Fundraising is an art. It is also a science.

Ask just about any fundraising professional how she goes about doing her job, and she’ll likely respond with a variety of statements pertaining to identifying prospects, qualifying them in some way, cultivating the prospects, making solicitations, collecting and tracking data, giving appropriate recognition and thanks, and then following up with them to solicit continued giving.

She will also likely throw in some words of wisdom regarding building relationships with the prospects, and how the need to build relationships increases with the size of gift or potential gift you are seeking. She will express to you that without properly thanking and recognizing the donor, you will likely end up losing any future contributions from the donor.

She will, in all likelihood, toss in some catchphrases such as “People give to people, not organizations,” “donor-centered fundraising,” and “asking is the most important step in fundraising.”

She may also talk about special events such as auctions, celebrity dinners, open houses, galas, balls, and “no-show” events.

Along those same lines, there may be some discussion of bingo, raffles, house or other large giveaways.

And then there’s direct mail solicitation, workplace giving, corporate donations, and corporate, foundation, or government grants.

The response you’ll receive to your question really would be a mishmash of science—selecting the right demographic characteristics, tracking giving history, and so on—and art—building and maintaining relationships, knowing when to make the ask, sensing how much to ask for, etc.

There have been dozens, if not scores, of books written about fundraising and how to appropriately blend the art with the science. And there have been scores upon scores of workshops, seminars, roundtables, retreats, camps, and presentations on how to raise more money for just about any type of nonprofit organization or community cause imaginable.

Most of those books have common elements when it comes to the process of asking for and receiving donations, and it usually looks something like this:

1. Identify a Potential Donor
2. Qualify Prospects
3. Cultivate Relationships
4. Solicitation of Donation
5. Donor Recognition
6. Maintain Donor Data
7. Continue to Solicit Donors

The fundraising world has found success in this or similar traditional models. But as the world is changing, and as the competition for more dollars increases, a new and more effective model for fundraising is needed. While the traditional fundraising model has benefits, it also has a number of problems.

Despite What They Say, The Traditional Model is One-Way

Each step in the traditional model involves something that the fundraiser is doing to the “prospect.” Fundraisers identify the potential donor. Professional fundraisers utilize a variety of means to qualify the potential donor. They cultivate the prospect by doing any number of tasks to or with the potential donor.

The fundraiser is not engaging the potential donor. Rather, the fundraiser is taking an action that is hoped to have a certain effect on the potential donor. Fundraisers view taking these actions as being proactive and moving forward. They believe that working the system in this way is appropriate and will ultimately bring success.

But what they fail to realize is that there is a fundamental flaw in this approach. The one-way nature of each of these activities not only leaves the donor with a sense of being acted upon, but also sets up the entire system for a culture of failure to fully engage donors and improve the organization, which brings us to the next problem:

The Traditional Model Views Donors’ Assets Only as Financial

Another problem with the traditional fundraising model is that donors’ assets are seen primarily as financial. But donors can bring so much more to an organization. The intellectual capital alone is a huge asset that most nonprofit organizations fail to tap into.

Assets that donors and potential donors bring to an organization include

• Relationships with other potential donors.
• Participation on corporate boards.
• Participation on other nonprofit or foundation boards.
• Relationships with public policy makers.
• Expertise in public policy change efforts.
• Relationships with decision makers at other organizations.
• Technical expertise such as public relations, organizational change, human resources, etc.
• Experience in management, volunteer recruitment, fiscal oversight, or other key activities.

In other words, the traditional model fails to take advantage of the vast resources to be found in potential donors, thereby foregoing opportunities for organizational improvement.

The Traditional Model Causes Board and Staff to View Potential Donors Only as Pots of Money

My father-in-law had a very enlightening experience many years ago. A working man who, at the time, owned his own monument and vault company, Dee is unassuming, humble, and average looking. Though he has been extremely successful in his business ventures, he lives modestly and unpretentiously. His life perspective comes through in his attire, which is what you would expect any working man to wear: jeans, simple shirts, old and worn shoes.

Because of the manual difficulty of his work, Dee has a permanent slump in his back. His shoulders are humped a bit. His hands are rough. And his hearing has been damaged from decades of working with sandblasters.

Dee decided he needed a new car, and being the age that he was, he wanted to purchase a large luxury vehicle, which would permit him and his wife to enter the car comfortably and drive it with ease. He intended to pay cash. He went to a showroom and immediately sensed that he was not valued. He sensed he was being ignored. Instead of being introduced to a sales associate, he was asked if he needed directions to the parts department. His relative value had been sized up quickly—and inaccurately—by the staff at the showroom.

So Dee left the showroom and went to another dealership. Here the salesperson extended a warm hand, treated him as a “qualified” lead, and promptly sold a brand-new car. For cash.

The lesson here is that people sense how we feel about them. And when it comes to potential donors whom staff and board view only as—or primarily as—pots of money, fundraisers are only hurting themselves. These potential donors sense how they are viewed, and they often react in the way that anyone would act when someone is after their money. They put up their guard.

The Traditional Model Causes Donors to Know They are Being Schmoozed

Admit it. When a telemarketer calls, you know he is after one thing: your money. He doesn’t care about your daughter’s braces, your son’s field trip, or your own mortgage payment. He doesn’t care that you just subscribed to a similar magazine that he’s selling, or that you’re really not interested in fields and streams. All he wants to do is sell you his product. And he hones in on his objective like a guided missile.

So what do you do when that call comes? You put up your defenses. You think of all the reasons why you can’t buy the product the telemarketer is peddling. You have already said “no” before even being asked.

So it is with the traditional fundraising model. Potential donors know they are being schmoozed for one reason only. Although some potential donors enjoy this dance and eventually give a donation, many donors do not. It’s a turnoff to most. And even to those who don’t mind being schmoozed, the relationship is all about money—their money.

The Traditional Model Does Not Result in Donor Loyalty or Commitment to the Cause

Finally, one of the major downsides to the traditional fundraising model is that it does little or nothing to bring about donor loyalty to the cause. Yes, the adage is true: people give to people, not to organizations. And perhaps that is at least partly, if not fully, due to the nature of the traditional fundraising model. This model allows for the building of relationships between the fundraiser and the donor; but it does not build commitment to the cause of the organization.

The Strategic Fundraising Model, however, is about donor engagement, donor loyalty, and donor involvement. It does not reinforce the behavior of “people giving to people,” but rather, it presents opportunities for and builds the case for people giving to causes, because they are engaged in and “own” the cause.

To summarize, the traditional fundraising model, in all its variations, has a number of benefits, but is lacking in one fundamental area. It does not create the opportunity for potential donors to become more engaged and more committed to the cause. It does not present opportunities for organizational improvement. And it does not create donors who “own” the organization.

Learn more about strategic fundraising and how you can implement it at your organization with our Strategic Fundraising ebook series.