Tag Archives: Prospect Management

Run your Prospect Research shop like the Google Search page or a Swiss Army knife

Google search, for better or worse, plays a pretty central role in the Research profession. Lots of people use it; the best researchers know how to get a lot out of it; lots of development staff mistakenly think researchers spend all their time just “googling” things; it’s loved for its power and ease of use and sometimes dissed for its search personalization. When we talk about research, it’s hard to avoid Google.

But I came across a quote this morning that suggested an even better way we can harness the power of Google: be more like it.

Google’s first female engineer, Marissa Mayer, is reportedly responsible for the site’s clean, minimalist look. She said of the site, “Google has the functionality of a really complicated Swiss Army knife, but the home page is our way of approaching it closed. It’s simple, it’s elegant, you can slip it in your pocket, but it’s got the great doodad when you need it. …  A lot of our competitors are like a Swiss Army knife open — and that can be intimidating and occasionally harmful.”

The best prospect research and management shops definitely feature the utility of a really complicated Swiss Army knife. From complex prospect identification tools like statistical modeling analysis to robust prospect management systems that track myriad concurrent activities, to rich, in-depth information development – prospect research departments can do a lot of really cool, really useful things.

But do we feature the elegance and simplicity of a closed Swiss Army knife or the Google search interface? Do we make it easy and effortless for our “users” to interact with us? I’m not convinced that we do so as much as we should, and that may be an opportunity for improvement.

A complaint I’ve heard from frontline fundraising staff (not necessarily at my institution) is that it can be too difficult to interact with a prospect management system – entering contact reports or updating prospect or proposal tracking information is too tricky. And that’s a big turnoff and clear deterrent from use.

Similarly, we can analyze and score prospects twelve ways to Tuesday, and the barrage of numbers runs the risk of making people just throw up their hands and say “Uncle! That’s too much for me. I’m just going to ignore all that.”

And if a researcher puts together a prospect profile that goes WAY beyond what is needed for the task at hand, we run the risk of crowding out the most important, most useful information. (Imagine opening ALL the gadgets on a Swiss Army knife and then trying to just use the scissors tool! Anybody need a band-aid?)

To some extent, most of us think about this sort of thing frequently, but I imagine by incorporating more thoughtful, elegant design with a focus on simplicity into everything we do, we make the fruits of our labors more accessible and desirable to use.

SearchAndKnife

Advertisements

Better Researcher-Fundraiser Relationships: A Response to “Prospecting Problems” and “Fundraisingly Frustrated”

About a week ago Chris Cannon wrote a great blog post outlining some prevalent problems plaguing the fundraiser-researcher dynamic. I had to retweet the link with the comment that it was “dead on,” because it is. Based on what I’ve frequently heard from other researchers at APRA conferences, in many shops the relationship between researchers and frontline fundraisers can be tenuous: e.g., researchers often don’t hear much feedback, if any, from the gift officers they help; fundraisers don’t easily engage with the prospect management system. (Just to name a couple things Chris outlined in his post.)

Chris replied to my tweet and asked what I’ve seen work in addressing these issues. The answer to that question deserves more than just 140 characters! (Plus it’s a pretty darn good topic for a blog post.) So I thought I’d touch on it here.

I’ve found that there are two key components that go a long way in tackling the researcher-fundraiser disconnect: getting the right people in place, and getting them to do the right things.

The Right Things

What are the “things” people need to do? Helen Brown, in her own response to Chris’s post, suggests that communication and relationship building are two of the things that are most critical. She’s absolutely right! But what exactly do we do to make that happen? At my institution, Research staff get face time with gift officers. We have both formal and informal meetings where we talk about the work and we just maintain a positive relationship.

  • Every month, we have a formal “research partner meeting” where the researcher and fundraiser get together to review prospect management reports in preparation for the monthly prospect meeting. They go over outstanding and upcoming solicitations; they review prospect lists; they talk about recent visits; they talk about how they can best help one another.
  • As much as possible, we try to have informal interactions with one another. I encourage my research staff to stop by the fundraisers’ offices from time to time or go have coffee with them. Frankly, I don’t care a whole lot about what happens in these encounters, as long as it’s positive. If the researcher and gift officer spend an hour talking about March Madness, great! They’re building that relationship and increasing the good rapport that helps keep open the lines of productive communication.

The Right People

Of course these “things” that we try to do to foster good relationships between researchers and fundraisers are practically worthless if we don’t have the right people in place to do them. If I’ve got a researcher who is too shy to drop in on gift officers, they can’t have successful informal interactions. If my researcher is generally surly and cantankerous, they’re going to have a hard time building a good relationship with the gift officers.

So any time I’m hiring a new researcher, I pay a lot of attention to their personality and general disposition.  Are they generally outgoing? Do they seem relatable and easy to get along with? This is probably more important to me than a person’s research experience or capabilities, because I can train most people to do good research. It is far more difficult (maybe even impossible??) to train someone to be pleasant to be around, or not to be shy.  If they are internally motivated to reach out to the people they work with and they enjoy doing it, that will be one critical piece I won’t have to worry so much about needing to continually push.

Do I feel like I’ve completely solved the problems Chris describes in his post? Nope. (I’ve got one fundraiser, for example, who has said more than once, “I can find plenty of stuff myself on google, but you guys have access to special databases that we don’t.” Sure, it’s true, but it indicates that we haven’t done a good enough job of educating about our capabilities as in-depth information seekers AND as specialized analysts.) But having the right people in place, doing the right things, sure does go a long way in making for a stronger, more productive relationship between Research and frontline fundraisers.