Chris Vaughan: Grants Fundraising Before You Start Writing
Byron Coke says there are four things that decide whether you should spend your limited time applying for a foundation grant: mission alignment; geographic eligibility; funding stage; and, award fit. If any one of these isn’t in alignment between your nonprofit and the funder, you’re wasting your time writing the application. Byron is the founder of Grant Fit.
We’re the #1 Podcast for Nonprofits, With 13,000+ Weekly Listeners
Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.
Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. View Full Transcript
Welcome to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio, big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host and the pod father of your favorite hebdomadal podcast. Oh, I’m glad you’re with us. I’d be stricken with Quadranttonopia if I saw that you missed this week’s show. Here’s our associate producer, Kate, with what’s on the menu. Hey, Tony, I hope our listeners are hungry for Grant’s fundraising before you start writing. Byron Cooke says there are 4 things that decide whether you should spend your limited time applying for a foundation grant, mission alignment, geographic eligibility, funding stage, and award fit. If any one of these isn’t in alignment between your nonprofit and the funder, you’re wasting your time writing the application. Byron is the founder of Grant Fit. On Tony’s steak too. A book update, update. Here is grants fundraising before you start writing. It’s a genuine pleasure to welcome the founder of Grant Fitt, Byron Coke. Grant Fit is a funder research service for small nonprofits that don’t have a development officer. His focus is the step most grant advice skips. The research and targeting that happen before a word of the application is written, deciding which funders are genuinely worth a small shop’s limited hours. The company is at grant intelligence.co and Byron is very active on LinkedIn. Byron Cooke, welcome to nonprofit Radio. Hi, Tony. Great to be here. It’s a pleasure. Thank you. Uh, we’ve, uh, corresponded a lot on LinkedIn. It’s, uh, it’s, it’s, it’s good to see you. And, uh, you’re coming to us from, uh, where in, uh, in Britain? London, to be exact. Northwest London. Northwest London. What, what’s the neighborhood? Not that I would know it, but what, what’s the, what’s the neighborhood called? Arrow. I’m actually about 10 minutes from the famous school. Say it again, The Harrow. Oh, Herod. OK. OK. No, Harrow, H A R R O W. Harrow. Correct. Harrow. All right, in, in, OK, uh, you’re pronouncing it correctly. I’m bastardizing it, of course, as the, uh, the ugly American, but Harrow. All right. Thank you. So listeners, there may be listeners who very well know Harrow. Um, outstanding, thank you for joining. Um, and are you from, are you from, uh, London area originally? Yeah, born and bred Londoner. My parents are from Jamaica, but I was born here. Outstanding. All right, thank you for joining us from across the pond. All right. Uh, I’m, yeah, I’m about as close. I’m not quite as close as you could get. I’m, I’m right on the beach, uh, uh, on the Atlantic shore of North Carolina. Uh, that’s not bad. There are, there are lots of places much further, and, but if there are some that are a little further east, like if you go further northeast, Massachusetts, Cape Cod, Maine, you know, they stick out a little, a little closer. They, they’d be maybe 100 miles closer to you or so, but I’m pretty, I’m, I’m close to as close as you could get. To, uh, to London from the US right on the beach. Nice to be talking to an American cousin. Thank you. All right, so, so let’s focus on, uh, the grant writing, the stuff that happens before a word of the application gets written, um, and you are set up and we’re gonna talk about folks that don’t have a development officer, and you’re suggesting that they have about 5 hours a week. To devote to grants, fundraising. Is that about right? Yes. I mean, when you have a small nonprofit that probably has like between 5 and 10 staff, when it comes to the grant work, it’s typically gonna be done by the executive um director, or maybe one other person who also has lots of other things they’re doing as part of that nonprofit. So they don’t really have the luxury of time. So what time they do put in into trying to raise money through grants needs to be spent wisely. You can’t just be doing a, Spray, spray gun effect and see what hits, that’s too costly time-wise, and for that 1015 minute quick check, you could rule out some of the funders you’d probably spend time putting together a perfect draft proposal, only to get rejected at the end of the day. And, and the odds were, were near zero that it was gonna get approved, right? Because, because it was mis-targeted. Correct, yes. And some of those are very easy checks to determine before you even start writing, which will save you a lot of time and headache. OK, and that’s exactly what we’re gonna, we’re gonna dive into. All right. Um, so you have this four-prong test. Uh, and, and I, I wanted to say too, what connected us initially was the love and affinity for, and work for small and mid-size nonprofits. You’re, you’re working, you’re working small. I, I say small and mid-size, you know, the, the, the tagline for the show is the other 95%, but that’s what initially connected us was the, the affinity for small nonprofits. Yes, exactly that. Um, when you have skills that you can leverage to help, it’s the, in my view, you target the people who would benefit the most but wouldn’t necessarily be able to either afford the time or the money. Why should just the big guys have all the best stuff to play the game with when the small guys are doing the same kind of important work, but just don’t have the resources? And we all had to start from zero. So If I can use the skills I have to help someone starting up to grow and do better because of the help I can give them, I’m very happy doing that. That’s exactly, we’re, we’re, yes, we’re, we’re perfectly aligned in that. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95% is what we’re here to talk about. So, OK, let us then go to your, your four-prong test. Um, I’m just gonna tick them off quickly and then we’re gonna go into detail. You want to ensure mission alignment, geographic eligibility, funding stage, and award fit in terms of size and type. Did I, did I characterize the four correctly? Yes, you got those exactly right. OK. Let, let’s go into these. So this is, this is the work that you do before you start looking at their proposal, looking at their, um, looking at their requirements, like what, how many, how many pages, what type, what font size, you know, answer these questions. This is before all that. Correct, um. Like say for example you’re like going out on a date to meet somebody. If you don’t do your preparation beforehand and say you go straight from work, say for example you’re a constructor, if you’re out on the field working all day, you literally just head straight from work over to the date, you’re not gonna make a good impression. Now if you go home, do your preparation first, do your best to look good, but at the same time you’ve done a little bit of research to find out the things that other person’s gonna like, and you prepared that beforehand, you make a better impression. So the same way when you’re doing an application for a grant, if you check those four criteria as a minimum, you know upfront if you’re gonna be a good fit for that funder. And you have to pass all four. If you fail in any one of those, complete waste of time. Um, I’d say the important fit, for example, you could go to um a funder’s website, read all the nice stuff they put there, and they’re all gonna say nice stuff because it’s part of their presentation, they’re gonna present themselves in the best possible way. But the proof of the pudding is checking where the money has actually gone. They can say one thing, but give money somewhere else. You can have a situation where a funder will say, for example, yeah, we will give grants to the state of Nebraska, for example. But then when you actually look at where they’ve actually given money, it may be only 4 cities in Nebraska that they’ve given money to. The rest don’t even count. It could be. A criteria of the funding policy, like, we received this money at a death bequest by somebody, and these are the places they want us to donate the money because that was their favorite places. This stuff they would not put on the website because it doesn’t sound as good, but if you look into the background of where they’ve been actually given the money and who to, you can get the details that’s not on the website. Oh, OK, OK, um, so yeah, so you’re, you’re suggesting that, uh, uh, misrepresenting is not, uh maybe it is not fair, that suggests, uh, Uh, that suggests something intentional. Uh, uh, it’s not a misrepresent, there’s a, there’s a disconnect between what the website says we do, we, the funder, do, and what the reality is, and you wanna, you want us to investigate the reality, not, uh, uh, uh, going deeper than the promotional language on the website. Sure, I mean, there’s no misrepresentation, but misrepresentation may be overstating or maybe unkind, but, uh, there’s, there’s, uh, there’s not alignment between the promotional language on the website and the reality of where the money is going. So you gotta go deeper. OK, so let’s get to your, your, your, your four-part test with mission alignment. Where, where are we looking? What are we looking for? OK, from the mission alignment, say for example, I’m doing this research for a nonprofit that works in the art field. So you’ve now got, say, dance, you’ve got theater, and a few other categories within the art field. Now you could have a non-funder, that’d be an ideal fit across the board for all the other criteria, but they don’t do art, they only do, um, say, health or um food. Yeah, just different criteria, so they may pass on 3, but because you’re into art and they don’t look at art, they look at, say, farming, food, that kind of stuff, you don’t qualify. So even though you might fit on the other 3, you put an application in, they say see straight where you’re in art, they deal with farming, you’re not a match, they won’t even bother. Because for them to try and convince who controls the purse strings, OK, these guys passed on these 3, but not on this one, not gonna happen. Especially when they’ve got lots of other people submitting the grant application who do fit. So they’re gonna stick to the ones that do fit what they do rather than just decide, OK, these guys look really good in the top end, we’ll give them a chance. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way when it comes to money. Right, OK, this, this is pretty common sense. Um, and as you had said, if you fail either one of these 4, there’s, there’s really, there’s no point in going on. Just move on, move on to the next candidate. Sure, exactly. OK. Um, so in terms of mission alignment now, uh, based on what we were just saying about, you know, the website and whatever promotional material you might see about the funder, you want us to look deeper than, than that, than that, uh, than that, that content. Well, if, with the example I gave, you digged into the, what the site says the mission statement is against what you do. And. You could even have a nonprofit that touches on food, touches on farming. A small overlap doesn’t count, it has to be spot on. So you also need to be objective when you’re actually doing the comparison, cos if you’re running a nonprofit, you know exactly how that works. You know the ideas you have in your head for their mission, what you’re trying to do, who you’re trying to help, you know, your location, all these other bits and pieces, you know cold because it’s your nonprofit. The funder, they don’t care. They don’t know you, they don’t know any of that stuff. All they’ve got is the information you provide to them, what they can see on your site, and what they see you have done in the past. If they don’t feel that match is 100% spot on, they don’t have a reason to grant you any money. So rather than try and Funnel your fit into what you think they’re going to like, and waste time putting a proposal together that’s never gonna win, you’re better just being brutally honest and saying, yep, this is what they um done work on before. And they say they do, this is what we do. When you check into who they’ve actually given money before, you can compare yourself against the other grantees who’ve won money, and if you’re a very good fit against those, then go for it. If you fail on quite a number, say for example you found 7, nonprofits that were given money, you only are really close to 1, but not the others, there’s no point cause you’re not a really good match, you’re only a partial match. And that’s one of the hardest things for um someone who’s really close to their business to do. They need to be able to be able to take a step back and look at it as though it’s someone who’s got a vast amount of money, who doesn’t want to waste where they send it, they wanna get a return. Because at the end of the day, funders. They’re there to help, but they’ve also got an invested interest in what they get from it. It could be prestige, it could be um street cred, any number of those things. If they’re not getting something back for their money, they’re not giving it. Doesn’t matter how good your cause is if it doesn’t fit. OK, so there’s a, there’s a fine line between uh uh optimism. And I don’t know, should I say, I think I’m tempted to quote a movie like, there’s a fine, I don’t, I forget what the movie is though. There’s a fine line between optimism and stupidity, but I don’t want to say stupidity, but I mean, optimism and wildly, you know, irrational. If you’re, if you’re, if you’re a, if you’re only a close fit to 1 out of 7 grant recipients to fun, fundees. Uh, you’re, it’s not likely. You, you, and plus, you’re a small shop. You, you, you should be devoting your time to more, more likely outcomes than trying to squeeze into one that, oh, come on, we could be, we, we can make it 2 out of 8 instead of 1 out of 7, we could be number 2 out of 8. Instead of trying to go for the 25% odds, you know, go for the more like 75, 80, 85% odds because your time is limited. Exactly. Now I wouldn’t really blame the nonprofits because you’ve got a situation where you’ve got this organization to run, you’ve got board members pushing you to like bring funds in to handle all these different bits and pieces of work, and there’s only so many hours in the day. If from your casual research you found, say 8 funders that look like they fit and you start putting a proposal together, you can keep the board members off your back. But keeping them off your back in a temporary situation doesn’t always work long term. Um, it’s one of those situations where whoever screams the loudest gets the response, and sometimes you need to be in a position where you can say, no, wait. And part of what I do, I provide data to help with someone going back and saying no, we’re not going to do this for this reason. But that isn’t always easy to do when you’re doing it on your own. Yeah. All right. Well, you, you, yeah, you just, you want us to be strategic about this. Be, be strategic, be sensible, align your, align your time where it’s most likely to get a return versus, you know, wildly. You know, optimistic and, and unrealistic, really. All right, uh, your second, your second part of the test, uh, geographic eligibility. Uh, it sounds common sense, but please flesh it out. Yeah, that one is, but a lot of, um, nonprofits will fail on that without catching it. Like with the example I gave you earlier when I talked about a fund that says, yep, we give to Nebraska. Yeah, that sounds really nice, and then when you check, it was only like 3 or 4 cities in Nebraska, and you were outside those 4. You don’t realize until you’ve checked that you’re not a fit. Yes, we’re in Nebraska as well. Yeah, that is true, but most of the ones we’ve gone to are for this city because the guy who left us the money, these are his favorite cities, he wants to go in there, or for some other reason. I mean, policies change all the time. Like they may have given him one city the last 3 years and then something changes and all of a sudden they’re not doing that. That situation you’re not gonna catch. But to make sure you’re relatively safe on who you put the time and investment in, if you check on who they’ve been given money to before, and you can say the last 3 years, there are only 4 cities in Nebraska that got the money, you know there’s a good chance if you’re not in those 4 cities, or one of the 4 cities, you haven’t got a chance. It’s like going on a date. You go out with your family and your buddies, you see these um group of women there. The one you choose to go for decides she only wants a really tall guy who’s taller than her because she’s like 5’9, and you are just below her height. Now if you already had an idea she was only to shut up tall guys, you wouldn’t have even bothered. Like you may have charisma, charm, yeah it could work, but yeah. There are some situations where there’s a line where you can’t cross, there’s no point even trying. Where do we go for this research? Where, where do we get specific on who they have funded and, and where the, where in, in, in this, in this prong of the test, you know, the, where, where the geography is? Where, where are we doing this research? The site I go to, public access public database, is the ProPublica nonprofit Explorer website. So it’s basically the database that has all the non-tax filings for any nonprofit in the US. So these are the 990s, the form IRS 990s. OK, OK. Like free database, so anyone can go there and check. It doesn’t always have 100% of the data, which is one of the pain in the butt situations where you need to do a bit more research. Because you can have a situation where you have a small nonprofit that’s done filing, and they include all the data, then you go to a big nonprofit who do a filing, and when you go to the relevant sections of the filings, there’s like click here to get an attachment, so you’ve got to go somewhere else to get the relevant data. So for the most part, it’s probably a relatively 1015 minute search, but on rare occasion the data isn’t always there, and then you need to do some additional search over the web to try and pull that information down, which isn’t impossible, but it, it can add a bit more time. But for the most part, 90%, 70 to 90% of what you’re gonna check, you can get the data on that website, which is really easy. Alright, and, and it’s the foundation. 990s that you’re searching. No, wait, foundations don’t do 990. Is it the, is the foundation filings that you’re searching? No, the funder. Yeah, the, the funder, the, the agency, right. The, yeah, yeah, the foundation. All right. Foundations, all right, see, I’m, uh, foundation world is a little outside, well, it’s quite a bit outside what I do. So foundations do 990s, don’t they have, doesn’t, don’t foundations have different IRS form filings or do they do 990s? Well, based on the work I’ve done, all the ones I’ve looked at have all done 990s. They do the 990s, OK, OK. The only thing that’s caught me out is they’re sometimes they’re not as detailed as I would like. So for example, um, alright, that’s why we need somebody like you to go further. Alright, I may be, I may be thinking of, you know, I may be thinking of charitable trusts, uh, I think it’s Form 706, uh, uh, sorry, Extraneous, you know, extraneous data. That, uh, it’s only confusing. That’s totally, that’s a totally different uh entity, a charitable trust. OK, we’re talking about. We’re talking about foundation, US based foundations. It’s time for Tony’s take 2. Thank you, Kate. I have a book update, update because I feel like. In last week’s Tony’s Take Two, I dissed my two excellent editors, and that’s bad. That’s bad. So I made it sound like, yeah, I, I said, I’m out of the process, you know, they just asked me questions here and there, and I made it sound like they’re in control, like they take over, and, uh, they’re, uh, I don’t know, like difficult to work with or overbearing or something like that. None of which is true. None of which is true. I have two excellent editors. Judy is the line editor and really has become the project manager, and then Stephanie is the copy editor. And they work very well together. They had worked together on a previous project years ago, so they, they have a history together, and they’re just excellent. You know, and you wanna have good strong editors, people who, You know, their job, the editor’s job. I learned is, is not to write. The book or help you write the book that they think you should write. Their job, any editor’s job is to help you make the book you wrote stronger, to make it more of the book that you want to write. Make it clearer, but not to divert like your tone or your message or any even little individual messages. Any of the, there’s probably 1000, you know, tips in there or something. I don’t know, there’s many, many hundreds anyway, right? Not to change those, but to make your book stronger the way you want it to read, the way you want to convey to your readers. That’s, uh, the right editing posture. If they want to write their own book, you know, they can write their own book if they, they think it should be a book that’s different than what you’re trying to write. Their job is to strengthen the book that you, the writer, give them. And Judy and Stephanie are, are doing that superbly. So, I don’t want you to think I was, uh, in case I dissed my editors last week, no. I have two excellent editors. And I’m grateful to have them both. Working on the project. And then Stephanie, I mentioned last week, uh, the, like one of the final rounds as a proofreader. Stephanie is even gonna do the proofreading. So, Double duty from, uh, from Stephanie, but Judy’s taken on a lot as well. By two excellent editors for Planned Giving Accelerated, to cut through the shit, no-nonsense, practical step by step guide to start legacy giving, fundraising at your small to mid-size nonprofit in a week starting with bequests. The title may be longer than the book. Did you need a nap? That is Tony’s take 2. Kate. You can’t be burning bridges with editors. The book hasn’t even come out yet. Well, in case they, uh, yeah, you’re right. You’re right. Uh, I don’t know that, that they are listening. Probably not. So it’s not that they said anything. I don’t think they’re listeners, but, which, you know, it’s, well, it’s their life, you know, it’s, it’s only so much, uh, you can only lead a horse to water. But, uh, yes, your, your, your point is, uh, very, very true. Don’t be dissing your editors in the, during the editorial process. You’re cutting your own throat. Mhm We’ve got Bu butt loads more time. Here’s the rest of Grant’s fundraising before you start writing with Byron Coke. Third part of your 4-part test is funding stage. All right, that doesn’t, that doesn’t, uh, sound as common sense, uh, just in that phrase. So what, what, what do you mean here, funding stage? Um. Let’s see, what’s the easiest way I can describe this, it’s down on. Where the nonprofit is, the kind of money they need. And compared to the funder, the size of money they’ve awarded before and the organizations they’ve given those money to. So the easiest way of describing it, you can have a funder. That their baseline cut-off, so if you’re below that, you’re not even on their radar, they have given money in the past to nonprofits that work from, say, 200,000 to 500,000. If you’re a nonprofit that has only ever gone up to say 150,000 or 190,000, you’re below their criteria, you won’t even match. Now the only way I can confirm that is going to the 990, seeing who that funder has given money to before, find the grantees and go to their websites and find out the range of the kind of stuff they’re doing to get an idea of, am I inside that range or am I outside that range. If you’re outside that range, no point trying. If you’re inside that range, then you’re a good match and that’s another hurdle you’ve passed. OK, OK. And, uh, you also mentioned Um, you know, the stage of the organization or what, what the, what the money is for, like, maybe general operations, is that what you mean? Like general operations versus specific program funding versus technology funding versus some other capacity building, you know, you have to be looking at that, that variable also within this funding stage. Yeah, um, like in the art field, one of the ones I was working on earlier this week was. A nonprofit that are doing construction work to create a whole new Attachment to their main building, so they can do like their own um, Trying to think how to describe, like their own studio, that’s the best way, yeah, so they’re trying to build their own studio. Now, I’ve found quite a few funders who cover arts, but only a fraction of those will cover doing grants for construction work. They’ll do things like a, a program, so say for example you want to introduce, Literary reading in a local area, they may cover money for that, but if you wanna say, do a renovation on your main building, they won’t cover that, even though you’re still in the art field. So there’s certain things a particular funder will finance and other things they won’t, even within the criteria of the organizations they work with. So that also needs to be looked into as well. OK. OK. All very sensible, uh, and, and again, devoted to, Aligning your limited time with what’s most likely to provide a, a, a, an ROI. No guarantee, but we’re, we’re trying to increase the odds. Correct. No one can guarantee, but if I can reduce your odds or rather improve your odds. Yeah, reduce your odds of being turned down or increase your odds of being awarded. OK. Uh, and your last prong is the award fit, size and type. What, what’s this about? Well, you can have a situation where you’ve found a funder, you fit in all the other 3 criteria, but you’re only after 2000. Now, is it worth putting in 45, maybe up to 20 hours, putting in a grant application for 2000? And then you’ve also got a situation where a granter, In the last 2 or 3 years, you’ve looked over what they’ve done, the minimum grant they’ve given was 70,000, you need 50. Again, you’re not on their radar. Because you’re under what they will do, you don’t even qualify. But that isn’t obvious from looking at their website. It’s only when you look at the 990 and see who they’ve given money before and how much, you get a better sense of the range that they cover. OK, um, size, right, size and type, and that also overlaps with what we were just talking about, you know, type, type, but whether it’s restricted or it’s general operating, or even maybe, well, I don’t think funders give to endowment. That’s a bad example. So, but yeah, the type, what, what the, what the purpose is. Yes. I mean things can look nice on the website. You can speak to someone who’s part of the organization. They can give you all the nice stuff, but, um, I’m a techie, so for me things tend to be black and white. If you go to the website and you see all this evidence that points in one direction, even if you can sort of read another direction via the site or interpret it via the site, I go by the numbers cos that’s safer. Yeah. Again, uh, aligning time with ROI. It’s, you have to, you just gotta be strategic about this. All right. Um, before we started recording, you, uh, you mentioned to me that you have a 5th 1. Uh, so it’s, it’s still a four-pronged test, but this is like something very common sense. Let’s, let’s talk about your, alright, well, let’s say, let’s, let’s state the obvious, that’s OK. Can you actually apply because you have some funded organizations that don’t allow unsolicited proposals, it’s invite only. And that you can get written off the website, but situations like that, you may fit across the board and everything else, but if you need to be invited before you can apply, you’ve already lost. Or sometimes it’s, uh, a, a letter of interest or a letter of, letter of inquiry first, so you don’t, you don’t start with a, you don’t start with a proposal, you might start with a, a, a letter. Yes. But even that will tell you what stage you’re at and what you should do before you move a step forward. So in the situation where you’ve found um a foundation that you fit on everything across the board, but there’s this invite only, then the work you would do over the next, say, 1 to 3 months will be building a relationship with someone who’s there and gain an invitation before you start doing anything else. But if you hadn’t done the research beforehand, short of someone who’s sit down to write the grant, who goes to the website to check things out, they’re gonna find out. But then you’ve already committed someone to put the time in to write your grant, you may have to pay them to write the grant, even though they’re gonna write something you can’t use it because it’s invite only. So doing this check beforehand just saves a lot of grief. You mentioned something that I’d like to pull on a little bit, which is the, the relationships, the building, building relationships with, with funders. Uh, let’s, let’s broaden it a little bit, whether it’s invitation only or, or it’s, it’s open, uh, open application. There’s, there’s value in, in talking to funders, getting to know funders before you start asking for their money. Correct. Well let’s talk about that. How do, how do you, what’s your advice around building these relationships? Well, for a start, like just going up to somebody completely cold and asking for money I’d find a bit rude, even if they’re in the position where they’re gonna be giving you some money. And Apart from the four criteria I’ve mentioned, people like working with people they like, know, and trust. The same way we’ve got to know each other via LinkedIn. If it wasn’t due to that, we probably wouldn’t really be talking now. If the first contact you had from me was like, hi, I’ve got this really cool thing that we think would be good for your listeners, when can we talk on your podcast, you’d be like, yeah, thanks very much, but I