Topic: Uncategorized

Camp CEO

Sondra Lintelmann-Dellaripa, President of Harvest Development Group, was honored to take part in Camp CEO hosted by the Girl Scouts of Connecticut on June 28-30, 2018.

The camp included 17 girls aged 7-14 as well as 12 successful businesswomen. Over the span of three days, the members of Camp CEO participated in activities where they learned about social enterprises from ReSET, and then created their own social enterprise to pitch to a panel of “Sharks”.  In addition to the social enterprise project, campers and CEO’s enjoyed the full camping experience by participating in horseback riding at Trails End, swimming, boating, archery, and a Young Professional Career Jam.

For their social enterprise project, the camp split into groups where they created their own ideas to present. The team known as the GEMS (Grace, Emily, Margaret, and Sarah) and mentored by Harvest Development Group President, Sondra Lintelmann-Dellaripa, created the “Wrap Pack”, modeled after the women in Sub-Saharan Africa who carry their children in wraps.

The “Wrap Pack”, modeled after a traditional backpack, has a wrap feature to it so one can wear it however they want, unlike a traditional backpack which is only able to be carried on your back. After extensive research, The GEMS’s concept is a new backpack made of waterproof fabric, that would appeal to all ages and genders.  The social enterprise concept is one where Wrap Packs would be made by the women in Africa who would be hired and receive a fair wage for their hard work. All profits would then go to teachers and translators who would educate women and children in Africa. The team went one step further and strategized an advertising campaign through a viral Instagram movement, which would create   paid ads and a campaign where people post pictures of themselves with the “Wrap Pack” using the hashtag #howwillyouwrap, encouraging other others to buy the product. The work done by the GEMS to create the idea was very inspiring and after pitching it to the Sharks, the team won the Innovation Award!

“One of the most interesting part of Camp CEO was the nurturing, safe environment that allowed the girls to express themselves and interact in a way that had no enforcement of sociological expectations” said Sondra Lintelmann-Dellaripa. She shared, “The atmosphere of the camp was very genuine and open where the girls didn’t feel like they were being supervised but that they were partners with the CEOs who they could have honest conversations. Camp CEO was a great opportunity for girls through Girl Scouts to be exposed to the powerful way their ideas can manifest into real opportunity!  I was honored to participate!”

To read more about the Girl Scouts of Connecticut and Camp CEO, click here: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/316075

Compete for your impact not for your event.

For those nonprofits which rely heavily on event revenue to make their bottom line, the news out of the nonprofit ecosystem regarding the plateau, stagnation, and downturn of revenue derived from walks, runs, rides, and other type events, is startling and of great concern. In an article this week from Denver, (https://businessden.com/2018/07/02/funds-on-the-run-nonprofits-struggle-with-declining-charity-run-ride-revenue/) evidence shows that run/ride style events are no longer the juggernaut of fundraising they once were. If you depend on them for more than 30% of your annual nut, that’s a serious problem which cannot be ignored.

Sadly, the reaction of many nonprofits to this concerning turn of events is to double down on their run and make it more outrageous or unique, competing for the event and not for their impact. What gets lost in the message?

The value of an investment into your organization and the return your participants bring as lifetime loyalists to your cause.

Yes, having thousands onsite for your event gives a great opportunity to blow up your optics and share your mission- all eyes on you. But the reality is the runners, walkers, and riders, will most likely forget your cause by the next week.

Unless you have a Long Tail plan.

For decades nonprofits have seen these events as a means to an end- raise funds by having fun. Period. Oh, and tell the participants about your cause.

Once a year they assemble the masses, speak the mission statement, pop the starter pistol, cheer on the runners. Then they post a few pictures, get a mention in the local paper and move on to the next big thing.

In the meantime, the runners participating are getting cultivated by other organization that they find valuable and worthy who have forgone the heavy costs of an event and have instead investment in personal engagement and speaking to impact. They are being solicited by mail, invited to lunches, meeting staff and clients, mingling with board members. All without you in the room. They are being courted, 365 days a year, by other organizations not investing all their time and resources into a once a year event.

It’s not as dire as it sounds though, IF you have a plan of action in which you invest resources into cultivating all your attendees AFTER the event and leading up to the next year’s engagement.

Begin your plan before the event even reaches the starting gate. Identify those who are registered through wealth screenings. Note the high net worth individuals. Create relationship trees in your database to see who is connected and nurture those connected to your organization currently.  Make plans to introduce those who are not.

Define which participants you need to meet, which need to meet the board, which need a place of honor. Which ones can get you to the next big donor? Who is of notoriety? Who represents a company you need to connect with? Who represents a group valuable to your mission? Data knowledge pre-event is gold.

Then be prepared with a plan of action beginning the day after the event is completed. Outreach by email, mail, phone calls, notecards, group invites to all participants in some level, in some way. No one is left untouched until the next year. You’ve spent, sometimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them to you, now keep them and nurture them the remaining 364 days of the year with very specific tasks and actions to engage each one.

