Helicopter Event Leadership Creates Participants, Not Constituents
white paper boats following a pink paper boat
We recently wrote about the unfortunate results of “siloing” events and event participants. By doing so we prevent the participant from connecting to the mission, to make the mission a part of their identity.
Even the use of the word “participant” rather than “constituent” tips our hand about how we think of them. It says that we know we have placed roadblocks between event participants and the mission. We tell ourselves it is the participant who threw up those roadblocks, demonstrating their lack of interest with dismal retention rates and high zero-dollar fundraiser rates.
Remember that breakup line, “It’s not you, it’s me.” Admit it—this time it is me, and by “me,” I mean you.
What if we conquered our own fear of “losing our participants” (often articulated as, “other departments overcommunicating to my participants”) and we treated each event as a moment in time. A single touchpoint in a participant’s experience with the mission. What would happen if we did that?
The participant would become a constituent. That would mean a greater crossover to other revenue channels. Would that hurt your results (meaning your little silo)? You already suffer 75% attrition on average. If you rolled the dice, would you get worse than terrible? Probably not. Your participants, having experienced a boost in attachment through their touches with other revenue and program channels, would retain at a higher rate overall. When we, organizationally, ditch them for nine months between events, they find other lovers.
If we see as part of our job seeding the other revenue channels with crossover leads, we do two things:
We make participants into constituents. True constituents are happier and more attached. Happy constituents retain; participants... not so much.
The organization raises more money through all channels because all departments have more leads. All boats rise.
There are a couple of things you need to do to really embrace this thinking and to protect yourself if you are responsible for events.
First, renegotiate your performance metrics with your leadership. Ask for some portion of your performance to be judged on happiness, as measured by retention.
Second, ask for access to other peoples’ lists. You have major givers who would make great committee chairs. You have board members who need more than a seat at the big table; they need happiness—which is something you can provide. You have a direct response to people who want to do more, but nobody asked for them to do what you can offer— “be a part of this in a bigger way.”
Third, seek support from the top of the food chain. This kind of idea can only be integrated into an organization from the C-Suite.
To take this path, the C-Suite needs to put someone in charge of the over-arching constituent experience. That is because, for example, there really is a “too much email” moment. There must be someone powerful to lobby on the constituent experience front. That person’s role is to help departments coordinate, to ensure there is a positive experience. Opening the flood gates without planning would be bad.
Some of you are moving along these lines already. Your line-crossing is fostered by a Chief Development Officer or a Chief Executive Officer who sees constituents the way astronauts see the earth, with no lines. For you folks, we would love to hear you celebrate your wins on this front. It is a terrifying and brave thing you have done. Do tell…
