The Fundraising Talent Podcast

How many prospective funders agree to meet as a simple courtesy only to pass up the opportunity that has been presented to them? What if a better understanding of how corporations go about their decision-making processes could reduce the fundraiser’s workload and increase the likelihood of winning a corporation’s support? These are the kind of questions that today’s conversation with Lori raises. Lori reminds nonprofit leaders that, while they certainly see their cause as a top priority, unless they have caught the attention of their prospective funders in a meaningful way, they’re simply one of many items on a to-do list that never stops growing.Lori is the author of The Boardroom Playbook: The Not So Ordinary Guide to Corporate Funding for Your Purpose Driven Organization. Lori’s book is an effort to ensure that nonprofit leaders don’t knock on the doors of corporate funders without first making sense of the dynamics that play out among those on other side of the table. Lori is the founder and CEO of Growth Owl, LLC, a consultancy aimed at empowering nonprofits, startups, and associations with the tools needed to achieve their fundraising goals. Before bombarding our prospective corporate funders with exhausting proposals, Lori wants nonprofit leaders to avoid the drama, design brevity in their communications, and understand the nuances of corporate giving.The Fundraising Talent Podcast is underwritten by Responsive Fundraising, a professional learning community committed to helping clients create places where fundraising can thrive. For more information, message our managing partner, Michael J. Dixon. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Angie’s journey as a writer has always been about making sense of leadership, taking risks, and helping people realize their potential. Her latest book, Bet On You, is about demystifying what it means to take risks and seeing risk as the path to opportunity rather than getting anxious and worried about what might come of our decisions. Today’s conversation with Angie reminds me of what we just heard from our previous guests: those who dare to make the boldest asks are those who achieve the most extraordinary results.Our conversation has us grappling with the question of whether nonprofits are reliant on too much play-it-safe fundraising. Angie wants us to remember that there comes a time when playing it safe no longer works. How many of our organizations have been checking all the right boxes and playing by the rules only to realize that we’re not achieving our goals and would really enjoy more fun and excitement in our work. Angie suggests that, when we get to this point, we have to look at risk as an opportunity to lean into rather than an impediment to fear and avoid. The Fundraising Talent Podcast is underwritten by Responsive Fundraising, a professional learning community committed to helping clients create places where fundraising can thrive. For more information, message our managing partner, Michael J. Dixon. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

I confess, I don’t read a lot of books about fundraising; I have always found them to be either too tactical or little more than chatter about manipulative gimmicks aimed at getting us into Mrs Smith’s pocketbook. However, Amy and Josh’s BeneFactors: Why Some Fundraising Professionals Always Succeed is neither of these. Rather, it’s a refreshing and enjoyable read written by two fundraisers who are both committed to their craft and understand the complexity of what it means to raise extraordinary dollars in the twenty-first century. Josh and Amy set out to create a book that not only inspires a new generation of fundraising leaders, but also provides a practical guide for nonprofit executives to raise up new development professionals for the field.In our conversation today, we cover a lot of territory, reflecting on Amy and Josh’s thoughts about how we relate to donors, what sets a good fundraiser apart from a great one, and what role mentors play in our professional journeys. I especially enjoyed hearing Amy and Josh talk about what it means to achieve “relentless alignment” with our donors and what impact their faith traditions have had in their pursuits as fundraisers.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.If your organization wants to make sense of raising extraordinary levels of support by way of meaningful relationships and higher expectations, our team at Responsive would welcome the opportunity to help you do that. If you’re interested in learning more, email me and/or our managing partner, Michael Dixon. We will be happy to volunteer an hour to get to know you and to explore with you what a partnership with our team might look like. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Several years ago I began paying close attention to the places where expectations of the nonprofit leader were evolving from an internally-focused leader whose expertise closely aligned with the organization’s program and services, to an externally-focused leader whose expertise aligned with leading a complex organization reliant on the support of a diverse constituency. I’ve had the greatest opportunities to make the most sense of this while consulting with boards that expected their senior leaders to assume the posture of what I routinely refer to as the Fundraising CEO. Much of my conversation today with Bradley on The Fundraising Talent Podcast is reminiscent of conversations that I’ve had with board members, CEO’s, and their teams about what it means to have a Fundraising CEO at the helm. It’s not a role for everyone, and not every organization is ready for it. Leveraging the strengths of a Fundraising CEO isn’t about fundraising, per se. It has a lot more to do with organizational design, professional development, and distributed leadership. As a serial entrepreneur and the CEO of a growing nonprofit organization, Bradley has had to think a lot about the role he plays and the expectations he has for those with whom he surrounds himself. In this role, he has thought a lot about how to design the organization in a way that allows him to develop meaningful relationships with donors who can be counted on for sustainable support. Bradley explained that much of it comes down to knowing what everyone’s superpowers are and then confidently delegating responsibilities accordingly.