The Dangers of Taking Anecdotal Learning as Fact
As a practitioner in higher education fundraising for the last few decades, I have often been surprised at the many anecdotal “learning” experiences shared among colleagues in development. These are stories told with the utmost conviction but with little or no factual basis. There is very little opportunity to engage fundraisers to study empirical information on philanthropy and the practice of fundraising. That is why it is especially important not to take anecdotal learning as fact.
A Common, But Questionable, Anecdote
A common story suggests that the institution can never ask a prospective donor for too much in the way of soliciting a gift. If someone requests far too much, then reportedly the donor prospect will be “honored” that the officer thinks so highly of the prospective donor and his or her financial ability. In my professional experience and that of other seasoned fundraisers, we have found that this is simply not true for most prospective donors.
In working with a leading donor couple at our institution, the wife relayed the following story. Her husband, a CEO of a major company, was asked over the phone for a $5 million gift in support of his daughter’s private secondary school. He knew they were in a fundraising campaign and had discussed with his wife what level they should give, as they really liked the school and wanted to make a gift. They had been considering a $1 million gift—what they believed would be a very substantial contribution.
However, when asked for the $5 million over the phone, he decided to give only $100,000. This was still a big gift, but not the impact gift the school was asking for and certainly not the major gift the donor had been considering. She relayed that the rationale for lowering their gift was simple. It was clear to her that even if they gave $1 million, the school would be disappointed and would not consider it to have the same “impact” as the donors had intended. Thus, they simply made a larger gift than an annual gift but not nearly as large as they intended or were capable of giving.
What Went Wrong?
This story has the all the hallmarks of a novice solicitation. Rule number one in major gift fundraising is to solicit the prospect in person. An experienced fundraiser would have:
- Acknowledged the enormity of the request
- Explained the great transformational opportunity the gift represents
- Outlined the impact the gift would have on the institution, and on current and future students.
Prior to the request, make sure to:
- Determine a challenging, yet realistic request amount
- Identify the prospect’s connections, philanthropic interests, and motivating values
- Assemble the most effective team of solicitors for the prospect in question
A personal solicitation and an in-person follow-up meeting would have provided critical opportunities for discussion, identifying and addressing potential obstacles or means to make a gift, a testimonial and personal appeal from a key volunteer solicitor (peer, fellow board member, etc.) who might have influence. In the case above, a personal solicitation and close could have salvaged the $1,000,000 gift or even increased it. Considering the monetary impact of a major gift as well as the influence the gift would have had on subsequent gifts and donor contacts, the missed opportunity is all the more tragic. Anecdotal stories are no substitute for the thorough preparation and seasoned experience required to secure a major donor commitment.
The Theory of Donor Disequilibrium
Institutions often take whatever is offered in the bargaining with donor prospects. The real institutional change caused by the gift depends on the amount offered and the amount accepted. The institution might allow itself to be bargained out of actually accomplishing what was intended in the beginning. Brittingham (1990) noted that a donors’ departure from altruism to an exchange model of charitable giving might be at play in this circumstance revolving around donor-institutional bargaining. As they receive the “naming” or product in exchange for their gifts, donors create a disequilibrium with the institution. This leaves them with a need to respond by making additional gifts.
Growing Demand for Competent Fundraising Professionals
Philanthropy is a 500 billion dollar business in the US. In the fiscal year of 2022, giving was a $499.33 billion dollar business, with the Council for Aid to Education reporting $59.5 billion in private contributions to US colleges and universities. Given the stakes involved, educational institutions should have a more structured professional passage of learning, training, and preparation for fundraisers.
Don’t discount your donor’s expectations, behavior, or trust in your relationship. A thorough and well-crafted course of study complete with research assignments is appropriate and necessary as a professional guideline for representatives in the field of philanthropy. To realize the potential of strong, long-term networks of financial supporters, colleges and universities need to apply a more grounded application to their philanthropic efforts.
L. Keith Todd is the Vice President of Development and University Relations at The University of Tampa. He has more than 15 years experience in university development.
- Brittingham, Barbara E., and Pezzullo, Thomas R. (1990). “The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher Education.” ERIC Document: 321705.
- Engle-Warnick, Jim, and Slonim, Robert L. (2001). “The Fragility and Robustness of Trust.” Paper submitted to The American Economic Review, August, 2001.