The Mission Paradox Blog

How's your relationship with your people?

Here's a post that will hopefully thinking about the type of relationship you have with your audience or donors.

About two years ago the theatre company I worked for was producing August Wilson's Seven Guitars.  We produced in a 220 seat theatre.  In a good night we would get maybe 90-100 people.

During this particular performance weekend we had received word that in a venue a few miles away, Tyler Perry had come to town to do one of his Ma'dea shows.

Now for those of you would aren't familar, most people think that while August Wilson and Tyler Perry are both playwrights, one (August) is clearly artistically superior to the other (Perry).

Not only was Mr. Perry in town this particular night his show had sold out for the entire weekend run . . . over 3,000 seats at $50 a pop.  As a contrast, our seats were $25.

To say I took this particular piece of news poorly would have been a huge understatement.  In fact, for a while I resented Tyler Perry every person who had gone to see his show when they could have come to see mine.

Now you may say, "Adam . . . you were just jealous."  And you are right, I was.  But as I look back on that time years later, I think what disturbed me most was my attitude about his audience . . . about the people that came to see his show.

This is where you come in.

All too often I see a company put on a poorly attended artistic production and their first thought is . . . "the reason no one came the show is because people are too busy watching junk like Dancing With The Stars to come out and see a true artistic work."

Or if you do a fundraising campaign and no one gives it's . . . "people are too selfish to give or too stupid to understand why our cause is important"

This attitude creates a horrible relationship with the people you want and need to support.

Now let's look at someone who created a great relationship with his audience . . . Tyler Perry!

That guy I couldn't stand two years ago?  The reason he had a packed house was because he had been doing his shows for over a decade all over the country.  And over that decade he had built a enduring relationship with his fans.  His message to them was simple . . ."I am doing this work for you, so come out and have a good time".

Did you notice that?  He was an artist doing his work . . . FOR HIS AUDIENCE.  Compared to an artist that just works to please his or herself.

So after a decade of building credibility and trust with his audience he had earned the right to come to town and sell out a show.

Now here's what I want you to think about . . . .

If you are an artist, what have you done in the last month to gain your audience's respect and trust?

If you run a nonprofit what have you done recently that helps to convince donors you are the best choice for their time, money and effort?

Finding your spot

The Chicago theatre scene is a lot like other markets.

It is cluttered . . . 250 theatres in all.

Their are some clear market leaders like the Goodman Theatre and the Steppenwolf Theatre that command a large share of the resources.  Each theatre has a budget well over 10 million bucks.

Then there are a few theatres (maybe 5-8) that have made it to what you could call "middle class" with budgets between 1 million and 3 million.

At the end of the spectrum there are the other 220 theatres, most of which are struggling to get past the 500,000 mark.

During a conversation about the future of Chicago theatre I was asked if another theatre would ever make it to the level of the big guys.

My honest answer was no.  The amount of resources available for art funding is limited and the big guys are very entrenched into their spot. 

But here is the thing, I think there are a lot of theatres that could use the combination of remarkable programming and smart marketing to get to the 1 million to 2 million dollar level.

I think the 5-8 theatres in that slot could become 15-20.  For a start-up theatre that is the spot they should strive for.

And it is no different for your product, whatever it is.  Can you become the biggest in the mass market?  Probably not.

Can you knock the big guy off his perch?  Not likely.

But can you find your (small) market, control it and make a good (but not massive) living?

Definitely.

The end of the wealthy arts patron

If you are involved in the nonprofit arts in one way or another you should find this report, The Future of Private Sector Giving to the Arts in America a fascinating read.

Some of the highlights of the report

Since 1992 the arts portion of philanthropic giving has dropped from 8.4% to 5.2%.

Many foundations have eliminated their arts funding component.  Don't believe me, go to the Gates Foundation and look for their arts giving.  It isn't there.

The report then offers pages of advice on what the arts sector can do to recapture the market share they have lost.  The advice is good, increased arts advocacy, more arts education in schools, etc.

Call me a skeptic, but I am not sure any of that is going to help the arts increase their market share of giving, at best it will help the arts keep the market share they have. 

I just don't think there is a combination of words or strategies that is going to make the arts a higher priority of giving then religion, health services, education, etc.

And that's probably the way it should be.

Look at it like this, I have been involved with the arts for over 13 years as a actor, playwright, director, Executive Director, Board Member and Consultant.

