When seeking donations internationally, one should realize, to borrow a phrase from Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, that "we are not in Kansas anymore." Or, for that matter, in the United States. Things are different overseas, and the more that American fund raisers know how things are different — not necessarily better or worse — the better we will be able to conduct our business in ways that will be both culturally sensitive and successful.
After raising money in 18 countries on five continents, I've put together a list of seven lessons that I have learned about what American colleges should do when trying to raise money outside the United States:
1. All giving is local (almost). To paraphrase the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the late Thomas (Tip) O'Neill, who said "all politics is local," fund raisers who work abroad will find that all giving is local — or at least most of it is. Raising money for a new building on a campus will be infinitely harder than raising scholarship support for students from the prospective donor's own country. While not always the case, the overwhelming sentiment is that money is worth giving only if the benefit accrues to the country, city, or region from which the gift originates. I would be a rich man if I received money every time I was told a gift was in the cards, "but it has to support the college insofar as [India, Venezuela, Thailand, Turkey … ] also benefits."
Moreover, the issue cannot be forced. I know of one uncomprehending president who excoriated a development officer who came back to report that Mr. Big Bucks overseas said "no" to the capital campaign but was eager to talk seriously about an eight-figure gift to the scholarship program for students in his country to attend the university. The development officer was not off message, ineffective, or promoting a nonpriority. She was just reporting what she had heard — and what all of us who raise money around the world hear all the time.
What colleges should do: Work hard to develop a strong and compelling local angle for donors outside the United States.
2. Donors often want to be anonymous. American colleges want to identify and highlight their most-generous donors so as to inspire other givers and set the bar high for giving. But, for many reasons, donors from other cultures are more likely to request complete and absolute anonymity.
For some people, it is simple modesty. For others — like many English, Thai, and some other Asian peoples, for example — "the sordid subject of money," to quote the English anthropologist Kate Fox, means that "if you do have the misfortune to be financially successful, it is bad manners to draw attention to the fact." In both instances the donor believes it would be unseemly and the height of arrogance to seek or bask in the spotlight that will obviously fall on a large gift and the person behind it.
Wealthy donors may fear kidnapping or personal harm to themselves or their family members. I know of one donor whose request for anonymity extends to no mail, no calls, no Fed Ex packages — nothing that mentions money or in any way hints at a special relationship with the institution. That means, if you think about it, no acknowledgments, no thank-you notes or signs of appreciation, no listing in donor reports, and no invitations to stewardship events.
What colleges should do: Grin and bear it. Honor anonymity even when attribution would support your efforts to inspire others.
3. Planned giving is of a different sort. In part because of tax incentives, a substantial percentage of major gifts made in the United States comes from planned giving. But not so in many other countries, where such programs often have no recognition in tax law. Income taxes in some parts of the world are lower than in the United States, and capital-gains taxes are nonexistent in some places. Even in some high-tax countries, where incentives for planned giving could be significant, the tax law is not supportive of such instruments. As one lawyer told me, "Of course you can write a charitable remainder trust, but no tax benefits will accrue to the donor." A simple bequest may not benefit from favorable inheritance- or estate-tax treatment either. Instead, highly mobile international donors are more likely to have offshore accounts in Monaco, the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, and elsewhere.
What colleges should do: Institutions that seek to engage donors who wish to "plan" a gift would be well served to be familiar with those tax havens.
4. Fund raisers need a different toolbox. American fund-raising methods often need to be fundamentally rethought in other countries. For instance, the simple challenge or matching-gift approach to raising funds may provoke the opposite response to the one intended. I was once told, "Because George has promised to match the gifts of fellow classmates to our 25th reunion is precisely a reason for me not to support it. I will do what I want, and I don't need, or like, the pressure of his challenge." Because the subject of money is often seen as a private matter, a public challenge grant may be viewed as rude and pushy on the part of the challenger, putting unseemly external pressure on donors to make an essentially private or internal decision.
Modesty, too, or cultural standards, prevent many volunteers from putting themselves out front in a leadership position. Although they might be willing to write a letter or place a phone call, many donors will never find their way to say "join me" in making a leadership gift or "remembering the college in your will." In other cases, donors refuse outright to help their institutions identify other potential donors capable of making a large fit or even indicating which people on a list of possible donors should receive special attention. Fund raisers will encounter such attitudes much more frequently beyond the United States.
What colleges should do: Be prepared to do more consensus fund raising than top-down fund raising. In other words, recognize that fund-raising efforts that involve a reunion class or the effort of a group of people will be driven less by a strong leader making a public and large gift to set the tone and vision and more by a collaborative process that spreads the responsibility among everyone equally.
5. Board roles are not the same. People who serve on a board of governors or advisory board of a college may not necessarily have any expectation that the institution should be a philanthropic priority. Board membership is an honor, privilege, duty, and service to society, but too frequently it is not a role in which trustees assume a responsibility for leadership in giving. Globally, board members are far more likely to be selected by a government official or because they are well known or friendly with key players. The notion of a board collectively demonstrating fund-raising leadership by each member contributing a gift is often utterly alien.
What colleges should do: Work hard to recruit and explicitly educate international board members who will lead through example in their own giving.
6. Benefits can be a trap. Not surprisingly, in some countries without a strong culture of organized philanthropy, the recognition given to donors, especially membership in donor clubs, is seen less as appreciation and more as something the donor has earned. The motivation to give often becomes the benefits themselves: an invitation to a reception or the use of certain of the institution's facilities. In conversation with prospective donors, I found an attitude of "What will I get for doing this strange thing (giving) you are asking me to do?" That can obscure the argument that giving is done, at least in part, to signal the donor's support for the mission and vision of the institution, and its ability to benefit others.
What colleges should do: Consider avoiding the "benefit" word and talk instead about "recognition for supporting the mission of the institution." Don't get distracted into talking about incentives for giving, but focus instead on the reasons for giving.
7. Use technology carefully. Much of the world is far ahead of the United States in the use of electronic-fund transfers, direct debits, standing orders, credit-card payments, and other electronic means to make gifts and fulfill pledges. Those payment methods make it more likely that donors will give larger amounts and for longer periods. But keep in mind that there are some parts of the world where such electronic transfers are seen to diminish the power and impact of a contribution, especially a large gift. A donor once presented me with an envelope stuffed with $10,000 in $100 bills to make the point that he was making a significant investment in the college.
What colleges should do: The intersection of technology and money can be tricky. Fund raisers must be sophisticated in their understanding of the different ways that potential global donors may react to giving electronically, especially major gifts, and accommodate them in a culturally sensitive way.
Now, a word to the contrary: Lest it seem that trying to raise money outside America is too "foreign," the fact is that much of it is precisely the same around the world. The psychology of giving is common to the human condition universally, and the range of motivations for giving are the same in Austria as they are in Zimbabwe. Asia and the Middle East have recently seen some of the largest gifts ever made to nonprofit organizations. The best volunteer I have ever had in nearly 30 years of fund raising was an international alumnus who lived in Europe and whose training as a management consultant equipped him to understand the importance of leadership, passion, and especially of following through on his commitments. He did everything he promised, and more, and did it well.
North American institutions and organizations that wish to raise money in other countries have tremendous opportunities. Nonprofit officials just need to be flexible, prepared to do things differently, and open to working outside their comfort zones.
