I’m hearing that we would like educated donors, who understand the infrastructure needs and costs of our organizations, and with whom we can have an authentic and trusting relationship. What would have to happen for that to create that reality?

I *strongly* suggest reading Stanford Social Innovation Review’s 2009 article, “The Nonprofit Starvation Cycle” on this point. One of my favorite parts of the article (there are many) is where they show the equivalent infrastructure costs in varied industries (e.g., biotech, manufacturing, software, retail…) and that gives you a pretty good feeling for what “normal” is when it comes to the operational infrastructure required to run a healthy organization. I also think that the Harvard Business Review’s 2008 article, “Delivering on the Promise of Nonprofits” (or something like that) is also very much on point with this post.

The ways we “value” nonprofits has longstanding errors & omissions, and I’ll happily buy anyone a beer (or soda) to discuss the misleading complexities of the 100% pitch and the fundraising efficiency ratio. I don’t think either is irrelevant or wrong — but I do believe they exist in a *context* that if it is not discussed is both wrong (for the sector) and disingenuous (for the sustainability of an org’s fundraising needs over time).

I love your blogging. Great work at Oneicity!!! Keep it up.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by oneicity: The truth about zero fundraising costs. http://bit.ly/cJWgjY [Very provocative post. Love to know your thoughts.]…

“No ferret-eyed accounting people getting a salary.” YEAH! We like the doe-eyed ones…or the dewy-eyed ones wondering how to pay for admin costs after the “100% of your donation goes to Haiti” campaign.

In his post Equal Rights for Fundraisers (http://blogs.hbr.org/pallotta/2009/09/equal-rights-for-fundraising.html) Dan Pallotta said it far more eloquently than I ever could: “Without fundraising there are no programs.”

Yes, the “100% goes to the field-thing” is seductive to donors. Also very, very unrealistic.

I understand why it’s compelling. I’d LOVE it if organizations said WHY 100% of the gifts were going to Haiti.

Wouldn’t it be great to know a foundation is covering the admin costs? That would be giving people what they want AND educating them on the reality that overhead of some sort is necessary.

I hadn’t thought about the unintended consequence of the admin on other gifts being effectively double.

While I agree, and while I see the dangerous direction Rebecca rightfully wonders if appeals like this would go, what do you think? Will organization’s be “punished” by donors for being more upfront about admin costs?