Is A “Hired Gun Solicitor” The Answer?
There have traditionally been those types of nonprofits that are effectively served by an outside “hired gun” soliciting face-to-face gifts on their behalf. Some of the best examples include specific chapters of Greek-letter fraternities and sororities undertaking capital projects, such as an addition to the chapter house.
Many of these fraternities and sororities have almost no capacity to administer or implement a campaign, despite having access to the resources of a national organization and foundation. Additionally, organization-wide members of these kind of organizations typically know only a few pledge classes adjacent to their own and therefore, an outside solicitor can often be a viable option for successful fundraising; since little to no personal relationship exists between the solicitor and donor.
This is just one of a handful of those unique situations where the infamous “people don’t just give to causes, but rather people with a cause” may not completely apply. The question is can the logic of an outside solicitor apply to your organization?
Is an outside solicitor even an option at a time when the all too prevalent budget cuts facing the nonprofit sector have put pressure on staff and boards to find unique and cost-effective strategies for reaching their desired goals? Or can you afford not to hire an outside solicitor to turn things around today?
These kind of pressures have pushed organizations who would not have normally considered utilizing an outside consultant or contractor to solicit funds on their behalf to ask whether this type of arrangement might be a good fit for their organization; at least in the short-term.
Long thought to be a taboo practice by previous generations of strict constructionalists of the resource development profession, the fact remains that many organizations are asking themselves how they’ll raise the funds necessary to maintain status quo at their organizations without the development staff they’ve come to rely on.
If your organization is wrestling with this question, the answer as to whether or not this would be a good fit is—of course—that it depends. It depends on a number of factors. The following provides a starting point for your organization as it seeks to determine an answer to this question:
Is this moving us forward or backward? Is the intent of this venture to move the organization forward and support a stronger resource development program, or is this assisting the board in circumventing its critical role in fundraising?
For example, if bringing in an outside solicitor meant that an organization was able to successfully complete a few million dollar campaign that it would not have been otherwise able to undertake; and in the process strengthen its donor pool, should it go to a “hired gun”?
What are the alternatives? Have you exhaustively considered all of the other options? In an attempt to objectively withhold judgment about whether securing a hired gun is a good or bad thing, you will most certainly face some level of scrutiny about the prospect of hiring an outsider to solicit gift on your behalf. Are you prepared to address those concerns, from both internal and external constituencies?
Do we have prospects to solicit? Is there anyone for the “hired gun” to solicit? If hiring an outside solicitor is an attempt to grow the donor base, then it may be the wrong solution. But if instead, the focus is on upgrading current donors and prospects, then it might be the right move. In some cases, the outside solicitor might also perform a traditional feasibility study to identify potential donors and to determine the donor’s level of philanthropic support. This same consultant might also be an effective purveyor of cultivation and stewardship activities if those functions are not currently occurring at the appropriate levels in our organization.
Can the organization support an outside solicitor? Any good major or planned giving officer will tell you that to be successful in their jobs, they have to be out of the office and in the field meeting with people one-on-one. The expectation we place on a “hired gun” solicitor might determine the success we yield in this venture. For example, while an outside solicitor might serve diverse fundraising functions, we may also find greater success if our organization provides the necessary support functions, such as prospect identification and research, gift processing, and other necessary administrative tasks. .
How will we measure success? A strong donor pool and culture of philanthropy can take years to develop. With a solid understanding of the process of fundraising—identification, cultivation, solicitation and stewardship—the chances that an outside solicitor will be able to begin soliciting immediately is probably unrealistic. Therefore, what is our measure of success? How do we account for stronger relationships with our donors that don’t necessarily result in funds secured today?
If the expectation is another warm body making asks will result in new or larger commitments than we’ve seen in the past, we’re probably overestimating the success we’ll see. However, if our donor pool is truly ripe for the asking, then an outside solicitor might be a viable option.
How will we compensate? Can we afford counsel at all? Determining how to compensate an outside solicitor can be one of the more sticky areas of venturing down this path. Clearly, finder’s fees and awarding a percentage of funds raised aren’t consistent with the ethical boundaries of generally accepted behavior in the industry. Therefore, identifying a method of compensation that fits culturally within the mix of your organization, while still driving home your desire for an outside solicitor to maintain a focus on asking is key.
What will our donors think? Regardless of what private arrangement you have with someone soliciting your donors, whether they are a full-time employee or “hired gun” your donors will perceive that they are representing your organization. As such, donors will anticipate that things they share with the person will make it back to the organization. The litmus may be in whether your donors would perceive an outside solicitor as inconsistent with their view of the organization and its fundraising activities.
Whose relationship is it? One of the more confusing pieces to the whole question of hired gun or not, is who had the relationship? From a best practice standpoint, the relationship is between the donor and the organization and we as development professionals are facilitating that relationship.
If your “hired gun” is performing this same service for other organizations, or is serving as an independent consultant in your local community, there may be a chance that the donor is confused by just who the solicitor is representing today.
Is it the right person? One of the more critical components that will determine whether hiring an outside solicitor is successful for your organization is whether you have the right person. The right model with the wrong person in place may mean failure. Does the person have a track-record of gift solicitation and can they exemplify the qualities of your organization, speak the lingo of your organization, and build the confidence of a donor to consider investing in your mission.
What are our exit strategies? Yes, that’s correct, “strategies.” If this is not successful, what is the plan for terminating the process and regrouping? And, conversely, if it is successful, at what point do we need to think in more traditional terms of employing our own solicitor, as opposed to a contractor or consultant. Moreover, if we hired an outside consultant specifically for a short-term project, such as a capital campaign, as opposed to an undetermined length of time, what is the plan for transition?
And finally, one must consider whether the best answer for your organization’s particular situation is whether a hybrid of a traditional development process, paired with a complimentary “hired gun” might be the most likely to result in the greatest success with fundraising. For example, might your fundraising be more successful if you contracted with a professional solicitor to focus on major gifts or planned giving to subsidize your current annual fund, foundation, and corporate fundraising efforts?
Because the philanthropic landscape has evolved enough that a strict “consultants do not solicit” policy seems that it might be shortsighted and leave philanthropic opportunities untapped in some organizations. While I certainly am not arguing the notion that having an outside solicitor is an option for every organization and its culture and donor pool; or that the only means for successful fundraising is when its done internally. But, if an outside solicitor can put your organization on the track to financial stability and long-term sustainability, and subsidize your development efforts, then it may at least be a question worth asking at your organization.
About the author: Nick Parkevich, MPA, CFRE, is a consultant with Loring, Sternberg & Associates (LSA). Contact Nick at nick@LoringSternberg.com or visit
www.LoringSternberg.com for more info
. Founded in 1996, LSA offers a variety of services focused on addressing organizational deficiencies and increasing an organization’s fundraising capacity for small and mid-sized nonprofits who seek to seize opportunities they have never considered possible in the past. 