don’t know you. It’s like, yeah, I get put to the bottom of the pile if you consider talking to me at all, which is completely normal. Same way if you’re out on the street. Like we have this in the UK where you can be like, just going out into the central London, you’ve got these guys that are working for charities, and their job is to pin you down, talk to you, explain what the charity is, and get you to donate. Nothing wrong with that, but the good ones find some common ground to get you to stop and start talking, and they build the rapport first before they get into the pitch, even though you know the second they’ve stopped you, exactly what you’re doing. So as long as you’ve got the time and the person who’s approached you has not been the Annoying about it, I’m gonna say something stronger, but I’ll skip that. That’s OK, you could say like being, yeah, alright, being a dick or something, OK, yeah. But at the end of the day, it’s just a sales job, it’s just a different form of sales. You need to build a connection with the person you’re dealing with. And once they’re familiar with you, in the situation I mentioned with the four criteria, there are rare situations where you might slip past them one only because the person who can make the decision knows you and is willing to give you a chance. Most of the time that’s not gonna happen. But what can happen is that person may give you help and how you could more fit. In the geography, that’s not gonna work cos you’re to move and you’re not gonna fit. But there might be other ways you can frame something where you would be a fit, or better yet, they know somebody else, another organization that you’re unfamiliar with, that they can point you in the direction of and give you an introduction. I mean, one of the advantages of what I do, I can find foundations that the nonprofit I’m working with hasn’t even thought of because they don’t have the same kind of resources I have access to, so they can do a search and maybe find immediate funders in their immediate vicinity. But because of the tools and the setup I have, I can find foundations that cover a bigger area that they still qualify for based on certain things that I find in their filings, which I’ve done for a few um nonprofits, I’ve done reports for. I’ve actually found things, oh, based on the amount of money you’ve done and the kind of work, this particular organization, you’d be a good fit for, and they’ve come back and said, yes, we did not know about this one. Why, why don’t you, uh, can you tell us, uh, a specific story of, uh, a nonprofit that you helped or, well, certainly a nonprofit that you helped. Maybe you, you, uh, um, well, you, you, uh, you helped them at the early stage to save time because before they, before they met you, they were spinning their wheels and being largely unsuccessful in grants, but You know, you helped turn it around because you did the strategy before we started, we started typing applications. Can you tell another little, tell another story? Well, the work I’ve been doing recently, because I’ve been busy on LinkedIn, basically to get myself out there and get it known. The same way I’ve been doing stuff off LinkedIn and. One of the reasons I mentioned the art more because I’ve been looking more at like um art sections, cos I’m I’m, I like music, jazz, all this kind of stuff, theater, I’m into. So it was um a natural thing with the um sectors I could target. I ended up picking art first. And initially what I’ve been doing is providing a free report. So basically, With the research I’ve done, most people only talk about writing grants. Because that’s the obvious thing to do. Like if you’re trying to start up a side gig, or, you can start writing grants for grant proposal for nonprofits. That’s all well and good, but if you spend time writing a grant to submit to a foundation that you had no chance of um getting into. Especially if it’s something you’ve done for the first time. So this might be your 2nd, 3rd job, you don’t know enough to do all the research you need to do. You spend hours putting something good together, but because of a simple test check that you didn’t even think to do because you weren’t aware of it, you’ve wasted that time. So the free report I provide, which I’ve done, I think I’ve done about 3 or 4 in the last couple of days, basically just to give an idea, OK, hi, this is who I am, this is what I do. Let me put this report together for you, given you, it’ll be a list of 1 funder that I’ve found that is a good fit for them, fully worked out, give them the details of why they’re a fit. And what their next step should be to approach them, but I also list the number of funders I’ve found that did look like a good fit but weren’t, and I’ve also explained why they weren’t a good fit, and I’ve submitted those. And one of the first ones I did, going back a couple of weeks, the response I did get back was that I’d found someone that they weren’t aware of, so it was someone new they could approach. When you’re in a small business, there are so many different things to do, you don’t always have a chance to like, take a step back, breathe, and put due diligence into the research you might do. Plus, if you’re um, Running a nonprofit, you may not have the technical background to do that kind of research, not everybody does. Even though you’ve got AI that you can use to help, unless you’ve used it a fair degree, you still can’t really take advantage of AI tools. And even the AI tools leave a lot to be desired. Yeah, you’re still gonna have to do a human check to make sure, to make sure, go through these four prongs to, to make sure that there’s alignment because the, you know, the chat and Claude, etc. I mean, they can make, they make mistakes. That’s putting it mildly. So, yeah, so, so you would have to, you have to check anyway before you start typing a, a grant, uh, proposal to them. Um, all right, all right, um. Let’s see, uh, the arts, you, uh, you gravitate to the arts. You have a background in the arts? Are you a dancer, musician, theater, actor? I like dancing. And there was a point before I got into computers I actually considered going to dance school. It just never happened. Um, and I’ve grown up, being growing up, I was stuck indoors. Like my mum being very strict, never let us out to go play with friends and everything else. She wanted her kids indoors and safe. So basically I’m stuck watching TV. And I’ve grown up watching movies from the 30s and 40s, um. Where they like play jazz, swing, all this stuff, so I’ve got into that kind of music. And then growing up, getting more into like R&B. There was a period where if it wasn’t R&B or soul type music, I wasn’t interested. As I’ve got older, I can appreciate country. Um, rock, especially like a good, um, rock guitarist. I like hearing them be really creative with the guitar. Um, and even just watching musicians who’ve been doing their thing for a long time, just sit down with each other and jam. And one guy can improvise and then the others will just jump on top of what he’ll do and they’ve just created this whole thing out of nothing. It’s just really cool. It’s like watching someone create with music. I mean, I used to write games, computer games back in the day, and one of the things I liked about it, you started off with this blank canvas and then you could just create this whole universe that you could play from nothing. And it’s the same thing when you’ve got like a music or an artist start with this blank canvas and just create this whole interpretation of something like a whole new world or their interpretation of an emotion or something they’re trying to convey. With an image. I love that stuff, so yeah, the arts I tend to go into first, but I don’t mind, nonprofit with the kind of work they do. I’ll help, but I do find the arts interesting and I’m I’m appreciating it more as I’ve got older. I can tell it lights you up. I, I can see. Um, tell me about, uh, growing up as a child watching, watching old movies. Are you, are you still, I mean, do you, can, you know, you remember the lines from movies and you remember, I don’t know, directors, actors, do you remember movies you used to watch as a child? I grew up watching Laurel and Hardy. And even now I can watch them, I’m cracking up, and their stuff’s old but still funny. They’re from like Laurel and Hardy from the 40s, right? They are, they are, yeah, yeah. So Laurel and Hardy, I’ve grown up, I love them. Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin. Um, yeah, those are like the 34 main comedians I’ve seen on film, like with silent stuff I love, they’re just really creative, and some of the stunts they pull are just like unreal. Like you’d never get away with doing something like that nowadays, just too dangerous, um. Of my top 5 favorite movies of all time, I must admit I would have to put Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks as number 1. Only because in my teens, the BBC did a season of Mel Brooks movies where they showed 1 a week for about 4 or 5 weeks. And I remember watching Young Frankenstein. I was sitting on the chair in my bedroom watching the TV. I must have fallen off my chair about 56 times because I was laughing so much and ended up just sitting on the floor because it was just easier because I ended up on the floor all the time. Now this is a movie you’d never be able to get away with making now, but when you watch it, the creativity and the stuff he puts in there is just hysterical. Yeah, nice knockers. For instance, uh, Frank Frankenstein. It’s Frankenstein and, uh, Gene Hackman, uh, Gene Hackman. I was going to make cappuccino. The blind, the blind man. The blind man who welcomes the, the monster. Um, yeah, that’s, that’s a classic one. All right, so that’s your favorite. That’s, name, name another movie. That’s great. No, name another movie you grew up with. Um, let’s see. Gotta think back. Ah, Abbott and Costello. Actually, think about it, there’s one. Thinks Abbott and Kessler go to Mars, where they meet these Amazonians on Mars and. The only reason they’re actually interested in butt because of his um charm. But when it came to like picking them, they were showing pictures of the kind of men they used to go for that weren’t on the planet anymore. And they were like these really muscular, handsome looking dudes. To be honest, as a child, I watched and think, I need to start working out because I wanted to look like them. Yeah, Costello, really funny. Costello, they, they had a TV, they had a TV series. They had a, they had a weekly, they had a weekly TV show with, uh, regular characters. They used to be the, the landlord. I, I can’t, uh, if I thought about it, I could remember the landlord’s name, but, uh, besides the movies they did, they, they also had a TV series in the, in the, in the US. Um, Mr. Fields. I think their landlord was Mr. Fields. And, you know, they’re always late on the rent and things, you know, but they had a regular, they had a series of, uh, yeah, they just had a TV series with regular characters. I’m pretty sure Mr. Fields was their landlord. All right. So that’s cool, Byron. Thank you. Uh, I like to just probe a little, a little on the, on the personal side. That’s great. So leave us with something. OK, uh, something, um, some inspiration around what, what, what these small nonprofits can do with grants, funding, just, you know, being strategic. Um, This one isn’t actually strategic, it’s just um a viewpoint I have personally. Regardless of what situation you’re in, what what business you’re in, you’re always gonna come up with a problem. Always. There is no such thing as a situation, environment or business that is problem free. And you only ever have two ways of looking at a problem. One, it’s impossible to Overcome, so you’re stuck and can’t move, or you just decide, regardless of what the situation is, you’re gonna find a way to overcome it. That’s it. I’ve always found when you have that second viewpoint about a problem, you attract solutions. So even something that seems impossible, you will end up attracting the solution that helps. And I remember using that once when I was a lot younger, leaving my first permanent job. And I was on about 14,000 a year, this is going back a while, I’m older than I look. And I wanted to hit 200,000. And I was reaching out to a lot of recruitment agencies. And when I told them what I was on, which was 14, and I wanted to go to 20, which is a 60 jump, they were like, nope, not possible, it’s just too big a jump. It was impossible to happen. So I thought, fine, I just wasted them. I finally found one agent. I said, yep, not a problem, we’ll get you that. I ended up getting my job through them because they didn’t consider it was a problem and just put me to the right people who would look at what I could do rather than what I was earning. So there is always a solution to a problem if you have the viewpoint it’s going to arrive. It doesn’t have to be right here and now, but you will attract it. Byron Coke Founder of Grant Fit. You’ll find Grant Fitt at grantintelligence.co. Connect with Byron on LinkedIn. Byron, thank you so much. It was a pleasure. No problem. Thank you. Next week, the Revolutionary Board. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer, Kate Martinetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guy, and this music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. Go out and be great.
So many nonprofits have a leaky bucket problem: donors don’t stay after their first gift. We all know retaining existing donors costs so much less than acquiring new ones. Chris Vaughan shares his thinking on keeping donors in the bucket through mission connection; engagement; relationships; retention rate ownership; welcome streams; and more. He’s co-founder of Sequence Consulting.
We’re the #1 Podcast for Nonprofits, With 13,000+ Weekly Listeners
Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.
Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. View Full Transcript
Welcome to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host, and I’m the pod father of your favorite hebdominal podcast. I’m glad you’re with us. I’d suffer the embarrassment of Pacion Nicia if you nailed me with the idea that you missed this week’s show. Here’s our associate producer, Kate, to introduce it. Hey Tony, here’s what’s coming. Low lift donor retention. So many nonprofits have a leaky bucket problem. Donors don’t stay after their first gift. We all know retaining existing donors costs so much less than acquiring new ones. Chris Vaughn shares his thinking on keeping donors in the bucket through mission connection, engagement, relationships, retention rate ownership, welcome streams, and more. He is co-founder of Sequence Consulting. On Tony’s take 2. A book update. Here is low lift donor retention. It’s a pleasure to welcome the co-founder and chief strategy officer of Sequence Consulting, Chris Vaughn. He helps associations grow their membership, revenue, and impact. He’s a frequent speaker and writer on the future of associations, membership, marketing, and growth strategy. The company is at sequence Consulting.com. And you’ll find Chris on LinkedIn. Welcome to nonprofit Radio, Chris Vaughn. Thank you, Tony. Great to be here. I’m glad you are. Thanks. Donor retention. Why don’t you, uh, set the stage. Uh, we’ve, we’ve heard statistics about, uh, dismal retention rates and costs of costs thereof, but It’s, it’s worth repeating because we don’t seem to be getting any better. So please help us, uh, like some motivation about why we should be paying attention to retention. Yeah, first, and just by way of background, uh, our focus is primarily membership organizations, and we’ve been working with them to help them grow for the last 25 years. Um, but we’ve also worked with major fundraisers, right? Folks like American Lung Association, the AARP Foundation, Jewish United Fund, United Way, and so on. And what we’ve observed across the years is that the retention issues are exactly the same. They’re almost identical, right? The struggles are the same, the root causes are the same, and the solutions are the same across membership and across the donor life cycle, which is, is interesting, but also really, really valuable because all the lessons that we’ve learned from helping associations plug their retention leak and grow also work, right, in the fundraising context and, and, and we know this as background, um, so on both sides of the equation, yes, the retention numbers are dismal. Um, fundraising excellence Project says overall retention, uh, fundraising donation, donor, donor retention is about 43%, uh, which is down 4 years in a row, right? So, uh, I believe, don’t quote me, but I believe it’s at an all-time low, right? So the trends have been, uh, declining for a really, really, really long time. Fewer than half. We’re, we’re, we’re keeping fewer than 50% of our donors. Total, fewer than half of your total donors, right? Or put it otherwise, half of your, more than half are walking out the door, right? Every year, perhaps never to be seen again. Um, what really jumps out about me in those statistics is first-time donor retention, right? Which the FEP says is the single most important unsolved problem in fundraising is that less than 1 in 5 first-time donors ever donate again. Man. So think about that, and that 60% of the overall funds that you raise are from repeat donors and you can see where the leaky bucket is, right? And that’s what we call it the leaky bucket. Uh, you’re working hard to acquire new donors, you’re bringing them in the door, but 4 out of 5 of those. are never gonna write a, a check to you sort of ever again. I have this image in my head, right, of Wile E. Coyote, you know, running off the edge of the cliff and his feet are just spinning, spinning, spinning, spinning. That’s acquisition, you know, that’s the way I think about it is you just gotta keep running faster and faster to replace the donor that you just got, you know, last month. The, the, the Roadrunner has the answer. If we, if, if the two could come together, they, they would, they would solve, they would solve this problem because the, the, the Roadrunner knows what he’s doing. Exactly, exactly. But we wouldn’t have much of a cartoon series. Yeah, well, all right, well, we’ll put the kids aside. I mean we’re trying to, we’re trying to solve an an existential problem here. All right, that’s true. Um, and, and we’re also really, really bad at recapturing those lost donors once they leave, right? The report says 3%, 3%, that’s the best we can do. So 3. 123, folks who have, uh, who know about us and have cared about us enough to, to make a gift at some point in the past, um, 4 out of 5 of them are gonna walk and less than 3% of those will ever come back and give again. So it’s, it’s a real challenge. Um, and it’s a real growth challenge, right? It’s like driving a speedboat with a hole in the bow, you know, it’s, it’s really difficult to grow if you’re constantly plugging the hole right behind you. So that’s, that’s the dynamic. I mean, that’s the setup, and I’m sure everyone who’s listening to this podcast feels that, right, every single day. So, what, what, what is it, uh, why, why don’t we get at some of the causes that you’ve identified that you want to talk through and, and we’ll, then we’ll, we’ll make our way through the, the donor experience and how we can improve it. But what are some, yeah, what are some root causes you’re seeing? So, so, so why do donors lapse? Why do members lapse? It, it’s never in the mission, right? It’s not like they, they lose heart, right? Or, or, or they stop caring for the reasons that they cared about in, in the future. Um, it’s that they don’t see themselves in the mission, right? So, they don’t see it in a way that’s personally relevant to them, right? And ties back to the things that they care about personally that kind of brought them to your mission in the first place. I think that’s, that’s one really important one. It’s a sense of impact. Right? People don’t come, they don’t make gifts like this, you know, just because they want to be a part of something, they want to make a difference, right? They want to make an impact. They want to know that they’re part of something that’s changing a world, the world in a way that means something to them, and that connection gets lost. Sometimes it gets lost immediately, right? They, they just, they don’t know where the impact really, really was. Uh, and then there’s the sense of, of relationship, and not in the sense that people are coming to these kinds of nonprofits for, for community. But they want to feel like you know them, right? That, that you, you care about them, that you acknowledge them as, as people and as donors and as part of your organization. And most organizations are really bad about that for a, for a number of reasons, but those are the primary reasons is, you know, it, it doesn’t connect. We don’t connect very well to the people and we don’t connect them very well back to the mission that they just contributed to. So, you know, when we talk about a relationship, I mean, we’re talking about a first gift. So, it’s not gonna be a deep relationship, but are we treating it like the beginning of a relationship, or are we treating it like a mere transaction? Exactly. And I, I would say that most kind of new members, um, feel like a target, right? Less than a partner, right? Sort of, you know, we, we hounded them down, we sort of chased them down, we’ve got them to give one gift and they’re like, OK, now what? Right? What, what’s gonna happen next? In the donor experience, what typically happens next? Nothing, right? Perhaps nothing. We eventually we’ll acknowledge the gift. Um, that could take a long time, right? Small staff organizations that are overloaded, right? That’s sort of one of the things that’s easy to push to the bottom of the pile is donor acknowledgement, donor recognition. I’ve been on the other side of that myself. I’ve donated to new organizations, right, whose missions spoke to me or I felt compelled to, and don’t hear from them for weeks and weeks and, and weeks, and then, and I, I, I literally forget that I did it. I have to look them up and go, OK, who, who is this that’s writing to me? So, I mean, I think that was a missed opportunity or Our first opportunity to connect with one is one that misses the message, right? So maybe we acknowledge the gift, maybe we talk more about the organization and ourselves and what we do, but we miss the opportunity to make that initial connection in such a way that is going to bring them back, right, to make that next gift. Are, are you envisioning some kind of, uh, uh, a, a message about the impact of the gift that you made, you know, because of, because of you, this work continues or we can do this, or what, what are you envisioning in a, in like in an ideal first communication, uh, not a, hopefully, it’s not a tax receipt, you know, you know, right. I mean, let’s not send, uh, OK, let, let’s get that off the table. Like it shouldn’t be a tax receipt. Uh, that can come later or it doesn’t even need to come at all. I mean, you can, you can have a narrative letter that’s, that includes the date of the gift, the amount of the gift, and then goes on to, letter or email. Uh, uh, uh, I’m not suggesting it has to be print, but whatever the channel, uh, that, that ties back to what your gift did. exactly, and so, so, um, Real life case study, work that we did with the American Lung Association, although they’re, they’re quite large, I think all the lessons learned apply, right, to small and medium sized nonprofits as well. But they were in exactly the same place where only 25% of their first year donors would, would ever give again. And, and they had a file of several, several million. donors that weren’t coming back, right? That had gone back about 5 years. So that’s very typical, uh, uh, problem that you might be up against. Their solve for it was, was two parts, and the first part was welcome stream, which we’ll talk about first, and the second part was recapturing last slapsed donors, and they had a lot of success. So let’s talk about that too. But the, the welcome stream acknowledged the fact that the decision to give again is made in the 1st 90 days at most, right? So if, if someone hasn’t recommitted. That they’re gonna support you on an ongoing basis in the 1st 90 days. They probably never will, and often it’s made much faster than that in the first month. So a really effective welcome stream responds immediately to the gift, right? Acknowledges it and then asks questions, right? Tell me more about you, Tony. Why did you give? What is it that you really, you really care about? How is this personally connected to you? So in the lung association, people give, uh, perhaps because someone or someone in their family, right, has, has, uh, you know, been exposed to had an experience of cancer or of COPD. So very personal missions. If we know that. We can communicate with you so much more effectively in the future about the things that we know you care about. So the first message was getting to know you. Tell us more about you and, and what brought you here. That was number 1. OK, well, before we go to number 2, how, how do you get that feedback back? So this is, this is an email and then folks are answering or it’s an SMS. It’s a, it, it goes in an email, but it’s a quick pulse survey. It’s just a really quick 5 questions, Quick survey. No, no more. Takes 10 seconds to answer it, right? But now I have that information on the file and I can segment my communications to you in a way that’s 100% more effective and people appreciate being asked, right? Like, oh, they want to get to know me. I’m not just a number. This isn’t just a transaction. This is more than a tax receipt. That’s week one. Week 2, we give them an offer, right? Here’s other ways that you could get involved. Thank you, Tony. You told us you care a lot about smoking cessation, and here’s some programs that you can get involved with, right? Here’s some other things that you can do. Here’s some other ways that you can give to sort of bring them in, sort of invite them into the organization in ways beyond writing checks. Also important, right? Sort of expands the relationship. And the third week, and this is counterintuitive, is to ask again, right? Make another gift. Three weeks after the first, and the campaign was incredibly successful and many, many people did because it was recent, right? It was personal, right? And we had shown both interest in them as a person and connection back to the mission. So very simple 3 part email series. There’s no reason, uh, any size not for profit couldn’t do that. Um, you know, based on all the modern email systems that we have now, uh, it really transformed their donor cultivation, right? Their first year retention skyrocketed by a campaign really just as simple as that. And over the next couple of years, they grew their donor file by 50%, 50, through a combination of more effective welcome stream and then this lapsed member campaign that we ran. OK, before we get to the lapsed members. Uh, all right, so this welcome stream is, uh, 1 a week, so you’re doing it in 3 weeks. So you’re trying to capture the, the, the, the, capture the folks who make that decision. You said, uh, most people make it within 90 days whether to give again, but a lot of people make it within 30 days. So you wanna, you wanna get, you want, you want the more recent. You’re, you want the within, within, you’re doing it within 3 weeks, 21 days. Yeah, the the the soon, the sooner the better, and I think that’s a big miss in a lot of these organizations is they feel like it can wait. Um, and we see this across voluntary organizations of all kinds of membership and donors. You, you cannot wait. Why, why do they, why do they, I, I haven’t heard that. I mean, I know we have trouble with retention. Obviously, I, I’m, I’m completely on board with, uh, uh, and agree with the, with the, the problem, but I, I haven’t heard, you know, we, we think we can, we figure we can wait. What do we, wait, wait, wait to thank, wait to welcome. Wait to, to engage, uh, that’s, that’s, that’s counterintuitive. All, all, all of the above, and the reasons are, uh, uh, uh, we think are really structural, right? Retention is not a strategic priority. Boards get excited by acquisition, right? How many new donors did you get? No one gets excited about retention, although we can all do the math. Um, that’s one reason. No one owns the number in most of these organizations. No one is accountable to the retention number, right? It’s just a number that’s sort of, uh, out there. That’s true. That’s a very good, uh, I don’t want you to lose your other points you’re gonna amount to make, but that’s, that’s very true. Acquisition, then the, the channel gets, uh, the, the channel gets the credit or the, the, the accolades for the, the number or the percentage of, of, Gifts that we got from the acquisition campaign, whether it’s digital or print. Then, but then no, you’re right, nobody owns the retention number. How many of those donors did we keep? How, how many of those made a second gift within, uh, let’s say 30 days or 60 days, whatever our, you know, we should be able to do this, the welcome stream within 30 days, but how many of those folks do we keep? But nobody, nobody really is accountable to that number. No, right? And that, that’s surprising considering how important it really is, right? Like a, a, a 10% increase in repeat donors will net you far more than a 10% increase in retention because we’re gonna lose 80% of the folks that we acquire. We know that. The, the other number, and again, this holds true across all kinds of organizations for the last 25 years, right? A first-time donor, maybe 30% chance that they’ll repeat. A 3 time donor is 70% likely. To repeat, a 7 time donor is 90% likely to repeat. So the more you give, the more you give. And this dynamic, it’s like a law of nature in these kinds of organizations is that there’s a threshold, it’s typically 3. Beyond which this becomes a long term commitment. It becomes a long term relationship, and 3 is not a lot if you think about it, right? If you make a gift, if I can get you to give again in the 1st 