Needs versus budget fundraising

September 10, 2025

Filed under: Fundraising — jonathanpoisner @ 2:34 pm

Another consultant recently reminded me of a concept that’s been implicit in fundraising materials I’ve generated for clients, but that I’ve never written about.

The concept: the needs you present donors don’t have to match the budget you use for fiscal management.  Indeed, if you’re only presenting your actual budget to funders, you’re setting yourself up for reduced impact.

This can be confusing because foundation funders nearly always ask for your adopted budget, so that becomes the default that many nonprofit leaders think individuals will want to see with fundraising.

To understand why that hamstrings you, let’s review what goes into a nonprofit budget.

The budget should be adopted annually by your board and should identify the revenue you’re seeking to achieve in the upcoming fiscal year, along with expenses.  Both revenue and expenses should be broken down by categories to allow for a reasonable understanding of the major sources of revenue you’ll receive, along with the various ways you spend money. 

Here’s the important part: the budget is a tool for the board to exercise its fiduciary duty and ensure that the organization is being prudent with how it spends money.  If it spends more than it receives on an ongoing basis, this could lead to a cash flow crunch, inability to meet payroll, and other significant challenges. 

Note: I deliberately inserted the words “ongoing basis” into the above paragraph.  In any given year, you may very well adopt a budget that spends more than you raise if you’re entering the fiscal year with a more than adequate reserve.  And in other years, you may well adopt a budget to raise more than you spend, particularly if you’re hoping to build up a reserve fund or save for some really big future expense.

So why shouldn’t you present to donors the revenue targets in your budget and call that your need?

Two reasons.

Reason one is the simplest and least important: timing.  Your budget is for a fiscal year, but you’ll be talking to many donors late in a fiscal year, before the next budget is adopted.  You need to be able to articulate needs for the subsequent fiscal year.

Reason two is the crux of the matter:  if you want to inspire big, investment level gifts, you need to be able to articulate the actual needs you have to grow your capacity to significantly advance your mission.  Big audacious goals are more likely to generate big audacious gifts. Yet, budgeting for big and audacious isn’t prudent.

How does this play out in practice? 

With one of my clients, we created and regularly updated a “Funding Needs” document that was two pages long.  The initial two-thirds of a page provided context (the organization’s mission, leadership, and core strategy).  The remainder laid out major areas of expenses that need to be incurred to achieve greater impact.  Big, round numbers were used that covered the needed expenses over a 3 year period.  These covered both major, new projects/activities and ongoing needs, including general operating expenses.

We shared this document broadly with potential/current funders, individual major donors, and stakeholders. Occasionally this led to some restricted gifts, particularly from foundations (and in one case an individual) interested in one specific need articulated. But overall, those shared this document in many instances made large, new, unrestricted gifts. This was true both for foundations and individuals.

Of course, some Executive Directors are nervous about projecting out activities/expenses before the board has authorized them in the form of budgets.  Indeed, a Funding Needs document shouldn’t identify any major new area of expense that hasn’t been discussed with the board.  But that discussion can come in the form of strategic planning or some other discussion about long-term needs.

The 2-pager approach described above is just one way of accomplishing this outcome.  You could create something longer and fancier.  Or use this approach on a more ad hoc basis.

But bottom line:  to inspire big gifts, focus on the dollars needed to significantly advance (or achieve) your mission, over a 2-4 year period.  Don’t just ask donors to help you hit your budget targets.

Be Sociable, Share!

After the ask

September 8, 2025

Filed under: Fundraising — jonathanpoisner @ 12:00 pm

I devote an entire chapter of the Essential Major Donor Toolkit to the ask meeting.  How do you structure the meeting?  What stories do you tell and in what order?  And how to make the ask itself, along with what comes after the ask.

Here’s a quick primer on what comes after the ask:

Immediately after the ask:  Stop talking.  You asked a question.  Let them answer it.  If you start talking again to cover up your own nerves, you can get sidetracked or actually decrease the odds of a donation of the amount requested.

If the donors says maybe:  If the donor says, “I’m not sure” or “I have to think about it” or any of a dozen maybe variants:

“Thanks so much for considering a donation.”

Then ask an open-ended question.  Get them talking so you can understand what they’re thinking.  Possible questions:

  • What do you think of our plans?
  • What do you like best about our work?
  • What more do you think we should be doing?

On more than one occasion when I did this the donor became a yes in answering the question and I walked away with a check.  They needed time to think, but the time could be just a minute or two and they could emotionally and mentally process while they were talking about the organization.

Of course, that usually doesn’t happen.  So you should then say something appropriate riffing off their answer and bringing it back to your own case/story that speaks to their priorities/interests. 

And then if it seems promising based on their answer to your open-ended question: re-ask for your original dollar request (or perhaps a smaller request if that seems more appropriate). 

Example: “I’m so glad to hear you’re excited about our PROGRAM/ACTIVITY. Our ability to plan and implement that work over the next few months goes up as we get more donations and pledges.  Is a DONATION AMOUNT gift something you can do this year?

Of course, if they say that they need more time at this point, don’t ask a third time during the meeting.

“I really appreciate your taking some time to think about making a significant donation this year. Can I circle back in a week to see what you’ve decided?”

Giving a firm timeline to circle back is important so that you’re not left with the awkwardness of not knowing how quickly to get back to them.

