Episode 285: Mapping Donor Networks: Influencer Dynamics
To steal from Fred Rogers: It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. Right here on this edition of Around with Randall. I want to talk about influences today in the relationship building process that span from qualification all the way to solicitation. And what we're really talking about today is the issues of advisors and really the influencer dynamics that occur all too often.
I think that we don't spend enough time figuring out who is really going to be involved in the decisions that donors are making regarding philanthropy, and as a result, we don't think about the formal and the informal influences that occur. And all too often we don't even bother to ask our questions. Are we cultivating one person or are we cultivating one person with a lot of people surrounding him or her?
And today we want to talk about the formal advisors, those lawyers, state planners, financial advisors, consultants, others that are a part of particular with people with means their influential life, as well as the informal ones, including spouses and children and parents and brothers and sisters and all kinds of influences that really affect the thought process around a donor's timing, comfort, influence, risk tolerance, and eventually their ultimate decision.
Fundraisers who understand these dynamics will move through the relationship building process much, much more smoothly and that they'll get to the decision management process that donors have to go through in a more effective way. Let's start at the top, as we always do. Talk about why this really works and why this matters. Move into some of then the what I'll think of as the influencing the mapping challenges that occur.
And then the last is six tactical solutions that you can use to get through this particular challenge or problem, as we do on every episode over run with Randall. So let's start right at the top. My experience is, is that donors don't particularly the larger areas. $10 I'm not talking about I'm talking about when it becomes and I'm not giving a number of zeros like it's not a 100,000, 10,000, 5 million.
It's really more dependent on the individual and their comfort with philanthropy, because in how much money they have, because they're going to look at the dollars differently. But what I found is, is that when we think about significant gifts, I'm not even going to use word large. They're significant to that person that they very rarely make gifts in isolation.
In alone. They're testing it internally in some way, shape or form, probably with other people. And who are these other people? They're certainly to start on the informal side, but maybe the more important side is family, spouses, children. There's the more formal side of the equation tax implications, estate planning implications. There's also the issue of timing, which has sometimes the necessary what I would think of as formal advisors around when it's the best time to do this.
Do I pledge it over time? Do I have other things going on in my financial life that this gift would make more sense financially if we did it x wise, rather than ABC? These are all critical components, but what they align to is the donor's emotional, what I'll call stability alignment. If someone's making a really large, influential gift and I'm not again talking about for you, I'm talking about from their perspective, it's significant.
They're going to have to go through some check marks. And a lot of those are emotional. And what they're really looking for much of the time is advice is kind of a support system that says this is okay. And if they get too many people or too many instances where they get negativity and or hesitation, what ends up happening is it slows down this process.
Which brings us to the second kind of bigger conversation piece. At the top here is if you ignore this, I can pretty much predict what's going to happen is they may say yes in some type of initial conversation, but then all of a sudden there become immense hurdles. Why isn't this moving forward? It seems to be the question.
It may be as simple as a spouse raising concerns about being brought into this process late. And guess who? They're not going to blame. All altogether, that's the husband or wife that didn't bring them in. They're going to blame you or hold it against you or the organization. It could be an advisor that comes in and puts a kind of a slow down sign, because they're concerned about the finances of this decision.
It could be a family member who is concerned about legacy. And you've heard me talk about this, that I truly believe that children have too much influence, not on supporting their parents financially, particularly as they get older and making sure that they're taken care of, but too much influence on the fact that they might want more of that money than maybe the parent wants to give and or the parent wants to do something else with philanthropically.
If you don't identify these influencers, this influencer dynamic scenario more on the front side than on the back side early on, rather than just before you ask what you get is a hesitation in the donors decision making process. The navigation from conversation to emotional connection to decision. All of a sudden gets totally unwavering. It gets non-negotiable. It gets the navigation of it becomes complicated.
And you don't know why. Because there are now unseen voices in the conversation that you never asked about, that you never thought about. And frankly, the donor didn't either. But the end result is we're trying to get donors, give them the opportunity to do what they want to do, which means we need to help shepherd them through this dynamic that is influencer involvement.
So what are the challenges that we've talked about that we can think about that we should be aware of? And there really for and I've mentioned them a little bit, but we'll clarify them here. The first is those invisible decision makers. I've run into too many circumstances, both as a practitioner and as a consultant, where somebody is the face of the decision, but they're really not the decision maker or they or they have enough influence to stop the decision hole.
