How To Confuse Your Major Donor

Several months ago I was sitting in a large conference room listening to a presentation of a leader in a major nonprofit. He looked good. He carried himself well. His speech was precise. His tone was easy to listen to.

I was all ears.

And then he started his PowerPoint presentation — and the droning began. There were a lot of words and a lot of detail. And while that was disturbing and distracting, the major problem for me and the audience listening was we didn’t know where he was going.

He had just started on the subject. It soon became obvious that the way he had organized his presentation was to develop the case or rationale for his position without first stating his position or conclusion. He had not set context. And the result is that all of his detail was lost to the audience because no one in the room knew where he was going.

So those precious points, many of which were very good, did not turn into the building blocks he wanted. By the time he got to the end of his presentation, he had already made five points leading up to the conclusion, and we had all forgotten most of the points or at least their sequence, which leads me to this quote:

Without context, a piece of information is just a dot. It floats in your brain with a lot of other dots and doesn't mean a damn thing. Knowledge is information in context connecting the dots. — Michael Ventura

I hear too many speeches, sit in too many meetings and receive too many communications (written and electronic) where the author starts off by building the case and then finally gets to the reason for building it.

Picture this. You’re building a house and you have asked an architect to submit some initial designs and concepts. She says she is ready to present so you sit down with her eagerly anticipating what she has come up with. And here is how the conversation goes:

Architect: “What I thought I would do is give you the rationale for cement versus brick. It is really important to understand this.”

You (thinking to yourself): “Why is she bringing this up? Where is she going?”

Architect: “Cement will be much more stable in this situation.”

You (still thinking to yourself): “What situation? Where are we going?”

And after the conversation goes on for a while you finally interrupt and say: “I think we need to start over. Give me context. Let’s start with your concept and design and then get into why you are making a case for cement.”

Your architect does that. Now you finally understand that she is concerned about the viability of the structure just above the foundation and that is why she is talking about cement versus bricks.

Jeff and I have seen so many proposals, speeches, emails and presentations where the donor cannot possibly make sense of what is being communicated because the author started from a place that does not set context in a way that matters to the donor. The result? The donor is confused.

So, what is the best way to figure out the right context for your caseload donor, especially if you are in the process of creating an ask?

Stop for a second and think about this. What is the context that matters to the donor on your caseload? What matters to the donor?

What matters to the donor is what is buried in her head and heart – her interests and passions.

So, if the donor has a deep hunger to do something for homeless kids, then your starting place in the conversation, the proposal, the communication is there.

It is not about your organization and all of its processes in dealing with homeless kids. It is not about the philosophy or operating principles of dealing with homeless kids. It is not about how you are more effective than others in dealing with homeless kids.

Nope, none of that. Your starting place is the donor’s passion and interest.

It sounds like this when speaking to the donor: “Mary, I know that one of your deep, deep concerns and passions is to help homeless kids. That is what I want to talk to you about.”

Setting context.

And then you go into the problem and the believable solution, i.e. what you are going to do to solve the problem.

So, if you want to confuse your donor, or anyone else receiving your verbal, written or electronic communication, then don’t start with context. Just jump in and start writing or talking. That will get them confused.

Or, you can adopt the rule I try to follow – context first. Here are four pointers in different settings, all of which you can apply to your communication with your caseload donor and your other communication — both personal and professional:

1. Starting an email. State your conclusion or what you want, then develop the case.
2. Starting a meeting. Begin by saying “The objective of this meeting is ….”
3. Starting a persuasive conversation. Let the donor know what you’re wanting, then get into your rationale.
4. Starting a presentation. State your conclusion, then explain why it makes sense.

So many communication situations, both personal and professional, are just dots with no connection anywhere. And they are clouded by detail and process first and then followed by conclusion or objective. This is why the listener — or donor — is confused, bored or impatient.

Change this in all of your communication. Give context first.