I would add this: one of the things I really hate about galas is the amount of time getting ready for one eats up that you could be doing real development work. I was in a small shop once where as the development director I was the only development staff. I was the only one to send appeals, research and write grant proposals, steward donors, send acknowledgments---and plan the gala we had for 25th anniversary.  I had a volunteer committee, but they took time.

It was so hard to do it all.

I started to get migraines as an adult getting ready for that. I was still expected to get everything else done. And I had a clueless board of directors who expected everything and wasn't good Scout learning their role--or mine. The chair said that the day after the gala we should launch a capital campaign. Dude. I have been trying to tell you the years in prep and fundraising before you go public with a campaign. The feasibility study where we hire fundraising counsel to interview key stakeholders, where we create a gift pyramid that will show us how many gifts at each Level we will need. Where we raise 60% of the goal before we go public.


They didn't listen to me. They asked a donor for a gift of $500 for the campsin when they should have asked her for $500,000. Crazy little agency. 

Anyway my small org wanted to be like the big kids but a gala wasn't not a good idea.

Later I worked for an org that had special event staff and it worked much better. We had a New Years Eve gala--and an overnight event for the kids of guests at the science museum next door. It was cool. But it was calendar year end and a busy time for me doing development work and a bit of distance toon from that.

Anyway---yeah. I don't like galas from a development point of view.

So I would need to read the thread, but I would assume nestle is a corporate sponsor. Sponsors get be endure (like X number of tables, certain publicity). It's likely not that they were invited to the gala and so have money but they were asked to be a sponsor and with that comes a donation.

Of course,whether they should have hopped in bed with nestle is another question. I mean if we care about childhood nutrition, we would distance ourselves from nestle. I often do, anyway.

If it is more convenient for the donor to meet at their office or house or at the org, that's what you do. Sometimes it's not. I do not do major gifts because of my food allergies (and animal allergies). But I do meet with donors sometimes. And I do that over coffee where I know I won't have a reaction. It is easier for them to talk in a space like that very often. It's makes for a more natural conversation.

So one gala that I did plan we had BBQ. Folks wore cowboy boots. Tickets were $50.

I am not a fan of event fundraising. I never have been. It's fundraising and not development. I do development. But there is a place for it. It might be difficult to see that unless you work in the field or spend a lot of time with a nonprofit.


You don't necessarily raise more money not having them.  In fact you often raised less.

And I should add this is why I prefer message boards to newer forms of social media.  Even for-credit college courses use this medium more often for the class to engage in dialogue.  There is a higher element for sociological discourse.  At least that's how I justify it to myself where I experience cognitive dissonance.

Stakeholder is anyone who has skin in the game whether they want to or not.  It doesn't represent your financial contribution or imply membership.  None of the aforementioned is to dissuade you from healthy skepticism.  Right now I don't have enough facts, only ignorance and supposition.  I seek wisdom, facts, and that which can help me form a reasonable initial assessment. 

Whatever part was paid for by FARE, I'm just glad you posted about it.  That along with the info in the Aimmune thread is very interesting.  Helpful to me for evaluating contributions.

We actually don't represent stakeholders as far as I can see either.  We represent dollar signs.  Adelman left FARE for Aimmune, which just got $145 million from Nestle. 

How does someone leave FARE to go into business with Aimmune?  Someone like me, and my FA kids, couldn't.  They are counting on us being customers though. 

I'm guessing I could figure Nestle didn't invest that chunk of change out of the goodness of their heart after getting an invite for FARE's gala. 




 

In a perfect world, people would give money to good causes just because. I know some do, but not enough to keep those causes afloat. Some people don't give a cr@p about good causes. But some of those people like to go to nice dress up events. Some of them like for other people to see them being generous. Events like these make it possible to get donations from such people. Some charitable events are picnic style gatherings, as you suggested gvmom, and attract a different crowd. Some are more physical endeavors, like the one I did for 10 years. Some are charity concerts. The list goes on. But there is no one type if fundraiser that will appeal to everyone, so organizations have to diversify their efforts to raise money to keep going. If they are raising more money for a worthy cause than they are putting into a fancy event, then it accomplishes something good.

I'm not sure the event in whole or even part was paid by FARE.  Sponsors most likely come into play.  Nonetheless, understanding its place in our ecosystem is still important because we represent in numbers the primary consituent stakeholder.

I get the idea that it costs money to make money.  I just don't think it needs to cost so much money to raise money.  I think these fancy deals are pretentious.  I also get the aspect of networking.  I just think it can be done cheaper or for free. 

Why not a hot dog BBQ in a park instead of a 17 course meal in a tux?  You can network while passing the relish and tossing a frisbee.   

And, why not just an appointment at the person's office rather than an expense of coffee or lunch?  It is a more efficient use of time during the day and it costs less.   

