Good morning.
"And the beat goes on............."
Today is Giving Tuesday, a program to encourage people to donate to nonprofit organizations and causes. The Arts participate in this effort widely - if my email in box full of solicitations is any indication. And so do a wide range of other nonprofit groups and charitable causes.
Giving Tuesday follows Black Friday - the retail industry's kickoff of the holiday season wherein fantastic bargains are offered to lure shoppers into spending money. The Thanksgiving to Christmas month accounts for some 30% of total annual retail sales, and for some industries like toys and jewelry the period accounts for 40% of the year's sales. Saturday was Small Business Saturday, where people were encouraged to shop local, smaller shops. Monday was Cyber Monday - launched as a program to compete or complement Black Friday by encouraging shoppers to spend money for online purchases. Everybody wants on the bandwagon. Current estimates are that Americans will have spent record billions of dollars on Black Friday and Cyber Monday this year, with an increasing amount spent online.
And so now it's Giving Tuesday as follow up to the big retail spending days. This year Americans are projected to donate some one hundred eighty million dollars to nonprofits on Giving Tuesday - which is roughly the same as last year. And that's a guess, because it's difficult to accurately report exactly how much was donated - or where the money went. The total is not much in comparison to the retail expenditures, but nothing to sneeze at taken by itself. Indeed, any donations that help nonprofits are clearly welcome. This money is spread out over all the nonprofits and other causes that wave the Giving Tuesday banner. We don't know how many that is, and so we don't know how much each participant realizes within each category of nonprofit.
The idea behind Giving Tuesday is to make sure nonprofits and the work they do isn't forgotten in the mad rush to buy stuff. It's like a call to do something charitable in addition to the holiday spending for gifts and personal stuff. The income generated is minor compared to the retail spending, but it is something, and apparently growing according to the Giving Tuesday people in its DataKind report.
I have some questions I think we ought to be asking ourselves:
First, does the Giving Tuesday campaign work and is it worth it?
While there are some statistics on the average donation, and that it is higher for regular, frequent donors to nonprofits and causes - it's unclear if the average donation is to one organization, or an aggregate of donations parceled out to several organizations. The problem is that even if there is an increase in money raised over time - either by single donors, or by an increased number of donors - it's hard to attribute any specific gains causally to the campaign. Is this money that wouldn't have come to us but for the Giving Tuesday program effort and our participation therein, or would those increases - or portion thereof - have been realized anyway - say by our traditional end of year solicitations? The Giving Tuesday DataKind Report isn't really conclusive. Very likely, it works well for some organizations, and not as well for others.
If all you do is promote the idea of Giving Tuesday to your base - via email blasts, or newsletters, or even at events, performances and exhibitions, then the questions is: Is there really any net gain that justifies the time and resource expenditure? The key seems to be to expand the idea beyond your base to attract new donors - or at least get your current donors to pony up more. But that's not so easy.
Is the timing smart?
First, by promoting Giving Tuesday are we merely shifting the time period during which people give from the very end of the year to early December? And does that time shift result in more, or larger, donations and thus more money, or once having made a Giving Tuesday donation is the attitude of donors: "I already gave on Giving Tuesday" and thus do end of year campaigns no longer succeed to the same extent they once did. The Giving Tuesday people ask this same question and argue that much of the day's donations come from new donors, or that the donations of previous donors are increased. - though I am not sure their data completely confirms this claim. In their recent data analysis report, they posit that the Arts are one of the classifications of nonprofits that have seen a rise in their fortunes from Giving Tuesday - but they don't provide a lot of statistics that support the claim, and, in any event, there will be wide variations between organizations. We lack data on which organizations do well, and if there is any commonality for them as a class - location, size, type et. al.
Certainly, individual arts organizations can, with some effort, determine for themselves if Giving Tuesday has resulted in a net gain in new donations during the month of December compared over years the data is available, and even whether or not loyal donors have increased their gifts with participation in Giving Tuesday. And its probably a good idea to run the numbers and do just that to see how the campaign plays out for your organization so you can determine whether or not the program is a net increase, or it is discouraging larger gifts, or just shifting the time for receipt of essentially the same net income. And over several years, it would be advantageous to know whether or not new donors - of whatever donation size - were converted from first time / one time donor status to loyal annual donors.
Second, after huge personal spending on the retail days - Black Friday / Cyber Monday, and even Small Business Saturday - how motivated is the public to support nonprofits via Giving Tuesday? Do people feel in the giving mood, or are they feeling like they ought to compensate for perhaps overspending on retail by being more frugal. In our quest to be part of the retail frenzy, are we committing to a time for one of our "major asks" that might not be optimal. Is the theory that they will feel guilty and so give more to nonprofits? Or is the theory that they are in the giving mood during the holidays and we are simply capitalizing on that mood by framing the opportunity in a single day - not unlike Black Friday and Cyber Monday. But do either of those theories hold water? Is the Tuesday following Black Friday and Cyber Monday the best possible date for asking America for more support? If not, what might be considered a better date?