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.If your organization wants to make sense of raising extraordinary levels of support by way of meaningful relationships and higher expectations, our team at Responsive would welcome the opportunity to help you do that. If you’re interested in learning more, email me and/or our managing partner, Michael Dixon. We will be happy to volunteer an hour to get to know you and to explore with you what a partnership with our team might look like. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

A couple of weeks ago my friend Jim Langley managed to stir up a lot of conversation with his suggestion that the traditional approach to a capital campaign was ill-suited to the times. Jim likened the approach to the 1970 Oldsmobile 442, the legacy of which I discovered, after conferring with my dad, can be a rather controversial topic. Some suggest that the 442 is one of the worst cars on the planet; while others insist that it’s always gotten a bad rap and that, by comparison to other muscle cars, it deserves more credit. According to Jim’s argument, the 442 was a beautiful thing in its day; however, he insists that any rational person today would consider it overbuilt, highly inefficient, and clunky looking. My dad concurred that the 442 was high maintenance, but remarked that, despite that, it was certainly a fun ride - perhaps all that would be needed to “seal the deal” with particular major donors. He then managed to find a commercial which asked, “Wouldn’t it be nice if you had a 442?”Jim joins us on the podcast today along with our friend Bruce Flessner to further explore the comparison. Jim and Bruce, go head to head on whether the traditional campaign approach is out of date and in need of a replacement or, as some have said about the 442, is actually under-appreciated and worthy of more credit than its generally given. Both of my guests today have plenty of history with the traditional campaign: before launching his firm, Jim spent several decades carrying out capital campaigns in Higher Ed; and Bruce, who founded and led BWF, has spent most of his career assisting clients in Higher Ed and Healthcare to build successful advancement programs.Before we began our discussion, I shared with Bruce and Jim, I have been especially grateful for their willingness to engage with me, hearing out my criticisms of contemporary practices and never allowing our differences of opinion to get in the way of our professional camaraderie. What I have discovered about both of them is that, like myself, fundraising has always been more than a job; it’s a vocation and calling that warrants the sort of thoughtful and reflective debate that we enjoyed today.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.If your organization wants to make sense of raising extraordinary levels of support by way of meaningful relationships and higher expectations, our team at Responsive would welcome the opportunity to help you do that. If you’re interested in learning more, email me and/or our managing partner, Michael Dixon. We will be happy to volunteer an hour to get to know you and to explore with you what a partnership with our team might look like. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Like many fundraisers, Kathryn describes her entrance into the profession as a search for meaningful work. For the most part, what she found was that facilitating the exchange of charitable gifts has been a rewarding experience and that it has afforded an opportunity to form valuable relationships with her colleagues. However, she also discovered that, at times, the job was lonely, stressful, and wrought with unreasonable expectations. She has dealt with demanding and creepy donors as well as bosses who lacked training and really didn’t know what they were doing; her last supervisor was a vicious bully. As she has shared these experiences with others, she has discovered that they are far more common than they should be.Kathryn wants to know whether fundraisers are happy in their jobs and, if not, whether bullying is a factor in why they are unhappy. As a professor of practice at the John Martinson Honors College at Purdue University, Kathryn’s research isn’t aimed at just asking whether bullying is happening and to what extent; Kathryn wants to understand how bullying behavior manifests itself in the context of a fundraising environment. For example, are fundraisers going out in the field desiring genuine and meaningful relationships only to dreadfully fear returning to the office if they arrive without a check in hand?As I shared with Kathryn, I have long been of the opinion that the dark side of the predictive tools we employ will become increasingly obvious as research like this is undertaken. I would insist that, in the next decade, studies like Kathryn’s are going to demonstrate that our wholesale embrace of tactics borrowed from the marketplace and designed to predict and control human behavior are going to backfire and that the evidence is going to be easy to find in this kind of research. It is my hope that Kathryn’s findings are the sort that allow us to clearly understand where our tactics cross the line and where we’re betraying the spirit of a gift. If you’d like to anonymously participate in this study, click here.