Storytelling

What is storytelling? Storytelling is the art of transforming the numbers and dollar signs known as a “prospect” into a fully-realized, comprehendible, relatable person. The benefit in facilitating this transformation is firmly rooted in common sense: numbers do not have feelings, desires, or aspirations. People do, and the prospect of landing a gift begins with understanding and engagement on a more personal level.

Long story short? Storytelling helps development personnel to construct a viable engagement strategy.

Short story long? Anything by Dickens.

So, how do we facilitate this transformation? Simplified, we provide information beyond statistical analysis. We sift through piles (well, e-piles, mostly) of data to find nuggets of personality. We analyze sources to find exactly what makes our prospects tick. We pave narrative pathways straight into the lives of prospects, in effect easing the engagement process and enabling more efficient strategic relationship building.

The easy part of storytelling is finding the information. The tricky part is knowing what to look for and how best to convey that information. The trickier-than-tricky part is analyzing that which is not easily analyzed. To clarify, information pertaining to personality cannot be quantified in the same manner as numerical data. Inclination ratings aside, it’s difficult to ascertain more than a cursory understanding of a prospect.

Let’s use the following hypothetical: you work for an art museum, and are tasked with finding prospects to sponsor a glass art exhibit. In your research, you come across two names: John Q. Fakename III and Leslie J. Falsenom. A quick gift search indicates that both have made six-figure gifts in support of glass art exhibits at multiple outside museums, and both are listed as lead sponsors in various publications. At this point, the easiest course would be to document their respective philanthropy and involvement, derive their capacity from a combination of the usual factors (known wealth, estimated income, foundation holdings, etc.), and shoot off two quick profiles. Sensing that there might be more out there, however, you keep digging.

After poring through numerous sources, differences begin to emerge. You notice that Fakename III inherited his business from his late father, John Q. Fakename II. You’ve determined that Fakename II was an ardent art supporter for much of his life, and that he “initially wanted to study the art of glass blowing in Paris, but was instead pushed into a role with his father’s venture capital firm.” Further research into Fakename II reveals numerous volunteer leadership positions with local and national art museums, thus reinforcing a lifelong passion for art.

In continuing your research on Fakename III, you notice he doesn’t hold volunteer leadership positions with any museums, or other non-profits. There is nothing detailing a passion for art, or anything outside of venture capitalism. It seems safe to determine that he inherited a philanthropic spirit from his father, though he does not share his father’s zeal. A profile could be constructed at this point, but hey, you’re on a roll, so you press on!

You then find a press release announcing a $10 million endowment at a local museum in support of glass art, committed by Fakename II five years before his death, payable over the ensuing ten years. Cross-referencing with the giving information that you find, you determine that Fakename II was only able to commit $5m to the endowment while living. A glance at said museum’s bequest gifting society indicates that he didn’t include the museum in his estate plans. You realize that Fakename III began giving in earnest only after his father died. As such, a safe conclusion to draw would be that Fakename III’s philanthropy is borne more from family obligation than from enthusiasm for glass art.

So, at this point, what do we know? We know there is capacity, but are less certain about an inclination to give. There is a family history of arts support, but we don’t know whether Fakename III will continue that support after his father’s obligation is paid down. In the end, Mr. Fakename III is a solid enough prospect, but the intangibles indicate that he may not be the surest bet for a sponsorship. The analysis prepares your major gift team for the possibility of rejection while providing all the information necessary to begin cultivating a relationship.

You’re also researching Leslie J. Falsenom, a financial services executive. Upon plugging her name into Google (a good starting point), you find a dry corporate biography illustrating clients served, funds managed, etc. However, you also find a personal website managed by Ms. Falsenom, dedicated to the sale of antiques. Her personal biography on this website indicates that she is an enthusiastic art collector and a published authority on antiques. You then find a page for an exhibit titled “The Wonderous World of Dale Chihuly: Selections from the Collection of Leslie J. Falsenom.” Knowing that Chihuly is one of the world’s most revered glass artists, your interest is piqued. What you find next, though, transforms your research from “finding a viable prospect” to “opening a floodgate.”

You see an ARTNews article on Leslie’s extensive collection, including multiple photos of a range of art pieces. You see she has loaned and outright willed pieces to various museums. In the same article, Ms. Falsenom indicates that her love of collecting was precipitated by the end of a self-described “toxic marriage,” which resulted in her receipt of “a significant sum of wealth.”

Background is always good, but we all know that the meat of the matter lies in the giving. It is clear that Ms. Falsenom continually supports numerous institutions, both financially and through in-kind contributions of art. Her giving level falls into the low to mid six-figure range, with a strict focus on art programs and museums.

Let’s review what we know: The prospect has demonstrated financial capacity and giving inclination. She is an enthusiastic collector, whose collection directly aligns with the upcoming exhibit at your institution. Finally, she is an antiques dealer, which caters to an affluent and discerning clientele. Thus, as opposed to Mr. Fakename III, who has capacity but little in the way of personal inclination to give or volunteer, Ms. Falsenom is the “total package”: wealth, collection, philanthropic history, possible inclination to directly volunteer and possible connections to numerous people in the art collector community.

I hope that this installment provides more context to the concept of storytelling, and indicates the possibilities that can arise from getting to know a person as opposed to researching a prospect. The next installment will delve deeper into some methods and sources for finding this information.