No subject
Tue Dec 29 08:20:31 EST 2009
via Linda Schade
Subj: Re: Fwd: [usgp-coo] GPUS Finance Committeee 2004 Proposed Budget
Response
Date: 12/29/03 10:59:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: kzeese at earthlink.net (Kevin Zeese)
To: Baobobz at cs.com
Linda
Dean is on point in the issues he raises. I've done a lot of the fundraising
described over the last two dozen years and have the same concerns. The path
described is highly speculative and very expensive.
I'm especially concerned about the emphasis on direct mail -- people need to
understand that direct mail is capital intensive -- you put up a lot of money
in printing, postage and consulting and for the first few YEARS you will only
break even. The money is made in the long-term by getting people to renew
their membership. Renewals have a higher rate of return and therefore those
mailings make a profit. I see the emphasis on direct mail as highly risky --
especially in these confusing political times. Also, hasn't the GP emphasized
direct mail for the last couple of years -- we have probably worn out the most
likely successful lists. If so, then our return rate will decrease not increase
-- no matter how good the copy by the consultant is.
And, I also agree with Dean that the GP should be careful not to think that a
professional fundraiser is going to be more successful than Green activists
raising money. Raising funds for the GP is different than raising funds for
Democrats or advoacy groups. It will be difficult to find someone with the
experience that works for us.
What is missing from all of this is that it is stuck in the model for
organizational development of the 1970s. We need to look at the Move-On and Dean
Campaign models -- very Internet and Web based. The priority of the national
office should be to get as many email addresses of registered Greens as possible,
develop an interactive web site where they can participate and turn that into
a political force. This is much less costly and less risky approach and it
emphasizes building on our base rather than expensive outreach to potential
funders. By taking this approach we will create a force that can be used for
fundraising, but also for taking action when opportunities arise. If people start
to see the national Green Party doing something -- e.g., when Enron, Iraq,
Patriot Act, Muslim round-ups and other opportunities arise -- if registered
Greens are turned into partners with the Party -- e.g., helping to make decisions
about whether to run a presidential candidate in 04 -- then they will become a
fundraising base on which to do some of the other fundraising ideas that are
mentioned below. Indeed if we make registered Greens into partners they will
develop fundraising ideas that we cannot even imagine. They will also develop
ideas for action on issues and in elections that we cannot imagine. It will
result in a much more vibrant Party.
Finally, in Ralph Nader's letter to the Steering Committee he notes he looks
forward to working with a "reconstituted Green Party." I believe a lot of our
funding woes are because the national Green Party is not seen as doing much
from the local, state and individual Green perspective. We put out press
releases that express the Green view on issues -- a start -- but it is not followed
by any action by the national party. Part of our outreach to Greens to
gather their email addresses should also be to find out whether they are pleased
with the direction and activities on the national party. A reconstituted Green
Party was similar to what we were driving at when we drafted the Strategic
Plan proposal. Perhaps now that there is an economic and leadership crisis with
the Party it will be an opportunity to set a new course toward the more
effective Party we all want.
Kevin
> In a message dated 12/27/03 1:18:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, <A HREF="mailto:john at atkeison.org">
> john at atkeison.org</A> writes:
>
>
>
>
> Subject:
> Re: [usgp-coo] GPUS Finance Committeee 2004 Proposed Budget Response
> From:
> John Atkeison <A HREF="mailto:john at atkeison.org"><john at atkeison.org></A>
> Date:
> Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:23:27 -0500
> To:
> Dean Myerson <A HREF="mailto:greens at deanmyerson.org"><greens at deanmyerson.org></A>
>
> I think Dean makes excellent points here.
> I have some professional experience in direct mail, much less in
> fundraising, but what he says makes good sense to me.
>
> :>: Slow down, manage the growth and rollout and costs :<:
> :>: Be ready to accelerate when the signs are favorable :<:
>
> John
> GPDE
>
> At 12:46 PM 12/27/03, Dean Myerson wrote:
> >> All - Since I was gone in November, I was not able to participate much in
>> the drafting of the fundraising program, much of which drives our current
>> budget. But my experience of involvement in our fundraising over the last two
>> years gives me the background to comment on these plans. See below.
>>
>> At 10:39 PM 12/26/2003, Jake Schneider wrote:
>> >>> Dear Greens
>>>
>>> > The Finance Committee's response to the delegate comment that:
>>> >
>>> > "$62000 is too much to pay for a Fundraising Director".
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The Fundraising Committee has been planning changes in our fundraising
>>> > strategy for months. This 2004 budget reflects that reorganization.
>>> >
>>> > Last year we had one full-time and one quarter-time person doing
>>> > primarily direct mail fundraising. This staffing cost us approximately
>>> > $90,000 last year when including all the costs associated with their
>>> > employment. There was very little personal solicitation, and only one
>>> > or two small events conducted during 2003.
>>>
>>
>> This amount covered efforts at direct mail, phone solicitations and events.
>> The issue of events is problematic because most Greens have shown little or
>> no interest in hosting fundraising events unless there is a celebrity
>> willing to speak, and not very many celebrities are willing to do so. While there
>> was very little event income this year, there was significant effort there.
>> Those of you who have been on this list for a while can remember Jack
>> Uhrich's pleas for you to plan fundraising events. Remember that it is _your_
>> locals and state parties that would have to host these events. I seriously
>> doubt that a new fundraiser is going to have any greater success than the last
>> one in scheduling successful fundraising events, especially in a major
>> campaign season with candidates drawing most of the available energy.
>>
>> There was a lot of phone solicitations going on early this year, and many
>> donors who had given previously declined to do so this time. The political
>> environment has changed. Some of them are supporting Democrats. Some were
>> upset at specific Green campaigns. Please note that a broad fundraising program
>> does not rely primarily on hard-core Greens, but reaches out to expand the
>> fundraising base and our supporters. This means that the broader progressive
>> movement is a large part of who we have previously raised our funds from,
>> and they are greatly susceptible to spoiler arguments. Our own lists have
>> generally done much better, but are still not nearly large enough to fully
>> support our activities.
>>
>> All of this plays into how successful these new plans, described below,
>> will actually perform.
>>
>> >>> >
>>> > Fundraising for a political party is divided into three processes and
>>> > tools for acquiring money. They are direct mail, personal solicitation,
>>> > and events. With this in mind we are reorganizing as follows:
>>> >
>>> > 1) A direct mail firm has been selected that will cost us $5500 each
>>> > month. This will give us a professional and expanded mailing program to
>>> > increase our mailing list and reach people who support the Green Party,
>>> > not just through contributions, but also by becoming active in their
>>> > local Green Party. We will be doing monthly mailings to prospect lists
>>> > (new lists never mailed to before), roll out lists (those that were
>>> > successful when prospected), and re-solicitations (our existing list).
>>>
>>
>> While I support working with this firm, the specific plan they have
>> suggested to us, and which is included in the budget, is likely beyond our cash
>> flow capabilities. Unlike past direct mail activities, where most of the
>> expenses were not due until far enough after the mailing that we could get income
>> from the mailing before paying for most of it, in this case we need to pay
>> production costs the same month as the mailing. As written now the firm's
>> proposed plan would result in a $60,000 bill on either March 1 or April 1. My
>> understanding is that the contract details are still under negotiation, and
>> maybe these terms can be renegotiated.
>>
>> This brings up the issue that their prospect mailings project breaking
>> even, which is normal. The profit comes from the resolicitation mailings of our
>> own lists. The problem is that their prospect mailing response rate
>> predictions are much higher than what we have been getting. While we can debate
>> whether the more professional expertise of this firm will raise our results that
>> much (keeping in mind the political factors I mentioned above), if the
>> first mailing's response rate drops by just a half percent below their
>> prediction, we will have to cover an extra $17,000 in mailing costs, essentially
>> wiping out our remaining reserves. I think the plan needs to be scaled down. We
>> can't take that kind of risk based on assumptions.
>>
>> >>> >
>>> > 2) For the first time we are hiring a professional fundraiser to do
>>> > personal solicitations and events. This is a person who has extensive
>>> > experience in start-up organizations, coordinating events, developing
>>> > programs for soliciting from donors, and has personally raised
>>> > significant funding while working for other organizations. The person
>>> > hired for this position has made a commitment to raise a minimum of
>>> > $10,000 from personal solicitations each month and an average of
>>> > $5,000 per month
>>> > from events. There will be an evaluation of their performance at the end
>>> > of June 2004. This person will cost us a little less than $6400 per
>>> > month including all benefits and taxes.
>>>
>>
>> What is the nature of this commitment? Has this person agreed to
>> adjustments in salary if the commitments are not made? Can we cover the person's
>> salary if not? Have we already hired this person and made the commitment?
>>
>> >>> >
>>> > The bottom line is that we spent about $90,000 in 2003 on fundraising
>>> > staff and will be spending about $143,000 in 2004, an increase of
>>> > $53,000. We are at a decision point in our development. We can
>>> > continue with the former fundraising activities and raise about
>>> > $400,000 annually or we can make a commitment to upgrade our program
>>> > and increase our funding successes. We recommend upgrading and
>>> > increasing. Is there a risk?... of course, but there is a greater
>>> > risk in remaining stagnant and not allowing the Party the
>>> > opportunity to grow.
>>>
>>
>> While I support the general direction, we need to look at the level of risk
>> we are being asked to take, and the impact if projections are not met.
>> Trends in our fundraising showed that it took a serious downturn after the
>> November 2002 midterm elections. At that point, our prospect mailings, which are
>> sent to lists purchased from progressive magazines, organizations and
>> occasional lifestyle magazines, generally stopped earning a profit, and started
>> losing money. The timing was pretty clear, and is to me a clear indication
>> that the political environment is a serious part of our fundraising
>> difficulties. Bringing in professional fundraisers whose best experience is with
>> non-profit groups or Democrats cannot be considered a sure-fire way to resolve
>> this problem. Maybe their experience will help, but it will be new for them as
>> well, and it is still a very speculative project. I see no recognition of
>> this speculative nature in the budget. Sudden expenditures of $60,000 in a
>> single month is reckless in my opinion.
>>
>> We can't know if this will succeed unless we try it, but we need to try it
>> on a smaller scale, or we could quickly be bankrupt if some assumptions
>> aren't quite correct.
>>
>> There are a couple of other facts that I believe support my concern about
>> what is hurting our fundraising. In August, we hired a layout firm to create
>> a nicer looking fundraising letter and envelope. While nothing like the
>> services that the contractor would provide, it is a start, and it did nothing to
>> increase our income. The decline continued. Additionally, the letter Jack
>> and I had prepared in September was replaced with a new type of letter (as
>> was discussed in the Nader note and the SC response), in the hopes that it
>> would stem the reverse. It didn't, in fact income from the last two mailings
>> using new letter types resulted in a much more significant drop in income,
>> this time affecting even our own resolicitation list mailing for the first
>> time.
>>
>> We need to continue trying, and not give up. But we should avoid making
>> unjustified assumptions about what will succeed, with attendant huge debts to
>> these contractors if they do not. The same applies to expensive fundraisers.
>> Experience with non-profits or progressive Democrats are just not that
>> similar to the challenges we face, and continuing attempts to improve our
>> fundraising need to take the risks into account.
>>
>> Dean Myerson
>> DC Statehood Green Party
>>
>
--part1_30.4d1be2e9.2d21c8b1_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10>From Kevin Ze=
ese in Maryland.
<BR>
<BR>via Linda Schade
<BR>
<BR>Subj: <B>Re: Fwd: [usgp-coo] GPUS Finance Committeee 2004 Proposed Bud=
get Response</B>=20
<BR>Date: 12/29/03 10:59:57 AM Eastern Standard Time =20
<BR><I>From: kzeese at earthlink.net (Kevin Zeese)
<BR>To: Baobobz at cs.com
<BR></I> =20
<BR> =20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Linda
<BR>
<BR>Dean is on point in the issues he raises. I've done a lot of the fundrai=
sing described over the last two dozen years and have the same concerns. The=
path described is highly speculative and very expensive.
<BR>
<BR> I'm especially concerned about the emphasis on direct mail -- people ne=
ed to understand that direct mail is capital intensive -- you put up a lot o=
f money in printing, postage and consulting and for the first few YEARS you=20=
will only break even. The money is made in the long-term by getting pe=
ople to renew their membership. Renewals have a higher rate of return=20=
and therefore those mailings make a profit. I see the emphasis on dire=
ct mail as highly risky -- especially in these confusing political times. Al=
so, hasn't the GP emphasized direct mail for the last couple of years -- we=20=
have probably worn out the most likely successful lists. If so, then our ret=
urn rate will decrease not increase -- no matter how good the copy by the co=
nsultant is.
<BR>
<BR>And, I also agree with Dean that the GP should be careful not to think t=
hat a professional fundraiser is going to be more successful than Green acti=
vists raising money. Raising funds for the GP is different than raisin=
g funds for Democrats or advoacy groups. It will be difficult to find someon=
e with the experience that works for us.
<BR>
<BR>What is missing from all of this is that it is stuck in the model for or=
ganizational development of the 1970s. We need to look at the Move-On and De=
an Campaign models -- very Internet and Web based. The priority of the=
national office should be to get as many email addresses of registered Gree=
ns as possible, develop an interactive web site where they can participate a=
nd turn that into a political force. This is much less costly and less risky=
approach and it emphasizes building on our base rather than expensive outre=
ach to potential funders. By taking this approach we will create a for=
ce that can be used for fundraising, but also for taking action when opportu=
nities arise. If people start to see the national Green Party doing so=
mething -- e.g., when Enron, Iraq, Patriot Act, Muslim round-ups and other o=
pportunities arise -- if registered Greens are turned into partners with the=
Party -- e.g., helping to make decisions about whether to run a presidentia=
l candidate in 04 -- then they will become a fundraising base on which to do=
some of the other fundraising ideas that are mentioned below. Indeed=20=
if we make registered Greens into partners they will develop fundraising ide=
as that we cannot even imagine. They will also develop ideas for actio=
n on issues and in elections that we cannot imagine. It will result in=
a much more vibrant Party.
<BR>
<BR>Finally, in Ralph Nader's letter to the Steering Committee he notes he l=
ooks forward to working with a "reconstituted Green Party." I believe=20=
a lot of our funding woes are because the national Green Party is not seen a=
s doing much from the local, state and individual Green perspective. W=
e put out press releases that express the Green view on issues -- a start --=
but it is not followed by any action by the national party. Part of o=
ur outreach to Greens to gather their email addresses should also be to find=
out whether they are pleased with the direction and activities on the natio=
nal party. A reconstituted Green Party was similar to what we were dri=
ving at when we drafted the Strategic Plan proposal. Perhaps now that there=20=
is an economic and leadership crisis with the Party it will be an opportunit=
y to set a new course toward the more effective Party we all want.
<BR>
<BR>Kevin
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">In a message dated 12/27/03=
1:18:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, <A HREF=3D"mailto:john at atkeison.org">john=
@atkeison.org</A> writes:=20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Subject:=20
<BR>Re: [usgp-coo] GPUS Finance Committeee 2004 Proposed Budget Response
<BR>From:=20
<BR>John Atkeison <A HREF=3D"mailto:john at atkeison.org"><john at atkeison.org>=
;</A>
<BR>Date:=20
<BR>Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:23:27 -0500
<BR>To:=20
<BR>Dean Myerson <A HREF=3D"mailto:greens at deanmyerson.org"><greens at deanmyers=
on.org></A>
<BR>
<BR>I think Dean makes excellent points here.=20
<BR>I have some professional experience in direct mail, much less in fundrai=
sing, but what he says makes good sense to me.=20
<BR>
<BR>:>: Slow down, manage the growth and rollout and costs :<:=20
<BR>:>: Be ready to accelerate when the signs are favorable :<:=20
<BR>
<BR>John=20
<BR>GPDE=20
<BR>
<BR>At 12:46 PM 12/27/03, Dean Myerson wrote:=20
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">All - Since I was gone in N=
ovember, I was not able to participate much in the drafting of the fundraisi=
ng program, much of which drives our current budget. But my experience of in=
volvement in our fundraising over the last two years gives me the background=
to comment on these plans. See below.=20
<BR>
<BR>At 10:39 PM 12/26/2003, Jake Schneider wrote:=20
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Dear Greens=20
<BR>
<BR>> The Finance Committee's response to the delegate comment that:=20
<BR>>=20
<BR>> "$62000 is too much to pay for a Fundraising Director".=20
<BR>>=20
<BR>>=20
<BR>> The Fundraising Committee has been planning changes in our fundrais=
ing=20
<BR>> strategy for months. This 2004 budget reflects that reorganiz=
ation.=20
<BR>>=20
<BR>> Last year we had one full-time and one quarter-time person doing=20
<BR>> primarily direct mail fundraising. This staffing cost us appr=
oximately=20
<BR>> $90,000 last year when including all the costs associated with thei=
r=20
<BR>> employment. There was very little personal solicitation, and=20=
only one=20
<BR>> or two small events conducted during 2003.=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>This amount covered efforts at direct mail, phone solicitations and even=
ts. The issue of events is problematic because most Greens have shown little=
or no interest in hosting fundraising events unless there is a celebrity wi=
lling to speak, and not very many celebrities are willing to do so. While th=
ere was very little event income this year, there was significant effort the=
re. Those of you who have been on this list for a while can remember Jack Uh=
rich's pleas for you to plan fundraising events. Remember that it is _your_=20=
locals and state parties that would have to host these events. I seriously d=
oubt that a new fundraiser is going to have any greater success than the las=
t one in scheduling successful fundraising events, especially in a major cam=
paign season with candidates drawing most of the available energy.=20
<BR>
<BR>There was a lot of phone solicitations going on early this year, and man=
y donors who had given previously declined to do so this time. The political=
environment has changed. Some of them are supporting Democrats. Some were u=
pset at specific Green campaigns. Please note that a broad fundraising progr=
am does not rely primarily on hard-core Greens, but reaches out to expand th=
e fundraising base and our supporters. This means that the broader progressi=
ve movement is a large part of who we have previously raised our funds from,=
and they are greatly susceptible to spoiler arguments. Our own lists have g=
enerally done much better, but are still not nearly large enough to fully su=
pport our activities.=20
<BR>
<BR>All of this plays into how successful these new plans, described below,=20=
will actually perform.=20
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>=20
<BR>> Fundraising for a political party is divided into three processes a=
nd=20
<BR>> tools for acquiring money. They are direct mail, personal solicitat=
ion,=20
<BR>> and events. With this in mind we are reorganizing as follows:=20
<BR>>=20
<BR>> 1) A direct mail firm has been selected that will cost us $5500 eac=
h=20
<BR>> month. This will give us a professional and expanded mailing progra=
m to=20
<BR>> increase our mailing list and reach people who support the Green Pa=
rty,=20
<BR>> not just through contributions, but also by becoming active in thei=
r=20
<BR>> local Green Party. We will be doing monthly mailings to prospect li=
sts=20
<BR>> (new lists never mailed to before), roll out lists (those that were=
=20
<BR>> successful when prospected), and re-solicitations (our existing lis=
t).=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>While I support working with this firm, the specific plan they have sugg=
ested to us, and which is included in the budget, is likely beyond our cash=20=
flow capabilities. Unlike past direct mail activities, where most of the exp=
enses were not due until far enough after the mailing that we could get inco=
me from the mailing before paying for most of it, in this case we need to pa=
y production costs the same month as the mailing. As written now the firm's=20=
proposed plan would result in a $60,000 bill on either March 1 or April 1. M=
y understanding is that the contract details are still under negotiation, an=
d maybe these terms can be renegotiated.=20
<BR>
<BR>This brings up the issue that their prospect mailings project breaking e=
ven, which is normal. The profit comes from the resolicitation mailings of o=
ur own lists. The problem is that their prospect mailing response rate predi=
ctions are much higher than what we have been getting. While we can debate w=
hether the more professional expertise of this firm will raise our results t=
hat much (keeping in mind the political factors I mentioned above), if the f=
irst mailing's response rate drops by just a half percent below their predic=
tion, we will have to cover an extra $17,000 in mailing costs, essentially w=
iping out our remaining reserves. I think the plan needs to be scaled down.=20=
We can't take that kind of risk based on assumptions.=20
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>=20
<BR>> 2) For the first time we are hiring a professional fundraiser to do=
=20
<BR>> personal solicitations and events. This is a person who has extensi=
ve=20
<BR>> experience in start-up organizations, coordinating events, developi=
ng=20
<BR>> programs for soliciting from donors, and has personally raised=20
<BR>> significant funding while working for other organizations. Th=
e person=20
<BR>> hired for this position has made a commitment to raise a minimum of=
=20
<BR>> $10,000 from personal solicitations each month and an average of=20
<BR>> $5,000 per month=20
<BR>> from events. There will be an evaluation of their performance at th=
e end=20
<BR>> of June 2004. This person will cost us a little less than $6400 per=
=20
<BR>> month including all benefits and taxes.=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>What is the nature of this commitment? Has this person agreed to adjustm=
ents in salary if the commitments are not made? Can we cover the person's sa=
lary if not? Have we already hired this person and made the commitment?=20
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>=20
<BR>> The bottom line is that we spent about $90,000 in 2003 on fundraisi=
ng=20
<BR>> staff and will be spending about $143,000 in 2004, an increase of=20
<BR>> $53,000. We are at a decision point in our development. We ca=
n=20
<BR>> continue with the former fundraising activities and raise about=20
<BR>> $400,000 annually or we can make a commitment to upgrade our progra=
m=20
<BR>> and increase our funding successes. We recommend upgrading and=20
<BR>> increasing. Is there a risk?... of course, but there is a greater=20
<BR>> risk in remaining stagnant and not allowing the Party the=20
<BR>> opportunity to grow.=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>While I support the general direction, we need to look at the level of r=
isk we are being asked to take, and the impact if projections are not met. T=
rends in our fundraising showed that it took a serious downturn after the No=
vember 2002 midterm elections. At that point, our prospect mailings, which a=
re sent to lists purchased from progressive magazines, organizations and occ=
asional lifestyle magazines, generally stopped earning a profit, and started=
losing money. The timing was pretty clear, and is to me a clear indication=20=
that the political environment is a serious part of our fundraising difficul=
ties. Bringing in professional fundraisers whose best experience is with non=
-profit groups or Democrats cannot be considered a sure-fire way to resolve=20=
this problem. Maybe their experience will help, but it will be new for them=20=
as well, and it is still a very speculative project. I see no recognition of=
this speculative nature in the budget. Sudden expenditures of $60,000 in a=20=
single month is reckless in my opinion.=20
<BR>
<BR>We can't know if this will succeed unless we try it, but we need to try=20=
it on a smaller scale, or we could quickly be bankrupt if some assumptions a=
ren't quite correct.=20
<BR>
<BR>There are a couple of other facts that I believe support my concern abou=
t what is hurting our fundraising. In August, we hired a layout firm to crea=
te a nicer looking fundraising letter and envelope. While nothing like the s=
ervices that the contractor would provide, it is a start, and it did nothing=
to increase our income. The decline continued. Additionally, the letter Jac=
k and I had prepared in September was replaced with a new type of letter (as=
was discussed in the Nader note and the SC response), in the hopes that it=20=
would stem the reverse. It didn't, in fact income from the last two mailings=
using new letter types resulted in a much more significant drop in income,=20=
this time affecting even our own resolicitation list mailing for the first t=
ime.=20
<BR>
<BR>We need to continue trying, and not give up. But we should avoid making=20=
unjustified assumptions about what will succeed, with attendant huge debts t=
o these contractors if they do not. The same applies to expensive fundraiser=
s. Experience with non-profits or progressive Democrats are just not that si=
milar to the challenges we face, and continuing attempts to improve our fund=
raising need to take the risks into account.=20
<BR>
<BR>Dean Myerson=20
<BR>DC Statehood Green Party=20
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_30.4d1be2e9.2d21c8b1_alt_boundary--
--part1_30.4d1be2e9.2d21c8b1_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <kzeese at earthlink.net>
Received: from rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (rly-yg05.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.101]) by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (v97.14) with ESMTP id MAILINYG22-2933ff04f7010d; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:59:57 -0500
Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (v97.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYG59-2933ff04f7010d; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:59:44 -0500
Received: from h-66-167-148-226.mclnva23.dynamic.covad.net ([66.167.148.226] helo=earthlink.net)
by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
id 1Aaznw-0004Ko-00
for Baobobz at cs.com; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:59:40 -0800
Message-ID: <3FF04EB9.2040101 at earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 10:56:41 -0500
From: Kevin Zeese <kzeese at earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Baobobz at cs.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: [usgp-coo] GPUS Finance Committeee 2004 Proposed Budget
Response
References: <d8.501572.2d20dbdf at cs.com>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: d7602b5ffbdf2b9694f5150ab1c16ac050a736d1df7ddf74603085a796abe127873ed186be66dc6b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-AOL-IP: 207.217.120.189
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Linda<br>
<br>
Dean is on point in the issues he raises. I've done a lot of the fundraising
described over the last two dozen years and have the same concerns. The path
described is highly speculative and very expensive.<br>
<br>
I'm especially concerned about the emphasis on direct mail -- people need
to understand that direct mail is capital intensive -- you put up a lot of
money in printing, postage and consulting and for the first few YEARS you
will only break even. The money is made in the long-term by getting people
to renew their membership. Renewals have a higher rate of return and therefore
those mailings make a profit. I see the emphasis on direct mail as highly
risky -- especially in these confusing political times. Also, hasn't the
GP emphasized direct mail for the last couple of years -- we have probably
worn out the most likely successful lists. If so, then our return rate will
decrease not increase -- no matter how good the copy by the consultant is.<br>
<br>
And, I also agree with Dean that the GP should be careful not to think that
a professional fundraiser is going to be more successful than Green activists
raising money. Raising funds for the GP is different than raising funds
for Democrats or advoacy groups. It will be difficult to find someone with
the experience that works for us.<br>
<br>
What is missing from all of this is that it is stuck in the model for organizational
development of the 1970s. We need to look at the Move-On and Dean Campaign
models -- very Internet and Web based. The priority of the national office
should be to get as many email addresses of registered Greens as possible,
develop an interactive web site where they can participate and turn that
into a political force. This is much less costly and less risky approach
and it emphasizes building on our base rather than expensive outreach to
potential funders. By taking this approach we will create a force that can
be used for fundraising, but also for taking action when opportunities arise.
If people start to see the national Green Party doing something -- e.g.,
when Enron, Iraq, Patriot Act, Muslim round-ups and other opportunities arise
-- if registered Greens are turned into partners with the Party -- e.g.,
helping to make decisions about whether to run a presidential candidate in
04 -- then they will become a fundraising base on which to do some of the
other fundraising ideas that are mentioned below. Indeed if we make registered
Greens into partners they will develop fundraising ideas that we cannot even
imagine. They will also develop ideas for action on issues and in elections
that we cannot imagine. It will result in a much more vibrant Party.<br>
<br>
Finally, in Ralph Nader's letter to the Steering Committee he notes he looks
forward to working with a "reconstituted Green Party." I believe a lot of
our funding woes are because the national Green Party is not seen as doing
much from the local, state and individual Green perspective. We put out
press releases that express the Green view on issues -- a start -- but it
is not followed by any action by the national party. Part of our outreach
to Greens to gather their email addresses should also be to find out whether
they are pleased with the direction and activities on the national party.
A reconstituted Green Party was similar to what we were driving at when
we drafted the Strategic Plan proposal. Perhaps now that there is an economic
and leadership crisis with the Party it will be an opportunity to set a new
course toward the more effective Party we all want.<br>
<br>
Kevin<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="midd8.501572.2d20dbdf at cs.com"><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" ptsize="10">In a message dated 12/27/03
1:18:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:john at atkeison.org">john at atkeison.org</a> writes: <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
</font>
<hr width="90%" size="4"><font face="arial,helvetica"><br>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" class="header-part1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">Subject:
</div>
Re: [usgp-coo] GPUS Finance Committeee 2004 Proposed Budget Response</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">From: </div>
John Atkeison <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:john at atkeison.org"><john at atkeison.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">Date: </div>
Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:23:27 -0500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="headerdisplayname" style="display: inline;">To: </div>
Dean Myerson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:greens at deanmyerson.org"><greens at deanmyerson.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
I think Dean makes excellent points here. <br>
I have some professional experience in direct mail, much less in fundraising,
but what he says makes good sense to me. <br>
<br>
:>: Slow down, manage the growth and rollout and costs :<: <br>
:>: Be ready to accelerate when the signs are favorable :<: <br>
<br>
John <br>
GPDE <br>
<br>
At 12:46 PM 12/27/03, Dean Myerson wrote: <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial,helvetica">All - Since I was
gone in November, I was not able to participate much in the drafting of
the fundraising program, much of which drives our current budget. But my
experience of involvement in our fundraising over the last two years gives
me the background to comment on these plans. See below. <br>
<br>
At 10:39 PM 12/26/2003, Jake Schneider wrote: <br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial,helvetica">Dear Greens <br>
<br>
> The Finance Committee's response to the delegate comment that: <br>
> <br>
> "$62000 is too much to pay for a Fundraising Director". <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> The Fundraising Committee has been planning changes in our fundraising
<br>
> strategy for months. This 2004 budget reflects that reorganization.
<br>
> <br>
> Last year we had one full-time and one quarter-time person doing <br>
> primarily direct mail fundraising. This staffing cost us approximately
<br>
> $90,000 last year when including all the costs associated with their
<br>
> employment. There was very little personal solicitation, and only one
<br>
> or two small events conducted during 2003. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><br>
This amount covered efforts at direct mail, phone solicitations and events.
The issue of events is problematic because most Greens have shown little
or no interest in hosting fundraising events unless there is a celebrity
willing to speak, and not very many celebrities are willing to do so. While
there was very little event income this year, there was significant effort
there. Those of you who have been on this list for a while can remember
Jack Uhrich's pleas for you to plan fundraising events. Remember that it
is _your_ locals and state parties that would have to host these events.
I seriously doubt that a new fundraiser is going to have any greater success
than the last one in scheduling successful fundraising events, especially
in a major campaign season with candidates drawing most of the available
energy. <br>
<br>
There was a lot of phone solicitations going on early this year, and many
donors who had given previously declined to do so this time. The political
environment has changed. Some of them are supporting Democrats. Some were
upset at specific Green campaigns. Please note that a broad fundraising
program does not rely primarily on hard-core Greens, but reaches out to
expand the fundraising base and our supporters. This means that the broader
progressive movement is a large part of who we have previously raised our
funds from, and they are greatly susceptible to spoiler arguments. Our own
lists have generally done much better, but are still not nearly large enough
to fully support our activities. <br>
<br>
All of this plays into how successful these new plans, described below, will
actually perform. <br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial,helvetica">> <br>
> Fundraising for a political party is divided into three processes and
<br>
> tools for acquiring money. They are direct mail, personal solicitation,
<br>
> and events. With this in mind we are reorganizing as follows: <br>
> <br>
> 1) A direct mail firm has been selected that will cost us $5500 each
<br>
> month. This will give us a professional and expanded mailing program
to <br>
> increase our mailing list and reach people who support the Green Party,
<br>
> not just through contributions, but also by becoming active in their
<br>
> local Green Party. We will be doing monthly mailings to prospect lists
<br>
> (new lists never mailed to before), roll out lists (those that were <br>
> successful when prospected), and re-solicitations (our existing list).