If the donor says yes:  Thank them and then work out the timeline for their gift.

Example: “Thanks so much!  I really appreciate your stepping up so we can have a bigger impact.  Would you like to make the donation via check today or would you prefer to mail a check or give in some other way?”

If they’re going to send it later/go online: “Can we count on your donation by the end of the month?” (Or “end of next week” if the ask is taking place near the end of the month).

If the donor says no: “Thanks so much for taking the time to meet with me.  I appreciate you have other priorities right now.”

Then try to figure out if this is a firm no or a “not now.”

“Would you like me to follow up in 6 months to see if your priorities line up at that point with our needs?”

Or: “Would you be open to discussing a gift in the future?  If so, when would be a good time to circle back to you?”

For everyone:

Regardless of whether you’ve had a maybe, yes, or no, ask:

“Do you have any friends or colleagues who you think would be interested in investing in our work?  And, if so, would you be willing to send an introductory email or text for me?”

Closing out the meeting

Thank them for their time if a “no.”

Thank them for their “consideration” if a maybe.

“Thanks again for your donation” if a yes.

Be Sociable, Share!

Wingspan lessons for nonprofit leaders

August 26, 2025

Filed under: Advocacy,Leadership,Strategic Planning — jonathanpoisner @ 3:57 pm

Four years ago, I wrote about Ticket to Ride, a board game I had become “addicted to” during the pandemic.  My article identified lessons from playing the game that could be applied to nonprofit leadership. (By writing about it, I could justify my addiction).

Now it’s time to share some overlapping lessons from another game that I’ve played a LOT in recent years, Wingspan.

In Wingspan, you compete with others to build the best wildlife refuge. (For my wildlife conservation clients, I know!!!) 

To build your refuge, you collect different types of food, use them to play different birds, lay eggs on those birds, and then, over the course of the game, take actions associated with the different birds, based on the specific combination of birds you have in three habitats: forests, grasslands, and wetlands.

Here are six lessons from Wingspan that I feel nonprofits should consider.  They overlap somewhat with my Ticket to Ride lessons, but with some crucial differences.

Lesson 1: Smaller impact/less effort is sometimes better at the start

The winner of the game is determined by a combination of ways to score points, perhaps the most important of which is the numerical value of the birds you’ve played.  While it’s tempting to immediately play high point birds, lower point birds often are the ones that provide more resources to you when activated over the course of the game. (The higher point birds often just look pretty).  

The nonprofit lesson, especially for those getting going: Don’t always go for the biggest impact right from the start.  (See my recent blog and read the section about the impact/effort matrix). It’s often better to set in motion strategies that take less effort, for less impact, while building resources for a bigger play down the road.

Lesson 2: Search for synergies

In Wingspan, all the birds you play have powers.  For example, one bird when activated may give you a worm.  Another bird may let you permanently cache worms on a bird, which counts as a point at the end of the game.  These birds have more value when played together than just one of them.  It’s usually not the person who plays the “best birds” who wins, so much as the best birds that reinforce each other. 

The nonprofit lesson:  Look for synergies where work done to pursue one outcome also benefits another outcome.  Perhaps your community education reinforces your advocacy work.  Or the content you create for your email newsletter can also extend your social media reach.  Or your advocacy work yields ongoing funding that provides future opportunities for advocacy.

Lesson 3: Focus on a few things

While it’s tempting to build really strong sets of birds in all three habitats (forest, grasslands, and wetlands), my experience is that focusing on just two yields a better result, as you can play more birds in those habitat that build upon each other when activated in succession.  Not that you play zero birds in the third habitat – that rarely works – but focus that habitat on playing higher point birds. 

The nonprofit lesson: Don’t try to do everything equally all at once.  Pick one or two things to do really well and build out from there.

Lesson 4: Don’t chase shiny objects

The game has four rounds and each round has a unique goal that scores points, randomly picked from a large number of possible end of round goals.  These are things like: number of eggs in the forest, or number of birds in the wetland, or number of brown-powered birds (a particular type).  The randomness makes each game unique (or close to it).  The end of round bonuses are large enough they can determine who wins so it’s important to pay attention to them.  But they’re not THAT large.  If you deviate too much from an otherwise strong strategy to win those end of round bonuses, you often come out worse off. 

The nonprofit lesson: This is the equivalent of chasing money (usually from a foundation). It sounds great to get the grant, but if it’s for work that you wouldn’t otherwise want to do, it usually is a distraction from your mission and long-term strategy.

Lesson 5: Adapt to your opposition

There are special pink-colored birds that activate when another player takes certain actions.  Think about the bird that lays its egg in another bird’s nest!  Playing these pink birds can be very powerful.  But that’s only true if you’re paying attention to the other player’s strategy to predict what they’re most likely to do.  And if somebody else plays a pink bird early, you may wish to adjust your strategy to avoid benefiting them too much. 

The nonprofit lesson:  Particularly for advocacy organizations who may have organizations on the “other side” of whatever issue you’re focused on, you shouldn’t just ignore their expected opposition as you plan your activities.  Are there things you expect them to do that you should prepare for ahead of time?  Are there things you should avoid doing because it might boomerang back against you based on their reaction?  What messages are they giving to elected officials and how should you adapt your message in response?