3 weeks and then get, get, get you to give again a few months later, and now I have a, a reliable repeat donor at 70%, that’s way better than 20%. Mhm. Yeah, yeah, that’s excellent. OK. OK. I, I, I, I derailed you a little bit. Uh, uh, we were talking about why, why, why are we, why are we think thinking we can wait? And, and I made you digress around, uh, the thing that boggles me, uh, that, that I’ve heard is that, that, uh, well, that nobody owns that retention rate, but are there other, uh, I want to go back to, other reasons why we, the nonprofit feels that we can just hold off on this? I, I, I think there’s a sense of learned helplessness, right, which is, you know, we’ve sort of trained ourselves that most donors don’t give again, um, which is unfortunate because in our experience, this is something that you can change, but I think ingrained in these organizations is the expectation of, I better go find a new one because this guy’s not coming back. Well, that’s self-fulfilling. Well, yeah, that’s self-fulfilling based on bad behavior by the nonprofit. Agreed. Uh, most of these organizations don’t have a structured welcome stream process like I just described that, that runs automatically, which is the ideal. I mean, this is something, you know, as soon as the donation hits the system, it should trigger this campaign to folks. I think a lot of these associations have a campaign mindset, right, is we’ll wait until the next campaign to ask again. Uh, even if the next campaign is 6 months from now, right, by which time 80% of these people have, have moved on. Well, they’ve long forgotten. They, they forgot the donation that they made 6 months ago. Exactly, and then they go into our lapsed donor file where we generally forget about them. Yeah. Yeah, every couple of years we try to revive them. Exactly. It’s time for Tony’s take 2. Thank you, Kate. Just have an update on my book, which is on schedule to be launched. September 15th, it’s planned giving accelerated, the cut through the shit, no-nonsense, practical, step by step guide to launch long-term fundraising at your small nonprofit within a week, starting with bequests. The title may be longer than the book. Did you need a nap? That’s the book title. So it’s, um, it’s, it’s, it’s interesting. Once you hand it over to the editorial process, which the first editor is the line editor. Which is mostly about substance and organization. Once you hand it over there, then, uh, you, and then it goes to the copy editor. The copy editor is mostly about consistency, rules of grammar, Chicago Manual of Style type editing. And, uh, then it goes back to the line editor, then it goes back to the copy editor. And then it goes to the graphic designer. You notice the writer is out of it. Uh, uh, I mean, they asked me questions, but Once you, once you write your manuscript, you’re pretty much out of the process, except for answering some discrete questions about what did you mean here, or can we say this a little differently, things like that. So. Uh, interestingly, I’m not, uh, I’m not too involved. I mean, yeah, I’m not too involved. They keep me apprised, but I’m not too involved. Oh, and then after the back and forth with the editors, two rounds of that, then you have a proofreader. You don’t want to skip the proofreader either, so that’s a. It’s another iteration you go through. But we’re on, we’re on schedule, so not to worry. Nunja worry, as, uh, as my grandpa Martine Etti used to say, would be Kate’s, uh, great grandpa in his Italian New Jersey accent. Nunja worry, Nunjawari. So, none to worry, it’ll be out by the 15th of September. And that’s just an update on my book. And that’s just Tony’s take 2. Kate, I am excited to, I don’t know. I don’t think you’ve shown me like the cover yet, but I’m excited to see the cover and the whole entire. Title on it. It fits. It fits. It fits. I want people to know this is not some academic text that you’re gonna find at the Columbia University, uh, master’s degree program in nonprofit management and fundraising. It’s not gonna be at Columbia or any, it’s not gonna be in any, any higher education curriculum. This is a, this is a, Practitioner’s book, it’s fun. Obviously based judging by the title, right? I want folks to know this is a fun book, not an academic planned giving text. Well, none to worry. Thank you very much. That was Grandpa Martinetti. Thank you. We’ve got boou butt loads more time. Here’s the rest of Low lift donor retention with Chris Vaughn. Improvements. You you have some ideas for small improvements, like for the welcome stream. OK. 3 messages a week apart. The 3rd 1 is an actual, uh, uh, ask for a second gift. So, so, uh, another really important part of that campaign was targeted segmentation. So, um, these types of organizations have a bad habit of talking to everyone about everything they do, right? So we get really excited about all of the mission work we do and we should because we do such great work and we figure if we tell you about all of it, right, we’ll impress you. Something will stick. We’ll throw it all at the wall and something will stick and, and something is actually gonna stick. Well, actually the opposite is true. I, I can’t, I can’t see myself in that. So Lung Association, again, back to our example, uh, had 30 different segments, 30 that they thought about people and all the stuff that they did, right across their, and, and that’s. Completely unrealistic, right? uh, no staff can operate against 30 segments at the same time, right? You can’t accurately bucket people, even with the resources of an ALA. You can’t bucket people accurately, and you don’t have that much to say about 30 different things, I’m afraid. So we, we did the data analysis and we looked at all the millions of folks in the file and what they’d given to and what they cared about, and at the end of the day it was 3. There’s only 3 reasons why people give, right? It’s smoking cessation, it’s uh COPD and lung cancer, right? Those are the causes, and they seldom overlap, right? So maybe I care about cancer and smoking cessation, but by and large, I’m drawn to one of those things and not the other. What were the other, what, what were some of the other 27 different segments that had, these just things just evolved over time. For years and years and nobody looked holistically over time or, or should you talk to a cancer patient different than a cancer survivor, different than a cancer caretaker? No, not as, not as a fundraising organization, no, that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they care about the condition and the good work that you were doing to help cure it. That was the message that we had to tell. OK, OK. So we were able to, because we were able to go through the file and identify previous donors. What they’ve given to when and why we could pretty accurately bucket them. Into one of these cause buckets that we cared about and that’s all we talked to them about. So if we know that you care about lung cancer, that’s all we’re gonna talk to you about. We’re not gonna try to convince you to care about some other issue. We’re gonna talk about all the great work that we’re doing to cure cancer and how you can personally help and how much difference your donation made to the millions of dollars that we raised for cancer research, etc. etc. etc. and now I’m speak your language, right? And, and for the new, for the newest donors, you have the survey results. You have, you have the quick, you have the quick survey from the 1st 3rd of the, of the welcome journey. Welcome stream, you call it welcome stream. Some folks call it a journey, but whatever, yeah, on, onboarding. But yeah, but you have the survey. Now, you, you had millions of donors who you had to categorize into 33 sort of programmatic areas, but, but for the newest donors, yet you, you do have the survey results at least. You, you do, and that’s, that’s 1000 times more than, than you had before, right? I have some, at least I have some idea. And then the next time you give, I’ve just confirmed it, right? That this is the kind of donor you are. These are your issues. These are the kinds of things that you respond to. And that’s part of why it was so transformational is they’ve never expressed themselves that clearly, right? To, to donors about why should you care? And, and what difference does it make that you’re here. It makes a huge difference. And let me tell you how. So that messaging on top of the urgency, right, on top of the inviting nature of the welcome stream was, was just a radically different experience than anyone had ever had from this organization before. Uh, and, and, you know, the end result was a massive increase in, in donor retention. Now what was that project like to get this down, get millions of records fit within 3. 3 programmatic areas. Uh, the actual analysis wasn’t hard. Convincing the organization was, as you might imagine. All right, so say some more, say, say some more. The analysis was pretty obvious, uh, but, you know, convincing the organization to, to think differently and, and, you know, people are, are attached to their own area and what they work on, but to convince them that we’re all gonna be better off. If we consolidate our messaging and communication around where the donors are at and not where we’re at, we’ll be much better off as an organization and ultimately we did. It’s human nature. But you know, but we have to talk to our, our, our daaf lung cancer donors differently than we talk to our online lung cancer donors. And you’re saying just talk to them about lung cancer. Just talk to them about lung cancer and, and how, how, and how you’re making a difference. And, and people give vehicles. What, what about, we have our vehicle and death lung donors. They are get, they need to get different messaging than our. Online and, and sustainer lung cancer donors. No, all right, so you’re, they don’t, it, it really, it really doesn’t matter. It, it, it really, really, really doesn’t matter. Up to a point, donation size doesn’t really matter. I mean, until you get to major gifts, right? It, it really doesn’t matter. Demographics don’t really matter. I don’t care how old you are. I don’t care where you live, right? I care what you care about. That’s, that’s the strategy here. I’m letting that sink in. I care what you care about. So, so know what folks care about, and then talk to them about that. And only that and that’s, that’s the hard discipline. I mean, part of the, part of this welcome stream was, uh, we call it the no fly zone, which is that’s the only thing the new member is going to hear from you, your new donor is going to hear from you during that 1st 90 days are welcome stream messages. No one else is allowed to communicate with them. Right? So we’re not gonna talk to them about every other program we’re gonna do. We’re not gonna talk to them about, you know, this campaign or this event or whatever we’re gonna do. We’re gonna get, we’re gonna welcome you and get you on board and we’re gonna get that second gift before we start talking to you about anything else, critical, critical, critical, because the noise that, you know, organizations like this can generate in their enthusiasm. Dilutes the message, right, and trains people to ignore them right out, right out of the bat. Oh my gosh, I gave a check and I’m getting 10 emails a day. And sometimes that’s not an exaggeration, um, but my, my welcome message is not gonna break through, right? So you have to stop, turn off everything else, no fly zone for 90 days, focus on that second donation, that’s the win. 90 days. OK. OK. That’s hard. Yeah, well, that’s discipline. All right, but you, you want, you’re, you’re imposing messaging discipline on, on any nonprofit that wants to talk about all the work they do because the, the, the person might be interested in something else. But, but we can get there. We can find that out, you know, we could find that out in year 2, maybe, or in, in 6, in, in, we can find that out maybe in 6 months. But initially, just talk to them, just like, just care about what they care about. For 90 days, for 90 days. And then we can, you know, there’s time. If you get the second gift, then, then, well, the, the second, the second gift means the third gift is more likely, and then the third gift means decades of giving or, or highly. So there’s time, there’s time. And just to be a little controversial about it, who cares if they’re interested in something else, if they’re consistently giving to this? Yeah, yeah, who cares? Who cares? Good. No, that’s not, yeah. All right. Um, that’s excellent. Well, what, so, uh, where, where should we, what would we talk about, um, trying to get some like decision making. We need leadership buy-in. Where, where do you want to go next? I, I just forget what I just suggested. Let’s talk about laps. Let’s talk about laps donors. Oh, the lapse donor. Oh yeah, no, that’s right. We’re capturing, we’re capturing the lap donors. Thank you. So you have a lackluster host. You need to, you need to keep me on track. Yes, the lapsed donor recovery. This is something that I’m, I’m, I’m passionate about because most of these organizations give up way too soon. Right, uh, uh, on, on, on campaigns, and we found over the years that organizations that are successful keep asking much longer than organizations that just sort of stop and give up and figure up they’re gone, right? Um, some of them never stop ever, right? If you were on the file, they will respectfully, right, but they will continue asking. We write them off and that’s where that 3% number comes from of us being able to reactivate, you know, some of our lab’s donors where it actually they should be your low hanging fruit. Why? Because you know something about them already, right? You know why they gave before, you know how much they gave, you know they when they gave before. You can reference all of that in these messaging and communications. They already know you. You don’t have to tell the story. They cared about you once enough that they were gonna give you some sort of money, so you’re, you, you should be way ahead of the game. Than you are versus a random acquisition person, but we give up on them as if we assume they’re mad at us, right? They left because they were upset. No, they left because they were indifferent. That’s a very different problem to solve. So, number one is don’t give up on your lab’s file. In our ALA case, right, they had millions of folks who’d given in the past who’d never given again, and we put them all back on the target list from as old as 5 years ago. So if you’d given within the last 5 years. You, you were, um, you know, you were in this, we called it the winback campaign, and it operated very similarly to the welcome stream. It was targeted. It was segmented. It was based on data that we had about you. Um, it went out in a multi-part stream, um, and it was phenomenally successful. They more than doubled their recapture rate. They recaptured 7%. Uh, of their file, um, over the, over the next year. So between onboarding and this lapsed member campaign, same philosophical right fiber to them, they added 300,000 members to their donor file. Net of acquisition. So simply by reactivating lapsed numbers and activating new donors, they were able to accomplish that kind of growth in their file. So when, when people write off their lapsed donor, they kind of pull my hair out a little bit and say, you know, that’s the money that you’re leaving on the table. All right, let’s go into a little more detail about the Winback campaign. So, it’s also 3, is it also 3 messages over 3 weeks? Or is it long or what, what did you do? I think the winback campaign probably went a little longer because I think we had to, we felt like we had to walk them back into it a little bit more, right? But part of it was acknowledging that you’ve given in the past, right? And, and being very specific about that. Like, we know exactly what you did and exactly when you did it. Thank you again, right? We really appreciate you doing that. Here’s, here’s something new. Tell us about you, right? Again, you know, the survey, you gave them, you, you give, you give them the survey. Yeah, absolutely, right. People want to be asked about that. Tell us about you. Here’s some new opportunities for you. It’s been a while, right? Maybe you didn’t know we were working on this, this, this, and this. Here’s some more impact messaging. Uh, you know, you may have been wondering what happened with your gift, but this is what we’ve done. In the last year, in the last 2 years with, with these gifts to, you know, cure COPD or, or whatever, and then we ask again. I mean, that, that was the stream, uh, and we would continue to, it wasn’t one and done. I mean, we would continue to keep them in this winback campaign pretty much indefinitely. Um, we would communicate less frequently, right? We don’t want to be obnoxious about it, but the philosophy essentially is never give up. And why would you give up, you know, and, and we were successful. The, the, the longer lapse they are, the harder they are to get back, but we were successful, up to 5 years out, bringing people back in as active donors who had been inactive for that long. And this was digital. Did you say this was an email campaign, to win back? It was all email. It was all email, no print, right? There’s no, there’s no print. Print it’s too expensive, yeah. For the, for the low likelihood, uh, of, of, uh, regaining somebody. OK. OK. So, so, you know, they had Salesforce, right? Big expensive, you know, data and email tool, which was overkill for this, right? You don’t need all that. I mean, any, any donor system that you’re running has the capabilities, or you can very easily bolt them on to do this kind of, you know, triggered campaign email that I’m talking about. You know, any organization has the ability to segment their file. Uh, especially now, you know, using AI, it’s actually very easy and very quick to do the kind of segmentation that I’m talking about and put it back in your donor file. So technology is not the obstacle, uh, anymore. I, I think it’s, it’s, uh, right, strategic framing, right? Sort of thinking first, A, the retention is important, right? Uh, and, and B, that it, it, it’s a program, right? It’s not something that happens, it’s something that we have to intentionally design, uh, and activate around. You have, um, some thoughts about, uh, leadership and structural decisions, creating the churn that we’re talking about. What’s your thinking there? The first was one we’ve talked about already, which is prioritizing acquisition over retention as, as, as an, as an organization. Um, well, another one would be dismissing your lapsed donors, dismissing your lapsed donors, uh, for, for whatever, for whatever reason. And again, I think there’s maybe this sort of sense of learned futility, which we haven’t been successful in the past, therefore, we’ll never be successful in the future, even if we do something differently, which our experience says is completely untrue. Um, but I do think there’s just sort of the kind of the ingrained ways of thinking in these organizations that, um, they stop them from even trying, you know, to do things differently. I don’t know. Do you agree with that? Oh, yeah. Uh, well, I said earlier, it’s self-fulfilling, you know, we, we never have in the past gotten lapsed donors back in, in, in decent numbers. So why, why keep trying? But, how about trying something different? Yeah. And, and I think it’s the way that board and leadership measure things, right? So we’re looking at new donors, whereas if the, the key metric was just the total size of the file, we would look at it very differently, right? So it’s, it’s not how many new donors, it’s, you said it yourself earlier, how many of them are we keeping? Are we seeing year over year growth in the total file and the total revenue is a very different way of looking at kind of cultivating your, your total donor base. Uh, many organizations don’t, you know, we, we see this, and we see this in membership too, you know, the acquisition rate is really strong. It’s really great, and no 1 may ever look at the retention number. They may not be able to tell you what their retention number is because they assume all this acquisition activity means that everything is fine, uh, and everything is going OK. So I do think there’s a kind of institutional blind spot around retention for a lot of these organizations, but I don’t know why. Well, I, I think a big part of it is, as you said earlier, uh, nobody, nobody’s, nobody’s measuring it. I mean, no, not you, we said nobody owns it, nobody’s accountable to it, but, you know, the, so the things you don’t measure are just gonna languish. That’s right. But when you start measuring and you start benchmarking and you start setting goals, you can, you can move the needle. I mean, it’s not guaranteed, but at least you’re paying attention to the problem. Yeah, I think that’s right. And I think there’s a structural lack of, uh, urgency that we talked about before around, you know, it can wait, it can wait till the next campaign, right? I just, I think there’s a lack of appreciation for how quickly human beings make decisions like this about what they want to be affiliated with when their expectations are, are not met. Um, it’s true across a lot of organizations. I think people feel like, well, We got you in the door. That was the hard part, right? And we’ll let the rest take care of itself. Yeah, but it doesn’t. Uh, and, and we know that it’s not taking care of itself. All right. Um, you’ve got some ideas, uh, uh, practical, low-cost ways. For small and mid-size, I, I, I appreciated you, you shouting out our small and mid-size nonprofits. Those are our listeners. Uh, American Lung Association probably is not listening. Although I, I think they could, they, they could learn a thing or two from, uh, from our guests, but, uh, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re produced for the small and mid-size nonprofits. So you’ve got some like small things, low lift, but maybe, uh, outsized impact ideas. Yeah, I, I think, I, I really do think that nothing that we’ve talked about is beyond the reach of, of, of, but perhaps the very, very smallest, you know, organizations who, who have no staff whatsoever. The, the technology has really changed the game, uh, in terms of the ease of lift around these kinds of things. The, the, the first thing I would do would be to pull my lapsed donor file. Uh, and, and really, really understand it. I mean, how many are out there and how long have they been out there and what have we done to try to get them back? I mean, what, what would it mean to try to segment them? Have we, have we ever thought about that before? I mean, I would spend some serious time with that file and ask myself, um, why haven’t we taken another swing at this and what would it mean if we did it? I think that would be step one. OK. Do you have a step 2? I, I think step two would be to start. Thinking about the right way to segment your members and some small organizations may be single cause organizations, and that’s actually great, right? Because that, that solves that problem for you, but other organizations communicate about a lot of different things in a lot of different ways and, and being able to consolidate that to manageable high impact segments is really important. I think I would start giving some. First, be honest about that. I mean, are we overcommunicating? Are we diluting our own message? You know, are we talking about what the donors care about? are we talking about what we care about? Have that conversation with yourself that’s free, uh, for you to do as an organization, and then, uh, think about what you can do in terms of a highly effective. Welcome stream, even if you can’t do multi-part email, and I think you probably can, right? Even if you can’t do targeted segmentation, and I think you probably can, what can you do immediately for a first-time donor to bring them back into the welcome stream and get them to that second gift, right? Using whatever tools that you have, it’s, I, I don’t know that it has to be sophisticated because anything you do is probably better than what you’ve been doing, right, up until now, or your retention numbers would be better than they are. That survey that goes with the, the 1st, 1st message in the welcome stream or in the, in the, in the windback for trying to recapture lapsed, lapsed donors. Um, I, I imagine that that’s, well, I think you said 10 seconds, but it was like a 3 question, 34 question survey. Maybe 5, sort of 5 very, very quick, welcoming kinds of questions. Hey, we’d like to learn a little bit more about you, right? You know, how did you hear about us? What moved you to give this time, right? You know, what, why is it, you know, why is smoking cessation personally important to you? Uh, those kinds of questions. Um, you can take free form answers to, those are easier to process now than they used to be. It doesn’t have to be checkboxes. That’s actually the most important stuff. Uh, we learned that lesson too from some research that we did with, uh, World Wildlife Fund, who does something very similar to this, but their survey responses are open-ended. So I don’t have to do check boxes and, you know, again, the technology is not that fancy now, but to figure out, you know, in Tony’s own words, this is what he cares about, and then they feed your own words back to you. So they will literally communicate with you in your own words that they collected from that upfront server, which I thought was brilliant. All right, that’s a great use of technology. Capturing, capturing their words and inserting them into messages back. Yeah, and it, and it really, really works. I mean, it’s like hugely effective and it a couple of years ago that would have been like Star Trek stuff, right? Like, you know, that’s impossible on their own. It’s not with the AI AI powered tools and a lot of them are built into these donor management systems now, that kind of stuff is becoming more and more automatic. Uh, so I encourage all of our clients, it’s like, look at the technology you already have. I don’t, you, you probably do not have to go out and spend thousands of dollars to buy some new tool. These capabilities are either built into what you’re already paying for or they will be next year. So have that conversation with your vendor. What capabilities are you not using that are right there at your fingertips. OK, Chris Vaughn, you feel OK? Is there anything you want to leave our donors with that, uh, We, we haven’t talked about that you want to. Uh, uh, uh, encouragement, right? I, I would wanna encourage. Did I just say leave our donors? I think I just said leave our donors with. I’m so focused on donor retention. Yeah, you’re donors right now. Leave our listeners. Leave our listeners donor. Well, we’re donor-focused. No, we’re listener-focused. It’s a podcast. It’s not a, it’s not a nonprofit. So leave our listeners. I, I would And it’s gonna sound obvious, but take, take retention seriously, right? Elevate it to a strategic priority. It is far and away your fastest path to revenue growth is to bring that retention number up. That that’d be the most have this conversation. Your board should be talking about this. You should have this conversation. They should know these numbers, the benchmarks as well as your own, and understand the compounding arithmetic. Of repeat donors and bringing them up and, and I think a lot of boards really, really don’t. I mean, so, uh. The problem is solvable, and, and I feel like a lot of folks coming into this conversation feel like that’s just the way it is, right? Donors just don’t come back. I think that’s not true. I think donors that aren’t, aren’t managed well, aren’t welcomed the right way, right? Aren’t asked to come back the right way, don’t come back. But our experience shows and, and, and the example that I’ve been talking about shows that it, it, it can be different. So, um, part of it is encouragement, which is take this seriously, and part of it encourage it, it’s solvable, right? This is not a problem that can’t be solved. It’s not a problem that you can’t solve as a, uh, a small organization, I mean we. Um, you know, this is, this is our mission as a firm is to help organizations grow, right, to grow membership and, and to grow revenue, and we’ve been, we’ve been at it for 25 years, and nothing makes us happier than to see these organizations succeed. I, I think the things that I’ve been talking about today, um, are not complicated, and, and maybe they sound complicated to a small staff organization, um, but it, I. Having done it for all these years, it’s, it’s not, I think, you know, I think what’s hard is to make the mental shift in the first place, that this is important, uh, and that, you know, we need to be more urgent about it. I think once you turn that corner and elevate this to the strategic priority, the, the how and the what becomes, uh, uh, an awful lot easier. Um, so I, I would leave that with your listeners as well as you don’t be intimidated and don’t be afraid to take this on. I think these are, these things are all well within your reach. The company is Sequence Consulting at sequence Consulting.com. Uh, it’s co-founder and chief strategy officer is Chris Vaughn. Chris, thank you very much. Pleasure. Thank you. Thanks for sharing all this. My pleasure. Next week, grants fundraising before you start writing. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer, Kate Martinetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guide, and this music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. Go out and be great.
Mallory Erickson: The Science Of Fundraiser Feelings
We take a scientific look at fundraiser behavior and behavior design, with Mallory Erickson. What does the science say about what happens in the fundraiser’s body at stressful moments, like a solicitation or problem confrontation? Are you or your fundraisers performing tasks that make them feel productive, but avoid the true work of fundraising? Mallory is CEO of Practivated and she talks us through.
We’re the #1 Podcast for Nonprofits, With 13,000+ Weekly Listeners
Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.
Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. View Full Transcript
Welcome to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host and the pod father of your favorite hebdominal podcast. Oh, I’m glad you’re with us. I’d suffer the effects of schwannomatosis if you unnerved me with the idea that you missed this week’s show. Here’s our associate producer, Kate, with what’s coming. Hey Tony, we’ve got. The science of fundraiser feelings. We take a scientific look at fundraiser behavior and behavior design with Mallory Erickson. What does the science say about what happens in the fundraiser’s body at stressful moments, like a solicitation or problem confrontation. Are you or your fundraisers performing tasks that make them feel productive, but avoid the true work of fundraising? Mallory is CEO of Practivated, and she talks us through. On Tony’s take 2. I love in-person audiences. Here is the science of fundraiser feelings. It’s a genuine pleasure to welcome the founder and CEO of Practivated, Mallory Erickson. Mallory is also a host and author of What the Fundraising, the podcast and the book. She’s a certified executive coach trained in behavior science, neuroscience, and behavior design. She has trained over 100,000 fundraisers to fundamentally change the way they lead and fundraise. The company is at practivated.com and you’ll find Mallory on LinkedIn. Mallory Erickson, welcome to Nonprofit Radio. Thank you so much for having me. I’m so excited for this conversation. Thank you. I’m glad you’re with us. We don’t, we don’t take too many scientific looks at, uh, at fundraising, uh, which is to say, never, I think, maybe, maybe once, maybe once in 16 years or so, but one, but not, it’s usually, uh, it’s usually data-driven or, you know, some, some niche, but we’re gonna, we’re gonna talk some about science, including neuroscience. Um, uh, could you flesh out behavior design for me? What, that sounds very Orwellian. So I’m, I’m concerned. What is? Yeah, no, no. So I, um, so my background in this is through kind of two different bodies of work. One was being trained by Doctor BJ Fogg. He is, um, he has, he created the behavior lab at Stanford and he wrote the book Tiny Habits, and he’s created the Fogg behavior model. And so he, I took a course, uh, er. course with him many years ago around how you design habits and behavior um for behavior change and then I also was trained by folks at IDO on design thinking and you know design thinking is uh a little bit more like macro level but it’s still it’s really that like human centered design um what’s IDO oh IDO. So they’re here in San Francisco. They are also, I think one of the original sort of like design thinking firms. I think technically they’re like a product design company, but really they look at behavior change on a macro level and they use design thinking to build for, um, I don’t wanna say outliers, but like the hardest case situations. So I, I. I trained with them when I was leading a diabetes education, um, and advocacy organization, and we were thinking about how to design, um, products, but also interventions and education to address the pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes epidemic. So, design thinking helps you think about, OK, what are all the things that are currently happening, the behaviors that are currently happening. What are the challenges and problems that that that is creating? What are the desired behaviors that we want, uh, people to take? And then you, you try to take like the hardest circumstance and build for that. Um, and then, and then when you do that, it actually includes a lot of other people. So, I’ll give you an example of a, of a, of a Uh, product or something that, um, that IDEO worked on. So many years ago, I think they’re responsible for this. There was a, um, uh, Bank of America or some bank was trying to increase savings accounts. And they were trying to get people to put more money into savings accounts, and they really couldn’t get the folks. To incentivize that. So they worked with design thinkers and they ended up after, you know, lots of interviews and testing and iteration having a roundup feature at the bank where any time you were um you were writing a check and there was anything left over from your checking account it would start to. Go into your savings account. It was this Roundup for savings kind of mechanism, and it built this habit in people to sort of recognize the importance of saving accounts and this money consistently going into a savings account and started to build um much more investment in the bank’s like saving account mechanism. OK, OK, good example. So you, you, right, designing for a, a behavior outcome in a large group of people, right, right. And so, so how does that, uh, apply to what we want to talk about fundraising, Make the connection. Yeah, so, I mean, uh, maybe I’ll give you like a tiny bit of background on how I, how this led me here. So, so basically, I became an accidental fundraiser, getting promoted up through nonprofits and managing director, executive director roles. I was really uncomfortable fundraising, um, when I first started out. And I was sure that I was a bad fundraiser because I wanted to throw up before every major donor meeting. And I, um, And I completely burnt out. And I got to this moment in my career where I was like, gosh, like I can’t keep, I can’t keep doing this. I can’t keep burning out. I have to figure out another way to fundraise that feels better to me. At the same time as I was sort of having that moment in my personal and professional life, I was learning habit and behavior design from BJ Fogg. I was learning design thinking from IDO. And I was getting executive coach certified. And I started, you know, a lot of, a lot of those different frameworks at the core underneath them is how the body responds when we feel vulnerable or a threat or scared or fear. Whether that fear is conscious or subconscious, how that sabotages our desired behavior. And And um and that habit and behavior design and executive coaching and design thing all through these different frameworks and mechanisms, they all help us get over the action line despite resistance or fear either by making an action tinier so there’s less fear involved breaking it down into micro steps or maybe analyzing where the fear is coming. From in your brain and acknowledging and validating it and helping you move forward. So I sort of had this moment where I was like, wow, I, I remember coaching somebody on a call once. And as part of my certification, and I got off the call and I asked myself, what’s the most vulnerable thing that I do in my life? Like I was coaching this woman around this incredibly vulnerable moment in her life. And I was like, what’s the most vulnerable thing I do in my life? And I was like, fundraising. And I was like, wow, like, what if I took all these frameworks that I’m learning in all these other, in all these other spaces? What if I applied them to my fundraising? Like, what if I started to notice what was happening in my body before a donor meeting? What if I started to notice where I was experiencing resistance with my to do list, you know, just not taking action on that 2 to 5 minute task, um, that maybe underneath that was some fear or some discomfort or some worry. That the person might not like what I do. And so I started to take all these frameworks and I started to design habits for myself around fundraising, around the parts of fundraising that I felt the most fear around. I started to think about like, what were other sort of like ways I could design my days or my behaviors to take into account the things that didn’t come naturally to me. How could I, you know, recognize. When I felt discomfort in fundraising and acknowledge and validate how I feel, but shift some of my thoughts and beliefs that might be leading to that discomfort. And as I was doing this, it completely changed how I fundraised. And not only did I start to raise a lot more money, like I, I moved an organization from a million to 3.8 million in like 24 months, and actually almost more. Importantly than that, or I don’t know, more importantly, was that I started to be able to raise that amount of money in half the time. Because what I wasn’t doing was spiraling in my head or, you know, dealing with all this resistance or doing all these like random tasks that actually weren’t driving my fundraising outcomes, but were, you know, making me feel productive while avoiding vulnerability. And so I started, and then most importantly, I started to love fundraising. And I was like, oh my gosh, if I can love fundraising, anyone can love fundraising. And so then I just wanted to share these tools with my peers. And that’s really how all of this started. I started to kind of become obsessed with the relationship between how we feel and what we do, and what really gets in our way as fundraisers. And then I started to just wanna share these frameworks with anyone who is experiencing fundraising the way that I was. And when I started. My podcast in 2021, everybody I was inviting on the podcast were neuroscientists and behavioral scientists and therapists and psychologists, because to your point, there’s a lot of science around donor behavior, but I could find nothing around fundraiser behavior. And I was like, if we are the biggest predictor of a donor donor’s behavior, right? Like we drive the primary prompts and invitations to donors. We need to better understand our behavior, like when it’s happening, when it’s not happening, and what might be happening in our brain and body that is most impacting than our donor’s response. And so that’s really what set me off on this journey to try to connect the dots between the way I had been learning about habit and behavior design and design thinking, but thinking about it in this fundraising context and um Yeah, so it, it’s been a really, really interesting, I mean, I said before we hit record, like I call myself a wannabe behavioral scientist, um, but really, like I, I think what, what all of these interviews with these incredible scientists and researchers has illuminated for me is that, um, you know, fundraising can’t just be like a strategy or a template. Or a to do list because it is so vulnerable it involves our nervous system we are taking risks we are putting ourselves out there and because of that our like our body’s reaction our stress response, all those things is a really critical part of how we need to design for um how we fundraise. Excellent. OK. Uh, I’m, I’m taking this in. There are some threads I wanna pull on a little bit. Um, we’re gonna, we are gonna definitely, I wanna get to the science. I’m, I’m very interested in the neuroscience or whatever, physiologically, what’s happening, even whether it’s brain or otherwise. Um, but first, what, what are, you mentioned that you were doing tasks that made you feel productive, but you were actually avoiding fundraising. That sounds like symptoms that maybe we wanna make listeners conscious of. What, what, what kinds of tasks are you talking about that feel good, but, but don’t, uh, don’t move the needle on, on, uh, on revenue? Yeah. So, OK, so maybe, and I’ll, I’ll sort of frame this up also related to some of the neuroscience. So, our stress response, right? When we, when our back brain or our amygdala gets activated, it activates our nervous system. We go into a variety of different types of stress responses, right? Most people are familiar with fight, flight, or freeze as like the primary stress responses. When a lot of what I see in fundraising, what I was experiencing. Myself, but also what I’ve seen now with, you know, thousands of fundraisers is this oscillation and stress response between blight and freeze that presents itself in how we fundraise. So, blight, a flight response is when you have 82 tabs open on your computer with a bunch of different fundraising ideas or you’re like, oh, we’re gonna do a Chipotle dinner night over here and then we’re gonna. I’m gonna help this person do a bake sale over here and maybe we’ll start selling coffee with our student participants over here and I was doing all those things, right? I was doing lots of like, like scattered spray fire fundraising activities that were really what they were doing is they were looking busy and productive, but what they were helping me avoid was one on one conversations with donors, right? Like if I had had one sit down meeting with one of our donors, I would have raised the amount. The amount of money that 15 activities we’re trying to raise, but those activities felt safer. They felt less vulnerable, they felt less risky. And so I was always defaulting to way too many fundraising activities, none of which were driving deeper fundraising results, but were making me feel like I was really busy. So that was like my flight response. Then the oscillation to freeze that we often see in fundraising is perfectionism. We’re like, I’ll be ready. So perfectionism, perfect is an illusion, right? I mean, excellence and perfection are not the same thing. And perfectionism is a freeze response. It’s really just designed to hold us back from taking the action. It tells us, we’ll be ready when, right? You, I’ll be ready to meet with this donor when this document is perfect. I’ll be ready to Launch this campaign when this happens. And when we are editing something 52 times, like that is not about excellence, that is about fear of clicking submit. And so I, we see this in fundraising and I was definitely experiencing this, this oscillation between a million scattered spray fire fundraising activities and And then perfectionism and paralysis and just sort of oscillating back and forth between those two stress responses. And again, it was making me feel productive. No, I’m just making this proposal really, really, really good. Or I’m just making this one pager really, really, really good. But it was actually just my way of dealing with the discomfort of what might happen when I sent it. And say a little more about, uh, the, the, the way that, the way that felt for you and, and, and the impact it had on your team too. Yeah. You know, I mean, I think one thing I’ll say is that I think different cultures, like different organizational cultures normalize some of these things in different ways, right? Like, I don’t even know that my team felt weird about what I was doing. I think we were all doing it in different ways. Like we were all oscillating back and forth between those two stras and we just didn’t have the consciousness to know what that was, right, at the time. Especially, I worked in small grass. Grassroots organizations I think had I been, you know, a higher ed fundraiser with a portfolio, it might have illuminated itself differently to me then, you know, when I was sort of, uh, held to more rigid metrics, maybe I would have even noticed it earlier, but because we were a scrappy, you know, you know, grassroots nonprofit, it seemed more normal that I was sort of doing all of these random things just to figure out fundraising. How it felt to me was just. I mean, I think It, it’s such a good, you know, nobody has ever asked me that question. I think, I think. If you had asked me then. What it felt like before I had the awareness and consciousness to really understand what was happening, I would’ve said, oh yeah, I’m just really, really busy and I’m overwhelmed, right? I just like don’t have time for everything. I’m really, really busy. I’m overwhelmed, but I’m just trying to do all these fundraising things. Like I wasn’t, it, it, and so how I felt was anxious, right? How I felt was anxious, how I felt was worried, how I felt was, was just like constant. Instantly on edge. Like that was like what that feeling was like in my body or sometimes dread. Opening my eyes in the morning and just feeling like I was under quicksand. You know, like, uh, like I don’t want to do this again. I don’t know how to do this again. Like what, you know, just that sort of paralysis, freeze state. Like that was really, that was really like how it like felt in my body. And then once I started to realize Oh, you know, maybe this is coming from fear. And I started to get curious about that. Honestly, the first, the way it felt when I started to say those things out loud, I don’t know if you’ve ever had an experience like this where you, you say something either in your head or out loud and like your whole body just like knows it’s true. You know? And like sometimes like all my goosebumps will stand up or I’ll just like feel it in every cell where you’re just like, oh no, yeah, that’s true. And I think once I started to be like, maybe I’m scared, or like maybe I’m afraid that person won’t like me, or maybe I’m worried that if they say no, I won’t hit my fundraising goals. And then like, what does that say about me? Like the moments, like maybe I’m not good enough for this. Maybe I’m not, um, maybe I can’t do this. Like I think once I started to like Say my fears, I started to realize that like that’s what it was. That it wasn’t about, oh, I’m just overwhelmed and have so many things to do. I sort of realized pretty fast, like, oh, I’m creating all these things to do cause I’m scared. Thanks for sharing that. And, and then, I think at the same time you were, you were doing this learning and certification, and this is when you had sort of an aha moment. Well, eventually you had this moment where you realized. What you were feeling is, is related to what you’re studying. Yeah It’s time for Tony’s take 2. Thank you, Kate. I love in-person audiences. I just met with one last week. We were hosted by the Grunnin Foundation in New Jersey. We were meeting in Freehold, New Jersey. And there were about 70 or 80 people there. I was talking about planned giving for the whole morning. So it was 3 sessions with breaks in between, uh, on launching planned giving at your small or mid-size nonprofit. My favorite topic. And, you know, it’s just the, the, the spontaneity and the, the immediate feedback and the full group feedback. You can see everybody. You don’t have to look at people 12 at a time and, and have to click to see the other 12. Every, everybody’s there in front of you. You just have to turn your head. It’s so simple. And the, just the, the fun of it, uh, I love to walk through the, everybody was in round tables, so it wasn’t set up like a theater. It was round. I love walking through the tables. I like talking from the back of the room. I, I like to use the full space, you know, uh, the, the, the fun, I mean, the immediate feedback for, for joking and humor. It’s, there’s just nothing like it. There is no virtual tool that has, uh, has any, any claim to anything near live and in person. Audiences. I, I just loved it. And, being back in my, my home state, New Jersey was very special, helping all those nonprofits, uh, in my, in the state where I grew up. So that made it extra special. But, but it was mostly, Just being with people in person. No substitute. So if you can go to conferences in person, I urge you to. It, it makes, it makes a world of difference. I’ve got another one coming up. Uh, by the time you listen, it will have passed. The bridge, of course, we’ve been, uh, we, they were sponsors. Uh, it was last week and I’m between right now talking, when it’s coming up, and when you listen, it’ll be over. So I can’t say how it went, but it’ll be in person, and that’ll make it very, very special. That is Tony’s take 2. Kate I mean, Zoom and, you know, Webex and Google Meets and all these, you know, websites have made Meeting more accessible. But I think it’s great that now, you know, pandemic over, we’re all getting back on our feet still, that we’re able to now meet in person and meet face, uh, people one on one. I think that’s a great thing. Yep, yep, absolutely. I, I, I’m, I’m so glad we’re, we’re over that, where it has to be virtual. Uh, yeah, it’s more accessible, but it’s not as much fun. It’s not as spontaneous. You just, you know, you don’t, you don’t see everybody. You don’t get to see, I, I hate that click, oh, I, I can’t see three-quarters of the people because there’s more than one screen, you know, that I’m glad, you know, we’re long past that. We’re years past that. I just hope folks are taking advantage of, In person, whether it’s, even it’s a one on one meeting, you know, meeting with donors and prospects. I hope folks are not defaulting to, uh, let’s just do it, let’s just do it remote. Hope not. As a viewer, were you more of like a gallery mode kind of person, or would you do like the speaker mode so you could see who was speaking in the moment? No, I choose gallery. At least you, you can see them, you can see 12 or whatever it is, whatever fits on a screen, 12 or 18, but I don’t remember what, uh. I was in one this morning. I don’t really, whatever. I don’t remember how many it is. But yeah, no, I, I’d, I’d rather see as many people as possible, but I’d rather see everybody instead of 12 or 18 at a time. So which one would you choose? Would you, do you choose gallery or speaker view? Oh, I think if it was more of like a, a team building or an icebreaker, I would do a gallery, but if I’m learning something, like I’m taking a class or a workshop, then I would put it on speaker, uh, the speaker view. Well, that makes sense for a class, yeah, because it’s pretty much one person talking, right, unless somebody has a question. We’ve got Beu butt loads more time. Here’s the rest of The Science of Fundraiser Feelings with Mallory Erickson. So let’s talk about the science. Uh, so what, what is happening in our, in our bodies when we’re, uh, I mean, I, I think what your work is mostly is preparing fundraisers for one on one meetings, right? Either, I, I, I happen to like face to face and I happen to like over meals, uh, it’s a preference for me. Um. My Italian background, I like the, I like, I like the shared space of the table. Uh, I like the cadence. Everybody knows the cadence from the greeting to the take the drink order, to come back for the entree order, to check on the entrees, to, to, to see if there’s dessert, whether it’s a luxury dinner. Everybody, everybody at the table knows the cadence. Everybody, it’s usually, it’s usually me and one or two other people. It’s a person or a couple, typically. Um, so there’s the shared space, there’s the understanding of the understanding of the cadence of the meal. Uh, there’s the no interruptions. We’re not in, we’re not in her office, so she’s not gonna get blindsided by a call or something. Um. And yeah, just that cadence, you know, helps me kind of time my conversation. Anyway, all right, that, but we’re not, OK. Anyway, uh, share that for what it’s worth because I, I happen to like meetings over meals, but whatever. Your work is preparing fundraisers for meetings, right? OK. So what’s going on physiologically? Uh, I don’t know, the hour before, uh, the day before. I mean, you know the, you know the science better. What’s going on? We got this meeting on, we got this meeting Thursday at 12:30 and let’s make it a lunch meeting. So that week or that month, I don’t know, you take the time span you need. What’s going on for our bodies? Yeah, so, and one thing I’ll say is, first of all, thank you for sharing what you shared, and that actually makes perfect sense because, um, you know, I, I interviewed this, uh, guy on what the fundraising, Arash Yankovic, uh, who’s the head of the Fear Research lab at Wayne State, and he wrote a book called Afraid, and he talks about two ways to decrease fear our knowledge and control. And so that lunch meeting is a great example. Example of control, right? You’re reducing the amount of uncertainty you know the cadence, what’s gonna happen. It makes you feel a great like that’s a perfect example actually of like how to leverage kind of what is in our control to reduce the amount of uncertainty that can disregulate us. All right, so I’m a control, I’m a control freak is what you just said I’m no, no, no, no, what I’m saying is that what you’ve done is you’ve hacked. Away you’ve hacked a lever of decreasing fear in a in a totally appropriate way like because so here’s one of the things that that’s really interesting about this question. One of the things that we’ve realized uh that I’ve realized over the years and that we’ve been able to sort of prove through Practivated is that our fear of what could happen in a meeting, even a meeting that is not on your calendar. Yet even a meeting that is not in an hour or a week before, a fear of what could happen with a donor at a hypothetical meeting in the future actually changes your behavior for months, if not years in advance. So one of the most interesting data points we saw with Practivated was that it increases donor human-driven donor touch points by 280%. So fundraisers are reaching out to their donors so much more frequently, not even necessarily with meeting requests, with touch points, with showing them an article, with calling to check on them, with saying thank you, all because their fear so much of what holds us back from even these behaviors that we don’t think are that vulnerable, right? Always ask me, why is it so hard to make a thank you call? They’ll be like, that should not be hard. Why am I scared to make a thank you call? Because it’s still vulnerable. What if you get somebody on the phone who’s in the middle of lunch and then they’re upset that you called at that time? It’s like the, the chance of that is so small, but the fear holds us back and gets projected into all of these other behaviors and all of this other resistance. Because of what might possibly happen one day if we ever have that conversation. So I just wanna like frame that up, and then, and now I’ll I’ll answer your, your actual question around what’s happening in our body. So, one of the things that I started to, so our stress response, I mentioned before, like, when we’re learning about something or we’re in training or we’re in a workshop, we’re in our prefrontal cortex, we’re in the logical part of our brain. When we go to implement something and take that action, especially if that action involves any level of vulnerability, our back brain comes online, our amygdala, our lizard brain, that’s where, where’s the amygdala? Can you point? OK, yeah, na nape of the neck, yeah, yeah, I, well, I don’t know. I’m not, I don’t have a 3D, but yeah, it’s like, it’s like known lovingly as our back brain sometimes. So, so our amygdala comes online, that’s connected to our nervous system, and our back brain’s job, our back brain essentially has two jobs to keep you alive. And to conserve as much energy as possible, right? Because it’s like threat, potential threat. And so it’s like survival, but then also conserve as much energy as possible because like you don’t know if you’re going to have to run really fast from that lion in the woods, right? Our brain is this primitive, um, it, it’s primitive in the way that it detects and responds to fear. So, because its job is to um keep us alive and conserve as much energy as possible, it actually turns off all these other functions in the brain in order to do that. So it turns off our prefrontal cortex in certain ways, it turns off our ability for collaboration, for um curiosity, for flexibility, for innovation, all these. Things that are required for deep relationship building with our donors, they actually go offline when our stress response is running the show, when our amygdala is running the show. The idea behind this, of course, is that when we’re feeling under threat or we’re feeling fear, we’re essentially like tender, right? Like if we’re in a stress response, we don’t wanna do something that could. Would make something, make us more vulnerable. Right? Like if I’m feeling really tender and afraid, the last thing I want to do is share a part of myself with someone that they might not like or that they might reject. Or, you know, I wouldn’t want to lose my feeling of belonging because I’m already feeling really tender, right? I’m already feeling like, oh my gosh, like how am I gonna, you know, survive this lion eating me in. The woods or whatever it is. So it turns off all of these, all of these things that add on to a stress response. And one of the things that I learned, so when I first started coaching fundraisers around burnout, I, the first thing I did was to try to get them to work less, right? I was like, everybody’s overworked. They’re, I’m gonna be able to help them with their burnout if I get them to work less. Then I found that even when I got folks to work 40 hours a week, or sometimes 35 hours a week, or sometimes even less, they were still burning out. And I was like, OK, what is happening here? And that, that started a body of research on what the fundraising around what causes stress, chronic stress, and then ultimately burnout and the progression between those states. And there were 5 areas of fundraising that are scientifically proven to increase stress, chronic stress, and burnout. Uncertainty. Pressure, power dynamics, isolation, and overwork, right? So, so those things coming together. Create additional stress, chronic stress, and burnout. Now, fundraising, oh, and rejection. Sorry, that was the other one, rejection. Overwork was my pre one. So, some of those components are gonna be involved in fundraising, no matter how great of a fundraiser we are. Rejection is always gonna be a part of fundraising. Pressure is always gonna be a part of fundraising, even if our organization isn’t putting it on us like we feel the pressure, right? To fund our programs, to, to meet our goals, all of those things. Um, isolation, fundraising can be incredibly isolating even inside organizations, especially if you’re the only fundraiser, right? And everybody else is like, well, I’m not a fundraiser. Like that’s a very isolating emotional experience and then uncertainty. Like fund, one of the things that I think is so hard about fundraising is the fact that relationships, human relationships are dynamic and uncertain, and yet we are trying to operationalize them. In a process that is super rigid and those things feel in conflict, right? Like I would never with mom friends be like, OK, I’m trying to become friends with 4 people at my in my daughter’s first grade class. So the first thing I’m gonna do is invite them all to the park and see how much I like them. Then if that goes. As well, I’ll invite them over for a plate, right? Like we did, that’s just not how human relationships work. So we’re trying to make this very human thing operationalized and, and the reality is it still feels uncertain because human relationships are uncertain and that is dysregulating for our nervous system. So when we’re stressed and those things just