Spray the Cat or Trash the Couch?

Saturday night was exhilarating, in a really negative way. It made me think about change, how hard it is, and whether there are any shortcuts.

I was at a donor thank you event where a question and answer session followed a hosted reception. I was there as a guest of a regular donor. The reception was lovely. My date was wonderful.

During the question and answer period, I held my hand up. There were lots of questions. I kept holding my hand up. Through a lot of questions, I held my hand up. Wow. Arm really getting tired now. I thought, maybe we’re too far back. Maybe he can’t see me. But we were dead center of the stage, and there were only a few rows of people. Finally, my date got tired of watching me with my hand up and stuck his up. He began to raise his hand. His arm did not reach full extension when he was called on to ask a question. 

That  made me mad. Really mad.

Mad because the lectern manager couldn’t see me, but somehow he could see the man sitting next to me.

Mad because the man sitting next to me knew that he would need to raise his hand in order for me to be able to ask my question.

Mad because this sort of thing has been happening for a long time and is getting better at a glacial pace. Mad because it seemed like there was nothing I could do about.

For a moment, I flashed back to negotiation training I just received a week earlier. The lesson:  never make my own behavior part of the negotiation. And then I thought, I’m not negotiating! I am doing the equivalent of spraying a cat with water because he is clawing the couch. I am negatively reinforcing!

Having rationalized, I asked my follow-up question, “Why, with my hand up for 15 minutes, did you call on the man next to me before his hand hit full height?” Blubber, sputter, gasp. Sadly, I followed up with, “That really pissed me off.” (Could have done without that part.)

I felt my date’s hand on my back. He was either nonverbally saying, “calm down” or was ready to grab me if I headed for the stage, or both.

Was the person manning the lectern a bad guy? No. Did he do that on purpose? No. Did he articulate to himself, “I’m going to call on that man because I should”? No. He just followed a cultural habit of recognizing and giving higher value to male input. And in my mind, until we make it uncomfortable for those falling into that bad habit, it will continue to happen. So, am I a horrible guest or justifiably incensed? Spray the cat with water, or live with a trashed couch?

PS – My date and I had a fabulous rest of the evening. He’s a special guy.

Branded Versus Non-Branded Fundraising Gifts. Which is Better?

I love the springtime. Why? Because all of our nonprofit clients are ramping up for their annual fundraising events. It’s walk, run and ride for a cause season, people!

Our clients know that fundraiser recognition programs can improve event income results DRAMATICALLY, as I’ve written about many, many times.

Now is when I get the age-old question, “Which kind of item makes for a better fundraiser gift? Which recognition item will MOTIVATE fundraisers to higher fundraising levels?”

This is when I push my sleeves up and say, “Wellllllll… I’m glad you asked!”

Two Key Facts You Should Know About Recognition Products

FACT #1: People Who Accept Fundraising Gifts Raise More
Our studies show that people who accept gifts for reaching a certain fundraising level typically fundraise more than those who do not accept gifts. (I’ve written lots of papers about this. Check out our incentive program research on our website!) 

FACT #2:  Gifts with a Nonprofit Logo Motivate to Higher Fundraising Levels
Fact #1 is only seen when the nonprofit’s logo is imprinted on the gift. If the item was a gift card or available in a retail setting, fundraising average levels were diminished.

It’s TRUE, when retail-available gifts are positioned side-by-side with nonprofit branded gifts, the retail available gift is selected more often, but our #2 factoid still applies. WHY?

Study by Dr. Victoria Shaffer of Wichita State University

Researcher Dr. Victoria Shaffer of Wichita State University surveyed  gift accepters and found that the high acceptance of the retail-available gift was due to the fundraisers paying homage to their own budget, as opposed to seeing the gift as recognition for high fundraising. The inner talk was, “My family needs this item. I should take it” instead of “This is recognition for my high achievement.” To sum: allegiance to family budget drives redemption, but not fundraising to higher levels.   

Her research revealed that personal budget showed its power when nonprofit branded gifts were positioned against retail-available gifts in one set of choices. Invariably, the retail- available gift was selected at higher rates than the nonprofit branded gift. Further, total redemption or acceptance of gift was far higher with retail-available gifts as part of the  selection, elevating expenses for the nonprofit greatly, with no commensurate increase in fundraising.

What All This Research Mumbo Jumbo Means

In my opinion, nonprofits are well-served to make it “all about me” when it comes to gifts for their fundraisers. Your fundraisers will more than likely raise more for your cause, and your brand will have “legs”… quite literally… sprinting past the walk, ride, run season and beyond!

Still afraid to dip into the recognition pool? Maybe this post will help. Or, don’t hesitate to contact me at Katrina@turnkeywow.com. 

Nonprofit Employee Swap: An Undesirable C-Level Management Tactic

Recently I spoke with one of my clients, a VP of event income at a national nonprofit. He was upset.

He described to me the current environment, in his organization and in others, where C-level leadership looks at the fundraising results of the organization independent of the environment outside the organization. Taking that decision-making path led C-level folk to “We need better people.”

If income loss were considered in context, a different path might be taken: “Our organization and most others are suffering income losses. Maybe we should do things differently.”

Now, I get it that sometimes heads must roll in order to effect change, but not in every case. Often, the current income leadership is ready for change and is looking for C-level buy-in and support. But what my friend and I see are C-levels taking the easy course – get another organization’s walk director or event director. It’s actionable and assignable to someone else in the organization to execute, and that’s easier than, for example, a strategy change.

Another reason C-levels are opting to swap employees (and truly, that’s all they are doing) is that a new employee proves you are doing something and is virtually risk free: “His resume looked good. He interviewed well. His references were great. I did my job in hiring him; he simply failed.”

Doing what’s expected and getting bad results is more acceptable than stepping outside the expected path and getting bad results.

We have a merry-go-round of highly qualified and effective event walk directors, income directors, VP’s of income and development directors being pushed out or bailing before the ax falls. And almost always they are jumping to a situation JUST LIKE the one they left. And, in all likelihood, the results they experience in the first couple of years will be due to the excellence of whoever got pushed out before them.

Know of a situation like that?