Has the Giving Tuesday campaign supplanted the End of Year Donor Solicitation that for a long time was a hallmark for nonprofit fundraising? That campaign urged end of the year altruism with the deal sweetened by the year end tax deductibility self-interest advantage. If Giving Tuesday has taken some of that thunder way, we need to know if it has yielded more, less or essentially the same as the old campaign. If utilizing the Giving Tuesday campaign and still using an end of year "ask" too, has the net income increased? By how much? Can you identify the sources of contributions from each? New donors? Old donors? Does participating in one form but not the other have any impact on donor fatigue? There are lots of questions that it makes sense to ask.
The big longer term question for Giving Tuesday is: Can the total dollar take grow bigger? And what would it take to dramatically increase the Giving Tuesday concept total donation for each individual arts organization? Can Giving Tuesday somehow be better connected to the volume of activity on Black Friday and Cyber Monday?
No criticism of the idea for Giving Tuesday is intended here. I applaud the effort to codify in some way the idea of giving to worthy causes as part of the holiday season - or at any time really. Indeed, that altruism is suppose to be at the essence of the season. I suspect it has, at least in some ways, had a positive impact. And I think Giving Tuesday needs time to sink into the collective public psyche on a deeper and wider level before it will realize its potential - or not. But I think too that we ought to ask some questions about how well it is working for each organization? What, if any, unintended consequences it may have? How we might better manage it? I'd like to see some data on how arts organizations have done on Giving Tuesday, whether bigger or smaller organizations do better, the relationship, if any, between Giving Tuesday and other fund solicitation efforts, differences in success based on geographical location and even on demographics. This kind of information can help us to make the Giving Tuesday campaign more effective.
Perhaps some of these questions are relevant to your organization's situation.
Have a good week.
Don't Quit
Barry
Monday, November 27, 2017
Sunday, November 19, 2017
A Place at the Smart Cities Tables
Good morning.
"And the beat goes on................."
Happy Thanksgiving. Despite the past year being difficult and heartbreaking - the devastating hurricanes in Puerto Rico, Florida and Houston, and the horrific fires in Northern California; the genuinely frightening attacks on a free press, secularism and democracy here, and across the globe; and the personal challenges and tragedies that are part of life for many people each year -- there is still much to be thankful for. Me? I'm thankful I am still alive. And you should be thankful you are alive too - for life truly is an extraordinary gift, full of highs and lows yes, but full too of wonder, beauty and sheer enjoyment at each day's dawning. So I wish you and your family and friends a very Happy Thanksgiving.
The Bill Gates Smart City
Last week came news that one of Bill Gates investment companies paid eighty million dollars for a large tract of barren land near Tonopah Arizona, with a plan to develop a smart city complete with residences, schools, parks and commercial space - all with a high tech component including sophisticated communications, transportation and other cutting edge high tech offerings. Of course, nowhere in the brief press release was any mention of the role of the arts.
We are going to see more of these kinds of projects in the very near future - promulgated and supported by governments - local, state, federal and even by other countries, and by private enterprise and the philanthropic community. And the arts absolutely must be at the tables where these projects are conceived, developed and implemented.
While it is unclear the extent to which Gates and / or Microsoft will be directly involved in this effort, and it will likely be some time before any plans are formalized - this is the time for us to begin to demand that the arts are, as a matter of course, included. We cannot afford to be an afterthought or an add-on in the future. We need to be there from the inception of the idea.
So how do we do that? Local arts agencies, be they county, city or state need to make a connection with the owners / planners of the smart cities projects,, and make the case for their inclusion in the decision making process. We need to provide strong evidence of our value, and, more than that, make a case with media and the public that no city without an arts component in both the planning and execution is truly "smart" in any sense of the word. This can't be some meek request on our part -- we need to insist and make noise if we meet any resistance. We need to actively and assiduously keep track of these efforts, and move decisively early on to include us. The bar ought to be that the arts are essential to any effort to realize smart cities.
But this is also something the NEA should take on. They have the imprimatur of being a national agency, and they have more of a chance to get phone calls returned and sympathetic ears for our rationale. They need to take ownership of insuring we are part of the process of the future, and should be joined by a strong coalition of our philanthropic supporters and partners. We need to enlist supportive City Council and Board of Supervisor officials, along with Mayors, members of state legislators and of Congress to carry our banner.
