This post is suggested by two observations gleaned over my
summer break. (By the way, I hope you had a good and especially restful one.) Both
have to do with campaigns. The big campaign, of course, is the presidential
one, dominating the news by its often
bizarre twists and turns, with major navigation from the Republican nominee,
the idiosyncratic (to put it mildly) Donald J. Trump. The other one(s) are suggested by developing
capital campaigns by two nonprofits with which I have some familiarity.
A conventional
wisdom often found in commentary about
the Trump campaign is that one of its weaknesses is the lack of a strong
infrastructure. That term, most often associated in the public mind with
bridges and roads, is more broadly defined as the foundation or underlying
framework supporting any organization or enterprise. Observers have noted, for instance, how thin
the Trump campaign’s staffing is in key states as well as his erratic media
buys, to say nothing of the turnovers in top campaign leadership. State
staffing (the so-called “ground game”) is important for getting out the vote
and identifying likely supporters. The Trump team seems to believe, likely
emanating from the candidate himself, that his large rallies will suffice. One
writer observed the Trump campaign resembles more a concert tour than an
organized campaign for the nation’s highest office – at least in the traditional
format.
The other observation comes from a conversation I had this summer with a friend who has been a donor to a local nonprofit for years before moving away. I took the
opportunity to offer an update on the nonprofit’s news, highlighting enthusiastically
a prospective capital campaign. I was told quite firmly not to count on any support
from that family as a recent substantial contribution had never been
acknowledged by the organization. We discussed the likely cause, the lack of
administrative resources. But the damage
had been done.
Too often nonprofits, especially smaller ones, will forge
ahead with an ambitious fundraising campaign without assessing its capacity to
manage it. Who will prepare and send acknowledgements, keep track of multi-year
pledges? What is the mechanism for informing the campaign committee and solicitors
of funding status? I know firsthand of
an embarrassing situation where a solicitor, at a social occasion meets a friend whom he had recently asked for
support, and says to the prospect: "Thanks for seeing me the other day, I hope
you will consider my request. “ The
surprised response was: “Didn’t you hear of my $$$$$$ pledge?” Not only was he in the dark, he also missed
the chance to offer thanks without prompting.
The word campaign originally applied to a military operation
of some length with a specific objective in mind. Successful military campaigns
depend on good planning, execution of that plan and a vast support network,
logistical and otherwise. The old proverb
“For want of a nail (“… the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was
lost, for want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the
battle was lost”…etc.) is worth remembering.
A campaign is like building a house. Before you get to thinking
of installing a Viking range or his/ her bathrooms in the master suite, you
better be sure the foundation is solid and the roof doesn’t leak. Skimping on
those costs will end up affecting the integrity of the house and the contents
of the pocketbook. Planning and
investing in a campaign infrastructure will ultimately bring dividends and
provide insurance against surprises. Not
doing so can bring the house down. So, don't forget those nails!
Comments on this or
any other blog post welcome at gplatt63@gmail.com
