Train to Race or Race to Train?

Elite athletes train to race but most athletes race to train. The difference is that a professional athletes design a program and schedule a plan to build fitness and speed for specific competitions. This approach is process focused. Many amateurs go for the event approach. They race which then gives them motivation to train. A race result from one week inspires or motivates training for another week before they race again. The race remains the focus and they construct as much scaffolding (training) that can be assembled around the event. This strategy is more of an organic approach to a fitness plan. Panning is based on the race. An elite athlete typically takes a more holistic view, managing both the process and content. A few races are identified as the primary objective and then additional races and training are planned to build the best fitness level to maximize performance at the highlighted competitions.

To quote Seth Godin’s blog entry from December 10th, “Events are easier to manage, pay for and get excited about. Processes build results for the long haul.”

Is your organization event focused, in the race to train mode? Does your organization take a train to race approach and link the events to strategic priorities? Do you monitor the process? Which approach will help you win the Gold?

7x

If you were notified that your projected lifespan had been reduced by a ratio of seven (a day now equals a week), would you do anything differently? What would if look like if you were informed that you lifespan had been extended seven-fold (each week is now 49 days long)?

Running with our dog during a cold snap yesterday I was amazed by her joy of generating a frosty fur coat. I began to ponder a dogs lifespan. If a year in a dog’s life is equal to roughly seven years in a human, each day is essentially a week for a dog. Scarcity of time makes for some interesting adjustments in priorities. A run for her is a weeks worth of living, no wonder she is excited to get out.

Many nonprofit organizations and foundations have a belief that they will exist in perpetuity. Others believe they will continue until a cure is found or a cause is no longer relevant. This sense of an open-ended engagement is powerful and yet challenging. How do you keep motivation and generate a sense of urgency in front of your board and staff along with your donors and constituents? I see staff members who joined organizations with a passion for solving a problem or meeting an essential need and now find themselves on a pseudo corporate treadmill ticking off the years. Governing documents are designed to extend the life of most nonprofits and foundations unless a sunset clause is embedded. Most strategic planning retreat do not focus on how to put the organization out of business because the need has been met and no longer requires the enterprises programs; rather the planning retreats focus on positioning the organization as being the leader and thriving in the future.

If your organization was informed that it had seven years to tackle the most important issues and then would be disbanded, what actions would you take? Does your enterprise seriously discuss a future without your presence? How do you embed a sense of urgency in the deliberation of your organization’s work? How do you renew the passion of your followers and fans?

Nonprofit Concierge

I recently had an opportunity to visit with the nonprofit conservation group, Scenic Hudson in Poughkeepsie, NY. This is a tremendous enterprise focused on the preserving key land in the Hudson River Valley. One of the pleasures of the visit was the tremendous thought that had been put into planning the tour. As we reached each site a Scenic Hudson staff member or key leader from a partnering conservation group was waiting to give a brief tour of the specific project. I mentioned to the Executive Director that I felt as if I was part of a bank heist since we switched vehicles and pick-up drivers repeatedly to expedite our travels.

The lasting impressions from the visit:

* Gained a wonderful appreciation for the programs and priorities of Scenic Hudson. Connected with 4 staff members, 1 board member, 2 volunteers, and 1 strategic partner.
* Explored 4 different projects on foot and drove past countless others. Stood at key viewpoints and was able to see property that Scenic Hudson had deemed classified as critical.
* My time and hopefully Scenic Hudson’s resources were used effectively (and efficiently). And I made an online donation on the train ride back to NYC.

The epiphany that I believe would serve numerous social sector causes is to think of yourself more like a concierge. How can you customize a meaningful experience for individual advocates or donors? What would be a great use of your limited resources and the guests time? How do you orchestrate an experience that would be so memorable that your guest could be reminded of the event and immediately be transported back to a powerful memory? If you selected 5-10 individuals to focus on, what might be your organization’s return on this type of investment? What would you like a Mayor, foundation president, celebrity, journalist, or prospective board member to experience?

Celebrity Gold(dust)

Everyone has been following the top celebrity endorsement deal this past week- of course I am writing about Stephen Colbert’s sponsorship of the US Speed Skating Team. When the US Speed Skating Team lost Dutch bank DSB as its primary sponsor, creating an immediate shortfall of $300,000 to the association and $50,000 to the athletes, Colbert Nation pounced. Online they raised around $250,000 and the sponsorship deal was inked on the show. A donate now button is prominently displayed on the Colbert Nation website’s homepage. Additionally other sponsors have jumped on the Colbert PR coat tails.

