Category Archives: Uncategorized

Traveling with Prospect Research

At the birth of The Great Recession in the U.S. in 2007, I embarked on a quest to create a lifestyle that would provide me with the freedom to travel for extended periods of time. The internet was wide open and the possibility of a free-roaming lifestyle seemed feasible.

Fast forward to today, and while I do travel widely, it’s not the utopian free-for-all I initially imagined. In May of this year I have been living and working in Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

Way back in 2007, it vexed me that NGOs were averse to telecommuting arrangements and the rigid time clock of the typical job exacerbated my health issues. I loved solving the mysteries of prospects and crafting the prose of profiles. Going solo as a consultant felt like a reasonable solution. Worst case scenario was that I would fail and have to find a job.

Initially it was terrifying! But I was fortunate to land a client on the first day I was officially self-employed. I continue to serve them to this day. I did sub-contracting work, too. I barely paid my bills, but it was a start. And in 2008, my husband and I moved to Prague in the Czech Republic for five months.

These days we still rent an apartment and travel far away once a year, but only for a month. Renting an apartment means we get to live in a neighborhood, cook meals in our kitchen, and acclimate to life in a foreign city. We buy public transit passes, learn where and how to recycle and throw away garbage, and depending upon our language skills, get to know some of the locals.

Sounds great, right? It is! But maybe not quite in the way people initially assume.

First, there is the double-edged sword of money.

When I first became a consultant, I had more time than money. I had energy in abundance to roam around a new city, immerse myself, and enjoy it. Trying to decode the Czech language in the grocery store, restaurant menu, public transportation – well everywhere – was fun and interesting.

But as my business has grown over the years it consumes a great deal more of my energy and my time. My first week in Amsterdam this year was spent working long days on my laptop in a cramped space because of an unexpected surge in tight-deadline work orders. Trying to figure out which carton is milk vs. cream in the grocery store becomes a lot less fun under those circumstances!

Second, the internet is no longer open. It has guarded country borders.

Technology makes my lifestyle possible, but as the internet has matured, it has become increasingly difficult to perform my work in another country. It’s a crazy see-saw!

I remember the first year that my trusty VOIP phone connection failed in Prague. I set everything up and when I tried to login to my account online I couldn’t – the page would not load. Calling via Skype I learned that they did not operate outside of the U.S.

Google now fails me nearly entirely when trying to perform searches on a foreign server. I’ve opted to use a VPN connection, but that means that I am requested to prove that I am human over and over again. And not just from Google, but my bank, and my subscription tools and other accounts.

Especially with the rise of GDPR in the EU, if I don’t use a VPN, many innocuous websites in the U.S. simply will not load. The country borders online have become walled gardens. I’m certain the VPN “hole-in-wall” will be plugged soon.

Nevertheless, I still find it exhilarating to live temporarily in a foreign country.

Living and working somewhere else takes me out of everything I take for granted. I am deliberately putting myself in situations that are way out of my comfort zone. It’s exhausting sometimes, but it changes my perspective. I get to view my life and my work from new angles.

I love to work. And having flexible work hours is a dream come true, but I need to balance myself. Trying to structure my days to take advantage of festivals and arts and culture in Amsterdam helps me question my choices about work.

Being able to spend an entire month in Amsterdam also means I’ve been able to schedule two meetings with local NGOs to learn about their work in the Netherlands and to share fascinating conversation about their views on fundraising. I am continually reminded how humanity is the same the world over as well as how the differences in philanthropic cultures can deeply affect relationship building, which is the crux of fundraising.

As a result of those meetings, I learned about a fantastic resource, the Center of Philanthropic Studies at the VU University Amsterdam. They perform research and provide education in the philanthropic sector.

Following is information about which philanthropic sectors receive the most giving. Enjoy a bit of the Netherlands!

Source: Center of Philanthropic Studies at the VU University Amsterdam
Source: Giving USA

The Future of the Prospect Research Profession

Image by Bruno Glätsch from Pixabay

The prospect research profession is gaining momentum. The truth of this is evident in many places, but especially in the number of open positions being advertised and the growing number of researchers with leadership titles, such as AVP and VP. But where is this momentum taking us?

I’m ready to risk being wrong and to make a prediction beyond today’s reality and into the future.

I had a relaxing and social weekend. For me, that’s the equivalent of letting the soup sit for a day before serving – all the separate flavors meld and settle into something delicious. When I sat down to type up a post this Monday morning, lots of different ideas had melded. It’s as if the mist had receded and my crystal ball was crystal clear.

The prospect research profession is going to grow wider AND deeper.

To hear the visionaries talk about artificial intelligence and cognitive colleagues, like Adam Martel of Gravyty and David Lawson of NewSci, respectively, one might believe that the ranks of researchers will be thinned by advancing technology. In my imagination, those visions translate to thousands of prospect research professionals clogging up a funnel that is trickling out only the best multi-skilled research talent – those individuals who can perform higher at all levels.

But three things have happened to dispel that imaginary funnel-fuelled mist.