come together, and they, they layer onto each other, and they create a really, um, hard emotional environment to then go into a donor meeting and be open to connection, because our brain has turned off so many of those pieces. And so, a lot of my work, what my Work has focused on is like how do we decrease the stress response, right? How do we reduce overwhelm in order to open up and have access to all of those other parts of our brain that actually drive fundraising that feel good, connected relationships, revenue. Because we need curiosity, we need flexibility, we need to ask open-ended questions, but our brain doesn’t want to do that if we’re scared. So the next step is, uh, thank you. That, that’s a great overview of what’s, what’s going on in our, in our bodies, in our minds. Um, what can we do? You, you, you, you highlight, you, in passing, we mentioned, you mentioned a couple of things. I know we’re gonna flesh out like coaching, repetition, you know, getting insights, um, How can we, how can we help our fundraisers overcome what’s, what’s a perfectly natural. These are, these things that you’re describing are all perfectly natural, ordinary, nothing to be ashamed of responses to, to the stressors of fundraising like isolation and uncertainty. Yes, yes. Thank you for saying that because I think that is so, you know, oftentimes people will say when I speak, like they’ll come up to me after and be like, thank you so much for talking about this. I thought I was the only one. And like the thing I really want people to hear is everybody experiences these things because they’re in our body. Even 2030 year fundraiser. I talked to chief philanthropy officers constantly that who are still experiencing this. Now the scenarios that create the discomfort or uncertainty. He might be different than a first year annual gift officer, but everybody is dealing with situations that create this, this, uh, environment in our nervous system. The other thing I’ll just say and then we’ll talk about solutions is we only have one nervous system. We don’t have like a work nervous system, and then a personal life nervous system, and then a world events nervous system. We have one nervous system and stress compounds. So I just think it’s also really important for people to understand that like, you know, sometimes I’ll hear people say, well, I used to not be nervous about that, or I used to be fine in a situation like that, and right now, I’m like feeling frazzled when it happens. Yeah, well, maybe there are other stressors in your life or in The world that are, that have your kind of base nervous system regulation in a different place. And, and so, and so those things that maybe didn’t fully disregulate you before are doing that now because your baseline has lifted. So I just also wanna like normalize that for people and that will lead me right into my first solution. The very first thing is to acknowledge and validate your feelings. There is literally nothing more important than acknowledging and valid. your feelings. One of the things we try to tough love ourselves, like, oh, I shouldn’t be nervous about this. I should, I’ve walked into a million donor meetings, Mallory, like get it together, you know, that, that doesn’t work. It actually, it actually sabotages us and it, and it gets our brains stuck in negotiation about whether we should feel something or we shouldn’t feel something or we deserve to be stressed or we deserve to be tired, and we get trapped in this chatter. All I want people to do is say to themselves, that makes sense. That makes sense. Like, it makes sense. I feel nervous right now. I really want this to go well. It makes sense that I’m scared to press send on this email. Like I really want this person to like me. You know, it makes sense that, uh, I am, you know, feeling. Anxious about X, Y, and Z. Like I worked so hard on that grant. You know, like all of those things, like just saying to yourself, that makes sense, comes from some of the research of uh Britt Frank. She wrote a book called The Science of Stuck, and it is like a magic sentence. So that’s, that’s the first thing. The 2nd, the 2nd and 3rd, the 2nd thing is around um how we can down regulate our nervous system and like come back. So stress is not bad. We need stress. Stress is a very important part of life, and we would be like potatoes. We didn’t have stress, right? We need stress. But our body has to go back and forth between stress and rest and digest, right? It has to go back and forth between like our parasympathetic nervous system and our Sympathetic nervous system and the problem often in fundraising is that we have so many stimuli that keep us in a stress state, right? We deal with rejection, then we have uncertainty and pressure, right? So we never our stress cycle never ends. So we need different ways of ending our stress cycle and there I think about these in two camps cognitive tools to down regulate our nervous system and somatic tools. Down regulate our nervous system. So cognitive tools, uh, that makes sense, is actually one example of that. Another might be getting curious around where a fear is coming from. Wow, I feel some tightness in my belly right now. I wonder where that’s coming from. Like, what’s underneath there? Or I’m noticing this thing that’s been on my to do list for 3 weeks, and it’s just a 5-minute task. Like, am I scared about something related to it? What is it? Right? Just getting curious and sort of bringing that consciousness into your brain around the relationship between your body and what you’re doing. That’s like the beginning of some, you know, cognitive tools. Coaching is really around the idea that our thoughts and our beliefs inform how we feel and then ultimately how we act. And so sometimes through our feelings, we can get curious around the thoughts and the beliefs that are behind that and then. Provide a different option, right? Sometimes people will say, well, I know this donor’s mad at me because they haven’t responded in 72 hours, so I must have done something wrong in that email. And I’m like, OK, what’s an exact opposite story around why that donor might not have responded to you yet? Like, what’s the exact opposite story? So those types of cognitive tools can be really helpful. Sometimes the stress is so big that, um, we need to address it in our body. Like our mind alone. We can’t get out of the loop de loops. And so we need to address it in our body. That could be. Yeah. So these are somatic tools. And somatic tools I also think about in two camps, down regulation and up regulation. So down regulation are things like, you know, deep breathing exercises or grounding exercises where you’re placing both feet on the floor and bringing your consciousness to each foot, making sure the whole foot is on the floor. Or, um, there’s something called butterfly hug or bilateral, um, tapping by kids, we call it butter. Fly hug, where you tap your arms, you give yourself kind of a little self-hug, and then you tap your hands side to side on your shoulders, um, or box breathing, like folks can Google, there’s so many, and I’ll give you a link for the show. I have a 30-minute stress management course. It’s totally free and it goes through a number of different somatic tools and cognitive tools. Um, but that’s down regulation. Sometimes you might notice that you, um, are so Uh, stressed or like kind of amped up, that taking deep breaths makes you wanna like crawl out of your skin. Like, I remember before I would speak, people would tell me, just take a few deep breaths before you go on stage. And I would be like trying to deep breathe and I’d be like, I’m gonna explode. Like, I, I can’t do this. That’s a great example of what When we need up regulation. So, uh, to actually calm down. So up regulation can be listening to upbeat music, it can be going for a walk or a run, it can be jumping on a mini trampoline. Something that’s kind of like gets that anxious energy out of you in order to help you calm down. So that, that’s up regulation. And then, and then the last, um, tool that I, that I always talk about is around practice. And repetition. So, one of the things that I think is really important for folks to understand is that part of, um, part of reducing feelings of uncertainty is to give our body the muscle memory to know that we can handle whatever comes up. And, um, I think, you know, it’s funny to me that we think about practice. Like it’s, it’s so interesting to me with Practivated, people will say, oh, that’s a great tool for new fundraisers sometimes. That, that’s what they’ll say. And I’ll be like, new fundraisers. I’m like, we would never say LeBron James is such a good basketball player, he doesn’t need to practice anymore. We would never, that would be like such a mind boggling. Juggling concept. There are so many professions that involve repetition and practice as a routine part of having of being excellent in your craft and, you know, I think like practivated aside, I want practice to become a much more common experience in our sector. I want repetition to be adopted, whether you have a tool. Like proactivated or not, because that is what it takes to actually integrate knowledge and skills into your body so that when a donor asks a random question or somebody says, hey, how’d you get my phone number, you don’t lose access to all those other parts of your brain because your brain has navigated a number of different scenarios like that in the past. And, you know, one thing I wanna say. About practice, however you do it, that is really important is you want to do varied, um, diverse, varied situational practice. So the idea is not to role play a 90 minute donor meeting over lunch over and over and over again for this upcoming meeting that you have with Seth next week because what happens when you do that or we use scripts or things like that. Then we go into the meeting with Seth. The meeting does not go the same way as the roleplay because people are dynamic, and maybe Seth had a bad morning with his kids, you know, and so he’s in a mood. And so then we go into the meeting with Seth. It’s not exactly as the roleplay, but our brain tries to pattern match, because it was trying to get perfect for this very scripted situation. And when it can’t pattern match, it freaks out. And so it actually sabotages our ability to stay present and embodied in the conversation. When we use varied situational practice, what it does to our brain is it creates that cognitive flexibility and that resilience. Just like LeBron, LeBron and his team are not practicing exactly how a game is going to go. They’re practicing all the different situations, all the different scenarios that could come up based on the team that they’re going up against, so that then when the game comes, they’re present in the game, and their body and their brain has the muscle memory to adapt in the moment and stay really present and not get all caught up in their head. What about coaching? That’s also valuable, right? Yes, yes, so coaching, yes, coaching is, I mean, I’m an executive coach. I always have a coach. I am a very big advocate of coaching and obviously with Practivated we’ve created an AI coach and, and you know, one thing I wanna say is like that’s not to replace human coaching, but I think, you know, I believe that fundraisers deserve access to world class coaching whether a manager is available or not or and whether you can afford to hire a one on one coach, you know, like I think that there. There are a lot of, um, there’s a lot of inequity in who has access to coaching. And so I think as we start to see, um, you know, AI coaching come on the scene, um, I think it is important to recognize that like it’s not about replacing human coaching, but there are things that AI coaching can do that even human coaching can’t do. So again, coaching is really about the difference between coaching and consulting is coaching is really about bringing. Bringing out the best in you, right? It’s about, it’s about recognizing that inside of you is, is everything that you need to be an amazing fundraiser, and I really believe this about people. Like I think that, you know, every fundraiser already has most of what they need inside of them, but they have a bunch of junk in the way, self-doubt, and they’re second guessing themselves, and they are, you know, um, spiraling around this thing. And I really think about coaching is like removing the gunk to like get the clarity to help people tap into the things that are already inside of them and bring them out and, and connect the dots and give them some feedback and insight into um into when things are coming through and when things aren’t coming through so that they can be the best fundraiser that they can be and this is, you know, the other thing that I really believe is, you know, um. So, uh, I always say this about Crativated, like the idea of that tool was not to create a bunch of Mallory fundraisers. It was to bring out the best fundraisers in everybody because the best fundraiser a fundraiser can be is the best fundraiser in them. And, and so like in, in Practivated, for example, we, when you do a donor scenario, after you do a practice scenario, you get feedback on 16 different indicators. All of those indicators are around what builds deeper human connection. There are a lot of different personalities or ways of saying things that can build deeper human connection, not just the way one person does it. And so what we’re able to do with surfacing those insights. Is show them, OK, of these 16 indicators, here are the things you did really well during that conversation, but here are the 3 places that really kind of, it fell apart, right? Or the dots didn’t get connected to actually be able to move that donor relationship forward and that type of insight, personalized, specific, immediate feedback is incredibly powerful, both in terms of how we grow and improve, but actually also for. Our nervous system. I, I was just talking to somebody who was telling me they always ask for the feedback reports when they speak on stage. And, and I was saying, OK, but you got to be careful about that, because feedback that gets delivered 2 weeks, 2 months later, is actually not good for your nervous system. Because then for that period of time, your body’s living in uncertainty. And it can’t actually, it, it’s not integrated. feedback around that experience and improvement because there’s a huge lag in when you’re actually getting that feedback. So for anybody, if you’re doing role play on your team, you wanna give feedback immediately. Like whatever feedback you can give, you wanna give it immediately. You don’t wanna do a bunch of role play all day and then everybody goes back, writes things, and two weeks later they give everybody feedback on. The role play two weeks ago we’re, we’re losing the ability to integrate that feedback for behavior change in that lag. So you know, repetition, you know, practice repetition, coaching and support around that skill development and then insight and feedback that aligns with that coaching and support is a huge, like, you know, we, we call Proactivated the first ever fundraiser readiness platform and. What we mean by readiness is the simultaneous building of skills, confidence, and muscle memory in the same moment. So, however you’re doing practice or repetition in your organization, you want to make sure that you are building that skills, confidence, and muscle memory in the same moment. And that involves bringing repetition, coaching, and insight into the same experience. No, that’s excellent. We, we, we, we brought in the science, we brought in the, the mind and the body. Uh, and, uh, and practical, practical strategies for, uh, overcoming what is perfectly normal natural response to the stressors of fundraising. Thank you. It’s excellent. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and for talking to me about all these things. That’s Mallory Erickson, founder and CEO of Practivated. The company is at Practivated.com. Connect with Mallory on LinkedIn as I have done. Follow her there. Thank you, Mallory. Thank you so much. Next week, low lift donor retention. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer, Kate Martignetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guide, and this music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. Go out and be great.
Claire Meyerhoff, Kate Martignetti, Amy Sample Ward, Gene Takagi & Scott Stein: 800th Show!
It’s Nonprofit Radio’s 800th show and 16th Anniversary Jubilee. To celebrate, co-host Claire Meyerhoff brings her Sweet Sixteen theme. We have our associate producer, Kate Martignetti; 3 live songs from Scott Stein, including our theme “Cheap Red Wine;” and, our contributors Gene Takagi (law), and Amy Sample Ward (technology), are also on board. It’s fun and music and celebration! And gratitude.
Bridge Conference: The conversations happening at Bridge will shape strategies, careers, and organizations long after the conference ends.
We’re the #1 Podcast for Nonprofits, With 13,000+ Weekly Listeners
Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.
Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. View Full Transcript
Hello and welcome to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host and the pod father of your favorite bdominal podcast. It’s July. It’s nonprofit media. Got the live music and that can only. It’s our 800th show and 16th anniversary show. Ditch the Jubilee. Woo. We have a listener of the week, Timothy Curran. He messaged me on LinkedIn. Tim said, I’m new to the nonprofit space and have found your podcast valuable in educating myself on what fundraisers find valuable. Maybe more importantly, how good ones strategize. Oh, Tim, you are in the right place for nonprofit strategy, for understanding how nonprofits are, are coping, what they are thinking about. And I am so glad to have you as our listener of the week for the 800th show and the 16th anniversary jubilee. Thank you for being our listener of the week, Tim, Tim Curran. Here’s our associate producer Kate with what’s coming up for show number 800 and the 16th anniversary jubilee. Hey Tony, your co-host is Claire Meyerhoff. We’ve got much more live music from Scott Stein. Our contributors, Jean Dekagi and Amy Sample Ward are here. Everyone is with us. Woo! Thank you very much, Kate. Claire Meyerhoff, welcome to the 800th show. Our associate, our, uh, creative producer. Welcome. I’m so excited to be here because as, as our listeners know, I was there from the very beginning. The idea for nonprofit radio happened at a, at a, well, he had the idea, but I was, it was brought to me at a, uh, a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse in North Carolina in uh 1900. Yes. And, and, and why did I bring it to Claire Meyerhoff? Because she has a background in, in radio, in media, including WTOP in Washington DC and also with Sirius. You’ll find Claire Meyerhoff’s company is at PG agency.com and she is nonprofit radio’s creative producer. Claire, your first show was show number 2. On July 23rd of 2010, we talked about, we talked about storytelling and jargon. 16 years. Well, and that’s when we threw people in jargon jail, and jargon jail is still extremely relative today in all fields really because I, I see a lot of things on, on, on the Instagram and little things. Where people talk about, you know, corporate jargon and how to like say it more, you know, communicate more effectively. So I think we were like trendsetters with throwing, throwing, throwing nonprofit peeps in jargon jail. And jargon jail continues. So absolutely. We, we did, we, we, we did set the bar. And, uh, when a, when a guest transgresses, I, uh, I, I do admit them to a jargon jail. Yes, like capacity building. Does it have windows? Well, that, that one’s, but yes, yeah, jargon or acronyms, acronyms will also land you in jargon jail, unidentified acronyms. They’re like BLT, then like we know what that is. BLT BLT if it’s a sandwich, but if it’s like, you know, uh, board leadership development or board leadership torture, um, torture training, right. That, yeah, that, that qualifies you. Absolutely, that qualifies you. Let’s bring some folks in. Let’s bring Amy Sample Ward in. Uh, they are our, uh, technology contributor and of course the CEO of N10, uh, awarded a 2023 Bosch Foundation fellowship. Their most recent co-authored book, The Tech That Comes Next, about equity and inclusiveness in technology development. You’ll find Amy on Blue Sky as Amy Sample Ward, Amy Sample Ward, whose first show was number 100 on July 13th, 2012. Welcome. So easy to remember. It was show 100. Yeah, you do have the easy one. Yeah, yeah, yeah. When we get to Scott, it’s like, uh, 158, but yeah, show number 100, absolutely in New York, 700 shows 700 shows ago in the studio in New York. That’s right, up the tiny elevator. In the tiny elevator, it was like this big. Yeah, right. That was, uh, I always really thought it would break. And I would live in that elevator in New York City. You would just be emaciated in the elevator. That was, that was with, uh, in the building. That was on West 72nd Street with, uh, Sam, Sam Leibowitz. Sam Liebowitz. Yeah, yep. You remember those days. Yeah. That was, you were living in New York City then. I know. Time is just 16 years ago. Wow, wow, that seems impossible. Don’t do the math anymore in this show. It’s good to see you. I’m glad you’re, I’m glad you’re with us. I’m glad to be here to celebrate the jubilee. Thank you. Gene Takagi. Everybody knows, uh, it’s a, it’s, it’s kind of a waste of syllables to continue saying it, but of course, each contributor deserves their, their due intro. He’s our legal contributor and the principal of NEEO, the nonprofit and exempt organizations law group in San Francisco. He edits that wildly popular nonprofit law blog.com. You’ll find the firm at Neo Law Group, and you’ll find Gene as at GTAC, whose first show was number 7. On August 27th of 2010. Welcome, Gene. It’s great to see you. Great to have you. Congratulations, Tony. Unbelievable run and to continue further, so excited to be with you, Tony. Thank you. I, I love these. I, I, I love these anniversary shows. Uh, they just, yeah, they, they just, they bring the team together. Um. Scott Stein Scott Stein, whose music, whose song Cheap Red Wine has been with us, uh, debuted on show number 158 on September 16th of 2013. Scott’s a pianist, songwriter. Music director. You’ll find him at scottsteinmusic.com, on Facebook, X, Instagram, and YouTube. He’s at Scott Stein Music. Great to see you, Scott. Great to see you too, Tony, and uh this is something that I look forward to every year. It’s really, this is so much fun and I am, I’m just thrilled that the show has continued to grow and thrive and that I get to keep coming back on and doing my thing. This is, uh, this is super fun. It, it, it’s a, it’s a thrill. Thank you. I’m, I’m so glad our, uh, mutual lawyer friend, um, It’s Josh Becker. Josh, Josh Becker, exactly, my old roommate. That was, that was the, that was the connection, uh, connected us and, uh. And we’ve been using cheap red wine ever since, since, uh, September 16th of 2013. And of course, thank, thank you for the live intro music, um, and, uh, you’re gonna be doing, uh, three songs for us today, right? I am, yeah, excited to do it. All right, cool, cool. Kate Martinetti She’s our associate producer. She’s a graduate of the American Musical and Dramatic Academy, now attending Rowan University. Kate’s first show was number 645. On June 19th of 2023. Just kind of started as something fun while, uh, I was visiting the family in New Jersey. And I liked the, the sound that you brought to the show, Kate. Right, we were, we were in the guest room because we needed somewhere quiet between like the dogs, and then I don’t know if it was a holiday you were over or just visiting for something, and we were like, OK, there’s people in the house, kind of loud, let’s go upstairs, you know. And you had your little mic, which I have now, um, and we just did it. And it was right after I graduated too, and you were like, let’s see how this sounds, and let’s use like your skills that you were working on in AMDA. And now we’re here. Number 6:45 was your first show. Unbelievable. Uh. Yeah. So, all these years, um, And we’re celebrating 16. Claire, Claire, Claire, uh, Claire brought, Claire is bringing the fun to our, to our 16 theme. What do you, what do you have for us, uh, brilliant, uh, creative producer. Oh, yes, well, you know, in a, in a, in a flash of brilliance, because it’s the 16th show, it’s the sweet 16 party. So that’s just, you know, the most brilliantly creative accomplished. So I have compiled a list of 16 sweet things to say to Sweet Tony about. Yeah, and play us in for a little, this is a little music, Scott, just play us into the sweet 16 theme. Thank you. Beautiful. So sweet. What a transition. Claire, Claire, our sweet 16, please. So, so number 1 on our, our list of 16 sweet things about Uh, Tony’s 16th year of Tony Martignetti nonprofit Radio. Number one is, it’s very sweet to thank all our listeners for being with us for our 16th anniversary. Yay, listeners. You got, you gotta thank the listeners. Um, there, there, you got nothing. Well, there’s a word, uh, for a podcast that nobody listens to. A diary. Yeah, we’re not producing a diary for 16 years. No. So of course we are enormously grateful to the listeners. We have so many listeners. How many listeners do we have, Tony? Over 13, over 13,000 a week. Wow, over 13,000 a week for, so for each episode, like 13, and then, and then do people, people go back and listen to the old ones. So do you have a surprising statistic maybe about um You know, an old show that people listen to because you get little pings about it or something. I, I do have a surprise for listeners. Uh, I don’t go back and look at the stats. That’s my surprise. Uh, we were producing the show. You know, I look from time to time. I do look from time to time. Um, uh, but, uh, I, I’m not overly, you know, not overly concerned about it. I guess, maybe you’re supposed to be more sophisticated, like say, all right, this topic, uh, we had a spike because we talked about. Uh, whatever, and so we should do more of that. I don’t know, but, you know, it could be the guest was particularly good. Um, it could be, uh, it would happen to be a good time of year, people listening, you know, I, I don’t, uh, I guess I’m, you know, well, we, the listeners know that they’re suffering under a, a lackluster host. That’s that’s understood. That’s understood. You can’t be, you know, witty and fabulous and sweet and like the techno, you know, technology person. Like Amy, so you can’t be everything. Thank you, data scientist. So, you know, you know what’s sweet is that our, we’ve had more than 1000 guests and they’ve been so sweet to share their expertise with our listeners. So we, we’ve had over 1000 guests, I’m sure, like I just kind of did some very simple math for, for me, which is, you know, simple as the only math I know. So I did a little simple math and I figured it is more than 1000 guests most likely. This is where you go back to the lackluster host who doesn’t know exactly how many guests there have been. It’s probably, yeah, it’s 1000. It’s 1000 plus. It’s certainly 100. It’s certainly 1,000+, uh, 1200, maybe, is it 1500? I’m not sure. You know, it’d be cool to have like a whole list of like all your, all your, all your guests on the show, all these experts, and some people have been, I guess, multiple times, so you’d have to count them. So. For right now, our, our last, our 1st 3, which is our last one for this little chunk, is that, you know, 50 episodes a year for 16 years, well, that, that is very, very sweet and very, you know, shows the dedication of our sweet host Tony Martignetti that he puts this, this podcast on every single week except for 2 weeks when you, I guess, take a vacation or something. 