I mean, and I'm not saying slow it down, I'm saying no. So the first thing is realizing that influence or invisible decision makers are there. Are you asking about them? And this will be part of that tactical solution we'll talk about here in a moment, the questions and things you can do to navigate through this. The second challenge so that we have invisible is, number two, our own fallibility.
We make false assumptions. We assume that wealth equals autonomy. Well, they own the business and they've done really well and they have lots of money. They make the decision, do they, that the donor decides alone, which obviously we've spoken about, that the donors enthusiasm truly reflects their readiness to give and or other people's similar enthusiasm for the same type of project, gift, involvement, mission, however you want to look at it, is it these assumptions that fundraisers make people like you, like people like me, is we assume that we've got all these answers about wealth, about autonomy, about who's making decisions, about all this enthusiasm without actually posing any questions to challenge that.
During the conversations that we're having with donors. The third is the unbelievable challenge of relationship dynamics for which we never see. Let's just start with spouses, and I'll use me as an example. My wife is the best person I've ever met, and she has the biggest heart. The idea of financial philanthropy isn't quite as inbred in her as it is in me.
Part of that's just the way we grew up differently. That's okay. But if you're not considering whoever is a part of that conversation and that dynamic between the two, you're putting that gift, that conversation, that donor, which is our ultimate goal, is to make them feel great about this. It's not an obligation. It's a joy. If you're not considering that sensitivity or the possible rub behind the behind the curtain, you put the whole thing at risk, which really putting at risk is the joy for them to be able to do it.
Number part B of this sensitive relationships. Children and I mentioned this earlier and I'll just be more blunt. I believe children have too much influence on what I would call their conflicted. They have self-interest. And I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's a dynamic. I have a very strange view as to my sisters. When we talk about my mother and what she wants to do with the parts of her life that are remaining, and they are fabulous things that are coming as a part of what she can do and who she wants to be, even though my dad is not there.
But we all believe that it's not our money. We believe it belongs to her. If we don't inherit a penny, we're fine with that. We were kind of brought up that way, but I've also found that I am a unique animal in this one, that all too often that children's influential decisions are about legacy in their own hopes and dreams.
So you got to put that into the thought process. Advisors can be incredibly skeptical and protective. Financial advisors might look at it from multiple points. Not only they want to protect their clients, but a lot of them get paid by a percentage of what they manage. If someone gives them gives you $5 million and they had $10 million under management, that means their fees get cut in half.
I'm not saying that's true of any or all financial advisors, but something you have to be aware of that a state attorneys and we talk about this in plan giving. You go back to any one of the plan giving episodes that we've done here on round with Randall, that they don't know as much about estate planning as we all think they do, and that usually simple things like a will or even a basic trust.
Pretty easy. But you get into more complicated estate conversations. They actually put roadblocks up because they simply don't understand. And are you aware of that and how would you combat that? We'll talk about that here in a moment. The last assumption or mapping challenge or thing that we do is that there's a fear of overstepping by most fundraisers, that they're afraid they're imposing or asking or, or kind of imputing their own involvement into things they shouldn't be involved with that it feels intrusive.
But what happens when we have that perspective is, is that the relationship stays centered on the decision, rather than the process that they need to go through. And as you if you know me at all, I'm so process driven. What step by step by step sees D is, is that if we don't think about the process, what we end up with are immense problems because we worry about what are we going to get the money?
That's the decision, rather than what do we have to do to help them get to the decision that they need and want to make? Those are two entirely different outcomes in terms of how we develop the relationship, the conversations, the sequence of meetings and discussions. So let's talk about the tactical six tactical practical solutions for you to avoid these kind of challenges.
What can you do today to make this easier for you as a fundraiser for your organization? For most importantly, the relationships you develop because the ultimate is giving an easy or supporting an easy road for people to make philanthropic gifts to do what they want to do in the first place. Where that Sherpa guiding them. The first is pretty easy.
Think about this much earlier and ask. You might think, well.
That kind of simple. Yes. And usually what I find is when we don't do the simple, it gets more complex. And all too often we don't do the simple. How about this? Who else tends to be a part? Or do you or is it part of your conversations? Or do you tend to think of when you think about these major decisions?
