lystn

My conversation today with Paul Hood, which in many ways is a continuation of the “listening” conversation that we had earlier this week, begs the question of whether fundraisers support the notion of grateful patient programs and the like, or do they merely tolerate them, and given the opportunity, would prefer that their work be more exploratory. When I think of fundraisers like Paul who insist that their practices align with the highest ethical standards, I believe they would be far more fulfilled without some the data and, instead, to simply rely on their communication and relationship-building skills. Both of which our guests consistently demonstrate that fundraisers have in remarkable and immeasurable ways. The question becomes whether their employers give them the opportunity to use them.

Our conversation today aligns with some of the thoughts that I have previously expressed about the naïveté that is inherent in some of our thinking. I believe we are in the cusp of several decades of extraordinary fundraising; however, I am highly skeptical of whether the potential accurately aligns with the practices that we increasingly rely on to inform our work. For example, without having in-depth conversations with perhaps several people at the table, we can’t fully understand the vested interest of those who are ultimately influencing a gift decision. It’s one thing to know that that Mrs. Smith is perfectly capable of giving the hospital millions of dollars; it’s another to understand that the larger and more complex these gifts get, the more likely her children, trusted friends and loved ones, and professional advisors are going to want to have a say in how such a gift happens.

As always, we are grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast. And, if you’re interested in hosting the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow, reach out and let’s talk.