Note: This guest post is from Nora Ellertsen of The Funding Seed. You can read a longer version here. Thanks, Nora!

Let’s talk about how we define our closest supporters and who we prioritize when building relationships.

Begin with the industry standard: major gifts – as defined by the number of dollars a person gives or has the capacity to give – are the key to a nonprofit’s ability to live into its mission.

This standard makes sense. After all, we operate within a capitalistic system. We need money to hire people, reach our clients and constituents, and pay the bills.

For many organizations, NOT having enough money is a huge stress point. Getting one (or several) major gifts can be a gamechanger.

Here’s the problem: If we focus our relationship-building on those few people who are able to drop enormous donations, it’s often at the expense of connecting with others who are eager to support our missions and causes.

Check your assumptions

Solely prioritizing major gifts creates a narrative that fundraising is about reaching wealthy people. Because of the ways that wealth is acquired and held in the US, this often means prioritizing white donors with access to inherited wealth – despite the fact that Black and Hispanic households give away more of their annual income than white households.

Also, our organizations could be overlooking the unseen potential of those who aren’t giving major gifts yet, but might increase their giving over time, or join a monthly giving program, or name the nonprofit in their estate plans.

Are major gifts undermining your mission?

Walk with me thought a couple of ideas:

#1: As a long-term goal, I believe that most organizations should be trying to put themselves out of business. 

If we’re fundraising for cancer research, our ultimate goal should be a cure for cancer. If our mission is to connect people experiencing homelessness with housing resources, we want every person to have a safe and healthy place to live. 

#2: Movement-building is the goal; fundraising is the tactic. Nobody raises money just for the sake of raising money. We do it for a larger purpose: curing cancer, ending homelessness, and so on.

If these two things are both true, how can we justify prioritizing relationships with a tiny handful of donors who give outsized donations?

The 80/20 rule isn’t a rule

One of the standard pieces of development advice is the “80/20 Rule”: because 20% of your donors might be giving 80% of the money, you need to focus 80% of your attention on those 20% of donors.

Here’s the problem: How can we put ourselves out of business if most of our supporters aren’t meaningfully involved?

How can we build a movement if we’re all-but-ignoring 80% of the people who have shown that they care about the movement’s work?

Why I was wrong

For many years, I followed the 80/20 rule, but I don’t anymore.

It prioritizes the wrong things. It downplays the commitments of the many people who are eager to help create change. It limits our ability to create real, long-lasting impacts for our causes.

Putting this simply, the number of zeroes on a check doesn’t always indicate how much a person cares.

A better alternative

If you’re not defining someone’s commitment by the size of their donation, what’s the alternative?

My first answer: When in doubt, build relationships everywhere. Don’t limit thank-you calls to donors who give $100 or $500; call everyone. Don’t give special access to a small number of major donors; invite everyone.

If that’s not an option for you, here’s another way to think beyond the size of the gift.

• Frequency of giving. If a donor gives two or three (or more!) times a year, they’re thinking of you often.

• Giving without solicitation. Somebody put in the work to find you.

• Duration of giving. If a donor gives every year, your organization is a priority for them.

• Recency of giving. Right after a first donation, your group is fresher in their mind.

• Other interactions.  Do you have someone who always shares or comments on your social media posts? Someone who always replies to your email newsletters? They’re paying attention!

• Giving their time. For many people, time is actually harder to give than money. Regular volunteers show commitment to your work.

Rethinking your list

If you sorted your donor database or spreadsheet based on those kinds of actions, rather than sorting by donation size, would you see different names? Of course you would!

You can be a movement-builder by creating an organizational culture that celebrates every person who wants to participate. Your fundraising can reflect those values.

Are there other ways you’re rethinking your approach to building relationships? Please drop me an email and let me know what you’re doing.