50 apps a year, that’s amazing. Well, but, but the guests help, uh, Gane and Amy help. Right. You know, they, uh, uh, Kate is with me every single week. That helps. But we’re not the pod father, Tony. That’s all you. Well, true, true. I, you’re right. But the, the guests, I mean, without, you, you can’t, I don’t think you could sustain a show 50 times a year with, with only the host. You gotta have, you gotta have the guest. I mean, I think to me that’s boring. That sounds like, that sounds like a journal again, where I think we’re diarying them. Yeah, but you get, you, you take on the role of all the listeners and you get to ask the guests the questions that everybody wishes they were asking that person. So, you do a great, you do a sweet job of doing that, taking on the role for listeners. So thoughtful. Well, and you’re with me, uh, several times a year, and I, I’m, I’m grateful for that, as, as is Gene, several times a year, because we’re all doing it for the listeners. I mean, it all, you know, it all, it all settles down to the, The, the community, right? We’re, we’re just, we’re just trying to help the nonprofit community, uh, in, uh, a particularly difficult time. Now, however, we’ve been doing it for 16 years. Uh, it’s all, it’s, it’s all for the, it’s all for the good of the. The folks, the nonprofit professionals, our CEOs, our fundraisers, our board members. Uh, and there’s, there’s some, uh, consultants who listen too. Uh, it’s, you know, we’re just, we’re just trying to, we’re just trying to do right by the community, uh, uh, and we are channeling them. All of us are channeling them. You and, you and Gene are channeling our listeners too while, when you’re on. Right? We’re just thinking about what would people ask. We’re, we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re bringing them into the conversation as best we can. What, what would they want to know? Thank you, Claire, for our 1st 3 of, uh, our, our 1st 3 Sweet 16s. We’re gonna turn to our, uh, the, the show’s, uh, I don’t know, is it, is it right, you are a music director. Can I call you music director once a year? Because you once a year, yes, absolutely. OK. Yeah, he is the, he is the music director. He helped us out on, on cues and things like, yeah, definitely the music director for, for the, uh, 800th show. Um. What, uh, what’s this first song you’re gonna play for us, Scott? Uh, I’m just gonna play a brand new one. this is, uh, this is called Take the Back Roads, and it’s basically how the, um, the, the proverbial grass is greener on the other side, and as you get older, you start thinking that maybe things were, were easier when you were younger and then you start to realize maybe that wasn’t the case, and so you just kind of are left with the present. So new song, is there a new album coming? Uh, not at the moment. Uh, I, I would love, I would love to do it. Uh, my, uh, my financial resources are going elsewhere at the moment, but, uh, I understand you, you also have a family. All right, all right. Scott Stein, take the back roads. Lesley It’s like Pigs Where it all started. get. 17 Already brokenhearted. It’s just the light on. To But It’s all right. The sunrise is pretty. um, Outstanding, Scott, thank you. Thank you. My mind always wants to take the back roads. When will that be available? That’s a great question. Um, I, I, I don’t, yeah, I don’t have any plans to go in the studio right now. So, uh, yeah, maybe at some point in the future. All right, well, check out all of Scott, but I’ll be playing it live, uh, a week from, uh, Sunday, July 5th, as part of the Operation gig, uh, concert series in Ditmas Park here in Brooklyn. Oh, so outstanding, you can see me with my trio. All right, and more of Scott’s music is, uh, of course, where, where would you expect it to be? But, uh, Scott Stein, scottsteinmusic.com. Indeed. Claire, we, uh, oh, you wanna play us in a little bit, Scott, a little more sweet. We got a little, little intro to the. Oh, of course. Gotta keep up our rituals. Well, it’s our he’s our music director, so he should make the decisions about the music. He is. We have some more on our list of sweet 1616 sweet things about Tony Martignetti nonprofit video, and number 4 on that list is uh. Tony is sweet for his kindness to guests and listeners alike. Tony is, is very kind and very nice to his very great, all his, all his guests. He really, he truly is. He’s just very gracious and asks, you know, questions in a, in a probing but polite way and has a lot of talent with, with his, uh, with his sweetness. And, um, number 5 is We use the term radio instead of podcast because radio is like vintage sounding and that’s, that’s very sweet. Like I think Tony Martignetti nonprofit radio instead of like the nonprofit podcast, like I think the radio just sounds really just. Yeah, let’s talk, let’s talk about that for a minute. Yeah, because I grew up loving radio. Yeah, me too. Uh, WNEW, WPLJ in New York City, they were, they were both, uh, classic rock, album rock oriented AOR stations. How about, how about you all? What, uh, Scott, what music did you grow up with? Oh man, uh, it’s a long list. Um, my, my father is now retired, but he was, uh, uh, the cantor of our, of our synagogue, uh, for a long, long time and professional cantor, so I grew up with a lot of like a Jewish music. I grew up with a lot of, uh, classical music, a lot of Broadway, uh, not very much rock and roll, surprisingly, I had to find my way on that. But I will say that my, a lot of the artists that, that I love, um, I was introduced to. Um, thanks to a public radio station that, so shout out to uh WAPS 91.3 in Akron, Ohio, my hometown. Really helped shape my shape my tastes. Awesome. WAPS. Yeah, I remember, I remember also growing up with the public radio WNYC. How about you, Gene? Early, early, uh, early radio influences for you? Or music, music influences, uh, yeah, so, um, I grew up in Vancouver. I grew up in Vancouver. Uh, CF, shout out to CFun, probably not around anymore, but uh, I, I listened to a lot of jazz and I was the Village Vanguard yesterday. Um, so, um, shout out to, to jazz in NYC. You’re in New York City now, yeah, like. Just for a few days, for a few days. Village Vanguard is, uh, that’s an institution. That’s like, uh, Birdland is another jazz institution. In, uh, in New York City. How about you, Amy? Would, would, would early radio, any early music? I didn’t listen to the radio as a kid. We, my dad, um, exclusively listened to blues and reggae, and we never listened to the radio. We always, he was always curating. Whether at the house or in the car, you know, which record or or which. Like he had a very extensive record to tape, tape to CD, you know, as times evolved, there was everything had a copy on every uh mode. Yeah, so it was he was, he was your DJ then. He was your DJ, yes, all the time. And really it meant I didn’t know there was other music than blues and reggae because that’s all there was, uh, until I was 16 and could drive myself and then I was like, oh, if you just push these buttons, they just play music, but someone else curates the music, you know, um. But we have always, I mean, since then and now as an adult, have always listened to OPB, which is Oregon Public Broadcasting, even when we lived in England, because it felt very like, oh, we’re still at home if we’re listening to OPB, you know. Cool. Yeah, right, you can hang on to, uh, right, hang on to the rituals, uh, the ritual of being home, even, even living abroad. Exactly, yes. Kate, how about your early music? Mostly it was mom and dad picking the station, but it was definitely like the one that I can remember is 102.9 MGK. I think that’s classic rock. Magic MGK in New Jersey. OK, MGK. Do you still, uh, do you still listen to MGK type, uh, album rock, or no? When it’s on, but if I can get my au chord to work, then, then no, then I’m on my Amazon playlist. OK, another year, Kate said that her, her mom liked Bon Jovi. Am I correct with that, right? like. Yeah man, Bon Jovi. I think there, I think there’s a New Jersey law that says you have to, right, that him and Springsteen, yes, that would be true, probably. Go ahead, Claire, some more, some more sweet, uh, sweet 16. I’m from Long Island, so it’s like, I grew up like a town over from Billy, where Billy Joel’s hometown of Hicksville. And so Billy Joel is like the religion growing up and, and it was kind of in the earlier days of, of Billy Joel and we, my friends and I, we always talk about how we went to go see him at the Hofstra. Uh, not Hofstra at a CW Post at the dome, and then a couple of years later that dome caved in from too much snow. So like that’s the show like we kind of always talk about because then there was this big like catastrophe, but no one was hurt, so thank God. There’s, there’s another, there’s a classic rock song that a lot of people listen to at the holidays. Uh, from CW Post, Bruce Springsteen’s recording of, of, uh, that song, um, Santa Claus Santa Claus, Santa Claus is coming to town. It’s from 1970 something. I’m pretty sure it’s the 1970s, and it’s from CW Post on, uh, on Long Island, yeah. We went in, and I’m aging myself, but I think we went in like 1977 or 19798, and I think the dome caved in like in, like in 1980 or something, but yeah, Springsteen played there. I’m sure if I, if I polled my friends on Facebook, I bet I have 10 friends at least that went to that, and, and 50 who will say they were there. Yeah, right, right, right, right. OK, so go ahead, right, so my next, um, number 6 on our list of sweet 16 is about Gene. That he is so sweet for sharing his legal knowledge with all our listeners and us who are not attorneys, and he sweetly translates this, you know, complicated, these complicated issues for us to, to bring it right back down to earth where we need to be able to use this information that, that Gene shares with us. So Gene is extremely sweet for that. It’s that’s me, that’s me applauding Gene, absolutely, Gene. You know, yeah, you explain things so people can understand them. You bring us important legal happenings, trends, uh, sometimes it’s very detailed and sometimes it’s bigger picture. You’re the best, Gene. You’re the best, you’re the best legal contributor we’ve ever had. It’s, it’s so, well, he’s the only one we’ve ever had, but of course, of course he’s, I’ll give Gene a chance to. But Gene also explains things very calmly, you know, he doesn’t get all worked up. Tony and I sometimes get all worked up, and Gene is just a voice of reason, you know. He’s the voice of reason. You are calm, Gene. Genane, let, let Gen, Gene, Gene. Jean Jean, oh, Jean Gene, the Lachine. I used to call him that, but I think he blushed, it made him blush, so I stopped. I stopped. I love the Gong Show reference, so. The Gong Show reference. That’s where it’s from. Jean Jean, it was Jean Genan the dancing Machine was on The Gong Show with, uh, Gene Barry. Oh, actually, uh, I’m pretty sure that’s the host that was Gene, was another Gene. But yes, that’s where I got the, no, Gene, Gene Rayburn, Gene Barry. No, no, Gene Rayburn was, uh, The Price Is Right. No, wait, no, it’s his Match Game. No, Gene Rayburn. doesn’t matter. Paris. Chuck Burris, Chuck Burris was Chuck Barris. Barris was the host of The Gong Show. Thank you. Gene Berry was a western star. All right, Gen, uh, where I got Gene from. OK, stuff is just floating around in our old heads, me and Tony. Yeah, yeah. Go ahead, Claire. Give us some more. Our baby boomer heads. It’s time for a break. We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference produced by AFPDC and DMAW July 29 to 31 at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. More than 2400 professionals will gather at bridge. Tony will be with them. The question is, will you? Thought leaders from nonprofits, associations, foundations, hospitals, higher ed, faith-based, and mission-driven causes across the country come to Bridge to discover new ideas, solve real challenges, and connect with smart people shaping the future of our industry. From 125+ educational sessions and hands-on pre-conference workshops to Bridge tech, the faith in fundraising forum, and inspiring keynote speakers, Bridge offers something for every mission and every role. The conversations happening at Bridge will shape strategies, careers, and organizations long after the conference ends. Don’t hear about it afterward. Be in the room. Register at bridge.org. Um, you know, it, it’s also sweet. Number 7, it’s sweet that Tony is an attorney who’s an expert in plan giving. He could have gone a lot of ways with his law career, but, but focusing on this estate planning and plan giving, he’s helped so many charities with my favorite form of fundraiser, fundraising. Which is, which is, which is, uh, bequests and other deferred gifts. And so thank you, Tony, for being, it’s very sweet that you, you chose plan giving and estate planning and charitable estate planning as your expertise in the, in the wonderful world of law, where you could, you could have been an ambulance chaser. I’m so glad I did. Yeah, I would never be an ambulance chaser, but, uh, yeah, practicing law just didn’t work out for me, uh, uh, but, uh, the, the practice of planned giving fundraising. Absolutely. I’ve, I’ve loved it since 19 1997. And sweet that not only did you pursue this path, you’ve also wrapped up a bunch of your knowledge in a book. Oh, that was unscripted. That was very thoughtful, very thoughtful. Thank you. Yes, I I appreciate getting to read it early and tell you things that I didn’t like and then you fixed them all. That’s good. Good editor. I mean, who else, you know, who else but sweet Tony Martignetti would say, oh, I hear all of your complaints and I’ve addressed all of them. Yes, I hope I did. Yes, you were, you were a very gracious, uh, beta reader, early reader of the book, along with, as was, uh, Claire and as was Jean. Uh, thank you very much. The book is publishing in September. Yes, Planned giving accelerated. Yes, thank you. Our number 8 is about Amy Sample Ward. Who’s here for our anniversary show and Amy’s so sweet for sharing all her like, Technology and trend, like you really know what’s going on, like, more than we do, like, because Tony and I are more like over here, but you’re over here with all your, like super duper knowledge. So thank you for being so sweet to share all your knowledge with us. It’s fantastic. So then we, well, what I have to say that I’ve, I’ve always admired Amy because she, she sees the, the, the mic, because they see the micro as well as the bigger picture. Uh, I tend to focus on examples and, uh, they see the, they see the forest while I’m looking at a, Tree. Uh, I know, I’ve, and I’ve, I’ve shouted you out for that. Yeah. You, you, you see, you see, you see trends and things that, uh, the rest of us don’t catch. You talk to a lot of people in the field. No. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. So, oh, and you know what is also sweet? Let’s send out some love to Kate for her sweet voice and her sweet skills. She’s brought such a nice, you know, compliments the, the, the Tony Martignetti aesthetic very, very, very well, and it’s, it’s, it’s very nice to have you here and, and your audition has been just really sweet. I’ve just so enjoyed having, having Having you on board and I know Tony really appreciates you because you do all these things now that, that he doesn’t have to, so that’s amazing and you’re getting very good experience for your, your resume and your LinkedIn profile and you can, I’ll help you beef that up if you need help with that because I’m not good at that. So, so that’s very sweet. And of course, Scott’s sweet tunes truly elevate, to use another like buzzword, he elevates the show. Elevates, that’s the new thing, elevates. Elevates, I hadn’t heard that one, but he does. Yeah, it works, it works. It works with Scott. Yeah, I’ve, I’ve just, you know, like I said, Scott, I, I just, I love the music. I love the song Cheap Red Wine, you know, it’s just, uh, We’re just like cheap red wine. There’s nobody waiting in line. We’re just like cheap red wine, you know, that, uh, there’s like, yeah, there’s no. I, I to, to make a, uh, Billy Joel reference, I, I’ve referred to that record as being from my angry young man period. Oh, angry, that’s funny, angry young man, very, very kind of, kind of snarky and cynical as a twenty-something, yeah, right, right. I think that’s really cute. But now as you’re looking back, you’re like, now you’re doing take the, take the road, take the back roads as you, as you’re reflecting after, uh, 20 some years as a wise, I don’t know about wise, older veteran. I don’t know if I’m any wiser, but I’m sure you’re wiser. So I guess I’m suite number 11 for making, for lovingly making this list because I threw out this idea to Tony. I was like, OK, sweet 16, now I have to come up with 16 things. But I did. I sat on the couch, came up with the 16 things. Thank you, Claire Meyerhoff. You always, you always bring it, you always bring it for our anniversary shows. Thank you, little something, something. And, um, you know, it’s so sweet, number 12 that we’re here together once again for the 800th show. We’re also, this is just the sweetest thing. I love this. Like every year, I see the same people and it’s, it’s really, really cool. We’re, we’re like a little, you know, like a little gang. It’s our, it’s our, it’s our tradition. Yes, yes. Uh, Amy, thank you. You, uh, you had to do some, uh, calendar magic to, to, to, to be with us, but you know that, uh, we would have, we would have rescheduled the recording if you, if you could not have made it. Uh, absolutely. There’s no, uh, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll do it without any one of you. No, this, this doesn’t, it doesn’t, this doesn’t happen that way. So that way. No, it can’t. Like the Brady Bunch. It’s a jubilee without all of us. It would not. It would just be a jube. A jubil. You can’t have, you can’t have a jubil, a 16th jubil anniversary. No, you gotta have the full jubilee. That’s funny. Absolutely. So that’s it on my list for, for right at the, at the moment. How are we doing on time? Time for, I think we’re doing, uh, we’re doing, uh, we’re doing quite well. It’s time, it’s time actually for. Uh, Scott, to do a second song. Yes. All right. Intro, intro it please for us. What are, what are, what are we gonna hear? Sure, so, since we’ve been talking about that, the song Cheap Red Wine, which actually came out back in 2009, I thought it would be fun to do another song from that same album. It was a record called Jukebox, and Cheap Red Wine is the first tune on that, that record. So I’m gonna do the second one. Uh, this is a song, it’s called Wish I Knew, and, uh, I went through a period where I just thought if I could write something that sounds like Carole King, I think I’d be pretty happy with that. So there are a lot of Carole King type chords in here. You’ll hear, you hear that, so. All right, wish I knew. Try to hold you. the I Shiny darling. Very nice. Outstanding. Thank you, Scott. That was great. Really good. I could definitely hear the Carole King influence. I’m really digging that you’re kind of tapping into those types cause I, I feel like your, your previous song was a little Jim Croce maybe, or, or something like that, like it reminded me of, of, of you sort of that, that era, and I think that’s, that’s a great time in music and some of those artists. I mean, fantastic, like. Yeah, if they put those songs out today, it’d be better than anything today. That’s just my boomer opinion. I, I think, I think you hear their influence actually. There’s, there’s some folks out there making stuff that, that, that like you can, you can tell who’s been listening to the, to like that era so there’s. Yeah, you hear, you hear that, you hear it in today, today’s, yeah, I think so. I think there’s, I still keep my, I, I don’t listen to as much of contemporary stuff as I used to, but I, I, I still feel like it’s, it’s like part of my job to like keep my ear to the ground and kind of pick out the stuff that I like, you know, even if I’m not the target audience anymore. Right, well, like Harry Styles has done a few covers, like I think Bridge Over Trouble Water or a few things like that, and, and they’re really popular. I mean, well, everyone loves Harry Styles, but yeah, I mean, I’m, I’m a parent. Sorry, I didn’t mention. I mean, I’m a parent too, so I’m always like there’s stuff that my kids like that there’s plenty that I’m like, oh jeez, now I know how my parents felt. But like every once in a while, like my older kid’s only 7, but like he’ll go like, oh, I want to play this. And like every once in a while like I, I get pleasantly surprised. I’m like, all right, there’s that dude’s got some, you know, he’s got some vocal chops. There’s some interesting production things happening. There’s good music in every era. They’re all, I want, I want a Scott Stein version of a Music Together album. Do you know music Together? Yeah, it’s the kids’ music. I, uh, my, when I first moved to New York, actually I had a day job. I was working at like You know, it wasn’t music together, but it was like kind of a, a company that was trying to do something very similar. I was an accompanist and I, you know, the funny thing is now I’m, I’m way more, I, I probably would be way more excited to do that now because I, I have like a seven year old, well, my 7 year old would be too old for it, but like I have a 4 year old, yeah, so I, so I get that a lot more, uh, intuitively than I did when I was like. Uh, 24, 25, I moved here, you know, it was like, oh God, I gotta play this again, you know, I just wanna rock, man. Play us in for a little more Sweet 16, please, Scott, for our, our 3rd and final, 3rd and final Sweet 16. Wish I could say. He can sing. Claire, what do you have for us? Well, All I have to say is cake. Cake is sweet. And did anybody here bring a cake for the sweet 16 party? Where is the cake, Tony? We can, we can blow out, we can blow out the candles. How about that? I want a Carvel cake. Oh, Carvel is good. Ice cream, ice cream. They’re, they’re decadent. They’re decadent. I could eat a whole little carveel cake all by myself. So live listener love is inherently sweet. I love the live listener. Yeah, today, um, Tim, today, Tim, Tim Curran, uh, messaged me on LinkedIn. Yeah, I love to shout out the live listener love. Um, they are, uh, you know, there’s a special, there’s just special messages I get some, sometimes, uh, it’s, it’s like this one’s LinkedIn. I get emails from time to time. Or folks just, uh, a comment, something, a comment, you know, just, uh. Saying how much the show means to them. Sometimes they, some folks bring it to their board. I’ve had folks say that, that, that show, I listened, I had, I had my board members listen to that or it, it, it brought up a conversation among our board. To me, that’s a, that’s a home run episode. If it’s, if it’s moving folks to a conversation and validates, you know, validates things perhaps this communications director or whoever have been, have been thinking and saying, but their board wasn’t really listening. So when, when we have an expert on our show who says something that validates it, and then they can bring that to their board or their boss, and that validate. Validation is extremely, extremely important in non, in nonprofits because as nonprofits come sometimes, you know, a little bit behind the times. They don’t make decisions fast. They’re not nimble, right? They have like committees, endless committees and subcommittees and things don’t get done. So, you know, when you get that good advice and you can just act on it and get that validation, then you can move forward much more quickly. Well, Tony, back to the point I made earlier about you. Championing or taking on the role of, of listeners and asking guests questions we’ve talked about before, like some of the value of the podcast of the radio show, sorry, um, is the practice of the conversation so that people can go to a, you know, team meeting or staff meeting or board meeting and have already had one practice through what this conversation might look like. Yeah, yeah, very good, yeah. Yeah, it, it, right, you can, you can kind of, yeah, help you coach you through what, what might come up and, and some talking points. Yeah, uh, very good. Yeah. You know, the longevity of your show makes you a, a, a very trusted resource for people and a trusted voice. You can say to your boss, this, you know, this, this podcast has been on for 16 years and this is the best people and nonprofits have been on this podcast. It’s not like, you know, some lady who, or let’s some guy. Who just like has a podcast and it’s like the second episode. It’s, you, you, you really, your validation is really backed up by your, by your, you know, your history of guests and, and the longevity of your show is amazing. Like I always tell people when they talk about podcasts, I say, well, Tony Martignetti has this podcast, he’s been doing 50 episodes a year, you know, once a week for 16 years. Like that’s That’s hard to do without like a whole team of, of people and all that. So Tony is the sweetest masochist, the sweetest masochist I’ve ever met. Well, we have a great team. We have a great team. But yeah, it, it just, you know, the consistency just helps me do it. If I, if I wasn’t consistent, uh, you know, I’d put it off, uh, uh, it’s summertime, June, July, maybe we’ll come back in September, you know, uh, it’s the holidays, uh, I’ll just take the month of December off, you know, uh, uh, I just, I need the, uh, uh, yeah, I need the consistency just helps me. So. Thank you. Uh, thanks, everybody. Uh, I, I, I accept your, uh, your gracious comments about me in the show. Very thoughtful. What else you got there, Claire? For number 15, uh, you know, just, um, thinking about what Amy’s sample word said is that, uh, your new book was lovingly prepared to help even the tiniest nonprofits realize sweet bequests with plan giving strategies that are doable and do it now. I’ve learned, I’ve been in plan giving for about, well, a little bit longer than the show maybe because that’s how I first met Tony. I was writing an article and I found Tony and I said, hey, can I, you know, talk to you about this and then you became like a resource for me. I’d call him up from my car and go, Oh, I’m doing this, I’m writing a postcard about charitable gift annuities and la la la, and Tony would explain things to me, so I, you know, I seemed like I knew more than, than what I did. And so, you know, I love, I love plan giving and Tony’s part of my, my plan giving journey and a very important part of that journey and we feel the same way about small nonprofits that they can get these, these sweet bequests because your donors are going to leave their Their money and their assets to somebody, and if you don’t let them know, if you don’t engage them and communicate with them and have conversations with them, they don’t know. They just don’t know you’re in the game, so they’re going to leave it all to Harvard or whatever and not the local dog shelter that they actually care about more. So, we are on the same mission, Tony and I, to educate and inform people about the wonderful world. Of Plannedgiving. So I’ll turn it over for the last 16th, our sweet 16th. I’m gonna let Tony offer up something sweet. So did you think about that at all, Tone? I did. Uh, well, thank you for what, for what you just said. Uh, I, I’ve loved our time together collaborating. Uh, I’ve brought you in on a, on a client or two through the years and Uh, and again, you’ll find Claire, uh, PG agency.com, stands for planned giving, of course. Brilliant marketer, brilliant marketer. I, uh, well, thank you. I appreciate that. I’m turning it back to our listeners again for number 16 because, uh, I don’t wanna have a diary. I, I’m not a, I’m not a good diary. I don’t, I don’t journal. I don’t diary, so I need you, I, I need you to listen. Otherwise, it’s, the, the show is gonna become a diary. We can’t have that. No, uh, you know. Grateful that you listen. And pleased and gratified that it helps you. It helps you in your, in your work. It helps you in your relationships with your coworkers. It helps you in your relationship with the whole community, with your donors. It, we’re in a relationship business, you know, even if, even if you’re funded by, mostly by foundations, you have relationships with people at those foundations. I, I, so much of what we do is just based on people and our relationships with them. In in all the different networks that we, that we have. It, it all, uh, the networks are people. So I’m glad that the show is helping you and I thank you for giving back by, by listening, by listening. And we still got some time, so I’m gonna turn around to, uh, To our esteemed, uh, panel and our, our, our, uh, anniversary show celebrities. Who, who else has a, a, a suite? Throw out something sweet. We’ll do more than 16 suites. Who’s got something? It’s sweet that you keep coming back to the NTC as a source of interviewing many, many very smart people who are sweet to offer all of their expertise to the community through your platform. Thank you. I love our relationship that we have between nonprofit radio and, and 10. Yeah, uh, I believe it’s 13 years. Uh, I’m pretty sure this year was the 13th year, and, uh, next year in Portland will be the 14th year that nonprofit radio is at, uh, is at intense. It’s already on my calendar. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, but we love it because it also adds, I mean, it adds value for the community, hearing from people they otherwise wouldn’t hear from, and many of those speakers that you select for the show or even people you’ve never talked to before. So they’re, they’re new in all those ways, and I think that is really valuable. I mean, speaking to Claire’s point of 16 whole years of doing this is just If you talk to the same three people, if you only talk to Gene and I, every show, God, no one would listen to the show, you know, but you’re, you’re always bringing on lots more people and that there, there are people with expertise all across the sector, so. It’s a joy. Thank you. Thank you. Who else? Who’s got some, something sweet? I was looking through my office the other day. Oh, hold on, Gene. Uh, Kate, you go, you go, and then Gene. I found, and I was talking to my uncle about this, I found my first little note from my first payment, and it says congratulations on your first payment for your first paying gig, Tony, and it is 77-23. And I’ve been keeping every single note that he’s given me and every little encouragement, you know, cause his generosity and kindness is so overwhelmingly abundant and Thank you. It’s not even, it’s not even time for your birthday gift or, or a Christmas gift. Imagine that, oh, yes. Well, because your first show was June 19th of 2023. And yes, I, I, I, I like to include notes to vendors. Uh, you’re not, you’re more than a vendor, but when I have to, when I have to send checks to people, I don’t just, I don’t like to just put a check in the mail. I like to put a little Post-it note on, even if it just says thank you. Thank you that way. You keep every one of those, every single one in a little baggie. Make a collage, like a really cool collage, maybe on your 5th anniversary or, or something. Make a collage from the pod. So that’d be a cool piece of art. Thank you very much. I’m glad, I’m glad you’re with us. Gene, you had something sweet. Throw in and add on to your generosity, Tony. So, um, and every year Tony is so generous to, to make out a contribution, um, to, to my and to, to Amy’s, uh, some of our favorite charities, and, um, people don’t know that, but, um, really super appreciated, Tony. So thank you for your generosity to your audience and your generosity to us. Including this last year, Tony donated specifically for scholarships to the NTC which helped us provide more scholarships than we ever had at a time when, of course, the sector is experiencing lots and lots of financial loss. It’s Amazing stuff, Tony. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to do that for you, for the two of you year after year. Thank you, Gene. It’s, it’s a joy. It’s, this whole thing is a joy. I don’t know. All right, you’re getting me misty. Thank you. It took us 50 minutes in to get you to cry. We failed the jubilee. We the jubilee tears. All right, thank you. Scott, everybody knows that you gotta take us out of the 800th show and the 16th anniversary jubilee with nothing other. Than the inevitable. Cheap red wine. Cheap red wine, please from the album. From the album Jukebox. Yes, and thank you as always for giving, giving me an opportunity to play and, and, and, um, including my music every week. It’s just, this is such a joy. So, with pleasure, here we go. You just keep on talking as soon as Thinking rap I’m looking. Love that we found. Find me charming, but I can’t figure out how. diamonds. That I wear. To the good stuff I. some competition. I’m a wealthier. Now up. promise OK. There’s the hell out French used to find me charming, but I can’t be. It don’t matter now. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com and thank you to everybody. Thanks to each of you for being with us this week. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer, Kate Martinetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guy, and this glorious live music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. And be great.
