October 26, 2009
Characteristics of an Effective Board Leader, Plus More: Monday's Roundup
- Board leaders need to effectively communicate a group’s mission to the public, work well with a chief executive, and be a major financial supporter, writes Alice Korngold, a charity consultant in New York, on a Fast Company magazine blog.
- The word donor is used to describe anyone who supports a charity, but the title should be reserved for contributors who give at least 10 percent of their household income to charity and meet other criteria, writes Greg Fox on the Donor Power blog, which is operated by Merkle, a fund-raising company.
- The traditional model of conferences — keynote speeches, plenaries, networking breaks — is dead, writes Nathaniel Whittemore on Change.org’s social entrepreneurship blog. Mr. Whittemore, director of the Center for Global Engagement at Northwestern University, predicts that conferences will become less hierarchical, and he cites the Pop!Tech conference, an event on social innovation, and Opportunity Collaboration, an anti-poverty conference, as examples.
Comments
Previous: Talking About Network TV's Service Campaign: Weekend Edition
Next: Sexism in the Nonprofit World, and More: Tuesday's Roundup
I’m not sure that I would agree with Greg Fox that the word “donor” should be redefined to honor only the people who basically tithe for charity. I think he’d have a stronger case if he came up with a new title for the tithers and leave the commonly used “donor” alone. I think it would be less confusing.
— annetta Oct 26, 02:34 PM #
Bullfeathers – Donors are Donors
Fundraising for non-profits is hard enough, without non-profit professionals trying to make it harder. “Bullfeathers” to quote Teddy Roosevelt is my reaction to the post about givers not having “earned the right” to be called “donors” in the Donor Power Blog.
The blog that used to written by Jeff Merkle, DonorPowerBlog, is now written by Greg Fox who managed to insult millions of Americans in new position as the Donor Power blogger with his self proclaimed mission to use the term “donors” only for people who give ten percent or more of their family income to non-profits. This post is actually one of the more insulting blog posts I have ever read, and given that I read a fair number of blog posts, this was not an easy accomplishment.
What an asinine (or in plain English, utterly foolish) idea. It’s tough enough to find and keep donors; Mr. Fox now wants you to insult them as part of the process of them giving your organization their money, instead of thanking them for being a donor. Unless you have given more than 10% of your income to a charity (or maybe just a few), or have contributed money for more than 3 years, (2 years, 11 months apparently doesn’t count), you’re not a “donor” – yet. To Mr. King, the term donor is a reserved term, only for the truly honorable. I guess maybe “schmuck” is what he wants you to call until you reach “donor” status by his criteria. He never says what the term is for someone who gives money to your non-profit, but not at a sufficient level to be called a “donor.”
To me this is the antithesis of what community building and fundraising is all about. Regardless of the amount, you thank the donor for their contribution to your non-profit, and you do things to help them want to continue an association with your non-profit for multiple years. Insulting them as the first communication doesn’t strike me as the smartest tactic. “Thanks for sending us your money, if you send more, maybe we will be able to call you a donor, and by the way is this gift 10% of your income or not?
I understand and get the principle of the fundraising pyramid, but the point is that all givers are donors, and it’s fine to have leadership levels, which certainly many non-profits use to bring more attention to higher value donors, but what a waste of brain power and energy to try and convince the non-profit world not to call donors, donors.
Regards,
Bill Huddleston
www.cfcfundraising.com
Blog:www.cfctreasures.wordpress.com
— Bill Huddleston Oct 26, 04:33 PM #
I don’t know Mr. Fox, but I have a rough idea of his I.Q.
His “crusade” also places him at an appropriate point in history — around the 12th Century.
I may have to stop reading the Chronicle. Boneheads seem to be coming out of the woodwork.
— Jeff Steele Oct 26, 04:54 PM #
I certainly agree that people who support our not for profit organizations are deeply worthy of our sincere honor and respect.
That said, as I read Mr. Fox’s blog, I noted that he points out that the “motivation and intent” of some supporters is more laudable than others.
Anyone who has had the experience of a “supporter” try to donate something the organization doesn’t want and can’t use – such as time-share property that has lost its market value – has had to confront motivation and intent that is less than magnanimous.
Many readers probably are familiar with the eight levels of Tzedaka (not exactly “charity”) about which the 12th century Jewish philospher Maimonides wrote. All Tzedaka is worthy of praise, but the style of giving, as well as the intent and motivation of the donor are the characteristics that raise one type of gift over another. The anonymous gift, for example is of a higher order than the gift where the donor’s name is known; and the gift given happily is of a higher order than the gift given grudgingly.
Interestingly, the highest level gift is not a gift at all, but a loan or a job – something that enables the recipient to work and survive without having to rely on the charity of others.
— Ken Gabel Oct 26, 08:28 PM #
OK, Ken, we accept your credentials as a Talmudic scholar. But, unless you’re suggesting that we should somehow categorize gifts on the basis of motivation, I have no idea at all what point you were attempting to make.
— Jeff Steele Oct 27, 12:09 AM #
Correction to Bullfeather post, name of original Donor Power Blog is Jeff Brooks, who used to work at Merkle, now blogging at
www.futurefundraisingnow.com.
Bill Huddleston
www.cfctreasures.wordpress.com
— Bill Huddleston Oct 27, 01:45 PM #
7. That was why the term Major Donor was coined. If a person has enough wealth he or she, is usually identified as a philanthropist. To try and redefine the meaning of a donor at this stage seems ludicrous. This will only lead to mass confusion.
— Jack Ryger Oct 27, 02:33 PM #
This is the absolute worse time in economic history to insult or bully donors. Give thanks, instead for their time, talent and treasure regardless of the amount or intention. I would find it impossible to disregard the value of the time a volunteer tutor or mentor spends with a child whose life will be improved because of his/her effort. You can make/get more money but time is a limited and scarce resource for both giver and recipient. If you live as though you’ll die tomorrow, what value would you put on your time?
— Marcia DeBock Oct 29, 04:05 PM #
I agree with Alice Korngold on the importance of the Board Chair. When a nonprofit is beginning an executive transition, it is the perfect time to think about board leadership and board succession. Smart candidates are going to look closely at the Board Chair and the overall effectiveness of the Board.
— Barbara Gilvar Nov 4, 11:37 AM #