If someone came along and gave me a million bucks and said "give it away any way you see fit" there is no way an arts organization would get the majority of the funding.  At best I would give maybe 100,000 to some theatres I like and then I would give the rest to education or health services.

And let's be clear . . . I love the arts. 

But there are certainly other things I value more.

And since philanthropy follows trends I think we can safely say the era of the wealth arts donor funding an opera or theatre as a way of "giving arts to the masses" is pretty much behind us.

So what do you do now if there are no longer foundations or individuals willing to give big donations to your art? 

Do you just throw in the towel and apply to law school?

Hell no.

You do what some of the most successful for profit companies have learned how to do.

You get small.

If you are a new dance company looking to compete in a town with big name competitors then you start by defining your work and your target market.  Your market isn't going to be that big . . . at best it will be a micromarket but that's ok.

Then you do everything you can to dominate that tiny niche.  That audience is not only your source of earned revenue it is your best chance at contributed revenue.

You start thinking live a grassroot politican . . . you start to love the $25 gift from a supporter and start thinking of ways to turn that $25 in $75 or $300.

It is no longer enough to have a medium sized group of people that sort of like your work as an artist.

To survive now you also need a small group of people that feel passionate about you.

Because as the report indicates . . . the days of the big name, big money arts donor is over.

It's all Marketing

Consider this post the start of a transition . . .

Since the beginning of time nonprofits have had separate departments for various functions.  Fundraising had its own department.  Hiring had its own department, etc.

I've got a different idea.  All nonprofits should really only have one department.  Marketing.

Because at the of the day . . . it is ALL marketing.

Successful marketing, at its core, is about identifying a niche, understanding the needs of that niche and then informing that group about how your service can satisfy those needs.

If your a group that sells a service, like an arts organization, you can easily understand how marketing relates to sell tickets/generating earned revenue.

But it relates to so much more.

Having trouble finding or building an effective Board?  Maybe it is because the market (your organization) has not effectively communicated its need to the people it needs (good Board members). 

Or maybe it is because you have not given those Board prospects any good reasons to buy what you are selling (a slot on your Board of Directors).

Think of it this way, good marketing and branding helps to attract the right people to you and pushes the wrong people away from you.  There are a ton of organizational functions where finding the right people and getting rid of the wrong people is vital . . . not just sales.

Over the next months we are going to explore this idea further.  Agree?  Disagree?  Post a comment and let's talk about it.

Virtual Blog Exchange - Time To Meet Someone New

The fantastic folks at the Nonprofit Blog Exchange are hosting a virtual event where bloggers get to expose their readers to new people and thoughts.

So allow me to introduce you to the Nonprofit Consultant Blog which is hosted by Ken Goldstein, a consultant who has raised millions of dollars for his clients.

One of his most recent posts talks about the key to a successful Board of Directors.  As you will see by reading the post, Ken sees involvement as the key ingredient to a successful Board.

I couldn't agree more. 

So all I will do is add this thought onto his well written post.  Any Board members who are NOT involved in your organization need to be removed immediately!

Why?  Because uninvolvement . . . or to use a better word, apathy, spreads.

Once one Board member stops participating it gives a sort of implied permission to everyone else to follow that person's lead.

As a consultant I can't tell you the number of times that I made myself nuts trying to fix the problems in a Board when what I really wanted to do was walk up to two or three Board members and say . . .

"Leave.  Now."

I understand kicking out apathetic Board members can be easier said then done but trust me on this one . . . those individuals are killing your organization.  Remove them at all costs.

Emotional Matters

Here's another post that is as much for me as it for you.

I recently heard someone I respect talk about the power of emotion in the business world and it got me to thinking about the types of emotion that I create as a consultant.

This weekend I was at a client's Board meeting.  I had just finished a four month consulting engagement with them and I was delivering my final report.  After the report I stuck around the meeting to help them address some overall organizations issues.

As the Board meeting progressed I felt like some members of the Board were not giving a particular issue the attention and urgency it deserved.  So for a few minutes I tried to gently get them to focus on the issue.  Then after a while I just tossed gently out the window and really laid out the consequences of not dealing with this particular challenge immediately.

As I was doing, I could feel so many different emotions from the people in the room.

Some were grateful that this issue was going to finally be addressed.

Some may have thought I was overreacting.