Afua Bruce, Amy Sample Ward & Laurel Mikalouski: A Wide-Ranging AI Conversation With 3 Experts
The company Accenture published an AI report, “Learning Reinvented,” about the connection between humans and artificial intelligence. Our smart panel discusses it and takes on broader, related subjects including leadership; equity; trust; values; space to adapt; and, training. They’re Afua Bruce, CEO of ANB Advisory Group; Amy Sample Ward, CEO of NTEN; and, Laurel Mikalouski, research specialist with Accenture.
Bridge Conference: The conversations happening at Bridge will shape strategies, careers, and organizations long after the conference ends.
We’re the #1 Podcast for Nonprofits, With 13,000+ Weekly Listeners
Board relations. Fundraising. Volunteer management. Prospect research. Legal compliance. Accounting. Finance. Investments. Donor relations. Public relations. Marketing. Technology. Social media.
Every nonprofit struggles with these issues. Big nonprofits hire experts. The other 95% listen to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Trusted experts and leading thinkers join me each week to tackle the tough issues. If you have big dreams but a small budget, you have a home at Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. View Full Transcript
Welcome to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. I’m your aptly named host and the pod father of your favorite hebdominal podcast. I want to apologize again for last week’s audio. I know that was a tough show to hear. I thank you for being with us, uh, through it. Uh, I certainly hope you didn’t unsubscribe from the show cause then you’re not hearing my, my apology this week cause you already left. No. Uh, thank you for listening through that. Also, this is show number 799, which makes next week’s show, the 800th Jubilee anniversary celebration. Oh, I’m glad you’re with us. I’d be forced to endure the pain of hosis if I had to say the words, you missed this week’s show. Here’s our associate producer Kate with what’s up this week. Hey Tony, we’ve got a wide ranging AI conversation with 3 experts. The company Accenture published an AI report, Learning Reinvented, about the connection between humans and artificial intelligence. Our smart panel discusses it and takes on broader related subjects, including leadership, equity, trust, values, space to adapt, and training. They are Afua Bruce, CEO of ANB Advisory Group, Amy Sample Ward, CEO of N10, and Laurel Michalowski, research specialist with Accenture. On Tony’s take too. What do I own? We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference. Tony will be with more than 2400 nonprofit professionals at Bridge, July 29 to 31 in National Harbor, Maryland. Info and registration at bridgecf.org. Here is a wide-ranging AI conversation with 3 experts. It is a genuine pleasure to welcome our panel today. Beginning with Afua Bruce, a leading voice at the intersection of technology, data, and social impact, she has held senior science and technology roles at the White House, the FBI, and IBM. As founder and CEO of ANB Advisory Group, she helps organizations across sectors strengthen their technology and data strategies. Her newest book, The Tech That Comes Next, explores how communities and technologists can collaborate to build a more equitable future. Her company is at ANB advisory.com and Afua is on LinkedIn. Amy Sample Ward is nonprofit radio’s technology contributor and CEO of N10. They were awarded a 2023 Bosch Foundation fellowship, and their most recent book is The Tech That Comes Next. So Afua and Amy both wrote books titled The Tech That Comes Next. No, actually that’s not true. There’s only one book, and they are the co-authors of that book, The Tech That Comes Next. Amy’s on Blue Sky as Amy Sample Ward. Laurel Michalowski is a research specialist on the talent and organization research team in Accenture Research. That’s a lot of research. At Accenture, she focuses on continuous learning and emerging technologies in organizations. Laurel holds an MS in industrial Organizational Psychology and has published in Psychology of Women Quarterly. You’ll find Laurel on LinkedIn. Afua, Amy, and Laurel, welcome, individually and collectively, jointly and severally. Welcome to nonprofit Radio. Thanks, Tony. Thanks for having us. It’s a genuine pleasure to have all of you. We’re starting with, uh, we’re talking about. An Extenure report, uh, it’s called Learning Reinvented, Accelerating Collaboration Between Humans and AI. Uh, as a renowned, uh, lackluster host of this show, I’m actually gonna read from the conclusion to begin. The conclusion says we are witnessing one of the biggest shifts in technology in our lifetime. We now need to reinvent how we learn and work with intelligent agents. Unlocking human potential in this way presents an incredibly exciting opportunity that co-learning can capture. The future of work will continue to be shaped by rapidly shifting and often unpredictable headwinds. The reinvention of learning represents the rise of a new capability that can help turn disruption into an advantage. I’d like to start with our researcher, uh, on the panel, Laurel, uh, why don’t you talk about the, the research? Give us a little overview of the, the methodology. Uh, let, let’s start with, let’s start there, Laurel. Yeah. So, the foundation of this report would be our two surveys. We surveyed both workers across the globe as well as individuals in the C-suite. Um, we had about 14,000 workers across, I believe 12 countries. And all of the industries that Accenture services, which is about 20 industries, um, and then we had about 1100 executives on top of that. So, in a lot of cases, um, we’ll talk about, we ask similar questions of both leaders and their workers, so we get to see that, uh, disconnect and gap. And beyond survey, we, uh, interviewed. 40 external experts with um their expertise ranging from both the talent and people side and the kind of emerging technology G AI side. We tried to find as many as we could who held expertise in both but as this panel could understand, that’s not always a capability that um That every organization has, but those were the key components of what made up the research as well as case studies gathered from, from our client work. And you looked at, um, different outcomes. You looked at, of course, financial and productivity because this is a corporate, this is a corporate study and, uh, you know, we, we’ll we’ll get to that, we’ll get to that part of it in a minute, but financial and productivity, but also non-financial outcomes like trust and skill development. Say, say something about some of the, the outcomes. Yeah. So, for most of our reports, we like to look at not only the benefits, let’s say, to the organization and the companies, those kind of bottom line business case type outcomes like you mentioned, profitability, uh, year over year growth. But we also like to look at, you know, what are the benefits for the individuals. Uh, Organizations are comprised of people, of workers. So, how can we improve those experiences, you know, what good outcomes can we find? Within them. Um, so, like you mentioned, we, we focus on, you know, their trust within the organization, how quickly they’re able to develop their skills, their engagement, their satisfaction, uh, things like that. So, we’d like to, you know, evaluate on both sides so that, you know, we get the the CFO who might be a little bit skeptical of all these soft people things, but we’re also looking in and focusing on the experience of the worker as well. How do you measure something like trust as an outcome? In this case, we asked workers directly how much their trust in their organization has changed both within the past 12 months and over how much they anticipate it changing over the next, uh, I believe it was 2 years. So, um, in light of, you know, Gen AI transformations within their organization, I should note all the workers and executives, um, that we surveyed. They were screened for, you know, whether or not they use Gen AI at work, recognizing that not every uh industry or company has has taken this on. Um, but we specifically were looking at those folks who are using it in the context of work. Um, so, yeah, to answer your question in brief, we asked them directly, how is your trust changed both either positively or negatively. OK. Thanks, Laurel. Um, so this is, you know, this is clearly a corporate report. Um, by no means do I believe or have I ever espoused on nonprofit radio that there’s millions of, you know, hundreds of lessons that the nonprofit community can learn. Uh, but there is, there is crossover and we’ve had guests, uh, uh, from the corporate side who have said that they learn and wish their colleagues would learn more from. The nonprofit community in terms of like mission and, and trust, valuing individuals, uh, you know, values. So it, it, it, it goes both ways. So, you know, we want to see what we can learn, take away. Uh, hopefully there’s, there’s something, otherwise, we’ll wrap this up in the next like 2 minutes. If there’s nothing, if there’s nothing we believe we can, uh, let’s crossover, everybody gets their time back, including 13,000 listeners. Imagine, imagine how we can move the needle on productivity just, just by wrapping up this show in the next 2 minutes. Uh, 13,000 work hours saved. Tony, maybe your, your spinoff podcast is an hour long, but it’s just 2 minutes at the beginning and then carefully curated consultation music. So people can say they’re listening to this industry podcast, but they’re just getting to work finally, you know. Yeah, yeah, that’s a, that’s a podcast possibility. Look, the way this show struggles, uh, you know, I’m open, I’m open to ideas. Um. Actually, I’d like to start with Afua. A, what, what are you, you know, like top level, top level takeaways? We’re we’re gonna have a chance to go into more detail, but you know, top level, what did you think when you read this? Absolutely. Thanks so much. And Laurel, thanks for walking us through the methodology, um, and, and the research behind this report. I found it really interesting and always appreciate going direct to the source when it comes to talking about research. Um, Tony, you mentioned about, you know, the hopes and dreams of Uh, nonprofits, being able to learn from corporate and vice versa. I started my career in corporate, work with corporations. Now, and I think, um, what’s important to remember is that all of these entities are filled with people. Um, and people are the ones doing the work. People are the ones creating community, creating culture, um, making decisions as to when and how to adopt tools, when and how to, um, embrace each other and to interact with their customers, um, and, and the clients that they serve. And I think that’s what it comes down to. I think some of the findings in the report, um, I think especially around embracing, uh, learning and changing the way people work and how that changes the way people interact with each other are really important. Uh, Tony, you, I’ll just wrap up with this. Tony, you’d also mentioned The tech that comes next being a title of a book that both Amy and I wrote and wrote together. In that we talked a lot about values and what you value is what you build. So it’s really exciting to see in this report, um, the importance of values, uh, being called out. Um, but one of the values we talked about is that things change over time and we have to build space into who we are. People into what our organizations look like to allow for the development of new skills and the application of those new skills. And so I think we’re really in a moment now where we have to be really intentional about building that value and not just to how we think about technology, but how we think about um corporations, nonprofit organizations and spaces in general. All right, thanks. Uh, so we’re not, it sounds like we’re not gonna be wrapping up in the next 2 minutes. Uh, so that’s, I’m sorry, you don’t get your hour back. Uh, no, so, Amy, what did, uh, what did you think? High level as, uh, when you read this report? Yeah, high level, I mean. I Appreciate Laurel, you sharing because my understanding as I read it and it was helpful to validate before we got into conversation that this was a survey of folks who are already using AI and um It’s helpful just to be transparent about that. I think part of the challenge that we have around talking about anything that’s declarative about whether these technologies are helpful or not or useful or not or valued or not or wanted to be, you know, is that It isn’t just people that are already using them. There is a significant or important component of every industry or organization or community where, um, folks for many different reasons that can be considered in different ways, um, are not using these tools. And so just naming those folks, uh, before we inevitably start talking about that side of things in this conversation, you know, and I think that Um, you know, in addition to my regular work, I’m this year helping independent sector with a project to gather a panel and think about AI governance from the perspective of independent sectors, 33 good governance principles, and what are changing technologies. Maybe introducing to governance conversations and the two primary lenses for that work and the conversations that that kind of community panel will have, one is trust. Trust is certainly named in this report, you know, um, how, how does the way that organizations are using these tools. Build trust, maintain trust, uh, contribute to trust, either, you know, between colleagues, between workers and execs, as Laura was saying, um, But also outward to community. Um, so that’s a big piece I think we’ll likely get into more in a minute, just naming that that door is in our hallway to walk through and then go talk about it. And then also the trust, images and also the trust between the humans and the agents that they’re totally collaborating with. Totally, yeah. Can, can the tools be trusted. Um, but I also want to name what Afua left off on, and I had Maybe a different impression, um, in, in the report, or maybe this is just what I get for reading it after my kiddo goes to bed and only part of my brain was still awake, but you know, who’s to say. But I read the report as really not addressing values at all. Um, there was the value of the tool, meaning as it serves. Those other metrics that Laura was talking about, you know, productivity, um, year over year growth, supporting efficiency and learning, all of those components. But I think not in the spirit of what we named in the book or that we talk about a lot with nonprofits, which is, what are your values? What are you going to value when you make this decision and how are you going to come back to that when you Of course, inevitably have to make this decision again because the technology has changed or opportunity has changed or your needs have changed. And, um, that values piece, like I said before, is the other piece of the lens for the independent sector work, but I also think is core to any conversation that starts, as everyone here has done with this is about people. If it is about people, then we have to talk about what we’re valuing and it can’t be the technology over those people. OK. Um, well, thank you for, uh, for calling out that we are talking about a, I mean, I in a biased sample because these are all folks using AI, but I mean, that’s the purpose of, the purpose of the report is to learn how to do it, not to decide whether to adopt. So yes, we’re, you’re, I actually have a kind of a behind the scenes note, um, Amy, to your point. We actually did when we were screening out folks for their Gen AI Gen AI use at work. Um, for those who said they don’t, we had a small sample, I think it was about 300, and before they got screened out, we asked them why not. Um, and the most popular reason of that group was that it just wasn’t allowed at work. Uh, that’s not to say that I totally agree that there is a healthy amount of skepticism in the workforce, be it, I don’t want to be automated out of my job. I don’t feel comfortable using it for creative ethical reasons, for sustainability reasons, um. Obviously, it wasn’t in, as Tony said, not really in scope, but that is something that we we assessed behind the scenes. Um, and I think frankly, not a lot of organizations that want to implement Gen AI tools into their workforce and in how they do work really have a good answer of of how to address those fears and that skepticism. Some of them just introduce mandatory we’re tracking this, you have to use it. I think leading organizations would do kind of a listening tour with their employees and say, hey, how, how would this fit in in our processes? You are the folks who are actually executing the work we do. Um, but yeah, presently, I think the arms race to be Gen AI enabled and and be seen as a Gen AI enabled company, at least for the organizations that we work with at Accenture. It’s kind of leaving, leaving that population behind, but, um, but yeah, yeah, I mean, I do agree that in the nonprofit sector. The primary driver is to be seen as an AI adopted organization. It is not to have the benefits of these tools. Um, different audience, of course, right? In the nonprofit sector, funders, philanthropy is talking a lot about AI and so those organizations who want to be grantees or are grantees and hope to stay grantees, really, we are hearing that as a primary driver for why folks want to adopt the technologies, not. Not because they have any, you know, other, I’m sure they’ll find maybe some other uses, but really. To be seen that way by their funders is, is a big piece, and I’m speaking to, um, just to counter your research with more research, um, and I’m not, it’s not just to add to this research conversation with more research, N10 and Bridgespan have an open survey right now on AI adoption and governance in the nonprofit sector, um. I don’t know when this will air. So you can go to the M10 publications page and either see the survey or see the report, whichever stage it’s at, but go to the publications page and it’s on top. Um, but something I wanted to reference about that and then maybe you could talk a little bit more. Um, I’m sorry to now have taken over Tony’s job, but I, you know, well, you’ll, you, you’ll, you’ll be better than lackluster. Go ahead. Um, but something that we have in that survey is a similar structure. Um, if folks say they’re in an executive role, they, you know, their path splits, um, and they get, get different questions than staff in an organization. And we similarly to what I, I think is in your report, see a delta between what execs think is happening in the organization and what staff feel is happening in the organization. Um, and I wonder if maybe you could talk a little bit about that delta from what you’ve seen and, and how you think, you know, having looked at the data more, and then I think Afu and I both probably have a lot of examples we could share from that area. Yeah. Um, let me just share one where I know there’s a a pretty stark difference. It’s around some of what we we’ve already touched on, which is when we ask both executives and workers how clear they feel on their organization’s kind of strategic plan or like process for implementing GN AI at work. So, do you know where your organization is headed and Oh yeah, like I think it was 80 or 90% agreement that they have clearly communicated this to the workforce, no issues, no problem. Laurel, you, you cut out for a sec, so I just want to make clear that’s the, that’s the executive perception. Yes, OK, yeah. Uh, when we talk to workers, they are far less clear on where their organization is headed and why. So, I think when it comes down and often our clients are quite large organizations, so, you have many layers from, you know, where, where the decisions are made versus where they’re implemented and we find that those workers just aren’t quite seeing the vision as clearly as the executives think they’ve communicated it. Amy, do you have any early cuts at your research yet, or, or no, it’s to, to see if you have the same disparities. I’ll say what we see now, of course, the survey is still open, you know, so please, if you, if your experience is different, go put it into the surveys. You know, yeah, now we biased the survey. Now, now we’ve ruined the survey. No, the survey is worthless. No, it’s fine. No, it’s totally biased. I mean, one thing that we do ask about, and obviously this is different because you had screened folks for usage, but we do ask both, you know, to use this language, execs and workers as the two groups, um. If shadow use is going on, tools that aren’t on the approved list, um, and you know, execs are saying no and staff are saying yes. Um, but also a lot of folks are saying that there isn’t an approved list. So it means that any use is already shadow use because it’s not, you know, um, Authorized, what you know what I’m trying to say. Um, I think another piece that we’re seeing in that, um, gap is what kinds of resources folks actually want as a support for learning or deciding what policies they should have or how they could use, you know, how like getting towards the content of, of your report as well about learning like. What those different groups want, um, is different, which makes sense. They have different jobs, but, um, I think that’s an interesting thing to remember that not everyone is going to need the same resource or template or example or course, you know, um, to suss out for themselves what makes sense. So those are two places that, um, There’s some differences, but there’s lots we could, lots we could talk about. Yeah, it, you want to weigh in on the, the, these disparities or anything else that we’re talking about? Absolutely. And on, um, the disparities between what executive management, might see versus the rest of employees at an organization might report as reality is not surprising. Um, I think what is, um, interesting and important to note as we talk about. About this is that AI is a type of technology, just like many other technologies. And so whenever you have, people have led technology transformations inside organizations or tried to roll out a new tech process, there is always a discrepancy between how clear the project leaders or executive sponsors think a plan is and what the reality is on the ground, what that change management process looks like. Um, and so, if anything, I think even as we talk about, um, AI adoption, what is important to remember is that a lot of this is about leadership, right? It’s about leadership and strong management principles and putting them into action. Humans make the decision about when to have layoffs and how many layoffs to have, um, what to attribute those layoffs to. Um, if AI, if something else. Uh, I think maybe about a year ago, 1 year and a half ago, uh, the Nvidia CEO was in an interview and someone said, oh, well, you know, well, now with AI and the chips and your chips and everything that is enabling. Um, there’s going to be mass layoffs. And he said, Well, I don’t know that we need to lay off anyone. He’s like, we should actually just be doing more work. We should be able to do more interesting things. I think maybe perspectives have changed in the past year or so. Yeah, well, plus that’s fine for, that’s fine for his company. It’s not the center of the universe, right, right. Exactly. But my, my broader point is that again, it’s the humans who are making these decisions. And so, Um, you know, there’s a lot of talk of human in the loop. I often like to say AI in the decision-making loop to remind us, uh, we are the ones making decisions. We can decide to use AI when and where. And so, I think some of these discrepancies that, um, are highlighted, uh, in the report or even thinking about how we articulate what value is, what productivity is. Really does require us to be clear as to what our leadership principles are and what it looks like to manage organizations well. And that’s right in line with, uh, Amy’s point, uh, their point about, um, uh, about values. You know, what do we value and, and in terms of, you know, deciding whether we’re going to minimize staff, lay off staff, fire, forget the euphemisms, fire staff, uh, in the, in the face of, you know, work being able to be done more efficiently. Uh, and, you know, this, and these are concerns that are, that are real. I mean, look at just a few headlines. Fortune magazine, AI is cutting 16,000 jobs a month. Bloomberg, heavy job losses in roles exposed to AI, and those roles are typically, uh, white-collar, customer service, administrative, um, New York Times, the growing anxiety over AI and jobs. So, um, I mean, the, Yeah, the concerns are real and We, we look to leadership to, to center what’s, what we stand for. Well, and I want to get back to something you said, Laurel, um, or multiple things and tie them together, but you know, the piece about, um, Staff saying they’re, they don’t really understand or feel that there is an adequate plan and Um, to validate that with N10 data. Um, so we have for two decades seen that play out that folks say, you know, they have tools, but there’s not, they don’t have a plan and that organizations that can put technology in their strategic plan are more effective in general because they can communicate. Why are we doing this? Why are we using these tools, right? So, um, in case Accenture was waiting for the data validation from N10, there you go. Um, let the record reflect, um, that’s why we’re here. We are here to explore the crossover. Yeah, exactly, exactly. Thank you. Um, but I think, I think a piece of that strong plan, whether it’s in your strategic plan or there’s a, you know, implementation plan for the project, is this piece about accountability and what happens if something goes wrong, or it just isn’t used the way we thought it was going to be used, or it doesn’t work the way we wanted it to work, you know, like something going wrong doesn’t have to just mean Material harm to someone, though that’s included, right? But I’m trying to make it also just be like our idea of what this was for didn’t work. And I, I had written down when I read it last night that 56% of workers said they didn’t know. There wasn’t any clarity about if something goes wrong, like what do I, am I at fault? You know, what do we do? And that is a huge piece of building trust and maintaining trust. That’s also To me, a reflection of like what was valued. Our community and those externalities was not considered when we made this plan, because if we had valued it, we would have made a plan for that accountability. And I’m curious, like, especially from any interviews with participants that you did or, you know, more comments versus, um, survey answers that maybe you gathered around that. What folks If if folks maybe even said what they wish that accountability plan was, or, you know, what the gap was for people. Mhm. I don’t know, again, if any organization has a clear answer. I think the leading ones are putting more thoughtful guardrails, but, your point really makes me think of the importance of experimentation and letting, you know, your workforce have the opportunity to play with these things in a sandbox before it becomes really consequential. Fortunately, with the speed at which the technology is changing and emerging and as we’ve discussed, organizations desire to be seen as being on the cutting edge, um, it gets hard to allow for that time to innovate, test, experiment before, you know, it becomes to the end user, uh, you know, important decisions. We’ve all heard the horror stories of AI hallucinated case law for a trial or, you know, falsified references or all of all of those horror stories. Obviously, you know, every organization hopes to avoid that and not be the next headline. Um, but I think allowing for that that culture of experimentation is kind of the best buffer from that, but I think a lot of organizations as well are still trying to evaluate where AI can either layer into their existing processes or where they have to totally reinvent the wheel and and totally change their ways of working. While keeping the ship running, of course. Um, but I think what, you know, this is just anecdotal, um, and something we’ve been talking about on our research team is that I think over the next few years, we might see the pendulum swing back to really having that that human in the lead and being organizations being very thoughtful and kind of differentiating themselves with competitors of, no, you will have a uh a human pick up. The phone if you call, you know, you as an employee will have an actual person as your HR rep and not just an agent. So, I think that, you know, while I totally agree that fears of job layoffs, um, are very real and have happened, the extent to which, you know, they’re being blamed on AI versus actually due to AI, I think we could, we could all argue both sides, but I really foresee in the next few years that the human being kind of the differentiator for for companies. That’s very interesting. A, what do you think about the, the, the pendulum, the pendulum swinging? Back. I, I mean, I think the pendulum is actively swinging now, sort of from side to side to side, right? We will see, I think over the past 3 years, past 3 years, right? We’ve seen headlines that everyone is all in on AI adoption. And then 6 months later, OK, well, sure, I, you know, and a company executive saying, OK, we did go all in. We did lay off a bunch of staff, but it turns out we need humans. So now we’re hiring back. Or, OK, now, you know, we’re all in on the AI adoption again. The technology has, uh, leapfrogged once again in the past 