Lesson 6: Sharing is often the best option 

Some birds when activated produce resources not just for yourself, but your opponents. Example: When activated, everyone gets a worm.  Or everyone draws a new bird card.   When I first started playing Wingspan, my competitive instinct took umbrage with playing these “sharing” birds.  But over time I saw that the combination of the bird’s point value and the resources offered often gave me more value than my opponents, particularly if I could use other birds that took advantage of the resources. Also, when playing with the same opponents repeatedly over time, my willingness to play “sharing” birds increased the odds my opponents would do so, sending resources my way.  When more players use these types of birds, overall scores tend to go up.

The nonprofit lesson:  There are things you can do as a nonprofit that benefit you and other nonprofits with which you are sometimes competing (over funding, for example), but with whom you often collaborate (working to advance overlapping missions, for example).  Sometimes the best thing to do is something that advances all the groups with whom you’re allied, even if you’re the one putting in the time/money to do it.  Becoming known as an organization that plays well with others increases the odds you’ll be invited into sharing opportunities in the future, including from funders.

Fancy a game?

There you have it: six lessons for nonprofit leaders from playing Wingspan.  I can now play the game more without feeling guilty.  If anyone is playing it online and looking for an opponent, just email me and we can set up a game while chatting about how Trump is taking the country over the edge into fascist authoritarianism. 

Be Sociable, Share!

Three quadrant tools for being strategic

July 24, 2025

Filed under: Advocacy,Leadership,Strategic Planning — jonathanpoisner @ 12:21 pm

About a decade ago, I posted a blog that suggested how to apply a matrix approach in organizational decision-making.

The blog examined a time-management technique originally generated by Stephen Covey in his seminal book, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.  The technique involved assigning all tasks into one of four quadrants based on two axes.  The vertical axis was “important” versus “unimportant.”  The horizontal access was urgent (from a time perspective) and non-urgent. 

Here’s what the matrix looked like as I adapted it from Covey’s Seven Habits (page 151).

The obvious solution applied to organizations (and individuals) is to do away with everything you can that is both unimportant and non-urgent.  That requires discipline. 

The big aha moment (at least for me) was the necessity of addressing the upper righthand quadrant by forcing yourself to spend time addressing items that are important, but where there is never time urgency. 

This tool can be useful for both individuals in how they manage their own time and organizations in how they prioritize staff and board time.   

I recently came across two similar quadrant approaches that are also useful both for individuals and organizations when it comes to making decisions about where to focus time (including what programs/strategies to take on). 

Technique one: The Impact-Effort Matrix.

Technique two: The Impact-Achievability Matrix.

Let’s take them one at a time.

The Impact-Effort Matrix

The Impact-Effort Matrix, like Covey’s time management matrix, has a vertical access of Important versus unimportant (although the term impact is used as a substitute for importance).  The horizontal impact focuses on the level of effort needed to achieve the outcome (a lot of effort versus not much effort).

Of course, in the nonprofit context, “effort” often equates to dollars.  If something requires more effort, that usually equates to time, and money can buy more time (staff-time, contractor time, etc.).

This is what the Impact-Effort Matrix looks like:

Like with the importance-urgency matrix, one quadrant (the lower right) is easy to dismiss: stop doing things that have little impact, but require a lot of effort.  Often times these are things you’re doing because “that’s what we’ve always done.”  Maybe the activity once had a high impact.  Or maybe changes in the landscape have made the activity take far more effort than previously.

It’s also pretty straightforward to prioritize time towards activities that are in the upper left quadrant (high impact, low effort).  This should be the focus of brainstorms about new things your organization may wish to take on.  What are the things that will have the biggest impact for the level of effort required?

What about the other two quadrants? 

  • High Impact/High Effort (the upper right) – Clearly you need to do some in this quadrant because the high impact may justify the level of effort.  These may be activities your supporters care about and want to see done.  For these activities, the primary question I’d ask is: can we accomplish the same result with less effort if we change how we approach the program/strategy? 

  • Low Impact/Low Effort (the lower left) – Think about whether there are secondary ways where you can create impact beyond the primary reason (e.g. impact you’re trying to create) from doing the activity/strategy.  Are there ways to generate excess funding from the activity?  Or some communications/branding benefit? 

In a nutshell:

The Impact-Achievability Matrix

This is very loosely related to Impact-Effort matrix, since what’s achievable can depend on the level of effort applied. 

Nonetheless, I find “achievability” a more useful term than “effort” when evaluating situations where the level of effort is not the major determinant on whether something is achievable. 

This is often the case in advocacy/lobbying context where many of my clients do their work.  

Again, the easy advice is: do more things that are high impact, easy to achieve (upper right quadrant).

Likewise, it’s also easy to advise nonprofits to stop doing things that are low impact and difficult to achieve (lower left quadrant).

For the low impact, high achievability (lower right quadrant), doing some of this activity/strategy is worthwhile as an insurance to be able to have some “wins” or “success stories” you can point to, even if they are low impact.  But if that’s all you ever do, you’re probably not advancing your mission to a significant degree.

For the high impact, low achievability (upper left quadrant), you sometimes do need to roll the dice and take chances to make a big impact, even if success is less likely.  The question I’d ask is: are we designing the work so that we’re building organizational capacity so that even if we “lose” or “fail to achieve” what we set out to, we’re nonetheless positioning ourselves to win future “fights” or make success more achievable further down the road.  Will we come out of the activity with more volunteers, more donors, new skills, a better brand, etc.?  And are we designing the work to maximize the odds we’ll gain these ancillary benefits?

