 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Sign up to receive PND e-newsletters. |
|
| |
|
| Re: Database Screening and Prospect Research
Posted by Tony Poderis   on 7/6/2011, 9:10 am, in reply to "Re: Database Screening and Prospect Research"
VIP Poster
Karen: You are welcome. A thought followed regarding a piece on my W/P file which I have used for others from time to time. It deals with the critically-important, detailed, rating process. If any helps, then here goes:
(Start)
You know the old Benjamin Franklin limerick, beginning with, “For Want Of A Nail ...,” well, I believe that for the want of a suggested asking amount for a prospective donor, a campaign can be lost.
No one would argue the fact that every fund-raising campaign needs a goal and that everyone connected with the campaign, including prospective donors, needs to be aware of that goal. Then, to my way of thinking, we must work to set a “goal” (rated suggested asking) for each prospective donor, and in time, we must share that goal (what we hope they will give) with the prospect. So, how do we go about doing this? With prospect rating meetings.
Prospect rating meetings for individual donors are usually the most important meetings that will be held for any fund-raising campaign. They work best when participation is limited to a few people comfortable with discussing the personal finances of others. Guideposts to a determination of a proposed asking amount include, size of previous gifts, what the rating committee knows about the individuals, and what the donors give to other organizations.
Those not able to be identified and rated to a given amount, should still be provided with a suggested asking amount, whether if they be for new contributions, or you are seeking an increased gift from previous donors. Use the very successful process which works a philanthropic-driven “Membership” campaign, where various gift levels are established, and donors are either offered token “perks” (due economy of expense, time and effort observed), or they are informed about what good things are made possible by the respective contribution.
--- The Name Is The Game: Memberships And Named Gift Opportunities
http://www.raise-funds.com/1998/the-name-is-the-game-memberships-and-named-gift-opportunities/
For the rating meeting, the prospects should be all on one list. Names only. Groups of five. Maybe two columns on standard letter paper. Typed names with a blank ________ line behind each name for someone designated to fill in the consensus rating (i.e., suggested asking) amount.
You have at hand one computer print out with the "profile" of each name, so if anyone asks, you know the addresses for clarification, and you know how much they gave, if a previous donor, though that is not necessary.
What they gave before is not the point. It's what they can give next which you are working to determine. You do not have all of that data in front of each rating person because it will be distracting. All you want to know for each prospect as you go down the list, is something like this ... "What do you think and Charlie Martin might give?" You "fill in the blanks accordingly."
You, or the Chairperson, should go down the list, and read aloud, name by name, and pause only long enough for the rating number to be given and heard in a chorus of agreement.
Try very hard to avoid having the same list rated by more than one person, separately and independently. Otherwise, each person would rate each prospect on her or his own, and you'll have a mess of a time tying later to find the common denominator rating since chances are there will be wide range of ratings for some, which you will later need to resolve. (Worse, is when the list of names is mailed to the rating person, or she or he takes it away to rate “later,” for ultimate return to headquarters. This almost never happens. “Out of sight, out of mind.” Keep in full control of the list being reviewed on site, in person.)
I've conducted the prospect rating process with such a listing hundreds of names. I learned that one must be firm, but polite, to keep on track. The trick is to read each name aloud, have the group chime in with the consensus rating, record it, then move on fast to the next name. If there is a pause between names waiting for a rating, it simply means they do not have a good idea of the rating, so you go on to the next name.
Dollar amounts. Depending on the number of gifts, in which sizes, you need for your particular campaign, you set the sights with a gift table objective, then begin to rate each prospect to see if your need can be met with the reality and the results of the ratings.
In summary, remember, the best way such rating sessions have worked for me is to:
1. Work with but one list of all prospects.
2. Work with only their names
3. Have a blank line following each name to fill in the consensus rating amount
4. Read the names aloud, one by one down the line from A to Z and move fast to encourage the consensus rating.
5. Avoid unnecessary personal talk about the prospects. No gossip allowed.
6. Do not dwell on those who cannot give, or who cannot give in the amounts you want. Move on past those individuals. The rating committee sometimes gets enamored of talking about everything except what they should be talking about. Guard against that. Save time and energy by deftly deflecting comments about what people cannot give. Get a rating nonetheless when told that an individual will not give a set amount, even though it is agreed they could do so, if they chose to.
Never let anyone in such meetings say “No” for the prospect, and thus remove a giving possibility. Saying “No” to a donation, is the sole privilege of the person asked.
(End)
Best fund-raising wishes,
Tony
Tony Poderis
http://www.raise-funds.com
- Feature Articles
- Worksheets & Forms
• Raise-funds.com is a FREE website
|
| |
