Real Food Does NOT Come in a Box, and Neither Do Real Donors

Posted on October 27, 2010 by Pastor Foley

The best insight I’ve ever received into major donor development and the coaching of champions came from my wife, Hyun Sook.

“Food,” she opined, “does not come in a box.”

We were not at that moment talking about major donor development or the coaching of champions. Nor were we at that moment married. Rather, we were engaged, and she was visiting my townhome and taking astonished inventory of my pantry, which, as you can now surmise by her comment, consisted entirely of foods in boxes and wrappers –freeze-dried noodles of this kind and TV dinners of that kind, Library of Congress-sized stacks of ramen noodles, and more jars of peanut butter than are stocked in the pantries of most Mormons. The only thing in my whole house that passed The Food Test was a single watermelon that she had bought me a week or two earlier, which I had not yet touched because, I reasoned, it was too large to fit in the microwave, the one food preparation apparatus I was able to successfully operate.

I am happy to report that not only do we remain sublimely happily married, more so with each passing year, and not only do I now eat healthier than even cheetahs in the wild thanks to my wife’s peerless care, but I learned lessons about major donor development and the coaching of champions from this godly companion that I simply could have never learned anywhere else.

Namely:

If food doesn’t come in a box, donors sure don’t either. They’re Holy Spirit-built, not nonprofit-discovered; invited, coached, and challenged, not solicited; savored with our full attention, not wolfed down in five minutes while we are busy doing other things.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Most Nonprofits Have Too Many Donors, Most Churches Have Too Many Members

Posted on October 25, 2010 by Pastor Foley

Great post last week on Harvard Business Review from Hanna Halaburda entitled Fewer Customers, but the Right Ones. Halaburda pans dating site eharmony.com‘s latest promotion–a ten day free trial:

To successfully match people who are looking for a long-term relationship, eHarmony needs not just a lot of people in their database, it also needs people who are ready for a long-term relationship. This seems self-evident, but cluttering up the site with those looking for something else will increase the noise-to-signal ration and make matching harder. In its everyday business, eHarmony does an excellent job by discouraging potential customers who may not be so serious about dating. They ask potential members to complete a very long questionnaire of more than 250 questions. And if the answers suggest that you are not serious enough, they reject you. eHarmony also charges more than Match.com — up to a 25 percent premium. As a result, only people who really care about establishing a long-term relationship will end up at the site.

Observation: Most nonprofits and churches have a noise-to-signal ratio which is off the charts. They are based on B-I-S (butts-in-seats) business models. Such models require that the nonprofit or church bring in the largest possible number of potentially interested individuals, in the hope that:

  1. The nonprofit or church can convert marginally interested individuals into passionately interested ones.
  2. Given the sheer volume gathered, there’s bound to be a pony in there somewhere.

The challenge to the first idea is that nonprofits and churches are rarely able to effect this conversion to maturity. They find that they must continue to “cultivate” (yucky word) donors/churchgoers by feeding them a steady diet of the same things that brought them in the door in the first place.

Consider the rescue mission who “acquires” donors by inviting them to donate money to cover Thanksgiving dinners for the homeless. They ultimately find that it’s next to impossible to get those new “supporters” to understand that meals are not the solution to homelessness but that the mission’s long-term structured rehabilitation program is. So the mission ends up having to ask for money for meals month after month, amping up the urgency and the desperation with each passing appeal, and using whatever money is raised for meals to cover the long-term structured rehabilitation program that is really the heart of their model.

Same with the church who tries to recruit attendees through events that have nothing to do with the Gospel. I’m just finishing Todd Hunter’s Christianity Beyond Belief: Following Jesus for the Sake of Others, and it’s a solid and interesting read. A few of the examples Todd provides do leave me scratching my head, however, like the story of the woman who gathered a group of women together in an effort to share the love of Christ with young moms by providing free swimming lessons:

We all thought the swim lessons were a huge success, even though there was no one [who] was converted and only one lasting friendship was formed. We’ve been taught that our role is to develop authentic friendships, to serve others in these simple ways and to pray for them. We can be at peace in this. Jesus wants people to follow him more than we want them to, and he will do the heavy work with them.

There’s bound to be a pony in there somewhere.

And that’s exactly what ends up happening: Nonprofits and churches, unable to “cultivate” donors/churchgoers to greater maturity and involvement in the cause, end up employing various methods to sift through the accumulation in order to find the pony. For the nonprofit, the pony is the rich, active donor. For the church, the pony is the one who can somehow take everything the church offers and manage to knit it into a personal program of growing to greater maturity and involvement.

What nonprofits and churches fail to account for, however, is that this strategy creates what Halaburda calls high “negative externality”–or, more simply put, turn-offs for those who are truly committed:

If the value you’re offering your customers rests on exclusive membership of similarly minded relationship seekers, what happens if you make it easy for others to get in for a while? You might get a lot of people who don’t care that much about a serious relationship, or who are looking for a different product, like a quick adventure. When such people roam around your site, they create a “negative externality” for your core members, who may discover that it’s more difficult to find a long-term relationship — the very service they had paid a premium to get. In a nutshell, when you lower the barriers to entry, you threaten your core value proposition to your most valuable customers.

This is why nonprofits sigh and say, “Right–that’s why what I need is just a few wealthy donors…”

But there’s an alternative. Halaburda’s article includes a link to a free downladable PDF that details a business model that is based on recruiting a smaller number of more committed individuals in the first place. In the nonprofit world, the equivalent would be donor acquisition programs that look and act more like part-time internships enabling individuals to grow to comprehensive maturity in the cause.

For the church, it looks an awful lot like Luke 9:23.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Secular Marketers are Coveting the Church Format You Hate So Much

Posted on October 22, 2010 by Pastor Foley

I think you know I enjoy reading Dan Pallotta‘s columns in the Harvard Business Review, though he and I could hardly approach the topic of fundraising from more different backgrounds and orientations and in an effort to achieve more diametrically opposite ends. But the guy is smart, funny, and interesting, which is more than one can say about most fundraising writing on the Internet, even, oddly, the stuff I tend to agree with.

Anyway, Pallotta engaged in a rare moment of church envy the other day in his column (typically he is, um, not praiseworthy of Christians or Christian morality or much of anything Christian for that matter) that made me want to switch my membership to whatever church he went to when he wrote the following:

Religious services are a form of marketing. What else would you call being held captive to a rehearsed one-hour message repeated once a week, every week, week after week after week? It’s a particularly productive form of marketing — rich, experiential, and communal. It’s much more powerful than a website banner ad that your retina can filter out before reaching your brain, or a TV commercial you can make disappear with TIVO. You have to sit there and listen. The message is simple: Be charitable, both to your religious institution and to humanity in general. And it works.

I’ve taught and trained hundreds of churches, and I can count on one hand the ones that week in and week out share the simple message, “Be charitable”. Even the ones that share that simple message rarely do so in a way that is “rich, experiential, and communal.”

I wish sincerely that churches were indeed far more guilty of what Pallotta accuses us of and envies so greatly. We ought to be. He’s exactly right: What an opportunity we’re missing! Instead of using each week to share the simple call to generosity, we’re scared even to talk about it. We hope people catch it from the ventilation system, to be sure, but to our shame we are hardly making rich, experiential, communal appeals for charity every week.

In the end, my question remains the same as always, namely:

If the Church’s opportunities to build generosity are so coveted by secular marketers, why are we the ones consistently trying to imitate them?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment