I went to high school in the early part of the 1980′s.

I never had the chance to wear one of those polyester tuxedos with the ruffled shirt to my senior prom.

I never went to my senior prom.

I never asked anyone.

I just read a report from a consulting firm that the primary reason why people stop contributing to a specific cause is that they are “inappropriately” solicited.

How does one solicit another “inappropriately?”

Threats of violence?

Abusive language?

Making prospective donors listen to The Bay City Rollers?

I suspect that “inappropriately solicited” covers a wide range of misinformed behaviors perpetrated by well meaning non profit organizations.

Asking too many times for support, for example, is “inappropriate.”

How many times will you ask constituents who have never given to your cause to give to your cause.

Asking ad nauseum for support from people who have never supported you only reinforces the behavior that you are seeking to discourage.

Often, “no” means “no”.

When I lived in a small, very small, town in Vermont, it was not uncommon to see people buring their trash in either steel cans or pits.

I am, like most men, a big fan of the open flame, and, as strange as it is, when one of those trash fires would get going, we would gather around this Dantean tableau, and warm ourselves, even in July.

Even burning trash has value.

In the last three weeks, two nonprofit organizations, located at opposite ends of the philanthropic spectrum, were poised to suffer profound organizational distress from forces outside of their control.

Planned Parenthood stood to loose thousands of dollars in grant funding from the Susan Komen Foundation and the Roman Catholic Church was poised to forcibly embrace a set of government directives that were antithetical to their theological teachings.

While Planned Parenthood stood to loose thousands of dollars, an interesting thing happened: thousands of donors, many of whom were unknown to that organization, flooded regional offices with donations and, I suspect, many Diocesan annual fund operations will see an increase in donations this year.

Both organizations learned an invaluable lession in nonprofit dynamics: burning trash often has value.

When I was a lad, my father would give me 45 cents a week as an allowance, which was the prevailing wage for those sweatshop activities that fell upon the youngest son.

It was enough for a movie and a box of Good and Plenty.

Although I have had a marginal increase to my weekly allowance, I still, inflation aside, buy a large box of that wonderful confection weekly.

Last week, I left my most recent, unopened, purchase on the counter.

My black Labrador, who is approaching his sunset years, is still quite adept at counter surfing.

I found out that he also likes Good and Plenty.

Unfortunately, they do not like him and, as such, it has made our walks as of late very interesting.

I forgot that, when buying food, I am accountable to him as to my storage selections.

Accountability.

We all manage a pledge process in the context of our annual programs.

Money comes in. Pledge reminders go out.

Simple, yes?

Yet, I find, in a lot of places that I work with, that this simple process portends potential disaster.

Nonprofit organizations should never be the party that both handles the cash and manages the pledge process.

They need to be distinct, and profoundly separated processes.

They should never even touch the cash, apart from the odd donation that may land in the office.

If they are considering a service provider to manage the pledge process, they should consider two: one to take the money in and another to get the pledge statement out.

And the providers they choose should have the necessary internal controls to manage either process in a manner consistent with best practice.

You are, after all, accountable.

To your donors.

The Superbowl.

I do not like football.

I make no apologies for this.

My dad hated it and he saw the sport as an interruption to “Sixty Minutes” every Sunday evening.

I do too.

But I watch the Superbowl.

For the commercials.

They delight me – not for the products that are presented – but how they are presented – how the companies continuously reposition the “brand” of the product ( remember, a “brand” is the unique value proposition that you associate with the product).

Last year, this made me smile:

This year, the good folks at VW gave us a sneak peak at what we might see this year:

For the life of me, I can not figure out the strategy here.

But I want to see the advertisement so I can.

Brands evolve. They have to. Especially when one campaign does well, as did VW’s last year.

It creates a sense of expectation and people do not like to be let down.

Nonprofit “brands” must evolve every year as well.

They have to garner the attention of their constituent base or they will, in the philanthropic process of natural selection, die a quick death.

Donor numbers down?

Look at the last three years of your direct mail collaterals.

Have they changed?

Bet they haven’t.

Evolve.

P.S. I still love my Ford.

As I age, I change.

I forget things.

Sounds come from my body, when I sit up that are, well, frankly, unspeakable and disconcerting.

I look in the mirror and say, “Who is that bald, old guy?”

I don’t change my mind.

As I get older, I hold onto my worldview, like a dog that will not give up a Nylabone that was bought in 2010, even though it is really nasty and …

Sorry, I digress.

Well, sometimes I change my mind.

I used to say to “not mail” your never donors.

I have changed my mind.

It is an old man’s prerogative.

Predictive modeling.

That’s right.

Predictive modeling.

What if, through a series of data overlays and statistical analysis, you could determine those geodemographic characteristics that your current donors hold in common.

Once you develop that profile, apply it to your never donors.

Which “never donors” are most like your “current donors”?

Mail to them, ignore the rest.

Enjoy. I am going to take a nap.