Can you identify someone by name? Can you put it in the donor strategy? It's just not memory. It's just not top of mind that your ability to actually put it in the plan. Because if they can answer the question, well, my lawyer, my spouse, my daughter, my son, my mother, my father, whomever, when you ask the question, who else tends to you think about in these philanthropic decisions?
Who else is a partner in this process? By putting it in the plan, then you can strategize around, well, how do we bring them in? When do we bring them in? What do we bring them in about? So number one is really simple ask. Number two is to listen for cues. People will say things that aren't, I need to run this past so-and-so, but they say something that's kind of surrounding that concept that allows, if you listen for you as a relationship developer, to help them figure out how to do this, things like, I need to discuss this at home, or I need to think about this at home, or they want to go sit
in a chair by themselves in a dark room, or is there somebody they're going to discuss this with to think about it with? Number two, you know, there might be a couple of other people who might need to look at this, and you might think, well, that's pretty obvious. Yeah. But the reactions to key here, well that's wonderful.
I'm glad that you have partners that help you with this or people that advise you. Is there someone I can help you with? Who are those people? How can I help you get to where you want to go?
Well, we pronoun we make these decisions, or we think about this and maybe in a different time frame, or, you know, this or that, or we, we have a family gathering or we is not I. Who is we? Is there anything we can do to help them with we obviously more blunt things like others help us. We have advisors, but things like pronouns I versus we.
I need to think about this at home. I need to think about this at the at the office are again you in a dark room. I wouldn't asking that question, but. Oh, there are other people you talk about this with. We're back to kind of combining one and two. Listen for some of these cues and then ask. Third, think about cultivating on a more normal basis the network, the network of the donor.
Does the spouse need mission confidence? Do they know anything about you? Does the advisor need technical clarity? We talked about this a few minutes ago that a lot of times, lawyers don't know a lot about estate planning in detail levels. And so they get nervous and they don't want to look stupid. And so they say, you know, no, we can't do that.
And I found more often than not I sit down and I do this with a lot of clients more and more. It's kind of one of my favorite parts of what I do, where they put me with their donor, and I just ask questions for an hour and kind of come back maybe 4 or 5 days later with what I would call a multi-page, not even a plan, but a series of questions.
And not all the time. But more often than you think, the donor will come back to me and say, I met with my lawyer and they're uncomfortable with this, and I always offer, I'm glad to get on a phone call and talk with you in the room about this. And it's happened. And what I found is they are a great attorney with their clients best interest at heart.
They don't understand state planning, and once I explain it, they go, oh, not that I didn't know it was possible or feasible, but I didn't, I didn't, I didn't quite understand. So technical advice, don't assume they know everything. And maybe it's a pure validator, i.e. they've got a friend or they've got someone they trust or a mentor. Well, do they need information?
Think about the network children. Do they need to be brought into the to the equation to explain this is what mom and dad want and having mom and dad say back it off. Which, by the way, is okay. The core principle here is, is that influence should be respected, not bypassed. And you need to think about that influence, think about that network more actively.
The fourth is the professional advisors. Professional advisors. If there is hesitancy, a problem, a challenge, it's usually because of just a couple factors. Number one, they don't have all the information. Financial advisors or sometimes I've learned aren't given everything that we've kind of talked about with the donor by the donor to the financial advisor. And sometimes I've been surprised, like we've talked about this, but it didn't.
It was A and B A being the donor, b being the consultant, C being the advisor. And all of a sudden the conversation from A to C wasn't what it was A to B. So are they efficiently knowledgeable? Is what we're presenting what we're asking? What is possible being structured well in terms of communication in writing? Is it verbal which I have concerns about when it gets too large?
Are these aligning with the goals that the financial and or estate advisor has? And lastly, do these advisors know anything about you? Don't be surprised if you have to spend a little time helping them. Better understand what you do and how you do it, because they may not know you. Their interests philanthropically, if they have any, might be totally different, and so you might have to educate them about the value and the efficiency and the work that goes on to make them feel better about this process.
So do they have the expertise? Do they have all the information? Is it concise enough? Can you respond quickly? Can you be accurate that the level of detail that they need? And can you reduce friction, the friction that might occur? Advisors can be a stop sign, but if you think about the advisor in the in the right way, they can also be an accelerant.