In a nutshell:

So when do you use these tools?  And do you use them in combination?

I’ve used these tools one at a time, rather than creating some more complicated scheme.  I’d be curious to hear if anybody has had success creating some 3-D matrix that pulls from multiple of these tools. 

If you’ve never used these tools, I’d pick the matrix that seems most relevant to your organization and try it out as a decision-making tool.  This could be as part of strategic planning, annual organizational work planning, or just as a tool used by an individual to focus their own time.

Of course, all three matrixes are worthless if the organization tends to misevaluate what’s important!  Or what will make the biggest impact!    

How to evaluate what’s important/impactful will be a focus of a future article.

Be Sociable, Share!

16 tips for getting fundraising meetings – UPDATED

July 9, 2025

Filed under: Fundraising — jonathanpoisner @ 3:53 am

I originally created 12 Tips back in 2013.  Here’s an expanded and updated set of 16 Tips. 

One of the biggest keys to successful fundraising is asking people in a meeting for money.

Events, letter, phone calls, and emails all belong as part of a robust, comprehensive fundraising system.  But thriving organizations almost always find that one-on-one solicitations are where they secure most of their unrestricted funds.

Many fundraisers I train believe that making the ask at the meeting is the easy part – where they profess to get held up is in getting the meeting in the first place.

Here’s sixteen tips for how to get the meeting

1. Make sure you’re working connections and not cold prospects.  If they’re not current donors, you should focus on people you know, or having someone who knows the donor connect you (either by making the meeting request directly or at least letting you use their name).  If you’re counting on your board to supply connections and they’re not being helpful, find others who will be (from existing donors, allies, don’t be shy in asking for help).  

2. Make the request via phone.  It’s too easy to duck an email and in an email you can’t engage people, motivate them, and respond to any misapprehensions they might have about the meeting.  If you don’t have their phone number, there are still ways to look up people’s number just as in the old days of the white pages.  (Don’t have phone numbers, check out tip 16).     

3. Be persistent without being a pest.  You will often have to try to call a donor a dozen times before getting a meeting request in, especially with people are increasingly not answering their phone.  So script out a really compelling short voicemail message that ends with the bottom line: I’ll to reach you again next week. This increases the odds they’ll pick up the phone when you call again.   Just keep trying at different times and dates.

4. Start the process far in advance of when you really need the meeting to happen.  If you need the ask to take place in November, start requesting the meeting in October.  The further out you set a proposed date, the less likelihood that conflicts will get in the way.  Or, if you ask for a time 10 days out and they say they are already booked, it gives you an easy (and hard to refuse) follow-up ask for a later time when they’re not booked.

5. If they say it’s a bad time to talk, ask if you can call back “in an hour” or “tomorrow.”

6. Start by thanking them if at possible.  For past donations.  For past volunteer work.   For some other community work they’ve done even if not for your organization.

7. Be passionate and upbeat.  Passion is contagious and people are more likely to want to spend time with someone if they perceive you as upbeat.  You are selling yourself as much as the organization in trying to set up the meeting.

8. If it’s geographically appropriate, tell them you’re going to be in their area.  Some donors are reluctant to have you make a special visit just for them.  But if they think you’re already in the area, they’re more willing to meet. 

9. Make clear you’re looking both for their input and to see how they can help.  Propose some topic where you’re seeking input (your upcoming or new strategic plan, your communications, ideas, some specific organizational issue, etc.).

10. Create some time-urgency.   Mention something you hope to do in 2-4 months and the impact it will have and that you’re talking to supporters so that you’re in a position to move forward at full capacity. 

11. Propose a specific date and time.  Don’t ask: “Can we meet?”  Ask: “Are you free to meet on Tuesday the 22nd at 3 p.m.?”   Assume they want to meet.  Wouldn’t anybody want to meet you?  Get them focused on the where/when.  

12. Focus on their convenience, not yours.  Always offer first to meet them at their home, office, or a nearby coffee shop or restaurant.  Let them choose.  Be willing to meet early in the morning, just after work, or during the evening.  If they say they’d like to meet via zoom, that’s not a bad option compared to no meeting, but make at least one attempt to gently push them into an in-person option.  

13. Be prepared to pivot back to a second ask for a meeting if they initially say no.  In my experience, nearly half of the eventual meetings I got involved a donor prospect initially saying something like: “I’m too busy” or “Don’t waste your time with me, I’ll donate regardless.” 

14. Use peer pressure.  If you know they’re friends/colleagues/rivals of someone else who you’ve met with or are meeting with, figure out how to drop that into the conversation.

15. If they say something that divulges something personal (e.g. I’m going to my son’s wedding”), don’t be afraid to follow up with a question designed to make the relationship more personal (e.g. “Congratulations!  Where is he getting married?”  You should be genuinely interested in them as a person, not just a checkbook.

16. Lastly, if you don’t have phone numbers for a donor, consider ways to obtain it.  The free way: If you know of a board member or person close to the organization who likely has it, don’t be shy to ask.  The paid ways: If your organization subscribes to a Wealth Screening service via your donor database, those often come with a data append function that will provide phone numbers.  Alternatively, WhitePages.Com is a relatively affordable (on a monthly basis) way to put in a name and physical address and get information about the person, including phone number.  You may be able to subscribe for just a couple months to fill in phone numbers for your top donor prospects and then let your subscription lapse. 