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Andrew has committed himself to getting direct mail right for a long time. For as long as I have known him, I have watched as he processes what’s going on in the world and what’s being said or discovered and then applies it to his craft. Most recently, Andrew has engaged in a stream of honest conversations with the team at Dickerson, Bakker & Associates and he’s my guest today on The Fundraising Talent Podcast to talk about these conversations. In short, Andrew isn’t giving up on direct mail; he does, however, want us to admit where it notoriously lets us down and to revisit the underlying assumptions that have ensured its privileged role in our fundraising strategies for decades.Today’s conversation isn’t the stereotypical “is direct mail dead or alive?” conversation. What Andrew wants those who are always in direct mail’s corner to admit is that, if we don’t address some of its weaknesses - those we have known were there all along, we’re going to find ourselves in a lot of trouble very soon. Andrew wants direct mail’s strongest advocates to recognize that it’s time for some changes. To remain a viable contributor, direct mail has to evolve. After reminding us of some of its flaws and shortcomings as well as one of its dirty little secrets, Andrew wants us all paying attention to what may be the most consequential of realties facing direct mail: the fact that the middle class is shrinking. According to Pew Research, in 1970 middle-income households accounted for 62% of aggregate income, a share that fell to 42% in 2020. Meanwhile, the share of aggregate income accounted for by upper-income households has increased steadily, from 29% in 1970 to 50% in 2020.Today’s conversation confronts the fact that whether direct mail works doesn’t matter all that much when the population of donors it was originally intended for has shrunk dramatically over the last half century. And while direct mail’s intended audience continues to shrink, those for whom it wasn’t are now holding onto the most cash. Either way you look at it, like so many things that have to adapt over time, if direct mail is going to continue to play a meaningful role, it’s going to have to evolve quickly.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

For some time now, I have been contemplating what early twentieth-century activist and reformer Jane Addams would have to say to those of us who are asking tough questions about philanthropy. In short, I believe she would ask whether our work reflects a commitment to strengthening democracy, creating proximity among the haves and the have nots, and exemplifying what it means to be a citizen rather than a mere consumer. While I believe Addams would sympathize with many of the critiques that are being thrown at philanthropy today; I also believe she would encourage us all to be hyper-diligent in understanding what appropriate expectations we should have of it.For those who are not familiar with Jane Addams and her views on philanthropy, she was the first American woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, co-founder of the ACLU, and co-founder of Chicago's Hull House. Addams’ views on philanthropy afford us a contrast to Andrew Carnegie’s “responsibilities of wealth” and the notion that giving away money is hard work. Author Louise Knight explains that Addams was far more concerned about the “responsibilities of being human” and believed philanthropy should create space for interacting directly, making sense of each other’s burdens, and working together to address social issues.Before the holidays, I had the pleasure of recording today’s podcast conversation with Paul Pribbenow, a veteran fundraiser, the president at Augsburg University, and a scholar of Addams’ work. During his time as Augsburg‘s president, Paul has been recognized for the transformation of a culture of philanthropy that hinges on deficit-thinking and focuses on what is lacking, to an asset-based perspective that emphasizes Augsburg’s high aspirations and unique strengths. In 2019, Paul was named Outstanding Fundraising Professional by The Association of Fundraising Professionals: the highest honor that AFP bestows to its members. In addition to numerous articles on philanthropy, ethics, and not-for-profit management, Paul is perhaps most admired for his bimonthly email newsletter titled, “Notes for the Reflective Practitioner.”Prior to accepting his post at Augsburg University, Paul served as president of Rockford University where Jane Addams graduated in 1882. Building on her legacy, Paul created The Jane Addams Center for Civic Engagement and leveraged Addams story to recruit students and interest them in community service. As Paul writes, Addams believed that philanthropy, when properly understood, was the work of citizenship. As he desires for his students and faculty, Paul wants all of us to see and understand philanthropy as Addams did: a “common work” that belongs to all citizens.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

