Let Go Together

by:

Joe Patti

I got a comment on one of my older entries today from a guy who has recognized that many surveys of audience participation say people often choose to attend a performance because others are going or someone else has made the arrangements for them.

Ric Mazereeuw runs Two for the Show, a site specifically aimed at getting people together for event attendance. Better formatted than Craigslist and more focussed than Meetup (though large as neither), the site allows you to connect with people with similar interests without providing your actual email address.

I am going to hazard a guess and say that the service started in Canada given that the Toronto and Vancouver pages have the most people signed up and most of the US pages are flagged “New”.

The whole behavior of depending one person to initiate the idea of going to a performance and making the arrangements is so prevelant (at least according to studies I have read) that I specifically ask on our audience surveys how we can make the process easier for the coordinators.

I also started offering a mini-group discount for groups of 8 or more and a larger one for the traditional 20+. People were actually taking advantage of the 8+ discount in satisfying numbers. I probably need to do a better job of prominently promoting it since the highest point of activity was right after the brochure mailed.

It also occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea for arts organizations to link to the MeetUp and Two for the Show sites and direct people there to find like minded with whom to hang out and attend. Last year when I participated in Take A Friend to the Orchestra, I sent out a call and ended up going with people I had never met before.

As I was looking at the sites I was thinking that there might be more participants if only they were advertised more. Then of course it struck me that arts organizations could help by actually directing people there. MeetUp has a page for my city but there really aren’t any arts and culture attendance groups.

If I created a group on Craiglist or got Two for the Show to make one for my city, prominently linked to it, mentioned it in my monthly newsletters and encouraged other organizations to do the same, it might get a little momentum going in the community.

Even if it only resulted in a handful of people getting together, the service is free and it takes nearly no effort to point people toward it. If you get 10 extra people coming to a show each year, you are doing pretty well for your investment.

One thing to note, MeetUp is a little different than Two for the Show in that it is structured to help people organize get togethers so starting a group there carries an expectation that you will be getting folks together and does carry a cost.

If anyone else knows of other social networking services that might be helpful in getting people together and their butts moving toward seats, lemme know!

Tricky Pledges

by:

Joe Patti

Yesterday I linked to an entry on Where Most Needed blog detailing how to protect against donors who may renege on their pledges. Where Most Needed and the accompanying linked Wall Street Journal article talk about how it can be tricky to broach the subject of a legally binding pledge agreement lest you offend your wealthy and influential benefactor.

What they don’t mention is the possible public relations problems you might face as well. Some years ago I worked for a theatre that a well known celebrity had pledged to in return for the naming of one of the performance spaces. Unfortunately, his wife filed for divorce. Seeing large alimony payments in his future combined with some other financial troubles, he chose to discontinue his payments.

The theatre was undergoing some financial problems of its own so the board felt it was irresponsible not to pursue the collection of the pledge and chose to sue the celebrity.

The way it ended up playing out in the newspaper editorials and letters to the theatre was that the organization should be grateful for the money it had already received and stop kicking a favorite son when he is down.

This seems to be one of the trickiest points for non-profits. When someone makes a pledge, I think we would all agree they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart. (With perhaps some advice from their accountant.) I think we can all at least empathize with the point of view that if you, as a donor, run into financial problems, you are going to want to reserve the right to hold on to the money you have earned. You are probably going to feel bad about it, but you are going to see your choice as logical.

The problem for non-profits in situations like the one I mention is that people can empathize. This type of thing easily happens on the family level. You promise your child a car when they turn 18, you run into financial trouble and you find you have to tell your child that if they want to keep the car they are going to have to get a job to continue making payments. The child has to work harder or see if grandma can help with the money.

I think this might be partially what happened in the case of my experience. People in the community could imagine themselves falling upon hard times and didn’t like the idea of the theatre coming after them, even for a $100 pledge, because they made a generous gesture.

The public may have sympathy for your non-profit organization because you built based on a promise of money but there is a good chance they are going to see the donor’s decision as practical. The expectation is going to be that you will work harder and find other benefactors. The consequence of not doing so in my car example is to take the bus or bum a ride from friends. The equivalence for a capital project is tougher- scaling back activities (not easy if you don’t even have a roof on yet) or performing in other facilities.

It would be extremely important to have a good solid public relations plan in place before deciding to legally pursue a large lapsed donation. One wrong move and you can poison the well for donations from an entire community.

I am going to peer around philanthropy blogs to see if there are any detailed suggestions of how to be well prepared in these instances. I would be very interested to learn if anyone has come across any good plans or has executed a public relations campaign that preserved the communal good will in a situation where it may have been lost. (Instances where the donor reneges due to their own financial malfeasance tends to create sympathy for the deprived recipient.)

