Outstanding idea?! ... Let the donors select the research projects to fund

For the 30 years I've been in community benefit work, the conventional wisdom of non-profit voluntary health organizations (like American Heart Association, where I worked for 21 years, or March of Dimes, where I worked for 8 years, or American Cancer, or American Lung, or American fill-in-the-blank-with-a-disease-or-body-organ) was that one of the values that the organization adds is its expertise in selecting the most scientifically meritorious or promising research projects to fund.

As a consequence, these organizations have traditionally frowned on donors who wanted to restrict their gift to a specific scientist or institution, and certainly nixed the notion of letting the donor actually choose which project their money funded. The closest we could get was accepting very large (six or seven figure) gifts restricted to very broad research areas.

Plus, the financial accountants put down any effort to attract this kind of support. Their reasoning: the cost of tracking all of this and making sure a specific gift went to a selected project ... well, that outweighed any possible benefit.

So, even if you wanted to restrict your gift to the broad function of research (as opposed to education or community programs), you still had to give at a certain level ($1,000 or $5,000) to make it worth even bothering with from the charity's perspective.

But of course, that was before the technology-assisted online tools of today. Now, in the United Kingdom, a unique way to support cancer research has been launched. It allows the donors to:

• choose which area of their work they want to support


• choose the specific project that most interests them


• follow the developments of the work they've helped to fund

Projects that need funds are described with a blurb about the science behind it, where the work is happening, and a photo/bio of the investigator, together with a thermometer showing how much has already been raised, and how much more is needed.

True, the charity, Cancer Research UK, has already committed to supporting the projects they promote. In this sense, a donation is not really leading to a go/no go decision on whether the project will proceed.

But the donation is, strictly speaking, restricted. It won't go to any other purpose. And once a project reaches its target, the system automatically stops accepting donations for it, and adds new projects to the site for donors to choose from.

It's all currently in beta, but I think it's a fascinating trend, and I'll very much be looking forward to the results. I would predict increased donor satisfaction and retention for repeat gifts. Plus, there's big potential for donor involvement, with donors becoming fundraisers, spreading the word about a project that's piqued their personal interest, using the usual social media forums.

Donors can form Giving Groups to join together, forming a little community, as it were, of friends and family, with all their gifts going to the same project.

Like I said, tradition-bound health organizations have hated this concept in the past. They have long disliked accepting funds with strings attached, even for efforts that are directly aligned with their purpose and plans. I understand their preference for unrestricted funds that can be used for whatever the organization thinks it needs. But the mindset still flies in the face of developing a donor-centered philanthropic culture.

This whole notion is crowdsourcing at its best ... trusting the wisdom of the many over the elite, behind-closed-door decisionmaking of a few.

I hope it succeeds big time. It will go to prove a point of view I've been espousing for years: Restricted gifts are not a bad thing when they are restricted to something you've already decided you wanted to do anyway. To the extent that donors choose a specific project, such resources are "fungible," meaning the funds that were committed to this approved project can now be freed up for something else the organization wants to do.

It's a no-brainer, if you ask me ... and it will be interesting to see how quickly the "disease" organizations catch on here in the US.

How to ask for a gift ....

Here's a video snippet from the HBO show, Entourage. Matt Damon and Bono are featured as they ask Vince (played by Adrian Grenier) to make a gift to their favorite cause (a children's hunger charity).

Now I wouldn't actually suggest you ask the way Matt Damon does here, but there are some lessons embedded in the video.

Among them:

• Total absence of call reluctance (since he believes in his cause, Matt Damon asks everyone!)


• Asking for involvement in addition to monetary support


• Persistence and the importance of follow-up


• Importance of making your own gift first (because donors, even if they don't ask, will KNOW in their gut whether you've done your part)


• Framing the ask amount in relation to capacity and what other leadership donors have given


• Ask as part of a team, in person (see how much more effective the ask gets when LeBron James joins Matt in the ask)


• How to make it past gate-keepers ("He Jason Bourne-d me!")


• Linking back to the cause when making the ask ("it's for the kids!")

Warning: Some crude language here. Click here to watch.

Personal blindspots: Doing what's in front of me to do, NOW

Confession time: There is part of me that LIKES complicated. The first time I heard about the KISS principle (the acronym meaning "Keep It Simple Stupid"), I HATED the idea.

I mean, I do get it in concept. Even I don't want to get bogged down in detail, or pursue the rabbit trail toward needless complexity.

But we've got a complicated world to deal with. It moves fast, and we try to tame it by creating process to codify and standardize.

My temperment naturally tips toward complicated over simple. Give me the chance, and I'll tend to create a flowchart or multi-step approach to address the most basic issues. But time and again, I'm reminded ... often painfully ... that simple and direct is better.

And it's taken me years to understand why that is.

Too often, my first impulse is to create a new system, invent a new rule, form a new standard. Too often that urge is, in reality, a ... (wait, I'm about to get the words out): ... a delaying tactic. There, I've said it.

For example, now is the right time to approach a likely supporter and say:

We're working on an issue/problem you care about. Here's how we approach our top priorities. Will you join in our cause?

Instead I'm tempted to say "a little more research is needed," "let's do one more cultivation move," or "today might not be the best time so let's wait for a few weeks."

Over the years, I've taught myself to catch myself doing this, and I usually do. Long ago I pledged that I would attend no more meetings with prospects where, at the end, the prospect is left to wonder "why didn't they ask?"

But my personal blindspot becomes glaring when I see it manifested in others. (Isn't that always the way?)

So ...

One of the best values I offer to others in my consulting is to be hyper-sensitive to delaying tactics, no matter how cleverly disguised or manifested. I'm always pressing to get people to admit that the time is now. My magic question: "What is it that we need to know about this person's ability or interests or motivation, that can be known, before we can make the ask?" Almost always, their answer: "Nothing." The inescapable conclusion: it is time to ask.

It sounds obvious.

But, clever procrastinators that we are, we can almost always find an expert reference from "the book" that says that we should cultivate before asking. So it always seems easier to cultivate, cultivate, cultivate, cultivate ad nauseum.

After stripping away all the excuses, we're left with a classic case of call reluctance. Get over it!

Too many opportunities are missed because we get wrapped up in procedures that we've created as stalling tactics in the name of building relationship. And then we fail to recognize that the moment is right. Done right, asking for the gift is the BEST way to build relationship. 99 times out of 100, the time to ask is NOW.

The Buddha said ...

If you knew what I know about the power of giving, you would not let a single meal pass without sharing it in some way.


- Buddha (563 BC - 483 BC)


There is joy in giving, and great power, too. (Who am I to contradict the Buddha?!)

Whoever we are, there are pieces of the divine within us, and I believe that is what we tap into when we share of ourselves and our treasure.

As a fund-seeker, I've had the delightful experience of watching the physical changes that occur when a person moves from contemplation to decision during the giving process. It's like an aura, radiating, an almost-palpable energy coming from within. (Sorry to go "new age"-y on you, but it is oh-so true.)

When done with the understanding that there's something deeply human about the act of sharing, those of us who facilitate this choice realize that it (the act of asking) is a natural and authentic interaction. The converse is also true: when done poorly, it does not feel good at all, regardless of the outcome.

Thank you, Buddha.