We also need to reach out and form a national Blue Ribbon committee with arts people joined by a cachet of highly recognized players from the high tech industry, bankers, the media, and private companies involved in culture to spearhead our efforts and give those efforts a public face that will command attention.
There is too much at stake for the future for us to be timid. We don't just need to be at these tables, we have to be.
Have a good week.
Don't Quit
Barry
"And the beat goes on................."
Happy Thanksgiving. Despite the past year being difficult and heartbreaking - the devastating hurricanes in Puerto Rico, Florida and Houston, and the horrific fires in Northern California; the genuinely frightening attacks on a free press, secularism and democracy here, and across the globe; and the personal challenges and tragedies that are part of life for many people each year -- there is still much to be thankful for. Me? I'm thankful I am still alive. And you should be thankful you are alive too - for life truly is an extraordinary gift, full of highs and lows yes, but full too of wonder, beauty and sheer enjoyment at each day's dawning. So I wish you and your family and friends a very Happy Thanksgiving.
The Bill Gates Smart City
Last week came news that one of Bill Gates investment companies paid eighty million dollars for a large tract of barren land near Tonopah Arizona, with a plan to develop a smart city complete with residences, schools, parks and commercial space - all with a high tech component including sophisticated communications, transportation and other cutting edge high tech offerings. Of course, nowhere in the brief press release was any mention of the role of the arts.
We are going to see more of these kinds of projects in the very near future - promulgated and supported by governments - local, state, federal and even by other countries, and by private enterprise and the philanthropic community. And the arts absolutely must be at the tables where these projects are conceived, developed and implemented.
While it is unclear the extent to which Gates and / or Microsoft will be directly involved in this effort, and it will likely be some time before any plans are formalized - this is the time for us to begin to demand that the arts are, as a matter of course, included. We cannot afford to be an afterthought or an add-on in the future. We need to be there from the inception of the idea.
So how do we do that? Local arts agencies, be they county, city or state need to make a connection with the owners / planners of the smart cities projects,, and make the case for their inclusion in the decision making process. We need to provide strong evidence of our value, and, more than that, make a case with media and the public that no city without an arts component in both the planning and execution is truly "smart" in any sense of the word. This can't be some meek request on our part -- we need to insist and make noise if we meet any resistance. We need to actively and assiduously keep track of these efforts, and move decisively early on to include us. The bar ought to be that the arts are essential to any effort to realize smart cities.
But this is also something the NEA should take on. They have the imprimatur of being a national agency, and they have more of a chance to get phone calls returned and sympathetic ears for our rationale. They need to take ownership of insuring we are part of the process of the future, and should be joined by a strong coalition of our philanthropic supporters and partners. We need to enlist supportive City Council and Board of Supervisor officials, along with Mayors, members of state legislators and of Congress to carry our banner.
We also need to reach out and form a national Blue Ribbon committee with arts people joined by a cachet of highly recognized players from the high tech industry, bankers, the media, and private companies involved in culture to spearhead our efforts and give those efforts a public face that will command attention.
There is too much at stake for the future for us to be timid. We don't just need to be at these tables, we have to be.
Have a good week.
Don't Quit
Barry
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Arts Funding Ecosystems and Major Impacts
Good morning
"And the beat goes on....................."
Every arts territory - major regional areas, cities - big and small - counties, towns, rural areas - all have a funding ecosystem.
Some are robust, some are weak. Some areas have major foundations which fund the arts, others do not. Some have strong local government support, some struggle with public funding. Some have legacies of major patrons, others have meaningful smaller donors. Some organizations within a territory are skilled and successful at earned income, others have miles to go. In some territories, major cultural organizations have near monopolies on funding support, in other areas there is much more of a balance. In some fortunate areas, there is a healthy balance of all the sources of revenue streams.
And in some territories there are but a few organizations, and so the competition for funds, plentiful or scarce, is not pronounced. In others, there are so many viable and worthy candidates for support that the competition for resources is intense. Whether or not organizations are consciously competitive begs the question. The question is how big is the total pie, and what are the variables that bear upon any organization in its quest for funding.
And every one of these ecosystems is different, with their own histories, way of doing things, and unspoken rules and protocols that govern how money is sought and how it is allocated.
And like most ecosystems, there is a relationship between the resident organizations with intersections at numerous junctures and points.
We haven't spent much energy trying to identify and understand these interactions, relationships and their impacts. Thus, we don't know how the fundraising efforts of one organization, or the organizations in one discipline, in any given territory, affect and impact other organizations or disciplines in that same territory. Or those outside the easy classifications.
