That's a scary session, Ryan -- as a lifelong engagement person I feel pretty strongly that you can't automate all engagement work. And, even if you want to, the resources have to flow towards investing in modern systems that allow you to do so, which I find many institutions are averse to because they're pretty expensive. But what I feel like we keep missing as a community is that our people are tired, burning out, and leaving. When you have an average of a 15 month tenure for fundraisers...I'm glad the conference was positive (and I was sorry to miss it this year), but are we doing enough to make sure we're leading in a way that we keep people in the profession? I'm sure there were lots of sessions about that topic too (hopefully?), but sometimes I worry we're really burying the lede when we aren't addressing the bigger issues of creating workplaces people want to stay in, rather than how to optimize and get more gifts in the door. If you're having to rehire your MGOs every 15 months then you're not optimizing.
It was a bit scary. At the same time, I can imagine a significant body of engagement work, currently not in existence at most shops, that focuses on donors. There's an opportunity for most schools to really build that inner core of support with and alongside those that are already generous contributors. There's a lot of growing pains coming, I think.
But yes you're absolutely right that burn out is real and it's real across advancement. Glad to have your thoughts on this subject.
I definitely had a visceral reaction to the discussions we had last week about the declining donor pipeline, focus on the “top of the pyramid” and divestment in engagement functions. Working at an institution that has not consistently invested in engagement, I feel like I’ve seen into the future of this current strategy. Lack of engagement now will result in fewer donors later and in 15-20 years, we will be back to doubling down on engagement again to rebuild the pipeline of alumni donors.
What I do understand very well, is that very few of those engaged alumni will be major gift donors in their lifetime.
In what and how much do we invest in engagement that helps brings those few donors to the fore and also meets the needs of our alumni communities and institutions? What are those highest value engagement activities?
I’m still scratching my head but as an advancement professional, I’m committed to figuring this out.
That back-to-back contrast is telling: one room concentrating resources on the 3%, followed by another still working through micro-volunteering, much as the field was doing in Seattle in 2017.
Cutler’s “yes-and” is right, but it carries a cost few institutions know how to price. Automating engagement below $100,000 in capacity assumes both that the rating is accurate today and that the system can recognize when someone’s relationship or potential changes. Most of today’s 3% spent years among the other 97%.
That makes this an operations and measurement question before it becomes an engagement question. Until teams can show which alumni behaviors precede a first major-gift conversation, volunteerism will keep being discussed in a separate room. And the room controlling the budget may not be listening.
That's a scary session, Ryan -- as a lifelong engagement person I feel pretty strongly that you can't automate all engagement work. And, even if you want to, the resources have to flow towards investing in modern systems that allow you to do so, which I find many institutions are averse to because they're pretty expensive. But what I feel like we keep missing as a community is that our people are tired, burning out, and leaving. When you have an average of a 15 month tenure for fundraisers...I'm glad the conference was positive (and I was sorry to miss it this year), but are we doing enough to make sure we're leading in a way that we keep people in the profession? I'm sure there were lots of sessions about that topic too (hopefully?), but sometimes I worry we're really burying the lede when we aren't addressing the bigger issues of creating workplaces people want to stay in, rather than how to optimize and get more gifts in the door. If you're having to rehire your MGOs every 15 months then you're not optimizing.
It was a bit scary. At the same time, I can imagine a significant body of engagement work, currently not in existence at most shops, that focuses on donors. There's an opportunity for most schools to really build that inner core of support with and alongside those that are already generous contributors. There's a lot of growing pains coming, I think.
But yes you're absolutely right that burn out is real and it's real across advancement. Glad to have your thoughts on this subject.
I definitely had a visceral reaction to the discussions we had last week about the declining donor pipeline, focus on the “top of the pyramid” and divestment in engagement functions. Working at an institution that has not consistently invested in engagement, I feel like I’ve seen into the future of this current strategy. Lack of engagement now will result in fewer donors later and in 15-20 years, we will be back to doubling down on engagement again to rebuild the pipeline of alumni donors.
What I do understand very well, is that very few of those engaged alumni will be major gift donors in their lifetime.
In what and how much do we invest in engagement that helps brings those few donors to the fore and also meets the needs of our alumni communities and institutions? What are those highest value engagement activities?
I’m still scratching my head but as an advancement professional, I’m committed to figuring this out.
That back-to-back contrast is telling: one room concentrating resources on the 3%, followed by another still working through micro-volunteering, much as the field was doing in Seattle in 2017.
Cutler’s “yes-and” is right, but it carries a cost few institutions know how to price. Automating engagement below $100,000 in capacity assumes both that the rating is accurate today and that the system can recognize when someone’s relationship or potential changes. Most of today’s 3% spent years among the other 97%.
That makes this an operations and measurement question before it becomes an engagement question. Until teams can show which alumni behaviors precede a first major-gift conversation, volunteerism will keep being discussed in a separate room. And the room controlling the budget may not be listening.