Have your own tip with something that’s worked for you?  Please share your ideas!

Be Sociable, Share!

Selling without Overselling

June 30, 2025

Filed under: Communications,Fundraising,Online Communications — jonathanpoisner @ 10:59 am

I was recently talking with a former Executive Director whose organization thrived under their leadership.

I’ve been thinking a lot about one of their comments.

Their comment: “In promoting their organization to funders, allies, stakeholders, and others, they were always trying to find the balance between selling and overselling.”

What did they mean by that?

If you fail to “sell,” you’re organization is going to flounder.  The nonprofit space is crowded and people need to be motivated in some way to take actions you want (whether it’s offering direct financial support, volunteer energy, or some other action).

Yet, if you “oversell,” you can overstate your organization’s role in events, particularly when your work is done in coordination of some form with other nonprofits.  You may secure funds this way in the short-term, but there’s a high risk of this boomeranging against you over the long run as the truth emerges.

I’ve personally seen an organization go from solid to in trouble because a new Executive Director “oversold” to key funders and those funders lost faith when the organization didn’t deliver and the word got back to the funders that the organization was taking credit for coalition work that was outsized for their role.

So how do you know if you’re finding the balance between selling and overselling.  Or perhaps worst of all, not selling at all.

Here are some techniques for finding the right balance.

Evidence that You’re Not Selling Enough

While not the focus of the comment that prompted my thinking, I’ve seen Executive Directors reluctant to tout their organization and unwilling to sell.

Of course, some object to the word “selling” when it comes to nonprofits.  In their view, nonprofits aren’t a commercial endeavor. 

I disagree.  Nonprofits are selling impact – something they’re doing in the world that the donor wants and is willing to contribute towards achieving. You are in the business of connecting people’s values with your organization’s mission.  In the process, you’re both making the impact they desire and helping them feel good about themselves.

But what about the “sales” part?  It’s not just about marketing – building the brand so to speak.  You also need to sell:  to get to that point in the conversation you’re having with potential donors where you “ask” and they say yes (or no).

Warning signs you’re not selling enough?

  • You don’t celebrate/communicate your successes and tout the impact you’re going to have with further donations.
  • You’re not willing to stand out from the crowd.  I recently discussed with an organization that was clearly the leading group for a geographic area when it came to an issue, but they balked at describing themselves that way, preferring to say “one of the leading organizations.” I believe their fundraising is suffering because they’re unwillingness to toot their own horn.
  • You meet with donors and don’t make an ask or just generally say: “we hope you’ll contribute.” You’re a salesperson, not just a marketer.

Evidence You’re Selling Too Much

Of course, overselling is also something I’ve seen repeatedly among nonprofits. Sometimes this is based on a charismatic leader who sells themself as much as the nonprofit and its impact.

Those who oversell risk coming across as inauthentic and losing the trust of supporters.

So how do you know if you’re overselling?

  • If you’re prone to exaggerating your claims of success and justify doing so by saying, “everyone does it.”
  • If more than 25% of your communications with supporters represents an “ask.”   (Use the 80-20 rule — 4 communications that are not about donations for every “ask”).
  • If your social media churn and email list attrition is greater than typical for the nonprofit world.  (Check out the M&R benchmarks for some evidence on that front).

You may want to bring in a third party to help review whether you’re overselling.

  • Do a brand audit, looking at your communications and fundraising materials.  Somebody taking a fresh look can help.
  • Use strategic planning (or some other hook) as a reason for having a neutral party confidentially interview the organizations with which you are most frequently collaborating. If you have a reputation for taking more credit than deserved within coalitions, it will likely come out in the interviews.

Finding the Sweet Spot

Presumably, if you’re selling enough, and not overselling, you’ve found the sweet spot.

You’re authentically communicating in a positive way about your impact, taking credit for who you are and what you’re accomplishing.

Donors and supporters respond accordingly.

Relationships are strengthened.

Jim Collins, in his monograph, Good to Great and the Social Sector, talks about organizations that find the sweet spot in a Venn diagram where they are the best at something, they are passionate about something, and there is a resource engine (e.g. donors who’re interested/excited to help, or some other financing method). 

With that in mind, my final recommendation:

  • Find your passion and don’t be afraid to show it!
  • Be the best at something and let people know it!
  • Authentically communicate with your potential supporters, building relationships based on trust where you tout your successes without exaggerating them.
  • And don’t forget to make the ask.

Be Sociable, Share!

A Donor Prospect Identification Exercise

May 27, 2025

Filed under: Board Development,Fundraising — jonathanpoisner @ 3:32 pm

A common refrain I hear when talking to nonprofit boards (and often staff) is that “I/we don’t know anybody who could be a major donor.”

Now if their definition of a major donor is too ambitious, this might be true. The universe of $100,000+ donors is small.

At the same time, the universe of donors who can and will give at the $10,000 level is larger than most people realize. And that’s true and then some with regard to donors at the $1,000+ level. At least for most my clients, anybody giving $1,000+ is a “major” donor.

Yet, even then, the complaint continues: “I don’t know anybody who can give $1,000.”