Given that all funding sources in a given area are likely finite at any given point in time, there is competition for those funds. The amount may very well be liquid over time, in that it moves up or down depending on all kinds of variables. I wonder to what extent the actions of the players within each territory is one of those variables, and whether or not it is significant or irrelevant to the success of any or all of the contestants.
So, for example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are estimated some 200 dance organizations / companies. Like New York and other territories with a significant dance organization presence, the local scene is dominated by a few major players: In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Ballet, and three or four other major companies dominate. These organizations receive major foundation and public support, and also have healthy donor pools. Many of the other dance organizations have less robust funding source pools, and many more struggle with anemic funding efforts. Dance is largely supported in the Bay Area, but I wonder how the crowded field and the actions and campaigns, and the success of some, impact the chances of the others to successfully raise funds.
Do we know whether or not donors spread their wealth around, or remain consistently loyal to specific programs? Do we know if the behavior of donors is different depending on the size of their largesse? Are smaller donors more, or less, likely to support one organization one year and a different one another year? Is the donor behavior of those who support capital campaigns different from those who support programs or operations?
Another example: the Los Angeles Philharmonic, in celebration of its One Hundredth Anniversary, has embarked on a very ambitious campaign to raise $500 million, of which they claim to have already raised $300 million. Now, Los Angeles is a large and diverse territory, with access to foundation, local government and corporate support. There is also a healthy population of contributors - major and minor - within the territory. And the L.A. Phil is a major institution with deep ties to the community, an enviable reputation, and impressive creative and managerial competencies. So I don't doubt that they will get very close, if not fully funded, with this major effort.
But that is a lot of money. How does their drive to reach their goal, impact the rest of the L.A. arts fundraising ecosystem. Is there no effect, or a dramatic effect on the plans, strategies, and abilities of other arts organizations to raise funds in this climate? How long might such an impact, if there is one, last?
I don't know the answers. Obviously, a campaign this ambitions and grand is going to target sources that aren't generally on the radar screens of much smaller - and therefore the majority - of other arts organizations in the same geographic territory. Deep pocket patrons historically have tended to fund specific large budget cultural organizations, and not smaller ones.
But does the L. A. Phil's campaign make it harder for its peer cultural organizations - museums, theaters, opera and others - to raise funds while the L.A. Phil's campaign is going on? What impact does a campaign like this have on the efforts of all the arts organizations in the area? Does it syphon off so much of the available funds as to make it more difficult for others to attract funds? Is it possible, that the opposite is true - that a major campaign and its attendant publicity serves to spur more, not less, donations across the board? Or is there simply no impact at all?
The base question is this: As the field grows, with ever more organizations launching, all seeking funding, how does a local funding ecosystem function?
We don't seem to have data on those kinds of impacts, or lack thereof. We can identify, over time, the rise and fall of the aggregate of funding in a territory, but we haven't investigated how the efforts of the competitors within the territory bear upon the efforts of others within the same classifications. Virtually no dynamic works in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Do major capital campaigns have any effect on fundraising for either their peer groups, or the local field as a whole? Does the existence of an arguably overcrowded field in a particular discipline, affect the fundraising of all the members of that single class? What are the variables in a local funding ecosystem that play a role in the success or failure of the fundraising efforts of all those in the area, and in particular, the efforts of each? Do some efforts result in a cannibalization of scare opportunities, or is the success of anyone a boon to the efforts of all? Does the power inequity work to the disadvantage of some, or is it irrelevant.
And then there is the question of how the arts funding ecosystem relates to the wider overall nonprofit funding ecosystem - within each territory.
This kind of data might be useful in analyzing funding prospects within a territory and serve to identify how the strategies and campaigns of some of the players impact the plans and efforts of others. That kind of data might also illuminate different kinds of inequity within the territory. And that information might be valuable for funders and fundraisers alike. Research into arts funding ecosystems might be a reasonable, and fertile line of inquiry.
Have a good week.
Don't Quit
Barry
"And the beat goes on....................."
Every arts territory - major regional areas, cities - big and small - counties, towns, rural areas - all have a funding ecosystem.
Some are robust, some are weak. Some areas have major foundations which fund the arts, others do not. Some have strong local government support, some struggle with public funding. Some have legacies of major patrons, others have meaningful smaller donors. Some organizations within a territory are skilled and successful at earned income, others have miles to go. In some territories, major cultural organizations have near monopolies on funding support, in other areas there is much more of a balance. In some fortunate areas, there is a healthy balance of all the sources of revenue streams.