 

Your investment will return:

Greater event participant loyalty

Increased participation in your event through donor networks

Increase in low to mid-level donations outside of event revenue

Increase in major donor prospects

Increase in major donor gifts and the quality of major donor gifts

Greater brand awareness

Greater recall and loyalty to your mission and impact

Greater advocacy for your cause

Increase in your pool f prospective volunteers

Increase in prospect pool for committees and boards

 

Isn’t it worth the increased investment in resources toward nurturing the attendees toward a lifetime of giving rather than creating a bigger and crazier event?

Servers and Rewarders

Not everyone is a giver. Connecticut Public Radio recently completed a two year project on ‘Giving’, and while many (most) of the people they interviewed applied to participate because they were givers, I’m sure the ones who did not respond to be interviewed were not givers. Not everyone is a giver.

One thing is for certain though – if you have donors then you have givers. These givers are people who have a desire to impact another’s life; offer themselves and their possessions to others. There are non-givers in the world, people who care nothing about other’s needs, but people in this latter category usually fall under the heading Narcissists and Sociopaths. For the most part, the majority of people are givers; it’s an innate part of our DNA. From infancy we have empathy for others that causes us to act to help.

But givers are not at all alike. In fact it is my opinion that there are two distinct types of givers.

SERVERS AND REWARDERS:

Husband and I are celebrating thirty years of marriage this year. This is remarkable because 1) Most marriages don’t last that long and 2) it’s a miracle that despite our vast differences, we are still together 30 years later. Ketchup on eggs/no ketchup on eggs; music as an alarm clock/silence is golden; Volunteer for everything/volunteer for nothing; in all ways he and I are as different as the proverbial night and day.

And when it comes to giving we remain distinctly at odds: fundamentally, I am a Server and he is a Rewarder.

As a server I tend to see others’ needs as they appear to me and then act to assist in some way. I seek to put others first, looking for ways to be a blessing upon someone who has done virtually nothing to ask or ‘earn’ it in anyway. If a person is struggling with full hands and is trying to enter the subway car, I’ll reach out to help. If I see someone being uncomfortable with silence or with a comment I jump in to comfort them (usually inserting foot into mouth along the way, but hey…). In most situations where I am moved to empathy by a person’s situation, I am also moved to act.

That’s not to say at all that my husband is not empathetic, kind, or not a giver. He is very much so, and often is brought to the brink of tears by others’ stories of struggle or injustice. It’s just that his pragmatic nature causes him to be more of a rewarder than a server.

For him, giving is triggered by people’s actions towards him or towards themselves. In this way giving is a reward, a reward for action. Recently we had a young visitor stay with us. My husband was his cordial self. But not very giving. The young man had a 16-foot truck full of stuff. Only after he asked my husband to help did hubby jump into full blown action, clearing places in the garage and hauling boxes. I on the other hand was already making virtual plans for assistance when I heard the news of the truck arriving.

During a recent visit to NYC, we passed by one after another of types of people needing assistance; some homeless, some were able bodied individual’s just experiencing life’s nuanced challenges. By days end, I was an exhausted drained mess, having depleted my reserves and brain power in trying to ensure I helped each and every person in some small way possible. Hubby was surprised that the number of people I counted needing help even existed. He did hold the door for a gentleman who asked nicely. And he was grateful to do so. Raising our kids, Hubby was so very generous when a child overcame a struggle or performed an action that made hubby feel proud, inspired, or just dog gone emotional about his kid. But he allowed the struggle to occur, whereas I had blisters from gripping the broom I used to sweep the path of struggle for each one of my three children.

Rewarders often appreciate the self-reliance necessary to be built in order for gratitude to kick in, in order for the reward of giving to have a lasting impact. Often rewarders want the individual in need to acknowledge their need for a deeper meaning, a learning that occurs in building character and in forming a bond between helper and the one being helped. Additionally, some rewarders don’t always see the obvious and might not be inclined to fore think the needs that others might have, but that does not make them any less of a giver. Rewarders give based on need AND actions, whereas servers give based on needs alone. Servers are driven innately by their own desire to serve and feel good about serving. Rewarders are driven by the need that exists and the call to action from the one needing help.

Your DONORS are Servers and Rewarders as well. Which is why it is so very important to have a continual stream of consciousness flowing by them of not only your constituents’ needs, but ALSO your constituents and organizations’ actions and your call to help. I recently facilitated a strategic planning session where the ED implied that more publicity would raise more funds. Her rationale was that when people see what we are doing and the people we serve, they will say, “Hey that’s a good cause, I’ll send them money”. She wasn’t wrong. But she wasn’t totally right either. She only had half the equation; she was speaking to the Server givers in her donor pool, who would see the article and intuit the need and be moved to action, their own defined action, based on what they read that caused them to emote.

The other half is that a rewarder would read the news article, close the paper and walk away. They would certainly appreciate the work that was being performed, but would not be moved to action because there was no call to action; there was no request for help nor any evidence of the organization doing something that a rewarder could well, reward with their assistance. To complete the cycle and speak to both groups of givers – servers and rewarders – the organization would also have to show action, maybe a piece on the results of their activity or a testimonial from a constituent served on what they did because of this group, as well as a request spelled out –“We Need Your help Now. Please send us $25 today to take this work to the next level”.

Servers and Rewarders are both equally giving, they are just compelled to act based on different criteria.Recognizing this, preparing for it, and employing different techniques in communication and solicitation will help you meet both of their needs.