The Nonprofit Complexity Conundrum

CARE was absolutely right that long-term solutions to poverty in the developing world hinge on empowering women. Rescue missions were right to offer expanded programs beyond "three hots and a cot." World Vision was right to create sustainable community-development programs in partnership with the people it seeks to serve.

While 100 percent right programmatically, they soon found that their direct-response donors are less likely to support the more complex programs.

It's like I tell my teenage daughters when they're convinced they have the right of way while driving. They may be right, but I don't want them to be dead right.

We see the nonprofit tug of war between simple and complex everywhere:

• Feed a hungry family versus advocacy to end poverty
• Emergency survival pack versus empowerment and education
• Disaster response versus preparedness and prevention
• Rescuing animals versus lobbying to prevent global warming

Direct-response donors care about both sides of the issue, but they generally don't respond as well to the complex offers. Their behavior tells us they want a simple problem and a simple solution. And whether our program people or boards of directors agree or not, if we want to maximize revenue to make a positive impact on the world, we need to meet the donors where they are with simple, urgent, emotional offers.

Two caveats

Fortunately, there are places in fundraising for more complex offers. While acquisition efforts require simplicity, over time your cultivation programs can educate many (but not all) of your donors to the complexity of the need — and of your programmatic solution. And complex, long-term solutions can work very well in major-donor development where you have the opportunity to explain the complexity of the problem/solution face-to-face and to dialogue about options and how a major gift can have longer-term impact.