While this is sometimes true, it’s more often true that they can’t recall off the top of their head the people they know who can give at that level.

Working with various clients, I’ve found that running board and staff through an exercise focused on prospect identification often surfaces new, legitimate prospects to pursue.

Some context — the A, B, C test

Your major donor list should start with existing donors, board members who left on good standing, volunteers, etc.

In thinking about potential donors who don’t fit any of those categories, I was taught the A, B, C test.

  • A = Ability – do they have the income or assets that would allow them to make a donation at the designated level?
  • B = Belief – do they believe in the organization or, the more general “cause” or “impact” that the organization is working to advance via its mission?
  • C = Connection (or Contact) – does somebody in the organization know them at least at the level of acquaintance?

The biggest hang up for many people is when it comes to Ability — they believe only a tiny fraction of Americans donate at the $1,000 level. In reality, I’ve seen estimates showing that more than half of American families donate to charity in any given year and 10% of those say they’ve donated more than $1,000. So that’s 1 in 20 overall.

This may seem like a small percentage, but given that the average person knows hundreds of people, that leaves a sizeable number (on average) that you’re likely to know. Most people know at least one.

This obviously will vary by geography, age, economic situation, and other factors, but bottom line: most people underestimate the level of generosity that their friends (and acquaintances) display.

An exercise

The compounding factor is that many organizations ask “who do you know who could be a major donor” as an abstract question that asks people to rack their brains.

Instead, an exercise is warranted.

  • Provide people a short 10 minute overview of charitable giving.
  • Ask them to take 10-30 minutes on their own scanning through their email address book, their social media account friends/followers, their cell phone contact list, and any old-fashioned rolodex.
  • If this is a collective exercise, as they identify somebody, have them shout out the name. On more than one occasion, I’ve experienced somebody else in the group immediately both recognizing the name AND having that prompt some other name to come to their mind.
  • Don’t call it done when people have scanned their lists. They may have passed over names in haste or more likely there are people they know not included.
  • Ask them a series of questions:

Who in their family (extended) may have the ability and belief?

Are they part of a religious institution and do they know others through that with the likely ability and belief?

Are they a member of any club or regular activity and who from those would have the likely ability and belief? — I once had this exercise cause somebody to remember some people in their book club that they had neglected to consider.

Do they know people through participation in sports (active or as spectators/watchers) who would have the ability and belief? – I once had somebody remember somebody from their fantasy football league when prompted in this way.

Who do they know via employment, such as co-workers (current or former) or via professional networks – I once had somebody remember that a former co-worker had retired with some degree of wealth and had spoken with passion of the cause the organization addressed.

Getting people to ask

Of course, creating a strong prospect list is only valuable if people are willing to network with, cultivate where necessary, and make asks. That’s worthy of a different article. For now, recognize that your team almost certainly knows more potential donors than you realize if you’re prepared to be systematic in working with the team.

Be Sociable, Share!

Five Lessons for Effective Staff Management

April 22, 2025

Filed under: Human Resources,Leadership,Uncategorized — jonathanpoisner @ 2:30 pm

Business author Jim Collins, in his monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors identified getting the “right people on the bus” as a core attribute of highly functioning nonprofits.

Of course, once you get the right people on the bus, there are many elements that go into turning them into an aligned, effective team that advances your mission. 

I was recently asked to summarize some of my past writing on nonprofit leadership as a guide for Executive Directors who’re building staff teams. At a high-level, here are five lessons that I believe every nonprofit Executive Director should take into account when building their team.

Lesson 1: Prioritize building on strengths instead of mitigating weaknesses

All employees have areas of strength and areas that, for lack of a better term, are weaknesses when it comes to delivering on their intended role.   Instead of focusing on mitigating weaknesses, my experience has been that identifying strengths and adapting work to take advantage of those strengths better maximizes team performance and results in higher job satisfaction for employees. 

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t identify weaknesses or blind spots with employees that can be worked on.  But more of your time and energy should go into aligning the work with employees’ inherent talents. 

Lesson 2: Foster Autonomy and Mastery as Motivational Tools

By and large, the nonprofit sector more than the for-profit sector can rely on the nonprofit’s mission as a built-in motivator for employees.  Almost always those employees motivated by money or status could better achieve those in the for-profit sector.

Yet, even with the mission as motivator, I’ve seen huge differences in nonprofit employee satisfaction.

Dan Pink has written and lectured about motivation in a broader context and highlights the concepts of autonomy and mastery as key.  Nonprofit leaders should keep these in mind when thinking about their own staff supervision.  (Here’s a video for more background).

Autonomy: Employees who have freedom to make decisions within the a broad strategic framework are more likely to be motivated than those who are continually constrained to simply implement decisions made by others. 

Mastery: Employees who have the opportunity to develop and exercise expertise are more likely to stay motivated than those who feel like they’re able to go through the motions.

Lesson 3: Building and Sustaining Relationships

Strong interpersonal relationships are vital for effective staff management.  People are more likely to respond well to those who they like and trust and to dig deeper to help a team with which they feel a sense of community.

That can all emerge spontaneously, but leaders who nurture relationships are more likely to succeed.  That means not neglecting regular activities that are designed to further the relationship, including both one-on-ones in the workplace and opportunities to engage beyond the workplace.  That doesn’t mean you have to become “friends” with those you supervise.  It does mean consciously working to draw connections within your staff based on open communication and opportunities to engage in informal activities.

