Getting To Know Fundraising from Both Sides Now

Today brought two free conferences/interviews/webinars/teleconferences/lengthy web postings. I don't know what to call them, there are so many hybrids. Anyway, the first one began at 9 a.m., too early to be genuine fun, but it was okay. Topic: how to prepare for a visit from a grantor. The idea is that grantees have a difficult time of it, when a grantor decides to come visit, usually in preparation for making a decision. The topic seems narrow, and it is, but the panel of three, including the much-self advertised Pamela Grow, were diligent to the point of being relentless. What I came away with: be on your best behavior, find out in advance what the grantor wants, and followup. The other issues covered, including who to invite to the meeting (only those who have something to say) and how long to keep them (as long as they're interested) seemed routine and the fact that they were repeated was agonizing.

On a completely different topic, in the following hour, Bernard Ross (presented by the Network for Good) offered a completely original melange of common sense, popular psychology and fundraising basics called Using Psychology to Win Over Donors. This was basically a tutorial on how to handle information when it comes to communicating with those who have the money. He started by comparing the funder to an ATM machine and the grantee as the one who's pushing the buttons. Push the right buttons and the cash comes out. I don't have the space to go into all he said. Instead, I will point you at his book "The Influential Fundraiser: Using the Psychology of Persuasion to Achieve Outstanding Results." (about $30 on Amazon)

How do you meet attractive grantors?

Like all grantwriters, I'm getting a little weary of the never ending search for new grantors. Old grantors are fine, but these days they're drying up faster that a rain puddle in the Mojave. So, where do we go for the new money? The search is painful and long. I try all the databases I know of to come up with 150 possible sources. I whittle those down to 36 by studying the guidelines and especially the web sites. I put everything I know about the grantee and his project together in a brief speech, and go to the phone. I deliver the speech to a program specialist. I ask if my project fits the grantor's interests today. If not, I go on to the next possible grantor. At the end of the process, I'm left with 20 possibilities. Of those, I have determined almost everything I can about the grantor. I have found out about the LOI, the proposal, the judging committee, the time, the money. In short, I have done everything I can think of to explore the universe of grantors, and then I write, proofread, and send, more and more often via an automated on-line application. What have I got to show for all this activity? Maybe a 3 in 10 success rate. Somedays it feels like 1 in 100 would be good work.