And in some territories there are but a few organizations, and so the competition for funds, plentiful or scarce, is not pronounced. In others, there are so many viable and worthy candidates for support that the competition for resources is intense. Whether or not organizations are consciously competitive begs the question. The question is how big is the total pie, and what are the variables that bear upon any organization in its quest for funding.
And every one of these ecosystems is different, with their own histories, way of doing things, and unspoken rules and protocols that govern how money is sought and how it is allocated.
And like most ecosystems, there is a relationship between the resident organizations with intersections at numerous junctures and points.
We haven't spent much energy trying to identify and understand these interactions, relationships and their impacts. Thus, we don't know how the fundraising efforts of one organization, or the organizations in one discipline, in any given territory, affect and impact other organizations or disciplines in that same territory. Or those outside the easy classifications.
Given that all funding sources in a given area are likely finite at any given point in time, there is competition for those funds. The amount may very well be liquid over time, in that it moves up or down depending on all kinds of variables. I wonder to what extent the actions of the players within each territory is one of those variables, and whether or not it is significant or irrelevant to the success of any or all of the contestants.
So, for example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are estimated some 200 dance organizations / companies. Like New York and other territories with a significant dance organization presence, the local scene is dominated by a few major players: In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Ballet, and three or four other major companies dominate. These organizations receive major foundation and public support, and also have healthy donor pools. Many of the other dance organizations have less robust funding source pools, and many more struggle with anemic funding efforts. Dance is largely supported in the Bay Area, but I wonder how the crowded field and the actions and campaigns, and the success of some, impact the chances of the others to successfully raise funds.
Do we know whether or not donors spread their wealth around, or remain consistently loyal to specific programs? Do we know if the behavior of donors is different depending on the size of their largesse? Are smaller donors more, or less, likely to support one organization one year and a different one another year? Is the donor behavior of those who support capital campaigns different from those who support programs or operations?
Another example: the Los Angeles Philharmonic, in celebration of its One Hundredth Anniversary, has embarked on a very ambitious campaign to raise $500 million, of which they claim to have already raised $300 million. Now, Los Angeles is a large and diverse territory, with access to foundation, local government and corporate support. There is also a healthy population of contributors - major and minor - within the territory. And the L.A. Phil is a major institution with deep ties to the community, an enviable reputation, and impressive creative and managerial competencies. So I don't doubt that they will get very close, if not fully funded, with this major effort.
But that is a lot of money. How does their drive to reach their goal, impact the rest of the L.A. arts fundraising ecosystem. Is there no effect, or a dramatic effect on the plans, strategies, and abilities of other arts organizations to raise funds in this climate? How long might such an impact, if there is one, last?
I don't know the answers. Obviously, a campaign this ambitions and grand is going to target sources that aren't generally on the radar screens of much smaller - and therefore the majority - of other arts organizations in the same geographic territory. Deep pocket patrons historically have tended to fund specific large budget cultural organizations, and not smaller ones.
But does the L. A. Phil's campaign make it harder for its peer cultural organizations - museums, theaters, opera and others - to raise funds while the L.A. Phil's campaign is going on? What impact does a campaign like this have on the efforts of all the arts organizations in the area? Does it syphon off so much of the available funds as to make it more difficult for others to attract funds? Is it possible, that the opposite is true - that a major campaign and its attendant publicity serves to spur more, not less, donations across the board? Or is there simply no impact at all?
The base question is this: As the field grows, with ever more organizations launching, all seeking funding, how does a local funding ecosystem function?
We don't seem to have data on those kinds of impacts, or lack thereof. We can identify, over time, the rise and fall of the aggregate of funding in a territory, but we haven't investigated how the efforts of the competitors within the territory bear upon the efforts of others within the same classifications. Virtually no dynamic works in a vacuum. Everything is interconnected. Do major capital campaigns have any effect on fundraising for either their peer groups, or the local field as a whole? Does the existence of an arguably overcrowded field in a particular discipline, affect the fundraising of all the members of that single class? What are the variables in a local funding ecosystem that play a role in the success or failure of the fundraising efforts of all those in the area, and in particular, the efforts of each? Do some efforts result in a cannibalization of scare opportunities, or is the success of anyone a boon to the efforts of all? Does the power inequity work to the disadvantage of some, or is it irrelevant.
And then there is the question of how the arts funding ecosystem relates to the wider overall nonprofit funding ecosystem - within each territory.
This kind of data might be useful in analyzing funding prospects within a territory and serve to identify how the strategies and campaigns of some of the players impact the plans and efforts of others. That kind of data might also illuminate different kinds of inequity within the territory. And that information might be valuable for funders and fundraisers alike. Research into arts funding ecosystems might be a reasonable, and fertile line of inquiry.
Have a good week.
Don't Quit
Barry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