I’m headed to Omaha later this week, and one of the first things I’m going to find is a great Reuben sandwich. As the origin story goes, while playing cards with “the committee” at the at the Blackstone Hotel, Reuben Kulakofsky, a local grocer, ordered the now famous corned beef and sauerkraut sandwich. Impressed with this original idea, the hotel owner made the sandwich a permanent fixture on his menu. While Kenley, my guest today on the podcast, evidently isn’t a big a fan, I rarely pass up the chance to have a good Rueben. Kenley is a member of the line-up for our Roadshow stop later this week in Omaha where he will be sharing his thoughts about how nonprofit leaders keep their heads on straight when it comes to the technology. In short, Kenley wants to impress upon us that perhaps our expectations are too high and, as one of my previous guest recently suggested, that we have put far too much faith in the CRM-centric approach to fundraising.Kenley assures us that he is a strong advocate for many of these platforms however he wants more nonprofit leaders to understand that our sector’s software applications and database management systems will not solve our fundraising issues. He points out that fundraisers are bombarded with messages that imply technology has capabilities it doesn’t actually have. Kenley insists that a lot the noise that tech companies create gets in the way of fundraisers being able to make sense of what will really ensure their success. Today’s conversation, like several others in recent weeks, reminds me of the assertion that Peter Thiel makes in his book Zero to One: we have to get better at discerning between those platforms designed to be competitive with versus complementary to our human endeavors. As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.The first stop of the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow for 2023 will be later this week in Omaha in partnership with the Nonprofit Association of the Midlands. If you’d like to register for this event, just visit their website at here. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

As we have resumed our roadshows, we have found that shining a spotlight on local leaders greatly enhances the learning experiences for our participants. My guest today on The Fundraising Talent Podcast is Brandi Holys, Vice President of Advancement at Gross Catholic High School, and a member of the line-up for our Roadshow stop in Omaha next week. In partnership with The Nonprofit Association of the Midlands, Brandi, Kenley Sturdivant-Wilson, and Kevin Mahler have partnered with Responsive to ensure a high-energy, thought-provoking series of conversations about what it means to build and sustain meaningful relationships with donors in the twenty-first century.Brandi is the Vice President of Advancement at Gross Catholic High School and the host of Philanthropy is NOT a Bake Sale Podcast. Brandi is a big believer in the fact that it’s the transformative power of philanthropy combined with genuine and meaningful relationships that allows our sector to solve complex problems. What I most appreciated about today’s conversation with Brandi was that she wants more of us conjuring up the courage to experiment with new and ground breaking ideas when it comes to our fundraising efforts. Brandi insists that we cannot continue to do the same things that we always have. Brandi and I pondered just how much of what we were doing pre-pandemic was showing signs of wear and that now we are taking advantage of the time and space to make some big and bold changes for the better.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.The first stop of the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow for 2023 will be in Omaha, Nebraska on Friday, March 3rd in partnership with the Nonprofit Association of the Midlands. If you’d like to register for this event, just visit their website at here. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Lauren wants to remind us that “regrets don’t really solve problems, but taking action will”; and that “it’s never too late to try.” She wants to encourage us to start being more intentional about who and where we want to be in the world and to confidently take the necessary steps towards moving in that direction. Dissatisfied with where they found themselves, Lauren and her family recently made the decision to relocate to Charlotte, NC, a place that aligned with particular interests and hobbies, afforded a more progressive political scene, and was more responsive to the priorities of young Black professionals.Coincidentally, today’s podcast conversation with Lauren is in many ways a continuation of the one we enjoyed with Nancy last week. These two conversations, both centered on intentionality, beg the question of just how many of us are finding ways to be more deliberate about the decisions we make. Perhaps The Great Recession and experiences like the pandemic, the murder of George Floyd, and recent elections have shaken us up, compelling us to evaluate what matters most to us and where we want to prioritize our time, energy, and resources.That said, to make these observations about our own experiences while failing to consider the experiences of those on the other side of a charitable gift exchange is to have a bad read on the moment in time in which we are collectively living. Today’s conversation with Lauren challenges us to ask ourselves what we are doing to ensure that our donors, who are being more intentional, selective, and discerning about the choices they make, are making the decision to support our organizations over all the others that are packed into their mailboxes and inboxes.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.ARCHITECT Brand + Design Collective is a strategy development firm focused on community-centered and diverse philanthropy, leveraging the best practices in storytelling, strategic marketing and inclusive fundraising strategies. To learn more, visit www.architectyourambition.com to learn more The first stop for 2023 on the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow will be in Omaha, Nebraska on Friday, March 3rd in partnership with the Nonprofit Association of the Midlands. If you’d like to register for this event, just visit their website at here.We’re trying something new. The Butterfly Effect, our new publication on Substack, is where we make sense of the ideas and opinions that inform our consulting practices at Responsive Fundraising. Every week we will guarantee for our subscribers a thoughtful, long form article that will challenge how we think about contemporary fundraising practices. We would be delighted if you would subscribe.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