No all is well with the Colbert Show’s endorsement deal. One of the leading US speed skaters has Olympic gold medalist Shani Davis referring to the new patron of the sport as a “jerk”. Most of the team has readily accepted Colbert’s fundraising assistance, media spotlight or at least tolerated the attention with humor. What was slated a PR stunt as much as an awareness campaign is bringing out an ugly division within the team.

With the endless details in the Tiger Woods saga changing daily, anything I post will be outdated by the end of the day. I will however suggest that the charities supported by Tiger Woods both directly and indirectly are pondering new ways to position their partnership with the world’s number one golfer. Those that have hooked their funding train and image to Tiger now must considering the future in ways that most have never been unimaginable weeks ago.

A celebrity endorsement of your cause is a powerful tool. It brings media and attention, things most nonprofits can only garner when they are in middle of turmoil or receive a ridiculously large donation. Managing celebrity partnerships requires a unique set of expertise and lots of communication. Most celebrities become well know for something other than their work in the social sector. ‘A List’ individuals tend to be magnets. They can attract a lot of postive attention but they also attract less than desirable press (either in rumor or fact).

How can you position your enterprise to partner with the right celebrity? Do you add them to your Board (what decision-making talents can a celebrity bring that currently missing from you Board)? Is there a role that is best suited for a celebrity within your organization? If the celebrity cloak falls off tomorrow, would you still want to have this person associated with the organization? What would be the one thing that a celebrity could do for your organization? Are you focused obtaining that primary objective?

Combining Two Services

Peanut butter and jelly, fork and spoon (into the spork), and a car and GPS navigation. All are examples of existing entities that decided to merge to create a new service or product. Now your cellphone camera and online search engines are teaming-up. I just watched this Google advertisement and will not think of my smart phone the same way.

What partnerships might you consider that combine two established features or programs? What models exist as templates? Who and what do you need to expedite such a merger?

The Danger of Being Benchmarked Against Your Peers


For the college football minded it is Boise State versus TCU in the upcoming Bowl Championship Series’s Fiesta Bowl. A dream match-up of two football programs that were not suppose to be at the big dance. Here is the problem in my mind. You are taking two programs that are eyed suspiciously as lacking football pedigree or even inferior by the college football elite and pitting them against each other. They played against each other last year to little fanfare. Part Deux is taking place on a larger stage with a much larger financial payout but none the less it appears to corral these two teams to being benchmarked against each other. The danger of this arrangement is that it makes it easy to dismiss the outcome. These are the outliers and many media and football fans do not know whether to extend them full access to the club or consider them party crashers to be tolerate so the BCS meets a quota and help keep the system out of litigation (our Congressional hearings). The media has already begun to dub this game the Out-of-Sight Bowl or the Mid-Major Super Bowl.

The danger with always competing with teams or enterprises that look like you is that you do not get the benefit of being seen for all your talents. You are boxed into the perception that if you have seen one mid-major football team then you have seen them all. Had the BCS allowed both Boise State and TCU to play teams from major conferences then the opportunity to validate the assumption about mid-major conferences would have been more relevant.

Who do you compete against? Is your organization being enhanced by its level of competition or held-back? Do you occasionally breakout of the comfort zone and attempt to rank yourself against the best? How do your customers rank your organization and what benchmarks do they use?

Planes vs. Trains

When I attended a school in New Hampshire and wanted to get back to visit my parents in New York there was no doubt that you took the shuttle between Boston’s Logan Airport and New York LaGuardia. The flights ran every hour and there was even a guarantee that they would roll-out another plane if the first one left completely full. The service was quick, the price was inexpensive and it felt as if you ascend to a cruise altitude and then immediately descend and land. Nothing compared to the speed and the ability to customize schedules. Reservations were not required, just good timing.

I read today in a New York Times article that USAir is disbanding its stationed shuttle pilots and ground personnel at both LGA and BOS. The new plan is to fly regional air jets that connect from other cities in place of the planes (larger Airbus planes) that simply ferried passengers between three cities (Washington, DC was the other option). Now the plane leaving Philadelphia to New York will need to be on-time in order to board as the equivalent of the “shuttle” flight to Boston. The prices has raised to beyond reasonable. In reality this has become just another flight with service a little more frequently as the heavily traveled New York to Chicago route.

