In the previous article we looked at why leadership sometimes “stinks at the head”, missing their important and critical role in the fundraising process.  But now, let’s test how your organization rates.

You may think that your leadership is successfully engaged in the process because there is a development committee that reviews lists and talks about how much money is “out there”.  But if you can’t answer “yes” to these questions then don’t be so sure:

• -Does the board have a development committee that is actively engaged in the fundraising process? (meaning, do they regularly get positive results?)
• -Do the organization’s executive and artistic leadership regularly participate in the process of identifying, cultivating, soliciting and appreciating donors?
• -Does leadership have quantifiable goals related to the overall contributed revenue target?  Do they measure them?  Do they report them to the rest of the board?
• -Does your leadership (and do you) know every single donor / donor representative who makes up the top 20 percent of your organization’s base of givers?
• -Does your leadership continue to bring new prospective names to the table to be vetted for possible cultivation?

If you can answer “yes” to these questions, then keep moving forward – you’re doing terrific!  If you find yourself answering “no” to many of the questions, then it’s time to start taking steps to actively engage the leadership so that they share the ownership of the fund development program.

There is a related issue when defining “leadership in fundraising” – who should you involve?  Some organizations define it as “all board, all artistic and all executive leadership” – often called the “cookie cutter approach” because everyone is expected to do the same work.  Other organizations define their fundraising leadership as, “our development committee only, plus selected leadership”.  Then there are multiple scenario variations which can include an assortment of leadership involvement.  I’ll leave the discussion of those definitions for another time because it does (and should) vary from organization to organization.

For now just do a “gut check” and make sure that the CDO and his / her supporting staff are active in meeting our contributed revenue goals – but that they are not alone.  The first order of business is to be an engaged leadership unit so that you can indeed answer “yes” to all of the questions above and keep the “leadership head” from stinking.

A sometimes tongue-in-cheek blogger, Bob Swaney is a successful 20+ year veteran of fundraising for the arts and is the founder of Robert Swaney Consulting, Inc.  For more information, you can email Bob at rsc@rrsconsult.net or visit www.rrsconsult.net .

I’ve read that the freshness of a dead fish can be judged from the condition of its head. When a fish begins to rot, it first begins to “stink from the head”.  The same can sometimes be said regarding organizational leadership in fundraising.

Once an organization hires a Chief Development Officer (CDO), the board and executive leadership often begin to rest easy.  After all, now that there is someone in place to handle fundraising, everyone else can move on to other organizational priorities, right?  “If the new CDO needs us, s/he will let us know”, right?  In reality, I am of course being a little tough on the leadership, but please read on…

We know that most organizations don’t truly abandon their staff, but I would submit that at some sub-conscious level the CDO’s hiring is often followed with a little mental “check” in a box to signify that all things fundraising will now be taken care of by someone who is specifically put on the payroll for that very reason.  It’s almost irresistible not to check off that little box!

Reality is exactly the opposite.  A development director is hired to engage the board and other leadership in the fundraising program, not to replace them.  A good chief development officer will see the board, the executive leadership and the artistic leadership (among others) as essential tools for creating leverage that makes the fundraising program ultimately productive. But until the leadership sees itself in that same way, the CDO has a nearly impossible task ahead.

Why is it important to engage leadership?  Simply put, because leadership leads.  If they actively “give and get”, if they set a vision and inspire others to literally “buy in” to that vision and if they focus on making philanthropic support a key priority to the organization, others will follow.  Leadership’s active participation in – and focus on – fund development sends a positive message to the community that only leadership can send.  Leadership’s lack of interest and participation unfortunately does the same…and that is when the head starts to stink!

In the next article I’ll provide some key questions to help you know whether or not your leadership is as engaged as they should be.

A sometimes tongue-in-cheek blogger, Bob Swaney is a successful 20+ year veteran of fundraising for the arts and is the founder of Robert Swaney Consulting, Inc.  For more information, you can email Bob at rsc@rrsconsult.net or visit www.rrsconsult.net .

In the previous article we looked at the initial steps to analyzing how your annual campaign is “weighted” in terms of activity and revenue.  Today’s article will wrap-up the “next steps” and give you some food for thought as you go jump the shark for good!

Because time isn’t properly leveraged, many AF programs raise in excess of (a startling) 70+% of the goal in Q3-4 of the fiscal year.  That means that it took six months to get the first 30% and (hopefully) momentum will spike in the following six months to secure the second half (can anyone yell, “SHARK”!?!).  The loading of activities is all wrong for a safe, predictable campaign.

After you know the history of how your campaign is loaded, then start with your plan.  What if you could achieve 75% of your goals by the end of the second fiscal quarter?  How would you get all of the renewals, lapsed calls completed?  How could you close most of the sponsorships?  How about the “family” campaign (board, staff, musicians / artists / etc.)? What else can be ‘moved up’ in the frontloading process?

The beauty of frontloading is that it’s only painful one time, as you move to this new cycle (as opposed to backloading, which hurts all the time).  Therefore, it’s worth figuring out and getting over the hurdles that have prevented your campaign from getting this edge.

Here are just a few of the benefits associated with frontloading your annual fund activities:

* It minimizes the financial risk

*It provides time to react for any unexpected “hits” from last year’s renewing base

*It allows for proper identification, cultivation and solicitation of new prospective donors

Frontloading takes significant planning to implement properly.  My challenge to you is begin now to design a plan that frontloads your annual fund goals, activities, timeline and results, even if you can’t launch it until next year.  Once you work through the planning, you’ll see how “doable” the process is.  You won’t have to swim the shark; you’ll jump over him altogether.

Bob Swaney is a successful 20+ year veteran of fundraising for the arts and is the founder of Robert Swaney Consulting, Inc.  For more information, you can email Bob at rsc@rrsconsult.net or visit www.rrsconsult.net .

I’m looking forward to seeing colleagues and friends at the Arts Reach National Arts Marketing and Development Conference 2009.  The Conference is next week, October 8-11 in Los Angeles. I’ll be presenting a session entitled, “Annual Fund — Balancing Fundamentals and Innovation Through Better Analyitics.”  The Conference is sure to be informative and a lot of fun.  Hope to see you there!