As we have resumed our roadshows, we have found that shining a spotlight on local leaders greatly enhances the learning experiences for our participants. My guest today on The Fundraising Talent Podcast is Nancy Williams, Founder and CEO of No Empty Pots, and a member of the line-up for our Roadshow stop in Omaha next month. In partnership with The Nonprofit Association of the Midlands, Nancy, Brandi Holys, Kenley Sturdivant-Wilson, and Kevin Mahler have partnered with Responsive to ensure a high-energy, thought-provoking series of conversations about what it means to build and sustain meaningful relationships with donors in the twenty-first century.The mission of No More Empty Pots is to connect individuals and groups to improve self-sufficiency, regional food security, and economic resilience in urban and rural communities through advocacy and action. What I most appreciated about today’s conversation was that Nancy was so clearly able to translate the Indigenous circular wisdom that informs their efforts at No More Empty Pots to our work as fundraising professionals. Nancy challenged us to see the interdependency that exists within all human systems and to appreciate the level of intentionality that we all want to bring to our most important decisions.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.The first stop for 2023 will be in Omaha, Nebraska on Friday, March 3rd in partnership with the Nonprofit Association of the Midlands. If you’d like to register for this event, just visit their website at here.We’re trying something new. The Butterfly Effect, our new publication on Substack, is where we make sense of the ideas and opinions that inform our consulting practices at Responsive Fundraising. Every week we will guarantee for our subscribers a thoughtful, long form article that will challenge how we think about contemporary fundraising practices. We would be delighted if you would subscribe.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

For those of us who want to overhaul charitable giving and reengineer the status quo, Sara’s TedTalk offers a glimpse of what we need to do. Sara wants us all to make sense of the power of collective giving. Sara is the founding CEO of Philanthropy Together, a growing movement of people-powered philanthropy aimed at resourcing grassroots nonprofits, shifting power dynamics, and promoting widespread philanthropy. In her Ted Talk, Sara describes the four components of a thriving giving circle: belonging, discourse, trust, and to act. Sara wants us to see that collective giving affords us an opportunity to practice democracy in a way that our individual giving habits can’t. The decision-making process allows us to get outside of our own heads and to hear another person’s perspective, perhaps someone with whom we don’t have much in common. As we emerge from the recent pandemic, Sara wants us all to realize that we are hungry to find meaning in groups and understand that there is nothing better than coming together to deliberate and choose to support causes that we collectively believe in. As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.We’re trying something new. The Butterfly Effect, our new publication on Substack, is where we make sense of the ideas and opinions that inform our consulting practices at Responsive Fundraising. Every week we will guarantee for our subscribers a thoughtful, long form article that will challenge how we think about contemporary fundraising practices. We would be delighted if you would subscribe.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Some of us are having a hard time making sense of why, in the last two decades, nonprofits have lost the support of twenty-million donors; and we don’t understand the appeal of donor advised funds, giving circles, and direct giving as alternatives to the traditional pathways that our charities create. I would insist that these and other trends are the effects of a mischaracterization of the donor and their growing intolerance for a role that they never agreed to play. Where did the idea that our donors should behave like passive, predictable consumers come from?In making sense of how this mischaracterization of the donor evolved, I have found Jon Alexander’s, Citizens: Why the Key to Fixing Everything is All of Us, especially helpful. Jon’s book gives us a critical lens through which to understand why our organizations have become what Robert Putnam called, “mailing list organizations” and, as one of my guests has described, why our sector has become so CRM-centric. Jon’s book affords us a useful framework for what I believe will need to change in order for our professional community to actually achieve many of the higher aspirations that have been called for recently. Calling for change, without demonstrating a willingness to change the nature of our relationships, is just blowing smoke.Jon’s book challenges us to recognize that our identities as consumers have been failing us for quite some time, and the fundraising community is no exception to these disappointments. Jon explains, “…the Consumer Story is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions, and the Citizen Story is emerging. People are dissatisfied with being mere Consumers, yearn for deeper agency even though