![Vector image of conflict that arises when two programs overlap. [Is Your Hybrid Major Gifts/Planned Giving Position Doing More Harm Than Good?]](https://veritusgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_619721222-scaled.jpeg "Is Your Hybrid Major Gifts/Planned Giving Position Doing More Harm Than Good?")
You cannot imagine the times Jeff and I have found, at organizations large and small, that there is just one person who handles planned giving AND major gifts for the organization. This happens a lot in smaller organizations where the labor economics are driving the decision. I can see the logic to that. But as the organization gets bigger, a hybrid position that combines these roles will always hurt either planned giving, or major gifts, or both. It’s the old “no person can serve two masters” thing in play.
Which is why our philosophy and strategic advice is to always keep the two functions separate so they both flourish.
It’s true that planned giving and major gifts are siblings in the fundraising function. They’re both highly personal, high-touch strategies. However, one is focused on a future gift, and the other is focused on current giving. This affects which donor offers will be most relevant to each situation, with very few exceptions.
The other dynamic at play here is the personal preference of the person you have hired. We have seen so many situations where a planned giving person, who genuinely loves planned giving, is “forced” to work in major gifts and does not succeed. Perhaps they’re not comfortable with the asking process, or the crediting policy, or they don’t see how the relationship dynamic is different for each of these areas.
It often just boils down to personal preference – “I just love working in planned gifts” or “I just love working in major gifts.”
Jeff and I know that the while the skill set, motivations, and drivers are different for each job, there are enough aspects in common so that the manager or decision maker may falsely assume the two can be effectively combined. And so, they do just that – they combine them – and the result is two revenue sources that underperform. We see this all the time.
So, a hybrid version of these roles may be your current function. Or maybe it’s where you believe you should start. But we recommend planning for separate roles as soon as you can. Focus each area as follows:
- Major Gifts – Qualifying a caseload of 150 donors for each FTE; uncovering interests, passions, and communication preferences; tiering the donors; setting goals; creating individualized plans; executing the created plan and modifying it as the MGO goes through the year, with a commitment to refreshing the caseload twice a year.
- Planned Gifts – Targeting the right donors, not just everyone; creating a lead generation strategy and system; establishing a lead conversion strategy that includes identification of passions, interests, and communication preferences; presenting other planned giving offers as appropriate; checking to see if there are current giving opportunities and, if so, presenting them; and, lastly, stewarding any donor who becomes a planned giving donor.
Here is a very important point to consider in all of this. Every donor file we have analyzed, and I mean every one of them, and we have analyzed thousands over the years – every one of those donor files has active donors in them that justify adding MGOs and PGOs to manage donors. And in every situation where this data and these facts are presented, the decision maker decides not to invest in hiring people for both roles because “we can’t afford to do it.”
And the result is thousands and thousands of dollars lost, as the donors are not stewarded properly. This is true for major gifts as well as planned gifts.
We really don’t want your organization to miss the mark on this. Think clearly here. It’s critical that you hire the labor you need to effectively manage the donors you have. Do not settle for a hybrid situation because you think you cannot afford two roles. If we looked at your data, I am sure we could make a case that you are losing more money from good donors than it would cost you to hire a dedicated MGO or PGO.
Be confident and take a bold step here. It will be good for your donors, your team, and the organization.
Richard
This post originally appeared on the Passionate Giving Blog on September 10, 2021.
Related Posts
-
Can One Person Handle Planned Giving and Major Gifts?
September 10, 2021
-
![Hiring concept vector image of candidates. [Top Tips from a Recruiting Expert on Hiring Your Next Frontline Fundraiser]](https://veritusgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/AdobeStock_427200891-scaled.jpeg)
Top Tips from a Recruiting Expert on Hiring Your Next Frontline Fundraiser
July 28, 2023
I understand your position but isn’t there risk in categorizing the donor as either a planned giving donor or a major gift donor? Many consider each at different junctures and some within a single gift discussion (ex: $100K major gift to establish a scholarship with a $500K bequest to grow the scholarship and sustain it after the donor passes.) Isn’t this engaging the whole donor in meaningful ways to accomplish their philanthropic goals and wouldn’t a professional who has some experience in both types of giving best to service that donor? Furthermore, don’t you want to provide incentive for the gift officer to help the donor with both types of gifts as not to overlook opportunities to help the donor?
Hi Phil – great question! There’s a key difference here regarding how we think about the donor and about the positions. When we’re thinking about the donor, you’re absolutely right that we want to engage the donor holistically and meaningfully regarding their philanthropic goals. And it’s important that MGOs understand planned giving enough to talk about it with their donors and PGOs understand major gifts enough as well. Planned gifts from assigned major donors also should be a part of goals to encourage those conversations and there should be collaboration between both fundraising disciplines to create a rich environment where donors are viewed in this way.
The problem with hybrid positions is that the ideal often isn’t the reality. Major gifts is money now, planned gifts are money in the future. So, when a fundraiser is trying to prioritize, the planned giving work often gets pushed aside in favor of the more immediate return of major gifts. There are also huge opportunities for planned gifts from donors who wouldn’t be on an assigned major gifts caseload. Additionally, there are some different skill sets needed to do each area really well. We emphasize letting a fundraiser be focused on their caseload, so when you split that focus, the priorities get complicated and the fundraiser is also likely to focus more time/energy in the area they are more comfortable. That’s why we recommend hybrid MG/PG positions as a temporary growth strategy with your end goal being full caseloads for each fundraising area. But, no matter how it’s organized, the donor should be considered in a meaningful way, not in siloes.