1| I finished reading a book, Being Mortal by Atul Gawande.

Gwande is a surgeon writing about the tortured relationship physicians have with patients at the end of life. A great book for anyone to read, but especially helpful if you are involved in caring for an elderly or terminally ill friend or relative.

In the book Dr. Gawande covers much, but relevant to the prospect research profession, he suggests that most doctors treating a dying patient either take a paternal role and tell the patient what treatment is best or they take a “Dr. Informative” role and present all of the options and leave the decision to the patient.

He advocates for doctors to take a third, very different role, as a coach or guide. Through a series of questions, doctors can better understand how a patient wants to live in the remaining time, explain the options, and recommend a course of treatment that fits the patient’s needs and preferences.

I’m simplifying for the sake of brevity, but consider how this might apply to any profession, including prospect research. Doctors face similar threats from artificial intelligence. Who can read and interpret scans and tests better, and who can spot patterns among lots of drug and other treatment options? Machines, of course.

But it is only a human professional who can understand the technical options, interview a human being, and recommend a course of action. It requires competence, trust, and rapport. This applies just as well to the fundraising researcher.

And this is what I mean when I say that our profession is growing wider. New kinds of roles are opening up to us as professionals.

2| Jason Briggs wrote an article, Out of the Shadows: Why prospect research helps fundraising

In this article, Jason argues that prospect research professionals have the skills to be great leaders, which include the following:

  1. Sound interpersonal skills;
  2. Good decision-making; and
  3. A comprehensive understanding of fundraising.

He doesn’t mention this in the article, but I happen to know that when he was employed by The University of Sheffield, he and the research team created a Philanthropy For Us Insight Report, which went on to win an Insight in Fundraising Award in 2016. What is so special about that?

The team evaluated data on the various countries where the University had alumni and made some surprising discoveries about which countries were most likely to be philanthropic across country boundaries and had a density of alumni. This is a stellar example of the kind of intel that translates to lower costs (countries close by) and higher fundraised dollars (higher gift amounts from more alumni).

When we researchers tell our story well, it’s one of raising more money – sometimes a LOT more money. I call that fundraising prowess. And yes, it is performed from behind a desk.

Growing into top leadership roles is another example of our profession growing wider.

3| I spotted a $500k+ prospect marked “unable to rate” by a screening

I can’t seem to keep my hands out of the nitty gritty of performing research and as I was fussing over trying to get two files to match on database IDs by checking the record counts, I saw some weirdness in the screening results.

Surrendering to forces beyond my control I stopped and ran a quick internet search on the name. I suspect the euphoria of successfully identifying this retired investment banker is something akin to the feeling a gambler feels when hitting the jackpot on the slot machine: total validation that my intuition is better than the odds!

Even with all of the beautiful automation of electronic screenings, sometimes the data is missing or corrupt. No matter how useful a cognitive colleague could become, there are some things people do better than programs.

And this human advantage is how our profession will go deeper.

Already specialization has begun deepening the profession. And I don’t just mean fundraising analytics or prospect management. There are researchers who have extremely deep knowledge of specific industries, such as banking or private equity.

Our profession is poised to grow wide to lead fundraising, development, and even the organization. But we are also growing deep roots of knowledge and understanding to support that leadership.

We are learning how to intuitively leap across data to identify opportunities for decision-making. We are specializing in the knowledge of how people create wealth and decide to give it away. We are coaching our front-line fundraisers to develop custom strategies for philanthropy.

Some may find our profession dull and technical, but our work has amazing results. And now in my imagination I see our profession as a prism through which fundraising refracts into rainbow of opportunities.

The future of the prospect research profession is bright and beautiful!

Additional Resources

Have we forgotten how to research? Does it matter?

If you don’t want to be replaced by an algorithm, don’t do the work of an algorithm.

Tim Olivieri

That seems obvious, doesn’t it? But reality can be confusing. Should a prospect research professional be spending so much time doing the “hunt and gather” profile when the software tools are becoming progressively better at that hunting and gathering?

It depends.

It depends? That’s what consultants say to rationalize a higher price tag. Or is it?

If you asked Tim Olivieri, member and presenter at Apra Greater New York’s ProspectCon about it, he might argue that we should behave like consultants within our organizations, filling the gaps – in leadership, in information, and in all of our areas of expertise.

Could there be any “gaps” left having to do with the profile?

Imagine you are planning your campaign. It’s big and ambitious. The consultant is telling you that you’re probably not ready, but you can feel that the time is now. Your gut says you have the prospects to pull this off. You gather your top names and start building your strategies.

You have the automated information and ratings, but you know these people personally as part of your local community. Maybe some are long-since retired. Maybe some are pretty private. What you need is a deep look at them. Where do you turn?

Really good prospect research, that’s where!

Once we researchers know what you are trying to accomplish – “I think she could give $50M if motivated; she has five rescue dogs that get to roam her estate” – we get to work unraveling the wealth indicators, and collecting clues about her philanthropy, especially any similar relationships with other organizations.

