There’s been a lively debate underway in the Chronicle of Philanthropy about whether about fundraisers are “selling” a product. Putting money at the center of the development relationship taints the process, argues veteran fundraiser Jennifer McCrea in her Exponential Fundraising blog. Yet the notion of “selling” shouldn’t be a dirty word because it solves problems and meets needs, counters Sasha Dichter of the Acumen Fund.

I brought this up the other day with an MBA graduate and trustee of a university planning a new capital campaign. His reply: “In the business world, we say, ’you don’t get what you don’t ask for.’…People are scrutinizing their philanthropic choices more than ever before. I don’t know anyone who isn’t looking more carefully at these decisions.”

In this economy, with greater competition for less money, many fundraisers are seeking coaching in sales skills for more focus, faster results and higher yields. Not only that, but another article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy says that people skills are no longer enough for fundraisers to be successful. The market is calling for fundraisers with multiple talents to compete for donations in a changing marketplace.  Note the use of the word “compete.”

As a fundraising marketer, and, yes, that’s what I admit to, my job is to persuade donors and potential donors to invest in the causes I represent. A donor I interviewed at another institution a few months ago made it very clear that he would rather have a business plan than a so-called case statement. Why? Because development writing has earned a bad rap as a ”feel-good” document designed to tug at emotional loyalties rather than also sell a product.

That soft style is not going to cut it any longer, as economic discipline has forced more rigor in fundraising. Increasingly donors want to hear about an organization’s strategic plan, its technology infrastructure and the other administrative pillars as proof that the institution is going to operate like a business and manage and invest philanthropic dollars smartly and strategically.

Today’s fundraising case for support must develop the business case for investment. I thought Sally Patterson nailed it well last fall in “Creating a Case for Sustainability” in Advancing Philanthropy. She wrote that the case statement must convey that an organization has all the essential elements to survive — and that it has taken steps to ensure its long-term viability.

Donors have competing demands for their time and their money. They are often loyal to many organizations. They are bombarded with social media, email, get-to-know-you breakfasts and high-level dinners. Their time is valuable and they don’t have a lot of it. These donors have many options today, and they need to be sold. Case statements must anticipate the arguments that fundraisers must have when they are meeting face-to-face with prospects. Such documents are useless if they are merely internal wishlists or descriptions of what you do. Nonprofit consultant Tom Ahern made that “case” this week at the annual Association of Fundraising Professionals conference.

Fundraising is one of the most visible marketing tools an institution has — and the case for support must provide the persuasive roadmap. The best case statements are market-focused — credible and logical, realistically assessing current challenges and providing an aspirational vision of future possibilities. They give donors the information they need and they speak to the values they hold.

Too many case statements simply don’t make the case in this competitive fundraising environment – and waste time, money and, ultimately, opportunity. 

Vision, implementation and change — these are the themes of a nonprofit’s case for support in a post-recession economy. So let’s not be timid about talking business. Donors who truly want to make a difference expect nothing less.

With increased focus on alumni associations as portals for support for university strategic priorities, Duke and the University of Virginia have come forward with best practice communications worthy of serious notice. Both elite institutions with significant endowments, in 2009 they wrestled with what Jim Collins calls “the brutal facts” that “great” organizations must face — and then provided a full accounting, and solutions, to alumni and other constituencies.

In my whitepaper last year on “Communicating Value During the Economic Downturn,” I cited Duke’s early wins at keeping alumni informed and thus generating credibility, understanding and greater support. The recessionary spiral, the whitepaper argued, became “a timely chance to communicate more and focus a lens on the organization’s value while donors, alumni, volunteers, employees and those receiving services are seeking facts and assurance.” 

A year later in Duke Magazine’s November-December 2009 issue, “Sizing Up a Smaller Duke,” the university followed through with more details of its challenging financial realities and, importantly, its proposed remedies. Duke kept the faith with its constituents by focusing a lens on difficult, yet thoughtful, steps to scale back its ambitions due to to decreased endowment and fundraising revenues. Institutions build greater trust and buy-in when they share their realities with us, especially through comprehensive approaches that are more sustainable than knee-jerk cost-cutting occurring at many higher ed institutions. 

In his last year as president of UVA, John Casteen is carrying a similar message around the U.S. in his regional tours. Speaking to alumni and parents in San Francisco in January, he talked about the belt-tightening in a context of continued growth and progress in the university’s $3 billion campaign. And with his 20-year view as president, Casteen previewed the university’s continuing challenges and ongoing recalibration with declining state support. (That visit, by the way, was followed up with a personal note from Casteen to every attendee.)

Today UVA’s 2008-2009 annual President’s Report arrived by email in a stunning high-tech electronic format with links, videos and slideshows — and a clear message from the president: “Using new technology allows wider circulation with lower production costs. For the first time, we can now send the report to every member of the University faculty and staff, as well as all alumni.” The contents contain lengthy financial details along with a forward look at “imagining our third century.”

While alumni associations ask, “do we still matter?,” Duke and UVA are offering some solid answers through their communications strategies. And what they are also letting their supporters know is that university strategic planning is once again on the front seat as institutions rethink how best to balance mission and market. UVA’s 2020 plan is already in process.