By diluting the competitive advantage of owning the corridor now new forms of transportation have benefited. The Amtral Acela offers a variety of levels of service and in three hours and thirty minutes can have you from downtown New York to the Back Bay of Boston. I do not pretend to understand the airline industry but it appears that one airline’s demise is not really another airlines opportunity. Instead passengers are turning to other forms of transportation. In Washington, DC this summer I saw buses advertising $9 fares between the nation’s capitol and the Big Apple. When you start to calculate the cost and time associated with a tax to the airport, TSA screening, the less stripped-down flying experience, and then reversing the arrival scenario the move to trains and buses makes sense. Amtrak’s TV spot spends as much time knocking flying as it does promoting its product.

I would call this a sea change, a paradigm shift or at least an opportunity. What may take place in your sector that could make you wildly relevant or suddenly insignificant? Are you creating a future that includes your enterprise as a leader?

People Matter

Like some of you I watched President Obama’s address to the nation regarding the future military course of action in Afghanistan. Politics aside, I realized that this was a classic demonstration of our unique and individual perception of people. Each television network televised the same content. The President’s speech was not different from one channel to the next. The networks in turn tried to customize the sameness by adding information to their version of the broadcast. Most notably the ‘crawl’ at the bottom of the screen would emphasize specific points of the speech or the location of the telecast. The greatest divergence between the networks came in the moments prior to and immediately after the President’s remarks. The assembled anchors and commentators then gave their review and perception of the address. One could argue that you might tune into a specific channel because it had the greatest clarity on your television screen but I believe that most viewers select their network based on the commentary that came in reflection of the President’s plan. It is as if you give everyone a pitcher of the same lemonade and ask them to sell as many cups full of lemonade as possible. Each person is going to have a different approach. For most the person-to-person approach is going to be the difference. Can you resonate with your audience? The idea that people matter as much as the content is true in the nonprofit sector when it comes to make-up of the board, fundraising meetings with donors, successful galas, and the partnership of Board Chairs and CEOs.

How do you maximize your organization’s content? Do you have the right people in the room? Who else do you need?

If You Did Not Know

What would it look like if you were an Executive Director, Director of Development, or Board Member and did not know how much each donor had contributed to your organization? If you simply received the names of all the donors with no filters, how would you treat each one? Would it be different than how you steward them today? Who would you select to spend time with and who to communicate with? How many donors would tell you directly how much they gave? If you have one thousand donors for your enterprise, what would be important to making them feel all appreciated for their contributions?

I think many of us are seeing 80-90% of the stewardship being concentrated on the top 5-10% of donors. It is an understandable strategy since the top tier of donors usually give the vast majority of the money, some organizations getting 85-90% of their funding from the a small group of leadership donors. In many ways some versions of nonprofit philanthropy reminds me of the legacy airline business model. First Class and Business Class fares pay for the majority of the cost to operate a flight. First Class gets the most space, the lie-flat suite, finest food, and best ration of flight attendants to passengers. When you disembark from an international flight you have arrived at the same destination as everyone else on the aircraft, regardless of the class you traveled. For some the celebration is in the arrival. Others remember the in-flight. If you have had the joy of sitting in the middle seat of coach for an international red-eye and your final memory of the journey is walking past all the luxury suites it may leave you with a a different impression than the former occupants of those seats.

Would you consider your organization’s stewardship efforts to be inclusive? Do all your donors feel their contribution was put towards important priorities? Does your organization have fans who donate with passion or do you have members who donate out of obligation?

The Order of the Questions

Interview of Scott Huffmon and Julian Zelizer on Radio Times WHYY this morning talking about polling results and the mid-term political elections. One of the interesting comments was the reference to the order of the questions asked when you conduct a survey. Scott Huffmon explained the following historical experiment.

A 1948 survey conducted by Hyman and Sheatsley in 1948 asked two questions in a specific order and then reversed the order for the other half of those surveyed. The results of the survey found that 30% gave a postive response to the question, “should a Communist reporter should be admitted to the United States.” But when the first questions was,”should an American reporter should be admitted to Russia” and then was followed by “should a Communist reporter should be admitted to the United States.” The number of people who were favorable to the Communist reporter being admitted to the United States raised to over 70%. Clearly the order of the questions dramatically changes the results.

Are you asking the right questions for your organization/cause? Do you have them in the right order? Could you alter your case for support by amending the questions you ask your supporters?

Poll image: http://www.derrycityfc.net/cityweb/images/stories/survey.jpg