At Aspire Research Group, our top-level profile is called a Strategic Assessment and it’s expensive. We spend anywhere from 7 to 10 or more hours crafting these masterpieces. It’s custom research.

It’s a thrilling mystery to solve and the impact of really good research is immediate. Delivering a masterpiece creates fabulous discussion. I’ve heard clients say things such as…

“This really gives me the confidence to ask for that amount.

“We had no idea they had a son and that he was also involved in their philanthropy.

I didn’t know she was so involved with that organization. Maybe we should consider changing our timeline for the ask so we can find a leadership role for her.”

The gap we fill with custom research is fundraising strategy. And it takes a different skill set than short profile research.

As you might expect, strategic research takes high-level wealth research skills. Understanding how people accumulate and hold their wealth means you can recognize and interpret the indicators or clues. It takes time, practice, and a lot of reading to develop these skills.

It also takes a different approach to the research. Instead of checking off boxes or filling in a template, this research calls for following every relevant clue. It may surprise you, but this is much more difficult for a prospect research professional to do these days, for two reasons.

First, it’s tough to switch gears to detailed research. Once you’ve been in the groove of churning out quick research reports, it can be tough to shake the feeling that it’s not worth the effort to untangle a public company insider’s derivatives or perform a range of searches on every single real estate address found.

Second, if you don’t have a strong understanding of fundraising and philanthropy, especially major gifts, you don’t know which bits of information you find are truly relevant. I’ve been reviewing other researcher’s work for many years now and usually they find all the important items – but don’t include them in the profile. Why?

I haven’t done any rigorous research on the question, but I can make some good guesses. Researchers are often separated from the frontline development officers and don’t know what it’s like to visit prospects. Continuing education is heavily focused on research skills, often without the complementary fundraising knowledge. Too many times the research education just doesn’t put the new knowledge and skills in the context of fundraising.

And the ratio of researcher to gift officers can be overwhelming. When one researcher is assigned to 20 or more officers, switching into survival mode can be necessary. Where could there possibly be time for 10+ hours on one prospect?

And yet… spending 10 hours on a prospect who will probably make a $50 million gift is a GREAT use of time. Pondering donor motivations and interests and spending time discussing strategy with the development officer is something no algorithm can do.

We want to be efficient and keep costs down. We want performance metrics, such as number of prospects identified, that are easy to count.

But there are some pretty easy steps we could take to begin walking away from the algorithms. For example, we talk about presenting and training development officers about using research, especially as new hires. Good stuff.

What if we asked development officers to train us on moving a major gift prospect through the gift cycle?

That little step could possibly transform how you present all of your research, including profiles. You might begin using the same words as development officers. You might even re-format your profiles to meet their needs. They might seek your advice.

And then you can scratch your chin and say, “It depends.”

It’s not always about the ratings… or is it?

It’s not always about the capacity ratings… or is it?Ratings… indicators… categories – whatever the name, we use them to help us make sense of too much data. We use them to solve the problem presented in the question: Where or with whom do I get started? They help us navigate the world. But they can also limit our world – and our ability to feed the prospect pipelines of the future.

As human beings we like – and need – to categorize people. We might choose to categorize by gender, skin color, nationality, ethnicity, zip code, or even by hobbies (I used to refer to the trout-fishing people that seasonally descended on my tiny neighborhood in Pennsylvania as “fisher-people”).

But as we all know, this categorizing, or profiling, can lead to a limiting bias. For example, hiding within wealthy zip codes are families struggling to make ends meet. That’s why prospect research professionals verify wealth screenings and evaluate prospects individually. We need to generalize and categorize, but we balance that by recognizing each person as an individual.

In his book, Big Good: Philanthropy in the Age of Big Data & Cognitive Computing, David Lawson tells us to prepare for resistance. Resistance against using a new technology. Resistance against ratings. Resistance against change.

With AI or cognitive computing, ratings can be sliced and diced using ever more data. Cognitive computing can reveal new perspectives and new ratings using computing power that is much better at detecting and interpreting patterns than our human brains ever will be.

But how can we trust ratings we can’t understand?

When I interviewed David in the Prospect Research #ChatBytes podcast, he conceded that if we ask the machine a biased question or feed the machine biased data sets, we will get biased results. But he also pointed out that we can leverage the power of cognitive computing to strip out known biases.

We can ask a program to include or exclude a variable such as age, gender, or zip code. And with this new powerful program that David has nicknamed our “cognitive colleague,” we can reveal new opportunities. And what do we know about new opportunities and new ideas? People will resist them!

Nevertheless, it remains our responsibility as development officers and researchers to navigate this resistance. To steer our organizations into the future we must introduce and manage our new cognitive colleague, and translate and present its findings in a way that can be understood, related to, and acted upon.

But don’t listen to me! Jump over to the podcast and listen to David yourself. He’s quite entertaining and full of visionary ideas. Even better, attend the AASP Summit in Chicago where you can hear David and Lori Lawson live, delivering the keynote presentation (Nov 14-16, 2018).

Additional Resources