They can help the donor get to where they want to go if you do it in the right way. Number five is understanding the emotional power structure that not every family, not every couple, not every donor is the same. And that influence isn't always formalized, that you might have a spouse who maybe doesn't control dollars, maybe the others, maybe the donor or the prospect you're working with controls the dollars, but the other spouse controls the vision of what they want to do, controls maybe more of what we give generically to rather, or what we don't give to that.
Other family members have financial caution. One of the things that I so appreciate in my mother is that she listens to me about her finances. She's wicked smart. You can handle it on her own, but I'm a secondary source of confidence for her. The only thing I care about her safety and that she has money and the things she wants to do, the resources to do them the rest of her life.
Other than that, I don't care what kind of influence is that? What do other children think? What are their family members think? That if we're talking about particularly people in their 60s, 70s and 80s, particularly larger gifts, how does this affect the financial legacy of others, which we've talked about throughout this podcast? Look beyond titles, look beyond kind of authority.
Really look at relational connection and what they influence beyond just the technical. The sixth is that circumstances change, meaning these influences change the simplicity of obviously a tragic loss or a new marriage. Got a long time donor, worked with them. All of a sudden there's a fiancée and now a spouse. How much influence do they have? What's their relationship financially?
Not that you should ask directly, but is there influence there that you have deaths in families? As mentioned, you have people then needing time to figure out exactly what they're trying to accomplish. How am I going to do certain things? You could have succession planning. I in the family, in terms of children growing older and maybe 1 or 2 taking more of a kind of a lead role to sale of a business, succession of finances, sale of a business.
How does that affect things or sale of property? Maybe they've got a home and a secondary property, and all of a sudden they get older and they're like, and I'm not sure we want to have that. Second property advisors change. I just changed accountants for my own reasons. That means that the advice that one was giving might not be the advice, the new ones giving.
The key here is to remap this decision making network periodically. Don't it be over to your top prospects. You can't do it for everybody, the ones who have the deepest relationships with to make sure that there's consistency in this process. Six things you can do right now. Number one, ask earlier. Number two, listen for the cues, the pronouns, the verbs.
You know, kind of the hidden messages of I got to go home or hey, the we versus the I three cultivate the network, not just the individual. Number four is be prepared for the financial, professional, legal advisers that come along with people's resources and some of their concerns, thinking about the practical steps to help them kind of get through this.
Number five is understanding the emotional power structures. And number six is just realizing that life changes, that networks change. Major gifts certainly come most of the time from individuals, but that individual might be a couple, might have influences. They have networks of people that support them, that we can't ignore these networks because if we do, we're not guiding or helping or shaping this experience of philanthropy for our donors in a way that makes it meaningful.
Intercept resistance. Build confidence that you are part of this as a solution, not as part of the problem that you're going to structure your conversations better to ask the right questions, to get the donor where they want to go in fundraising, in the relationship building process, in the major gift area. Or it could be leadership, annual giving capacity and inclination are not simply the only factors we need to be looking at.
They're important. They get us through qualification. But the relationship building process is deeper than that. We want to shape the process. So, it's great for the donor, great for the prospect that we understand that this is something they want to do, and we're helping to shape it in a way that makes sense for them, realizing that there are other people in this influential network.
And if we do so, we have a more harmonious outcome, which is not just the dollars, but donors love giving because they have a great experience doing so, and they're assisted by the people around them. And you can be the facilitator of all of these influences within their networks. Don't forget to check out the blogs at How to Be two per week.
Just simple 90-second reads. And if you'd like to reach out to me, it's podcast@hallettphilanthropy.com.
We're going to need philanthropy more, more and more and more. There are just so many people, so many places, so many things in our communities that need us, need philanthropy, need what we do, which makes what you do so critical. Don't forget my favorite saying some people make things happen. Some people watch things happen. Then there are those who wondered what happened.
You're someone who's making something happen. You find partners in the world who do so, the donors, the philanthropists who are doing the same. And together you're making a difference. For those who are wondering what happened, that hole between free enterprise and government that we sit in every day changing lives, 30 years doing this, I can't imagine having done anything that would be more valuable in reflection about my career.
I hope you feel the same not only waiting for 30 years, but every day. I'll look forward to seeing you the next time, right back here on the next edition of Around with Randall. Don't forget. Make it a great day.