Tag Archives: linkedin

Relationship Mapping for New Prospects

4Researchers, Focused Fundraising, major gifts, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I just can’t stop thinking about relationship mapping! Probably because I am deep within a project to use relationship mapping to generate new prospects and illuminate the path to identified prospects within a campaign. A soft touch for new software, I really, really want the product I’m using, Prospect Visual, to deliver the goods. But will it?

The Many Shades of Relationship Mapping

Relationship mapping is not new, but some of the tools used to find relationships are new. Essentially, you create a visual (think family tree style) or data map (like in Excel or a database) or both of someone’s relationships. Many organizations collect this information in the donor database as an afterthought or “extra”. Relationships might be mapped to family members, boards served, club memberships, religious involvement and others. Why, you could even map all of the interrelated relationships of the Mad Men television show characters…

Mad Men Relationships

In higher education there may be a wealth of information from the school that connects individuals to one another, such as club membership, degree majors, and sports participation among many others. In 2012, Queens University presented at a CASE conference on their use of TouchGraph to map relationships within their own database.

What some new products, such as Prospect Visual and Relationship Science, are attempting to do is allow you to take the relationships you have collected on one individual and find paths to reach other individuals “out in the wild”.

LinkedIn does a reasonable job of this for prospecting within business networks. I have used LinkedIn, in combination with verbally asking people in my network, to identify paths to prospects I would like to cultivate for business. A personal introduction by someone with a strong relationship is much preferable to a cold call!

A nonprofit organization can use a trustee or engaged volunteer to introduce it to new prospects who are likely to have an affinity for the organization. Nothing new about that!

The Missing Piece: Spheres of Influence

What is new is identifying, perhaps by visualizing, someone’s sphere of influence. Some people are connected to more people and some people have many people in their network that are strong or deep connections. Strong connections suggest that the person can influence the other person. In the triad of Linkage-Ability-Inclination, relationship mapping provides the piece research has not always been so good at delivering in the past: Linkage.

In our book, Prospect Research for Fundraisers, Helen Brown and I discuss relationship mapping in the last chapter. Helen provides a great example of an organization that used its alumni group on LinkedIn to identify individuals who were highly connected and then qualified them for affinity. This process uncovered some great new prospects.

Jen Filla’s Facebook Spheres

I attended a course at the Nonprofit Leadership Center of Tampa Bay led by social media expert Bryn Warner, and I created a visual representation of my relationships from my personal Facebook page, which I have included here. Just look at all the connections around my husband and my favorite live-music venue, Mahuffer’s! Clearly this represents a sphere of influence. And it’s a messy, tangled ball of yarn, yes? I did not take the time to manipulate the graph results to make it pleasing to the eye or to make the names all readable. Make no mistake, these tools may be powerful, but they are time-hungry beasts!

Analyzing and Verifying

My experience so far using Prospect Visual is two-fold: (1) Visualizing spheres of influence is effective in identifying promising paths to new prospects; and (2) Just as in a wealth screening, this big relationship database is great at prioritizing, but I still have to analyze and verify the information.

What I have been doing so far in Prospect Visual is identifying clusters of relationships – spheres of influence – inside and outside the defined group of individual, foundation and corporation prospects in our project space. While one trustee may have strong relationships to identified prospects, another trustee may have a deep and wide network with organizations and people that my client has not considered before.

Once we see a sphere of influence, the next step is to confirm it truly exists and then discover whether there is any ability or inclination. Because there are errors in the underlying database of relationships – such as duplicate records and connections that are just plain wrong – the connections must be verified. And once the connections are verified, further research is needed to discover those shiny glimmers of affinity.

Getting Results

As with wealth screenings, moving the process from mass prioritization all the way through cultivation and solicitation takes time. It will likely be at least a year before any results, let alone gifts, are realized from the effort. And this project is not exactly number one on everyone’s to-do list. Prospects and donors in active cultivation and solicitation create the crisis of time that vacillate the prospect identification project between hot and cold attention.

Who is at the Watering Hole?

Are you actively using relationship mapping techniques and tools? Do you plan to? Do you wish you could be a fly on the wall hearing about it? Join the conversation! In a geographically dispersed environment where many of us perform prospect research solo, sharing our work successes and challenges builds our profession and ourselves.

Relationship Mapping Work Group

Aspire Research Group has created a free-to-participate work group that meets online. You can join the conversation – or lurk about listening – by signing-up for the email list. I’m looking forward to sharing with you!

Capacity and Ask Amount – Magic Numbers!

Discussion, Focused Fundraising, , , , , ,

In the “On Fundraising hosted by AFP” LinkedIn group, a fundraiser was asked by her board to assess the capacity of other board members and she was looking for a formula or strategy that has worked for others. The conversation that ensued fascinated and delighted me. I sent her to my free worksheet on capacity ratings, but the different approaches and opinions in response to her question are well worth discussing.

There were two basic paths that diverged from the “simple” question of assessing capacity. The first had to do with what stage the prospects were in. Was she identifying, qualifying, or ready to solicit and was it a first gift, second gift or big-hairy-scary gift? The second was whether she was also considering affinity, or how close the prospect felt to the organization, and inclination, whether the person liked to give gifts to nonprofits generally. Lots of good comments and advice on these aspects.

Prospect researchers often tie these two pieces of prospect assessment into a prospect tracking or moves management system. And although she was not asking about anything other than capacity, readiness to give and likelihood of giving matter (dare I say) much more than capacity. I’ve known nonprofit employees who give big gifts on modest salaries. The prospect’s passion matters!

And then there was some confusion and some clarifications on what does capacity mean when used in fundraising? Similar to one of the comments posted, Aspire Research Group uses the following language in its profiles when providing capacity ratings:

  • This rating is a major gift dollar range for a gift over 5 years if only one gift was made. It is strictly based on wealth indicators and not on affinity or inclination. The capacity rating suggests ability to give without considering unknown liabilities and is NOT a solicitation amount.

The overall consensus was that determining capacity (and ask amount too) is a mix of art and science. Prospect research can’t uncover every asset and liability so assessing capacity turns out to be an informed guess.

If the question was about determining the ask amount and not capacity, I’ve got strong feelings on that. Unless you are so close to your prospect that s/he opens up his/her finances to you, not having in-depth research done on your prospect is a costly mistake. If you ask for too much you can probably flatter your prospect, but if you ask for too little you won’t hear a prospect say, “Oh gee, and here I was ready to give you $5 million – I’m so glad you only need $1 million.”

Yes, capacity matters in major gift fundraising. Yes, your prospect can have more money than god and refuse to give you any. And yes, determining capacity and ask amounts involves some art and science.

But the exciting part of this particular LinkedIn group discussion was hearing from fundraisers who, with or without dedicated prospect research staff, give their prospects the respect they deserve by taking time to know them in-person and through tried-and-true prospect research techniques. Cheers!

So how do you determine the magic numbers of capacity and ask amount? Do you give more weight to affinity and inclination to give or more weight to capacity or ability to give? I’d love to hear your thoughts!