when did i become a fundraiser?

I was recently asked how a non-profit could wean itself off state funding and become independently funded by corporations, foundations and donors. The person asking assumed I knew how to do this. After all  the public radio station I used to work for in this market would be self-sustaining if not attached to the public television station.  Memberships and underwriting support make up about 92% of the funding for the station. Grants have taken on a much greater role since WNPR changed formats in 2006 but, member support continues to be the most reliable source of income. A combination of compelling content and effective fundraising makes the job so much easier than when I first got into non-profit fundraising three decades ago in Wisconsin. 


When did I become a fundraiser? I think it started about a month after volunteering at a public radio station in Milwaukee. I went on the air asking for donations. We did everything wrong. We threatened, We cajoled. We browbeat and lectured. We even got angry when nobody wanted our mugs and totebags. We sounded desperate. We sounded awful. It got worse as the campaign became longer. The downward spiral desperation was fueled by the lack of calls.


Our fundraising skills aside, there were other reasons nobody called. A bigger reason was that nobody really cared. Nobody cared because the programs and programming wasn't very appealing. It might be safe to say, nobody was listening. At least, when we started fundraising. We (I) did not understand the direct correlation between our content and our ability to raise funds. It was later when I finally understood that programs and programming create an audience. If the audience finds value in the programs offered, if the programs resonate with the values and lifestyle of the audience and, the listeners understand the importance and need for their support, then they will contribute. Everything we did mattered. Our content generated listening and loyalty. The better the content at attracting our core audience, the more likely it was that we could raise contributions around that content.

My short answer to the non-profit was, if they can increase individual support and corporate support (foundations/grants) they could untether themselves from federal and state money. Seems easy enough. Nothing is easy when it comes to fundraising. 

I was told in a job interview last week that fundraising on public radio is a breeze. Just go on the air and thousands of listeners flock to their phones and make a pledge. In fact, most listeners hate fundraisers. They barely tolerate membership campaigns.  As soon as we open our mikes to ask for money, half our audience goes away. As the drives wear on, more listeners escape. Fundraising on public radio (and public TV) was described by David Giovannoni as being like trimming toenails with a shotgun.  Some of those I worked with aggravate the problem. They believe the longer they talk, the more money they will raise. The believe their powers of persuasion wears down the listener. In a way it does. They tune away. They did capture listeners (and viewers) as they tuned in. 

The point the questioner was making was valid. They do not have the reach of 200,000 listeners or 500,000 viewers to draw from. Awareness of what many non-profits are trying to accomplish does not come anywhere close to those numbers. The advantage is the constant awareness of public media's core audience for its broadcast services. If the quality of content consistently meets audience expectations,.  the more likely it is the audience will respond to requests for voluntary donations. 

For non-profits the answer is, a broad base of support from all types of givers. To gain a broad base of support non-profits need to increase awareness of the vital importance of their services. A combination of effective communications and development messages based on the core values of the non-profit and potential donors need to intersect. So many non-profits are looking for a couple of big givers to make fundraising easy. It's also the mindset of some in public broadcasting. It was for one of the CEO's I worked for. Despite having 70,000 donors from all over the state, he valued that one big gift more than the many he had. I have to admit the home run of $100,000 or $1,000,000 all at once is a rush but, as we found out, when a major donor stops giving we were left scrambling to make up the difference.  A broad base of support is important.

A concept we're working on for the FOCUS Center for Autism is "Outcomes." Demonstrating positive outcomes are essential when making the case for support. (Not what you're doing...what you've accomplished from your constituents' perspective.) Not sure what outcomes are all about? This video helps explain.

Demonstrable outcomes help in many ways including with grantors, donors, foundations and major givers.

For public radio...sheer numbers are important. The size and loyalty of the core audience drives membership. I watched for certain benchmarks from among the core. We used Audigraphics. I looked for about 90,000 core listeners who tuned in at least nine times a week for about nine hours each.

The base for other non-profits is much smaller. But loyalty to the unique values they have to offer is much higher. I'm involved in stewardship for a church. There are about 300 regular givers. Instead of an annual median gift of $125...the annual median gift approaches $2,000. The core values of the givers closely match the core values of that church resulting in a much higher annual gift.

Can non-profits offering social services generate this type of giving? Outcomes might be a good place to start.

• Don't underestimate the value of developing relationships with potential big givers.
• Develop relationships with your donors. They know people.
• Non-profit board members must help out. They should be contributors and be willing to network with others to garner support.
• Testimonials help...a lot.
• Keep listening.
• Keep learning.

Shifts In Radio Listening Habits

The Personal People Meter…the new method for measuring radio listening habits…is changing the classical music landscape. Two high profile changes came about last year when WCRB and WQXR were sold to public radio stations. Recently KING-FM in Seattle reported they would change to a non-profit status and take donations. According to KING-FM, advertisers were no longer willing to support the station. At least in the numbers needed to sustain the programming.

A New York Times article by Stephaine Clifford from December 2009 (Never Listen to Céline? Radio Meter Begs to Differ) asserted that classical music fans listened to classical music on the radio a lot less than they had been reporting under the old diary method.  My experience in Connecticut would seem to confirm that. When the station I worked for started getting information from Audience Research Analysis (ARA), the Audigraphics information was adjusted to eliminate diary keepers who seemed to be listening to our station 24 hours a day. Eliminating those four or five diary keepers per quarter had a minimal effect on our weekly cume, but it had a great impact on core loyalty figures and station use figures. It was the first evidence I had that diary keepers were willing to put down what they thought should be in their diaries rather than a true reflection of their listening habits.

Do I listen to Celine? The answer is yes, but only if I have to. It depends on who I am with and who has control over the radio. If I’m riding in the car with my sons, I get to listen to a lot of hip-hop and urban contemporary. That is not my preferred format, but if I had a PPM device on my belt, those station would register as part of my listening habits. Under the diary system, because I did not choose hip-hop, I might not have put that station down as part of my listening. Under the PPM system, my listening might be considered collateral damage depending on your point of view.

According to research from The Radio Research Consortium, it turns out most of us listen to about 12 radio stations on a regular basis. That three to four times as many as previously thought under the old diary method. The common wisdom was that most of us shared our listening with three or four stations. In actuality we spend a lot less time with our favorite station than previously thought.

The resulting lower numbers means that advertisers are gravitating to stations that do better on the PPM system. According to the article in the Times, Country, Oldies and News have fared better. Niche formats like Smooth Jazz and Classical have not.