Deeper into the Philanthropy Blogs

by:

Joe Patti

My intent yesterday was to report a bit further on some of the entries I caught a glance of while listing Philanthropy Blogs in Monday’s entry. For those who read such blogs regularly what I saw might seem mundane, but as a new reader I was excited and engaged by what I saw.

As I began to plumb a little deeper into the blogs I became convinced that the philanthropy industry blogs were the site of contentious debate. First was this entry on Gift Hub about the writer of Wealth Bondage calling philanthrophy bloggers Uncle Toms beholden to the wealthy.

I got so wrapped up in reading both sides of the story on the entry and learning about the Wealth Bondage blog that I found myself short on time to do an entry. White Courtesy Telephone notes that WB writer Happy Tutor styles himself as a modern day Diogenes challenging all who linger too close to the blog while on the information superhighway.

It wasn’t until I happened to go back and read the comments section on Gift Hub that I saw the author, Philip Cubeta, claim to be Happy Tutor. The satire tags on the entry seem to bear it out as far as that goes. Apparently he is a man at war against himself, casting aspersions at his alter egos. Or may be not.

I am still a little confused and unsure about the truth of the matter. It is intellectual elitism or intellectual rigor rarely seen in these days. Let’s just say I walked in a little late on a joke and caught the last line and punchline. I thought I would just shed a little light on the situation, as dim a bulb as I might be, in case others were exploring those blogs and were also taken in/confused.

Among the more interesting entries I came across during my explorations was this one on White Courtesy Telephone about Power and Powerlessness in Foundations. The entry was revelatory for me because it didn’t touch upon the relationship between grantors and grantees as I assumed it would, but rather on the internal power struggles of foundations.

Over time I came to believe that my colleagues and I acted out of a sense of powerlessness. Think about it. We start our foundation careers with a diminished sense of self-worth. Many of us … were lackluster community organizers or so-so [nonprofit executive directors]. We weren’t up for the challenge of real work 🙂 And for reasons that had little to do with actual talent, we found ourselves in foundation jobs that paid well and were very secure. We were fooling ourselves because as program officers, our jobs were never 100 percent secure. There were always a hundred other people out there ready to replace us.

There was also a great entry on Donor Power Blog- Marketing: No Longer A Department. Blog author Jeff Brooks points out that “It’s everyone’s job to tell the story [of the organization] in a motivating and exciting way.” Not only that, it is incumbent on the marketing department to let them rather than trying to wholly control the transmission of the message themselves.

Where Most Needed blog had two entries that really caught my eye. One on protecting against donors who renege on pledges. The other entry is on dealing with demanding donors.

The final blog entry I wanted to cite today is from Charity Governance where author Jack Siegel makes a case for why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act shouldn’t be applied to non-profits. His basic argument is that non-profits lack the monetary and personnel resources (as well as availability of external auditing firms) to comply. The entry is well written and cross-referenced with Security and Exchange Commission and Government Accounting Office publications. (Be warned, you can’t avoid finding out about the book he wrote.)

Philanthropy Blogs

by:

Joe Patti

The Chronicle of Philanthropy for this week features an article about non-profit blogging. The blogs it mentions aren’t on my favorites list (ones I read already) but might be of interest to you. Some of the blogs give tips about fundraising, others are more watchdog in nature and others are more general in focus.

I will list a couple of the ones mentioned since the article doesn’t provide links. Each blog has its own list of links so my small list will start you on your way to greater exploration. Some of the material is more appropriate for people running huge charities and foundations than for development staff of individual arts organizations. There is something for everyone in this little list-good ideas, thoughtful analysis, words to the wise and a couple chuckles.

I wanted to suggest taking a look at the story too as it discusses the different motivations people have for blogging. Some of the reasons might resonate with you and inspire you to blog. The field is pretty empty according the article. Only about 100 non-profit blogs in a sea of millions.

Watch Dog and Critical Eye Blogs

White Courtesy Telephone
Charity Governance Blog
Where Most Needed
Don’t Tell The Donor
(Not mentioned in the article. Came across via someone else recently. Can’t recall who or where.)
Trent Stamp’s Take (written by president of non-profit watchdog, Charity Navigator)

General Resource Blogs

Gift Hub
The Agitator -Written by Direct Mail Fundraisers
Donor InSite
Donor Power Blog – Just a caveat about the advice– it is written by a for profit consulting firm according to the article. That said, very interesting reading and I there doesn’t seem to be a hard sell for their services or areas only available to clients.