Cultivation Cases and Prospect Strategies
Dear Diary,
Happy New Year! I want to focus today’s entry on familiar types of prospects. How many of us have had prospects dwelling in the depths of the cultivation stage for over two or three years? We’ve held the meetings, but the fundraiser will not give up on them. We have created policies regarding Time in Stage, but the fundraiser still meets with the prospect and spends little time on others. This is the type of prospect that we typically help fundraisers manage and track through the long and winding cultivation process. I want to focus on the scenarios and strategies that could help us within our meetings with fundraisers dealing with prospects that have moving motives, timelines, and intentions. This is all about the long plays, maneuvering through situations.
To frame this entry - I will share prospects within the cultivation stage for over one to three years. They are qualified, however, there has been little progress regarding a plan or ask amount. Yes, there is a mockup of a plan in the CRM and a projected ask amount, and a prospect profile is also available. Everything is being tracked, however, the nuances in dealing with these particular prospects cannot be simplified.
Let’s discuss some cases.
Case One: Mr. Illiquid
Recently, Harry Thomas launched his company’s IPO (Initial Public Offering). At the age of 27 years old, he feels on top of the world. He resides in San Francisco and co-founded a company with some friends that he met during a startup incubator. The company’s valuation has placed Harry and his friends as billionaires. Investors are chiming in and praising the company. Harry grew up in a philanthropic middle-class family. There is strong mission alignment with the organization and Harry’s personal philanthropy and values. Conversations between Harry and the organization have been ongoing for the last two years. We started talking about a pledge when Harry was raising seed funds and growing his operational team. The company’s brand and work was growing. We learned about the IPO from a board member that made a minor investment in the company and then discussed the momentum with Harry. Harry has made it clear to us for two years that he is illiquid- he has been investing in his company and taking little to no profit. He has promised to “commit to a pledge in due time.” His co-founders are his roommates, and Harry lives a “simple” lifestyle. Harry has visited the organization, talked to stakeholders, attended events, and our board member has dropped loud hints about a pledge. His lifetime giving to the organization is $0.
Strategic Conversation: As a researcher I’ve dealt with many Harrys – those who are illiquid and focused on the growth of their company. They’re focused on the work, but they’re also making promises that they cannot yet realize or aren’t ready for. This is when I lay the facts to the fundraiser: It’s been two years, and there is no doubt that Harry knows this organization. The issue is that we are not listening to Harry, and we are not attending to the current events in his life. We can keep Harry warm but not as warm as before. Harry needs to be disqualified and revisited in one year. Right now, we can no longer spend the same amount of time on Harry. Harry can receive quarterly or seasonal outreach from you, but you still have a portfolio full of other people. Strategically, all boxes have been checked, except for the most important – We need to listen to Harry and attend to his current life events – We need to revisit.
Case Two: Ms. Stop Calling Me
Sally Samson is one of the cool prospects that you read about in Forbes, gawk at their home in the latest Architectural Digest article and wish to meet in real life. Recently, our board member shared that she plays tennis at his club and has invited her to the upcoming luncheon. She attends, and the saga begins. It’s been a year since Sally attended the luncheon and her schedule remains booked – she spends her winters in Argentina with her family, Spring in New York, and the Summer in Texas at her office. Sally attended one event and took one phone call. Unfortunately, she cannot find the time to meet face to face, and our fundraiser has a passport and unlimited flyer miles. Sally committed $100,000 during the luncheon without speaking to anyone except the board member. The phone call between Sally and the fundraiser lasted 15 minutes due to competing appointments for Sally – there were introductions and pleasantries. As we enter the second year hoping to properly cultivate Sally, our board member continues to affirm that Sally loves our organization’s work as it personally aligns with her life and adolescences – “Sally will give more,” is the continued message. As of today, Sally has not responded to the fundraiser’s emails or calls (we believe she has blocked the phone number).
Strategic Conversation: Sally does not want to be actively engaged by us. Can we consider the board member as the lead on the gift conversations and the proposal? Sally only trusts the board member, which makes sense, they have a relationship and she does not want to foster one with our organization regardless of how much she gives. She has boundaries that we need to recognize and respect. Also, stop calling her. Our board member can receive talking points from us, and you can be secondary on the gift, but this relationship needs to be steered a little differently which is absolutely fine. When our board member meets with Sally we can take the meeting notes and create a more solid plan on a gift that meets Sally’s capacity and comfort level.
Case Three: Mr. Long Time Member
Smith is one of our favorite board members. He attends every meeting, makes introductions to suspected prospects and prospective donors. He is overall a great collaborator. To date, Smith has given $500. He has served on our board of directors since 1960 and is close friends with our founder. No fundraiser has ever presented a proposal to Smith due to his seniority on the board and friendship with our founder. One of our fundraisers is ready to ask Smith for a planned gift. Over the last year, Smith and the fundraiser have held conversations regarding his legacy. Smith has mentioned a planned gift that includes cash, property, and quarterly payments from his will towards a pledge. The fundraiser has been excited and nervous about the complexities of Smith’s gift(s). Although Smith has read over the drafts of his proposal and discussed the details, he has deferred timelines and agreements – none of the drafts have appeased him. Our fundraiser has spoken to his lawyer and his sons who manage their family office, our lawyer has spoken to his lawyer, our finance director has spoken to the lawyers and Smith – but he will not agree to sign a draft of the paperwork. At the gentle age of 89 years old, Smith has chosen to wait until his 90th birthday to continue conversations. He is busy with planning his big birthday, and as he says, “there is no time as the present, all of the fuss can wait.” Our fundraiser has some concerns.
Strategic Conversation: Our fundraiser’s concerns are understandable! Smith is truly at a gentle and wise age. This is a great prospect with so much heart for the organization. We should get this signed as soon as possible. Is there a way to have the sons nudge their father? Does our founder know that this proposal could be seconds away from being signed? I think the founder angle could have legs. Think about this – our founder gives Smith a call and thanks him for the current conversations regarding the gifts and adds something playful about getting the ink dry before the fun birthday bash (let’s make this more clever than what I just spilled out). Our founder can also dig into whether there is anything that truly needs to be edited in the drafts to ensure Smith’s approval.
---
Reader, I’m sure these cases are familiar to you, they’re all about the long plays, maneuvering through situations and partnering with your gift officer to ensure movement within their portfolios. This is all about unsticking what remains stuck. What ideas do you have regarding these cases? What have you said during strategic conversations?
Until next time,
February 15th!