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><br>
While I support working with this firm, the specific plan they have suggested
to us, and which is included in the budget, is likely beyond our cash flow
capabilities. Unlike past direct mail activities, where most of the expenses
were not due until far enough after the mailing that we could get income
from the mailing before paying for most of it, in this case we need to pay
production costs the same month as the mailing. As written now the firm's
proposed plan would result in a $60,000 bill on either March 1 or April
1. My understanding is that the contract details are still under negotiation,
and maybe these terms can be renegotiated. <br>
<br>
This brings up the issue that their prospect mailings project breaking even,
which is normal. The profit comes from the resolicitation mailings of our
own lists. The problem is that their prospect mailing response rate predictions
are much higher than what we have been getting. While we can debate whether
the more professional expertise of this firm will raise our results that
much (keeping in mind the political factors I mentioned above), if the first
mailing's response rate drops by just a half percent below their prediction,
we will have to cover an extra $17,000 in mailing costs, essentially wiping
out our remaining reserves. I think the plan needs to be scaled down. We
can't take that kind of risk based on assumptions. <br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial,helvetica">> <br>
> 2) For the first time we are hiring a professional fundraiser to do <br>
> personal solicitations and events. This is a person who has extensive
<br>
> experience in start-up organizations, coordinating events, developing
<br>
> programs for soliciting from donors, and has personally raised <br>
> significant funding while working for other organizations. The person
<br>
> hired for this position has made a commitment to raise a minimum of <br>
> $10,000 from personal solicitations each month and an average of <br>
> $5,000 per month <br>
> from events. There will be an evaluation of their performance at the
end <br>
> of June 2004. This person will cost us a little less than $6400 per <br>
> month including all benefits and taxes. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><br>
What is the nature of this commitment? Has this person agreed to adjustments
in salary if the commitments are not made? Can we cover the person's salary
if not? Have we already hired this person and made the commitment? <br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial,helvetica">> <br>
> The bottom line is that we spent about $90,000 in 2003 on fundraising
<br>
> staff and will be spending about $143,000 in 2004, an increase of <br>
> $53,000. We are at a decision point in our development. We can <br>
> continue with the former fundraising activities and raise about <br>
> $400,000 annually or we can make a commitment to upgrade our program
<br>
> and increase our funding successes. We recommend upgrading and <br>
> increasing. Is there a risk?... of course, but there is a greater <br>
> risk in remaining stagnant and not allowing the Party the <br>
> opportunity to grow. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><br>
While I support the general direction, we need to look at the level of risk
we are being asked to take, and the impact if projections are not met. Trends
in our fundraising showed that it took a serious downturn after the November
2002 midterm elections. At that point, our prospect mailings, which are
sent to lists purchased from progressive magazines, organizations and occasional
lifestyle magazines, generally stopped earning a profit, and started losing
money. The timing was pretty clear, and is to me a clear indication that
the political environment is a serious part of our fundraising difficulties.
Bringing in professional fundraisers whose best experience is with non-profit
groups or Democrats cannot be considered a sure-fire way to resolve this
problem. Maybe their experience will help, but it will be new for them as
well, and it is still a very speculative project. I see no recognition of
this speculative nature in the budget. Sudden expenditures of $60,000 in
a single month is reckless in my opinion. <br>
<br>
We can't know if this will succeed unless we try it, but we need to try it
on a smaller scale, or we could quickly be bankrupt if some assumptions
aren't quite correct. <br>
<br>
There are a couple of other facts that I believe support my concern about
what is hurting our fundraising. In August, we hired a layout firm to create
a nicer looking fundraising letter and envelope. While nothing like the
services that the contractor would provide, it is a start, and it did nothing
to increase our income. The decline continued. Additionally, the letter
Jack and I had prepared in September was replaced with a new type of letter
(as was discussed in the Nader note and the SC response), in the hopes that
it would stem the reverse. It didn't, in fact income from the last two mailings
using new letter types resulted in a much more significant drop in income,
this time affecting even our own resolicitation list mailing for the first
time. <br>
<br>
We need to continue trying, and not give up. But we should avoid making unjustified
assumptions about what will succeed, with attendant huge debts to these
contractors if they do not. The same applies to expensive fundraisers. Experience
with non-profits or progressive Democrats are just not that similar to the
challenges we face, and continuing attempts to improve our fundraising need
to take the risks into account. <br>
<br>
Dean Myerson <br>
DC Statehood Green Party <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
Natlcomvotes mailing list <br>
To send a message to the list, write to: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org">Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org</a> <br>
To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes">http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes</a> <br>
<br>
If your state delegation changes, please see: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html">http://gp.org/committees/cc/documents/delegate_change.html</a> <br>
<br>
For other information about the Coordinating Committee, see: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gp.org/committees/cc/">http://gp.org/committees/cc/</a> <br>
</font></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--part1_30.4d1be2e9.2d21c8b1_boundary--
More information about the MCR
mailing list