Apparently, I am not the only one befuddled by Phil Cubeta’s many faceted mind. Sean Stannard-Stockton at Tactical Philanthropy emailed me a link to his blog addressing my entry on the subject last week.

My awareness of philanthropy blogs has been growing by leaps and bounds this past week. I am going to have to start a category in my links section (though I have quite a backlog of links to add at the moment. That’s what Christmas vacation is for I suppose.)

In case you were wondering what Tactical Philanthropy is, he outlines the process here and even discusses strategic vs. tactical a bit later on. He gives practical examples of the way to apply some of these ideas throughout the November entries. Some of these take the form of case studies for well-considered planned giving arrangements.

I know I seem to be dwelling on these blogs a great deal of late, but as I noted earlier this is virgin territory to me. Having only just begun exploring, it is all so very interesting and exciting to ponder.

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!

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.)