Lesson 4: Time Management Matters

Time is a precious commodity in any organization as most nonprofit staff could probably work twice as many hours as they’re being paid for without running out of productive things to do.

To address that, choices need to be made as to where to prioritize time, preferably by looking at a strategic plan or other functional plan that identifies goals and top strategies for achieving them.

Even within those choices, too many nonprofits waste time and fail to adapt tools to save time.

Several time wasters relate to meetings:

  • Overly long meetings that could be done in half the time if there was a clear agenda, active facilitation, and a willingness to call the question rather than allow people to drone on.
  • Unnecessary meetings that could be eliminated with a few short emails and/or shared document editing.
  • Meetings that involve several people that really only need 2-3 participants. 
  • Executive Directors who feel compelled to be the organization’s face at every partner/allied organization meeting when they should be delegating that role to others.

There are also tools to save time that many nonprofits fail to use. Mostly these fall into the area of technology.  I’ve been amazing that in this day and age some nonprofits are still having multiple people edit Word documents sequentially rather than adapting to tools that allow for multiple people to collaborate at the same time (such as GoogleDocs).  Project management tools (like Asana, Trello, etc.) and communications platforms (like Slack) can also allow for a lot of project planning and task list accountability in ways that cut back significantly on the need for drafting/reading/responding to emails and meetings.

Lesson 5: Embrace Strategic and Functional Planning

I’ve seen too many nonprofits whose staff are frenetically doing lots of things, but those things are not strategic and thus not advancing goals. While this can bring temporary satisfaction to a team, it rarely does so over the long haul. 

While they serve other purposes as well, do not underestimate the value of strategic and other forms of planning as a staff management tool. 

  • They are a means of honing your staff’s thinking, to the extent you involve staff in this planning.
  • They are way to bring your staff into alignment (with each other and with the board), so their work is less likely to be at cross-purposes.
  • They produce products that are invaluable as orientation tools when you have staff transitions.

What do you think?

If you have a high-level staff management lesson you’d like to share with my readers, please comment away! Or shoot me an email for me to incorporate in an updated post.

Be Sociable, Share!

On Fundraising Stories

April 16, 2025

Filed under: Communications,Fundraising,Online Communications — jonathanpoisner @ 12:11 pm

I often talk about the importance of shifting fundraising language from a bullet-point approach to a story approach.

I know that for some nonprofit leaders this is challenging because storytelling isn’t their natural inclination. It’s not mine either.

Yet, by taking into account some basic techniques, virtually anybody can generate effective fundraising stories.

A more complete primer on fundraising stories can be found in my E-Book, the Essential Major Donor Toolkit. 

For those getting started, here’s a handful of important things to bear in mind when trying to craft a fundraising story. 

Include all the Elements of a Story

In crafting fundraising stories, ensure they have all three elements of a story.

  1. An objective.  The objective could be a community need or the need of individuals within it. 

  2. An obstacle.  The obstacle could be bad policy, lack of funding, natural causes, or some other threat or barrier that keeps the community (or individuals within it) from achieving their objective.  

  3. Impact.  There needs to be either harm if the objective isn’t overcome and/or some positive impact if the objective is overcome.  These are the stakes.  They don’t have to be huge stakes, but they must be clearly articulated in a way that the donor will find important.

Every story you’ve ever read – not just fundraising stories –have all these elements.  Don’t just talk about community need.  Don’t just talk about obstacles.  Don’t just talk about impact.  Make sure all three show up. 

Incomplete and Complete Stories

Make sure you are crafting both complete and incomplete stories.

A complete story is backwards looking and shows how you have made an impact in the past.  Complete stories are an important way to demonstrate to donors that their past support has translated into the charitable impact they desire and thus a good bet for future donations.      

An incomplete story is one where the outcome is not yet known and, importantly, one where the donor can make a difference by helping the organization have future impact.  Incomplete stories are essential to create urgency and to ramp up the emotional stakes.

In writing any story, ask yourself: am I writing this to demonstrate past impact or am I writing this to create urgency so donors will want to give right now.

In writing the set of stories that may go into your fundraising, make sure you have some of both type.

Put the Donor in the Stories

Too often I read fundraising appeals that talk about all the great things “we” did as an organization.

As you write/edit your stories, use the word “you” instead of “we” whenever possible.

You want donors to feel like they’re a hero making an impact and that means making them central to the appeal.  “Your support ensures IMPACT.”  “You can help IMPACT.” 

The word “you” should show up in both completed stories where the donor had a role in the organization’s past impact, and incomplete stories where the donor can be the hero.

Where possible with the technology, you can also insert their name into appeals.

* * * * *

Want to run a fundraising letter or email by me for a quick reaction, I offer all nonprofits a free half hour consultation.  Just reach out if interested.

Be Sociable, Share!

Short-term planning and project management 101

March 31, 2025

Filed under: Human Resources,Leadership,Strategic Planning — jonathanpoisner @ 10:47 am

As a strategic planning consultant, I focus a lot of my energy on helping groups grapple with a 2-5 year time-frame.  Too often we’re so focused on the current moment that we never look beyond to define who we are, where we want to go, how to get there, and how we’ll measure progress. 

