what philanthropy can do for you. Wage a small campaign, and the campaign is about the money, and what that money can do for us.
Interesting point. And not one I would have applied, despite my background in development communications. But I can see how that strategy would be effective. Our goals as a small arts organization aren’t, really, any less important than those of the larger institution. We have a lot of work to do to get to the same level, but there’s no reason why we shouldn’t position our goals and accomplishments with the same strategy.