Some were probably overwhelmed by the issue and thought it was too big to be addressed quickly.

And there I was, the catalyst of all this emotion.

One of the things I am learning as a consultant is that is vital that anybody that works with me feels good about the process and the outcomes.  The journey may have its scary moments, but overall people should be feeling confident about their ability to identify and deal with any challenge they may face.

Was I creating that type of feeling during this Board feeling?  Maybe with some of the Board members but certainly not with all of them.

So does that make my consulting term with this company successful or unsuccessful?

I'm still trying to figure that out.

But I am deeply thinking about the emotions I create in my work.

And you should be doing the same in your work.

As a nonprofit, how do people feel after they fund your organization?

Do they feel like they are using their money effectively?

Do they feel like they are just giving money to help out a friend?

Are they giving money just to get someone off their back?

All of these giving moments produce an emotion, but only a positive emotion will create a second (and third) gift.

So give some thought about the emotions your nonprofit is creating.

Is it really worth it?

While walking downtown I noticed what has become a fairly frequent sight, individuals doing solicitations for various charities.

The routine is always the same, they stop people and ask for a few minutes of their time to tell them about the cause.

Whenever I see them do it, I always wonder how effective that type of soliciation is.

More importantly, I wonder is it worth it?

Think about, for every 1 person they get to donate money, they run the risk of offending 10 other people by attempting to stop them while they are rushing from Point A to Point B.

Seth Godin and many others talk about the power of permission marketing, meaning that you should only solicit people who have demonstrated some desire to listen to what you have to say.

This is the exact opposite of permission marketing, it is intrusive marketing: stopping people who don't want to listen and trying to get them to pay attention to a pitch they have no desire to hear.

I really wonder if the risk of doing this outweigh the rewards.

Lessons learned . . .

. . . during a weekend trip to Atlanta.

I went from Chicago to Atlanta via Midway Airport, an airport on Chicago's South Side.

I live on the South Side.

But I went to the airport by going all the way downtown then going back South.

Why?

Because I was way too comfortable with going that way to get anywhere.  So in order to stay comfortable I cost myself time and money.

The lesson:  Being comfortable can be costly.

Supporting Those You Love

I saw this incredibly fascinating article at Daily Kos, a political website.  Here's the backstory.  One of the website writers, a gentleman with the online name Bill in Portland Maine, has been doing a popular column called Cheers and Jeers for a while.

Recently, Bill announced to the Daily Kos community that he would have to stop doing the column because he was looking for a job and that any new job he gets would probably not allow him the time he needs to do the very research intensive column.

So the people at Daily Kos sent out a challenge.  The Cheers and Jeers column could continue, IF, the community could raise $50,000 to hire Bill as a full time writer for the site. 

Within a day or two of the challenge being given, over $10,000 had already been generated or pledged for Bill's salary support.

I can't help but feel that an outcome like this challenges one of the biggest nonprofit issues out there . . . that no one is willing to give them the funding they need for competitive salary support.

Well if that's true, then why on Earth are the people at Daily Kos (95% of whom have probably never met Bill) digging into their pockets to help provide this guy with the money he needs to support himself?

Maybe the problem isn't that people (individual givers, foundations, etc.) are not willing to support salaries but that nonprofit organizations have failed to provide programming to the community that they feel is worthy of salary support.

I mean the people at Daily Kos love the Cheers and Jeers column.  So when the time came for them to step up and financially support the person who writes that column they quickly did so.

If they can do that for Bill in Portland Maine, why can't they do the same for the people who work at your nonprofit?

Can't please them all

Yesterday I did a seminar with the fantastic Amy Radick of the Art Institute of Chicago.  The panel took place during the Association of Fundraising Professionals and the topic was Corporate Sponsorship.

The room was packed with about 80 people or so and I thought the seminar went pretty well given the amount of time we had to talk about it (about a hour and 15 minutes).

Then I read the evaluations from the participants.  The feedback was suprising.  Some of them thought the information we gave was too basic.  Some thought it was too advance. 

Some of them loved the stories we told.  Some of them wished we had skipped the stories and focused on the more technical aspects of generating corporate sponsorships (i.e. lead generation).

The lesson for me was that when you have a room filled with so many different types of people (some who have just started Development and those who have been fundraising for decades) it is going to be really, really hard to make them all happy.

So don't try to please everyone.  It never works. :)