OUT with “Survival,” IN with “Growth” — these lead my What’s Hot/What’s Not marketing trends for 2010.

Feeling whiplashed by 2009, many of us have been talking about a sudden flurry of activity as 2010 opened. Pushing uphill with ferocity the first week of the new year, a university colleague mused, “I think we’re just doing more with less.” Had the economy suddenly improved by leaps because the year had turned? “Clearly there are signs that things are better,” a nonprofit recruiter noted as she posted a surge in new positions for several clients, ”and organizations have decided they can’t keep demanding too much of their existing staff if they want to move forward once again.”

Years ago I wrote regularly about “What’s Hot, What’s Not” trends in columns for Knight-Ridder Newspapers (which moved from the “Hot” to the “Not” column all too quickly as a newspaper chain that disappeared in recent years). So I’m reprising that Hot and Not snapshot with 5 top trends with broad implications for marketing communications for higher education, nonprofits, small businesses — and personal marketing — in 2010:

Hot: Growth/Not: Survival

Hot: Reinvention/Not: Relapse

Hot: Mobile/Not: Wired

Hot: Fresh content/ Not: Disregard for usability

Hot: Managing social media/Not: Letting social media manage you

What are your top picks for 2010?

These two wise approaches set a wise foundation for your rethinking  about a rebalanced 2010 — Zen and the Art of Twitter and Rohit Bhargava’s Non-Obvious Marketing Trends.

Now’s a good time, too, to consider a brand update – without overinvesting in unnecessary change or cost during this still somewhat transitional time.

Two new studies provide new and compelling data about ongoing struggles to keep social media in the strategic marketing mix by nonprofits and corporate chief marketing officers. These reports confirm some trends I’ve observed recently with clients in university marketing communications and alumni relations offices – good ideas and technologies need appropriate staff and budgets to put them fully to work.

Coincidentally I also heard about social media fatigue from a couple of favorite bloggers. Here’s a quick summary of these recent cyber exchanges:

• A study by the public relations firm Weber Shandwick found that the vast majority of nonprofit organizations (88 percent) are experimenting with social media to engage key audiences, but a significant majority (79 percent) are uncertain of how to demonstrate social media’s value for their organizations. And, only half (51 percent) report active use of social media. In reporting on the study, the Association of Fundraising Professionals noted that  nonprofit executives are skeptical about social media’s ability to reach donors, media and policy makers.
• More than four out of five (84 percent) chief marketing officers (CMOs) allocate less than ten percent of their budgets to experimenting through social media and non-traditional communications channels, with more than half (55 percent) allocating just five percent or less, according to a study by The CMO Club and Hill & Knowlton, while the number of adult Internet users who have profiles on social networks quadrupled to 35 percent in 2008, from eight percent in 2005.

What I find most illuminating in the current conversations is the vital shift in focus to resources — people and budgets. It’s easy to get excited about new technologies and experiment at the front end, but the reality of sustainable implementation unfortunately seems to be more of a “Phase 2″ than a “Phase 1″ consideration. 

Of particular interest were these findings in the Weber Shandwick report: “With nearly 70 percent of nonprofit professionals projecting their 2010 communications budgets to remain the same or decrease compared to last year, finding the resources and expertise to implement social media strategies is a widely shared challenge. Fifty-two percent of organizations concede they do not have enough staff to manage their current social media outreach and almost two-thirds (64 percent) report that their organizations do not have social media policies and guidelines in place for employees and board members to engage appropriately online.”

University and nonprofit communications staff are smart, can-do professionals who often go the extra mile to meet expectations. Many of them have simply started creating social media communities through their websites as another service that adds to the many things on their plates. As these reports show, these staff and their bosses would be well-served to step back and assess their strategies for social media, its relevancy to the outcomes they seek and how they are going to provide the resources to keep the tweeting and friending going.

As universities and nonprofits look once again at tight budgets for the next fiscal year, here’s a plan of action for scaling social media practices in your marketing mix:

• Begin with assessing the needs. What are you trying to accomplish, and why?
• Determine the best tools for your organization, not other organizations.
• Decide what’s real: Who will do the work? Do they have the skills and the willingness? What will staff have to stop doing to tackle more active social media engagement? What will be lost if one communications tactic becomes a priority over the others?
• Cease looking at social media as activity that staff can do in their free time.
• Engage only in activities that can be done well.
• Put social media responsibilities and outcomes into annual workplans; integrate and measure their activity; resource them appropriately with people and budgets; reevaluate every 90 days.
• Consider phased implementation — start small, set expectations appropriately and ramp up as resources become available — or as the measurable results make a case for adding more social media support.
• Can volunteers be trained and used effectively to help advance social media activities?
• Equally importantly, assist communicators at all levels in learning how to manage up. Often their superiors don’t know the process or the best solutions and need wise counsel, even if it’s not what they want to hear about the latest trend.

And, if you’re still with me, here are some honest insights from bloggers Michael Stoner and Brad Ward about how they are scaling their own social media activity in the context of making smart business decisions.