we lack the words to express it, and have an innate if imprecise sense that authentic participation holds the key to a brighter future.”For those who want to make sense of the mischaracterization that we have assigned our donors and how its effects have become so pervasive and detrimental to our efforts, today’s podcast conversation is a great place to start. In our conversation, Jon helps us see how the allure of Effective Altruism, the use of the hero story, and the inclination to create menus are all indicators that we’re collectively stuck in the consumer story. As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.We’re trying something new. The Butterfly Effect, our new publication on Substack, is where we make sense of the ideas and opinions that inform our consulting practices at Responsive Fundraising. Every week we will guarantee for our subscribers a thoughtful, long form article that will challenge how we think about contemporary fundraising practices. We would be delighted if you would subscribe.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

David and Sam are both members of The Chartered Institute of Fundraising’s Supporter Experience Committee. This network of fundraisers is dedicated to identifying best practices and providing thought leadership aimed at ensuring quality supporter experiences. In today’s podcast conversation, David and Sam challenge us to ask whether less homogenous and less industrialist fundraising practices might improve the fundraising experience for those on both sides of the exchange. Many of David and Sam’s observations beg the question of why so many charities remain content to squeeze enormous populations of donors into a system that assumes that everyone shares the same motivations for giving.   Throughout our conversation, David and Sam repeatedly brought us back to the opportunity they see for sector leaders willing to make changes that might turn around some of the troubling trends and remedy some of the mistakes we make over and over again. We explored some of the insights that these leaders might glean from organizations like BLM and Extinction Rebellion as well as the response to the conflict in Ukraine and the University of Tennessee’s crowdfunding campaign for new goalposts.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.———————————————————————We’re trying something new. The Butterfly Effect, our new publication on Substack, is where we make sense of the ideas and opinions that inform our consulting practices at Responsive Fundraising. Every week we will guarantee for our subscribers a thoughtful, long form article that will challenge how we think about contemporary fundraising practices. We would be delighted if you would subscribe.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Alex isn’t kidding when he says it seems like The Chronicle of Philanthropy has been retelling the same story about disillusioned fundraisers for a long time. Those of us who have been around for a while are well aware of the fact that, at any given time, at least half of the fundraisers out there are looking for another job and that very few boards and bosses have come to a consensus about how fundraising really works. As of late this familiar story has zeroed in on how poorly prepared some employers are with making hiring decisions and how often they miss opportunities by relying on an arduous interview process.Alex believes hiring managers need a wake up call; and, on the flip side, he insists that candidates need to know how to see the red flags that distinguish between an job where you’re being set up to fail rather than given an opportunity to thrive. For example, Alex wants fundraisers to listen more closely to whether an employer characterizes the work as exchanging gifts with those who share a genuine and meaningful relationship with our organization; or does the employer believe that the donor is merely a passive consumer and an opportunity to close a quick deal. I was grateful to hear that Alex had taken my recent recommendation to read Benjamin Barber’s Consumed which likens our consumer society to that of a child whose impulsive behavior prevents them from achieving their full potential. As I have said many times before, this is where I believe fundraising finds itself today: in the midst of its messy adolescence and unable to discern between what’s really working in its favor versus getting in its way. I am confident that as we develop a collective willingness to wrestle with tough questions of the sort that Alex and I did today, and as donors are afforded opportunities to play active, citizen-like roles with the organizations they support, our sector and society as a whole will reap the benefits that accompany mature, sustainable relationships.As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.———————————————————————We’re trying something new. The Butterfly Effect, our new publication on Substack, is where we make sense of the ideas and opinions that inform our consulting practices at Responsive Fundraising. Every week we will guarantee for our subscribers a thoughtful, long form article that will challenge how we think about contemporary fundraising practices. We would be delighted if you would subscribe.