6 months, there’s a new version. We’ve got whatever coding we’re using. So, you know, now we’re tracking tokens and uh token usage, and we’re going all in. And then, oh, actually, paying for tokens is expensive. It’s cheaper actually to have a human. Uh, work on this code. And so now we’re going to figure, you know, so I, I think the pendulum is actively swinging right now. Um, I think what is true, and I, you know, I say this, like I am, you know, I’m an engineer by training. I’ve been doing AI things for 10 years. So I believe in AI and that it has its place and it is useful and it will continue to be here. But I think sort of in, as we think about wide scale adoption, adoption in all roles, not just engineering roles. I think we are very much still figuring out what that means and what that looks like. And so, I think we will continue to see the, um, the pendulum swing back and forth. Um, I also just wanted to touch on something else about how some of these themes that we’re talking about really do intersect. There’s a quote in the report that said leadership must drive a mindset shift so people see Gen AI as an empowering partner rather than a threat. That means actively communicating their vision, rallying their team around it, and fostering a culture of trust because without genuine buy-in, even the best intentions go nowhere. Um, so getting back to our themes of leadership that we’ve been talking about and trust, but, you know, what I think is not mentioned here and often isn’t mentioned in these conversations is the inherent tension and the same people who are saying, use AI to Be an empowering partner, empowering thought partner are also the same ones that are then looking at earnings numbers or looking at um a funding pipeline and saying, well, actually, now that we’ve used AI um now we have a need for fewer people. And so some of that inherent, um, tension, if your, your values aren’t clear, if those leadership principles aren’t clear, I think we’ll continue to make it, uh, challenging to get true buy-in and true adoption. Um, of, of some of these Gen AI and agentic AI tools. It’s time for a break. We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference produced by AFPDC and DMAW July 29 to 31 at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. More than 2400 professionals will gather at bridge. Tony will be with them. The question is, will you? Thought leaders from nonprofits, associations, foundations, hospitals, higher ed, faith-based, and mission-driven causes across the country come to Bridge to discover new ideas, solve real challenges, and connect with smart people shaping the future of our industry. From 125+ educational sessions and hands-on pre-conference workshops to Bridge tech, the faith in fundraising forum, and inspiring keynote speakers, Bridge offers something for every mission and every role. The conversations happening at Bridge will shape strategies, careers, and organizations long after the conference ends. Don’t hear about it afterward. Be in the room. Register at bridge.org. It’s time for Tony’s take 2. Thank you, Kate. What do I own? I’ve been thinking about this since I got a new iPhone. And some things did not transfer over from the old phone to the new phone. I did it all at an Apple store. Like songs, there’s a lot of music that I added by my own CDs back when I had a laptop with a CD drive in it. Remember those days? You, they used to make them with the CD drive in it. And I had a lot of CDs and I added them myself to my music app on the iPhone. Which means I didn’t buy them from the Apple Music store, because I had the CDs. I put them on. The songs that you do that with. Don’t get transferred. If you didn’t buy them from the Apple store. They don’t get transferred to the new phone. The only way to make that transfer is if in the store or wherever you’re buying your phone, if they manually. Uh, duplicate the music app from your old phone to your new phone. But if, if you just do the automated process where the, the two phones just sit next to each other and the new phone gets synced with the old phone. Songs that you didn’t pay for, don’t get transferred to the new phone. I lost a lot of music that way. And of course, I’ve, I’ve long since given away the CDs because, because I thought I owned those songs. I didn’t own them. Like I had a right to use them. Only until I got a new phone. And then They disappeared. Uh, same thing with an app. There was an, uh, I had an app on the old phone that I was using. It didn’t make it over to the new phone because that app is no longer in the app store, so I would have thought I owned that app. No. You only use it as long as Apple supports it in the. Uh, in the App Store. When, or if they stop supporting it, they don’t offer it in the store, it’s not gonna make it to a new phone. So I lost the app and all the data that was in that app. Uh, also, and also, YouTube. I had an old YouTube identity. I, it was an old Yahoo email address that I was signed in with. When you, uh, when you change apps, when you change phones, you, uh, are logged out of all your non-Apple based apps. YouTube, obviously owned by Google, not an Apple app. I got logged out and that That Yahoo address, I, I couldn’t recover it. So, now this is not, that’s not Apple’s fault. Uh, if you wanna place blame. This was Yahoo. It, it’s such an old address. I had it from 2003. I couldn’t recover it. So all the playlists that I had under that. Email address that I was signed into YouTube on, that I’ve curated for years. I had, I had science, I had music, I had politics playlists. All they, they were all private, just for me. They’re all gone. Although those years of curating those lists, they’re lost because I can’t sign in with that old Yahoo email. So, you know, you think of these things. Another one, another example, uh, off the phone now, streaming movies. When you pay for, you pay to buy a movie from Amazon, not just watch it for 48 hours, buy it. You don’t own that movie. You only have the right to watch it. As long as you have your Amazon subscription. The day your Amazon subscription ends. So does your access to that movie. So you don’t own that movie. You’ve bought it, like they’ll say, buy the movie or rent it. And you click buy and you pay 14.99 to buy it, but you haven’t really bought it because you don’t own it. You’re buying a license to use it as long as they allow you to, and they’ll stop allowing you. When you stop your subscription to, to Amazon. So you don’t own that movie, even though they say buy the movie. You know, that’s why I have a, a DVD collection of, I don’t know, 200, 250 DVDs. I own them. Nobody can take them away. As long as I have a DVD Blu-ray player, I can watch the movies that I own. They’re in my DVD cabinet closet, and I can watch them anytime I want. Those, I own. The streaming, like bullshit stuff, you don’t own it. They’re just giving you a right to borrow it or watch it as long as the, as long as you keep up the subscription. Cloud storage, same thing. You end, uh, when I end my iCloud storage account, if I should. I’m gonna lose access to, to whatever is in the cloud, uh, all that backup. It’s lost. So, this all has me thinking about. For me, you know, what do I own? And You might, you might think about that as well, because I found out, uh, I don’t own as much as I thought. And that is Tony’s take 2. Kate, oh, my voice just broke like I’m 14. Kate, Kate. Um, Yeah, you got me thinking now, cause I mean, we’re, we’re, our life is surrounded by a little rectangle, like our, our photos, our movies, how to contact each other. We’re all living through this little brick. I mean, let’s say it got smashed or you said the cloud, you can’t recover your cloud for some reason, then you gotta re-get all your contacts, reget all your pho, well, now they’re gone. Your photos are gone. It’s like opening up a scrapbook that you, you have, that you bought, that you like made little pictures and you printed stuff and you posted and you can go to your library and look at the little photo book. No, it’s gone. Exactly right. It’s, it’s a difference between physical, tangible. I can, well, everybody knows what tangible is, and, uh, digital. That’s the difference. We’ve got Beu butt loads more time. Here’s the rest of a wide ranging AI conversation with 3 experts. Part of the report sort of addresses what Afu is talking about. And, and, and, and core to the report really is this co-learning. Where the, the agent and the human, I, I actually, I’d rather put the human first, where the human and the agent are learning from each other, iterating, you, you, it’s, it’s central to, to your, to, to the, to the outcomes of the report. Can you talk about co-learning? Yeah, definitely. Um, so I think one thing that we have to distinguish about Agentic AI and generative AI is that unlike uh maybe technologies that have preceded it like Excel or what have you, it does improve as more people use it, right? Like it becomes this flywheel effect where the AI learns, learns, um, adapts to um what what the input is and, and, and how the organization is using it. Um, so when we talk about co-learning, we’re not just talking about, you know, uh, I’m in the flow of work and I can get an answer to a question I have faster. It’s also learning to work with the AI like it’s a new co-worker. So, you know, maybe me and Tony work on a project together and I learn. Through our our collaboration that he prefers text over email or something like that or I don’t know how he manages meetings, so I know when to chime in and when to pull back. Similarly, the AI agents, the collaborators have to learn how to work with the people and the humans likewise. This is an instance where you would probably would prefer the tech over over Tony. Well, but also these technologies aren’t people. So I always get bristle at the comparison to them being a coworker or an intern or whatever, because they are not people, they do not have feelings. It is a tool. And I think it’s important for us if we are even trying to make the point that this tool will change and improve based on our inputs. That we maintain it as a tool and that we are changing our inputs or intentionally putting certain inputs in for that end because it is a tool, um, just naming that for all of us in this. And I do also Think about um from Afua’s many stories, um, in her storied career of trying to be sometimes the only person trying to move a technology project forward, whether it was You know, a model or um implementation of, of a new tool, whatever. And I just think about how much, how many resources of all different types go into successful projects and I am curious if there were questions in the survey, Laurel, about What resources, you know, they could sure be budget, but they could also be what staff teams or what outside expertise or you know, what types of resources um had been Leveraged or or contributed to a project to make it successful, especially as I then think about the audience of Tony’s podcast and the, the community that I work with all the time, which are smaller and medium sized nonprofits who do not have a legal department, let alone a staff council. They do not have um flexible innovation budget or what, you know, whatever it might be. They don’t have ready access to. Maybe experts who’ve done 15 versions of this already, you know, to like try it with them. Um, there are 6 people already completely overworked on a mission that is crucial to their community, you know, and so the context, um, in some ways feels like two different planets, you know, but I wonder if we could talk about or if you heard surfaced anything like what types of resources folks did find useful. Yeah, um. I mean, I think a lot of what we’ve talked about today gets back to just classic change management. It’s always hard. It always requires so many resources. It’s always slower than you hope, requires a ton of communication with the people it affects, etc. So, I’ll start with unsurprisingly, uh, Nearly all, I want to say actually 99% of the executives that we surveyed said that they were planning to increase spending on Gen AI their Gen AI strategy in the next year. So, obviously, more dollars are being allocated to this that is a surprise to no one. Um, but when we talk to workers on, you know, where, where are your challenges with using these tools at work and what would help you use them more, um, training came out consistently as the number one. Now, That is obviously a large bucket, right? Like, what does training, good training mean to an employee versus what does it mean to, you know, the executives who we’re talking to. They, the C-suite may think, oh, well, we We ordered this one module for our workforce and that’s it. We should be. There was a brown bag that they could have come in. Yeah, yeah. I think we’re getting to the, uh, employee, the, uh, executive, uh, employee worker, uh, disparity. We, we hosted a brown bag and we put it, we, we put $2.5 million toward it, check the box, right, but Um, often, those trainings are kind of widespread organizational initiatives are not contextualized to that person’s role and how AI tools are actually going to show up in their work process, right? So, as much support as they can get in not only learning, you know, how it would be implemented specific to what I do day to day is, you know, kind of the gold standard and what most organizations. would hope to achieve. I think as well, um, again, kind of a classic change management thing, but as much as um workers can see role models, maybe their leaders, how they’re using it, where they’re struggling, where they’re succeeding, you know, sharing amongst the team, um, folks, they collaborate, lessons learned, what’s working, what’s not, I think, um, can be things that can can still happen on that small scale. Either Amy Afua, you want to talk about what, what, what you think, we think valuable training, uh, looks like in our, in our community? I will, uh, jump in first, but I know Amy has so much to say on the importance of training. I’ve gotten to collaborate with N10 also on, uh, their digital equity guide, which also talks about the importance of training there. So suggest folks, um, give that a read if you haven’t already. Um, but yeah, that’s a great resource. But Amy, could you just give us the, where we could find the, the equity guide? We, you and I have talked about it before, but I’d like to remind folks. Home page. It’s on the publications page. It’s probably in the top math, but yes, the equity guide for nonprofit technology talks about using technology, investing in it, including your own budget, and creating technology, whether you’re a nonprofit or a technology provider. OK, the N10 equity guide. Thank you. All right, I’m sorry, Afu, I just wanted to make sure people can find it. Absolutely, I, I do too. Download it today. Um, but I, I think on, on the training piece, what’s important to remember is that you have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be, not where you hope they should be, not where they said they were sometimes, but where they actually are and meet people there. Um, I think Laurel, some of what you mentioned about making sure that the training is contextualized. Um, I think, you know, train early, train often is also a good philosophy to have. And also, uh, making a part of that training, especially if it’s done over time, adaptive. Make it learn as well. So, a way to learn best practices, learn how people are actually using whatever you’ve rolled out, and use that to sort of continually, uh, re-educate and upskill, um, staff is really important. Amy, Yeah, I mean, I think we’ve said this a little bit earlier, but I always think that when we think of training, even if it was for that 6 person organization or a 6000 employee organization, there’s just, once you have 2 people, you now are going to have different ways that people learn or, you know, to Laura’s point before, want to communicate or have different interests that guide their learning for their work, you know, and, and so that means whether, I mean, we all just made fun of a brown bag, but even if it’s not that, even if it was an all day thoughtfully planned and well facilitated event, it’s still not going to be the way that everybody could learn that information, right? There, it, it is going to have to be diverse in how people can come in and the way that they learn, but it also has to be continuous, and I think that was a point made in the report as well too, that The technologies constantly change, so our education and our trial and our error and our understanding and exploration of technology has to continue to change. Um. That doesn’t mean though that our jobs as humans alive on a flying rock in 2026, our jobs are now to just chase technology and to be like, oh my gosh, new thing released. My job today is to test it out. No, you already have a job and a life and whatever, right? Like I, I Regularly ask organizations when I’m doing a training, you know, how many of you have a mission that’s really important? Everyone raises their hand, right? How many of you have a mission that is to adopt technology? No one raises their hand. That’s not our mission, right? So, Um, keeping that in mind, these are tools that can help us if maybe, you know, we’re talking in super general language here about thousands of different technologies actually. So, uh, there, there could be tools that help us, but your, your job. Um, isn’t to do that. Just as, um, a construction crew’s job is to build a house. It wasn’t to find a use for all of their tools, right? It was to build the house and they found in certain moments different tools were useful for that. And, and then they built the house. And I want us, whether we’re talking about giant companies or small nonprofits and everybody in between. Nobody’s job is to just use these tools. And how do we, as we started this conversation, if we’re, if we’re really talking about people, how do we center people in that process, um, both through learning and through remem, OK, this isn’t at the sacrifice of delivering your great mission or your great programs and services, right? Um, this is here insofar as it aids that, but if it’s not aiding it, What was the point, you know? I’m, I’m, I’m glad you, you brought out the, the, the threshold questions, which, again, you know, that it’s beyond the scope of the, the, the report comes after that, after those threshold questions, but it’s enormously. Uh, important and, and consequential is the early discussions, whether we should, and then if so, everything else we’ve, we’ve talked about. But yeah, the, the threshold questions. Um, Let’s see. So there’s, there’s 4 conditions that, that the report sets out for, for getting the most out of the co-learning that, uh, that Laurel was describing. Um, Laurel, you’ll do it more articulately than I will, uh, as, as most guests, uh, as all, as all guests do. But could you lay out the, you know, just give like, tick off the four conditions and then maybe we’ll have some, we, we’ll have some time still left to maybe talk about just one of them or so. But, you know, these, these, uh, sort of prerequisites for, you know, maximizing your, your, your outcomes using the, uh, these agents. Yeah. Um, so, the first one is something that I think we’ve touched on a lot already in our discussion is, is leading with curiosity and creativity. So, again, our organizations creating that clarity to their employees on where we’re going? Do employees feel like they are genuinely supported by the organization to use these tools and implement them in their work? Um, the next one is incorporating learning as part of the job, which is again, we just, we just were talking about, I think. It’s incredibly difficult for, as you’ve you’ve mentioned, Amy, you know, people to stop what they’re actually doing to to start using these tools and implementing them, but the exciting thing about generative AI specifically is that it is so much easier for organizations now to to create specific contextualized, personalized, adaptive um training at scale. Uh, the third is hardwiring trusts. So, making sure again, like we’ve talked about, employees know who’s accountable when something goes wrong, that they feel like they have a voice within their organization of how AI gets used as well as they have the autonomy to decide when to use it in in their daily work. And then, finally, the fourth condition is making Gen AI work the way people work. So, similar to kind of learning being in the flow of work, it’s incredibly difficult or adds a lot of friction when these Gen AI tools live in a separate whole system that you then have to wait to load and it’s not really integrated well. At the end of the day, your employees are still users, right? So, we want to make sure that things are designed thoughtfully for employees so that it makes the tools um easy to integrate into their flow of work, as well as that they have that technical support when things go wrong. So those, that’s like a quick fly through of of the four conditions. Yeah, perfect. And we have, I think we’ve we’ve touched on elements of all of all four. A, what, what, what interests you, uh, I guess, further in our conversation or maybe specific to one of these. Conditions, what’s on your mind? Yes, I agree. We’ve, we’ve already sort of organically touched on all four of these points because they are really crucial as we think about adopting Gen AI. Um, but I think even more broadly as we think about what it’s like to adopt any new technology and to some of what Amy mentioned as to how we make sure that we are giving people the best tools they need to do their jobs. Um, if you are to extend, uh, Amy’s metaphor of building a house, if you’re building a house, You just want to build the best house with the best tools, you’re looking around saying, what is available to me and you pick that. In organizations and companies and nonprofits, as people are serving their clients, serving their communities, you want to do so with uh the best tools. You want to deliver the highest quality service to them, usually the most amount of people that you can. We are in a resource constrained times, financially. Um, time and attention-wise. And so, the question is, how do I, how can I best equip myself to execute on this very important mission that I have? And if that is your stance as a leader, as an employee in one, in an organization, you should want to use the best. Tools. Sometimes that will be a Gen AI tool to help you, in which case, you wanna make sure that you can get it. You wanna make sure that you’re trained on it, you wanna make, you wanna make sure that your organization is learning from it, that you, um, are contributing back to the best practices and everyone is growing together for that co uh learning aspect as well. And so I think, um, What to just reiterate, which I think. The, the four points, um, do support is that it’s about doing good work. It’s about doing good work in the most um efficient, effective, and I’d argue, most compassionate, uh, manner, um, especially in the nonprofit sector. Oh, compassion. No, we haven’t mentioned that word. Remember. That’s a good word. That’s a good. I thought about mentioning empathy to continue with the ease. I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s start with compassion. Uh, I do love alliteration, but compassion is, compassion is a good, that’s a good value. Well, it’s not really about, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s just a, it’s just something we should honor. Go ahead, Amy, you’ll be more articulate. It’s a great lens again, just to like continue on this piece if, if we’re. Going to center this on people. Compassion is such a great Word to remind us of considerations there because I think a place where we’re hearing from nonprofit teams, you know, people in all positions and all different size nonprofits is this pressure in making an AI policy and an AI plan and like the approved usage list and all of that stuff, um. That that there’s so much pressure to get it right. And, you know, just as a reminder, perfect doesn’t exist in anything. And I think having compassion for people, centering people, is also a reminder that there’s no way you could make an AI policy once because the technology changes. And if we’re going to center continuous learning, And value experimentation, you know, things that we’ve all talked about on this call, we need to remember that the maybe most important part of our AI policy, or however you’re naming that document, is when will we revisit this? How will we redecide what we decided here? Who will be part of that process? That I think is the most important part of a, of a plan, not whatever your answers were today or which tools you put on that approved list today. Because, um, People will continue to learn. People will continue to find new things. The internet just keeps releasing more, you know, it’s like, God, just could we, could we just pause so I could clear my inbox? Like why? Right? Why? I understand that AI has helped you write a lot more emails, stop sending them to me, right? So Really having compassion for ourselves, having compassion for the number of Beyonce hours any of us might have in a day, right? Is to say our plan isn’t perfect, but it does say how we’re going to reconvene and continue learning together. Our plan doesn’t already know magically everything that’s going to happen, but it does say what will happen if something goes bad and that we will deal with it together, right? Or, or whatever. So, I think for me, compassion helps root to some of these important but actually more open-ended, more flexible parts of how we could create a plan for an organization. I’m gonna let Laurel in because, uh, all I ever asked her to do was, uh, talk about the report. Talk us through the ports. Talk us through the points. What’s the reason? So, Laurel, what, what’s on your mind about this? Well, I, I, I think, um, Amy, when you were talking about, you know, when are we going to revisit this plan at Accenture, something we talked about a lot is just the expectation that organizations are continuously reinventing. We have a research team, some of my colleagues do a pulse of change survey about 2 or 3 times a year. It goes out to a couple 100 executives and We’ve been tracking over I think 17 or 18 waves now and the level of change that, you know, we asked executives, how much do you think, you know, everything is changing. It only continues to go up and up and up and so, there’s a lot of overwhelm and similarly, you know, the the noise, the the kind of Floodgates of all of the change with Gen AI alone, it, it’s, it’s untenable. So, I think that goes back to organizations needing a clear communication strategy with, with their workers. Um, I think where transparency is able to be shared, it makes it better because then you can go back and say, hey, we realized this wasn’t working and here’s how we’re going to change moving forward. I will say one of the questions that came to mind in our executive survey for Learning Reinvented, we asked um executives whether the maturity of their strategy to skill their employees for the integration of of AI. And only 60% of them said that it was developed to support their long term business strategy. So, not everyone is even thinking as big of a picture to kind of where their business is going. Now, 60% over a majority. But I think, you know, it has to the trajectory of the strategy has to follow where where the business is going, where the mission is going maybe for nonprofits, but it can’t just exist in a vacuum, otherwise, yeah, we’re going to be spinning our wheels, um, giving chat GPT enterprise seats to to our people and letting them loose. A lot of, uh, what you just said makes me think of sustainability, and I, I question how much of the, the, the tumult that you described, uh, makes it, uh, uh, makes so much of our, our, uh, I don’t know, our economy, uh, unsustainable. I wonder, I wonder. All right. That was Laurel Mikhalowski. We gotta leave it there. Uh, we could go further, but, uh, we’re over time and, uh, we gotta honor our guests. So, that was Laurel Michalowski, a research specialist on the talent and organization research team in Accenture Research. You can find Laurel and all three of the, the panelists, uh, all of, all of, uh, my guests on LinkedIn. Um, actually, that’s not true. Amy Sample Ward is more active on Blue Sky as Amy Sample Ward. Amy Sample Ward is our, uh, technology contributor and the CEO of N10. You’re more likely to find her, to find them on Blue Sky than you are on LinkedIn. And Afua Bruce, a leading voice at the intersection of technology, data and social impact, founder and CEO of ANB Advisory Group at ANBAdvisory.com, and Afua is on LinkedIn. That was outstanding. Thank you. Thanks to all three of you. Afua, Amy Laurel. Delightful panel. Thank you. Very provocative. Valuable, valuable for our community. Thanks so much. Thank you so much. Thanks, Tony. Next week, it’s our 800th show. It’s the 800th show, the 16th anniversary jubilee. The whole team will be together. If you missed any part of this week’s show, I beseech you, find it at Tony Martignetti.com. We are sponsored by the Bridge Conference. Tony will be with more than 2400 nonprofit professionals at Bridge, July 29 to 31 in National Harbor, Maryland. Info and registration at bridge.org. Our creative producer is Claire Meyerhoff. I’m your associate producer Kate Martinetti. The show’s social media is by Susan Chavez. Mark Silverman is our web guy, and this music is by Scott Stein. Thank you for that affirmation, Scotty. Be with us next week for nonprofit radio. Big nonprofit ideas for the other 95%. Go out and be great.