Yet, even as I write that sentence, I know that the current moment matters.  This year perhaps more than most. 

And as I talk to Executive Directors, I often find a haphazard approach to how they prioritize their work and track their to-dos on a daily or weekly basis.

Nonprofit leaders – more than just Executive Directors – need workable systems for short-term planning and to-do management.

Too many just wing it.

I recently was challenged to describe the elements of a useful system.

Here are four essential requirements for a nonprofit short-term planning and accountability system

1. Tracking to-dos

This is the basic building block.  This should include a nutshell version of the task, an opportunity to provide more details (preferably with a hyperlink to external information of relevance), a due date, and the ability to track progress (including marking the item as completed when appropriate).

As tasks are completed, they should be archived, but not deleted, so that it remains possible to search them or even reopen them if it turns out something wasn’t actually completed.

Ideally the system should allow for recurring to-dos, that automatically get a new due date upon completion of the prior one or that always occur on specific dates of the week, month, etc.

2. Project level organization of tasks

A flat to-do list with hundreds of tasks (as most Executive Directors probably could identify if pushed) can feel overwhelming and makes forward-looking planning challenging.

Ideally tasks should be categorizable by a list of “projects.”  I’m using the word project largely because the various online systems that can be used are often referred to as “project management” tools. 

For most nonprofit Executive Directors, the projects might be the bigger categories of their work (fundraising, board governance, fiscal management, communications, etc.).

Ideally, the projects should be able to be broken down into sub-projects, so that fundraising from individuals can be kept separate from grant fundraising.

The point of breaking things down into categories is so that you have the opportunity to view all your tasks either as one long list, presumably sorted by due date, or alternatively to just see all your tasks within a specific project – or even sub-project. 

While the long daily task list is great for when you start your day and want to see what needs to be done,  the “project” view is nearly essential when it comes to forward-looking planning that involves adding things systematically to your to-do list. 

Did you just schedule your next board meeting?  Take 5 minutes to add all the tasks associated with the upcoming board meeting (crafting the agenda, pulling together materials, sharing the agenda, etc.).   Did you just get invited to submit a grant proposal, take 5 minutes to add all the tasks associated with pulling together the proposal and accompanying materials. 

Yes, you could do this with an entirely flat list, but it’s much easier to think of all the to-dos when you’re looking at a partial list focused on just that project.

I used to accomplish the above in an Excel spreadsheet where I had a column for the broad area of work, a column for the task, and a due date column.  I could sort the Excel spreadsheet either by due date or by the broad area of work and also due date.  And then re-sort back when appropriate.

Of course, in the pre-computer age you could also accomplish this with detailed handwritten notebooks. 

3. Collaboration

While the above three requirements are sufficient for an individual, organizations are team endeavors and whatever system you utilize needs to provide some means by which multiple individuals within the team can share with each other what they’re working on and even collaborate on the same projects and to-dos.  This is where the dozen or so most robust online project-management tools really shine.

Reassigning tasks, sharing deadlines, showing how task A by person A needs to take place before person B can begin Task B, sharing links/comments on tasks taken on by others.  These are just a handful of the most basic boosts to collaboration that can now be secured at a very low cost.  I can only wish these tools had been realistically available in my years as an Executive Director leading a team!  

Getting everyone onto the same system and getting them to use it isn’t necessarily a hill to die on, but if I were a nonprofit leader I’d push really hard to make that happen, absent a really compelling reason otherwise.

4. Some connection to longer-term planning

The above system is a great way to plan for and accomplish a lot of things.  But how do you know that you’re prioritizing the right things?  When you’re an Executive Director staring at the long to-do list and realizing that 3 out of the 10 things you put into your to-do list for the week you’re just not going to be able to do, what gets triaged?

Or better yet, never gets put in at all because you’re thinking about your own capacity as you identify to-dos.

Whether it’s a strategic plan or some other tool, you (and your team) need some method to identify priorities.  This may show up in your project management system where you pre-identify the essential tasks from the “icing on the cake” tasks. 

What system to use?  There’s nothing magic here.  But having alignment around your broad, long-term aims, the major methods you’ve identified to advance those aims, and how to measure progress is a great start. 

Then taking stock – probably monthly – and saying: what’s most important in the next month or two?

Then going back to your project management system and verifying that the things you want to prioritize are definitely incorporated into your projects/tasks. And perhaps deleting or moving out in time those tasks that you’d still like to eventually do, but that aren’t priorities in the short or medium-term.

Is this too much planning?

I can already hear a couple people I’ve known saying: “Who has time to do all that planning? As an Executive Director, if I’m not running 100%, things will fall apart.” 

My response: Better to spend 4 hours/week planning and 36 hours/week doing.   You may do 10% less “activity,” but you can feel far more confident that you’re doing the right activity, especially in alignment with your team. You’re also far more likely to be proactive than reactive to events.

In my experience, leaders who operate with a higher degree of planning and project management also feel less stress.  Not zero stress.  But less, because they can more easily take stock and see with their own eyes what needs to be done by when and make adjustments accordingly, rather than relying on intuition and hope. This means less burnout and a longer-term ability to stay in the role.

If you have specific project management tools or approaches you recommend for others, please share as a comment!

Be Sociable, Share!

Content © Copyright 2010-2013 • Jonathan Poisner Strategic Consulting LLC. All rights reserved.