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Stuart wants us to carefully think about whether we’re designing resilience into our organizations and, if not, ask ourselves if difficult and uncertain times are really to blame for some of our financial misfortunes. I have been an admirer of Stuart’s work for quite some time. His research begs the question of whether our scholars have done more harm than good by borrowing as many theories as they have from the marketplace. Stuart’s “Nonprofit First” thinking insists that we should construct theory from what has emerged within our sector rather than from somewhere else. During today’s conversation, Stuart and I unraveled how nonprofit organizations often come about with the help of government subsidies only to later become increasingly dependent on charitable giving. As the government fades, many nonprofit leaders implicitly assume the donor will step up to the plate and play their role similar to how the government did. What these leaders miss is that these are fundamentally different types of relationships, distinct types of exchanges, all functioning in accordance with completely different playbooks. Stuart would insist that designing for resilience starts with knowing how to make these kinds of distinctions.Looking ahead, we have quite a line-up of conversations set for January centered around the notion of citizenship and what it looks like when our donors insist on something more than the passive, consumer-like role to which our organizations have grown accustomed. If you would like to be a guest on The Fundraising Talent Podcast in 2023, email me anytime; our listeners would be delighted to hear your big ideas and bold opinions.As always, we are especially grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

I was grateful to Alex, co-founder of The Giving Block, for ensuring that we add a timely conversation about the FTX-Bankman Fried collapse to The Fundraising Talent Podcast’s library of conversations. Shortly after this story started making headlines, I appreciated seeing that Alex and Pat offered their take on the situation and assured nonprofit leaders that the effect of this fiasco would be minimal for most charities and their crypto-minded donors. This was perhaps welcome news for those who, like myself, are only beginners at making sense of how cryptocurrency fits in our fundraising efforts. What effect all this will have on effective altruism, Bankman-Fried’s ideological framework of choice, is yet to be seen. Alex wants us to remind ourselves that the failure of an individual or an entity is not the failure of entire industry. Alex explained that FTX played a very small role in Crypto Philanthropy and he insisted that this will not slow down the growth of this industry. Alex explained that twice as many nonprofit organizations are accepting cryptocurrency donations through their platform than were a year ago, and every month the team at The Giving Block help hundreds of charities design and launch their crypto-philanthropy programs.Listeners, please forgive the echo for about the first 7 minutes. We were able to clean that up so as to ensure a painless listen thereafter. As always, we are especially grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

As a leader in Seattle’s arts community and a college professor, Jackson is just getting started. Southern Theatre magazine has recently named Jackson among a group of rising leaders who are paving the way for the future of fundraising. What I most appreciated about today’s conversation was that, while Jackson is explicit in his desire to do away with fundraising’s narrow focus on the top three percent, he’s evidently chosen not to be envious and make wealth-bashing part of his repertoire. Jackson isn’t typecasting anyone.In today’s conversation, Jackson challenges fundraisers to check themselves before they set out to raise money. He wants fundraisers to think carefully about their own relationship with money and wealth and to examine how they go about engaging with and soliciting the support of their donors. Jackson wants us to ask ourselves whether we’re creating opportunities for our donors to be better people and whether we’re creating experiences aimed at creating more than mere transactions. Like so many of my guests in the last couple of years, Jackson has high aspirations and wants to see qualitative improvements in how we carry out our work.Much of our conversation was about how fundraisers can best steward relationships with their donors. For example, Jackson described the opportunity that nonprofits have to curate meaningful experiences for those who began their life with very little and then, late in life, found themselves with more than they could have ever imagined. Jackson wants us to envision our organizations not only as places for raising awareness and providing services but also as places for demonstrating solidarity and expressing gratitude.As always, we are especially grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com

Today’s podcast conversation offers a tough pill that I suspect some of us aren’t willing to swallow. Jim wants us to wrestle with the question of why today’s nonprofits are afraid of their own obsolescence. Instead of planning to eventually close, Jim wants to know why, for all intents and purposes, our organizations collectively make up what has become a growth industry. Are we willing to admit to ourselves that raising money for problems that never get solved is big business? Jim’s tough pill reminds me of the “Shirky Principle” which says that institutions will preserve a problem to which they are the solution. When we think about our fundraising efforts, have our donors become co-conspirators in ignoring root problems and not telling the truth? Are we placating our donors with easy-to-fund problems with which we believe they will be more comfortable and of which they can easily make sense? Jim wants to us to find the courage to solicit support for real solutions that are complex, difficult to understand, and might even make us all feel uncomfortable.As always, we are especially grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.  This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fundraisingtalent.substack.com