See, for me, I actually feel more generous the more things I know we aren't going to get hassled for.  One donation we make every year, well, I felt like I wanted to give way more when they announced they weren't doing one of the yearly fundraisers they used to do.  I was very excited to realize that I wouldn't get emails asking for donations or tons of emails about the particular event. 

Honestly, another donation we make, I thought they cancelled this one particular yearly event for this year, and was seriously excited that we might not be getting hassled about donations for it this year.... but then it turns out it is still happening.  It actually made me wish we made a smaller donation than we already did to them.

And, donors like me though can end up getting turned off if starts to look like our donations are going more to fluff and less to what we actually think is important.  We follow information disclosures about how much money gets spent on what.... including administrative costs.... parties.... etc.

Mac's expert context can challenge presuppositions, provide facts, and lay a foundation of industry standards.  Plus, GI Joe told me on Saturday mornings knowing is half the battle.

BTW, gvmom, I love donors like you who are passionate about the mission and just want to support it and don't care about anything else. Donors like you are golden.

Why learn?  Because I'm a stakeholder even if I'm not invited.  Also, we have a resident guru that can give a master class on this with a cherry on top.  Cheaper than tuition if you want unvarnished truth.

Oh god, y'all.* You don't pull money out of thin air. It costs money to raise money. Period. I costs me money to send appeals or to have a calling program. It costs money to meet a donor and for coffee or lunch.

The important thing is what the org NETS. And we don't always look at netting in one fiscal year; we look at lifetime value.

A smart org knows that you have to have a variety of approaches--a diverse portfolio of appeals--to attract as many donors as possible.

We can want every single donor to simply give altruistically, but not everyone gives the same way.

If you ever responded to a public radio pledge drive, you essentially became like the gala donor. Even if you didn't take the mug. If you respond to pledge, you are pledge-responsive. You have a lower retention rate than if you are direct mail responsive. And a far lower retention rate than if you just call an org you love and say "I will give you $15/month because your work is important."

If I waited for people to just be moved to give without giving them vehicles for giving other than our website, my org would have to close its doors.

We all have something inside that makes us respond to different things.

Events like this are in fact great for networking. And the visibility they raise is really substantial. When I first saw FARE have a gala in 2012 I think, I realized that they were trying to become a nationally recognized organization on par with American Cancer Society, Easter Seals, etc. inthiught, goodnfornthrm! There will be people who normally wouldn't give FAs the time of day would now be more empathetic because they had gone to a gala. FAs became a larger part of the conversation in part because FARE stepped up their fundraising game.

Galas are not my thing. But they have their place.

I do like donor recognition events, though as an introverted staff member working them, I get exhausted. Seriously, my job at them is to go up, introduce myself to strangers, and start talking. They cost money, but they serve a really good purpose and make the donor more connected to the mission of the org. They also give donors access to the Executive Director or President.


Back to spending money to make money: I set a budget every year, and I project to the penny what I expect an effort to raise. I know that for every direct mail piece (and for every segment within that piece, say, active donor, lapsed donor, prospect) what it will cost me to raise a dollar and what it will cost me to raise a donor. I know it will cost me more to get a new donor from my prospect/nondonor than one who gave last year. I know I might not raise net revenue from a prospect (I will lose money bringing in a new donor) but if I can bring in a new donor from direct mail, I will have a fairly good chance of retaining them. I know that I must always have positive net revenue in mailing donors from last year, or I don't do it. 

With an event, I will project revenue and expenses. If I don't net on it, I don't do it.

For a phone campaign, I know I better net on most segments but again may lose revenue on nondonor segments in order to gain a donor (and there I calculate lifetime value, not the value of the first gift alone).

There are various fundraising strategies at play, because one strategy doesn't work for everyone.

Okay--I should get back to fundraising, lol.  Lunch break is over!



*Said lovingly.


I accidentally hit post too soon. Oops. And I have tried to correct typos. 

Yes-- but the event does serve an additional purpose beyond the obvious pay-to-play, which yes, doesnt' sit (morally) right with me either.

That purpose is networking-- events like this can bring patient groups, industry folks, and docs all together in the same room to TALK to one another.  Small talk often leads to additional connections, and serendipitous additional networking.  It's not only about the $$.

My little medical NPO goes to patient conferences for this reason, too. 

What is it that you are trying to learn from this Mr. Barlow?

It is just another avenue to try and get money.

I actually am sort of revolted by these things in general, and think that the money they spend on putting these things on shouldn't be spent on a grand party if the cause is that important.... it should be spent on the cause. 

If it matters to you as a person and the cause is just, then really you should always want every last penny possible to go to support whatever it is, not to throw a party or make a statue for someone to put on a shelf collecting dust with all the other bits because of the size of their check.