Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Public Relations and Fundraising_Oral Presentation

No description
by

cheng hong

on 20 February 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Public Relations and Fundraising_Oral Presentation

Cheng Hong Waters, R. D. (2007). Advancing relationship management theory: Coorientation and the nonprofit-donor relationship. University of Florida. Richard David Waters Literature Review Traditional mailed surveys

Population:
San Francisco General Hospital
Marin General Hospital
Children's Hospital and Research Center

Sampling:
Entire population of the fundraising teams
Donors-stratified random sampling
1706 donors (41%); 124 fundraisers (95%) Methodology RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team
and donors agree/disagree on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? Results

Since majority of fundraising team interact with major gift donors and prospects, would that inflate overall evaluation of fundraising team? Fundraising
Relationship management
New media Related Aticles Waters, R. D. (2009). Comparing the two sides of the nonprofit organization-donor relationship:
Applying coorientation methodology to relationship management. Public Relations Review, 35(2),
144-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.011

Waters, R.D. (2008). Applying relationship management theory to the fundraising process
for individual donors. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 73-87. DOI: 10.1108/13632540810854244

Waters, R. D. (2011). Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying
communication theory to the nonprofit organization donor relationship. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 458-475. DOI: 10.1177/0899764009354322 Relationship Dimensions

Hon and J. Grunig (1999):
Trust
Satisfaction
Commitment
Control mutuality, which measures the balance of power Relationship Cultivation Strategies

Hon & J. Grunig (1999); Kelly (2000,2001)
Access
Positivity
Openness
Assurances
Networking
Sharing of tasks
Keeping promises
Stewardship (reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, relationship nurturing) Coorientation Methodology
(Broom & Dozier, 1990; Kelly, 1998) Coorientation Methodology Continued Four coorientation states (Broom & Dozier, 1990)
Consensus
Dissensus
False consensus
False conflict Research Questions & Hypotheses Organization
(Nonprofits) Publics(Donors):
Annual gift
Major gift donors Relationship dimensions Relationship cultivation strategies Coorientation Measurement RQ1- RQ3; H1-H2 RQ4-RQ6; H3 RQ7-RQ10 Relationship Dimensions

RQ1: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a
favorable rating on the four relationship dimensions?

H1: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than
$10,000), major gift donors will rate the organization-public
relationship more positively on the four relationship dimensions.

H2: The number of donations contributed by the donor to the
nonprofit will be positively correlated to evaluation of the
relationship dimensions.

RQ2: Can participation in the most recent fundraising campaign be
predicted based on the donor’s evaluation of the relationship?

RQ3: To what extent do the Hon and J. Grunig variables adequately
represent the organization-public relationship? Relationship Cultivation Strategies

RQ4: To what extent do donors give the nonprofit organization a favorable rating on the relationship cultivation strategies?

H3: Compared to annual gift donors (i.e., those who give less than $10,000), major gift donors will rate the relationship cultivation strategies more positively.

RQ5: Of the symmetrical relationship cultivation strategies proposed by public relations scholars, which are the most influential in terms of their effect on donors’ evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization?


RQ6: Do annual gift and major gift donors experience the
relationship cultivation strategies differently in terms of influencing their evaluation of the relationship with the nonprofit organization? Coorientation Measurement RQ7: To what extent does the fundraising team and donors agree/disagree on the evaluation of their nonprofit-donor relationship?

RQ8: To what extent does fundraising team and donors perceive agreement/ disagreement between themselves and the other side on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising team and donors accurate/inaccurate in predicting the other side’s views on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship?

RQ10: What coorientation state exists between the fundraising team and donors on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? Instrument design:

Nine-point Likert-Scale
Relationship dimensions- Hon & J. Grunig (1999)
Relationship cultivation strategies- Hon & J. Grunig (1999); Ki (2006); Hung (2002); Kelly (2000,2001)
Own view & estimate of the other side's view
Personal information- gender; age; giving history etc. Data analysis:

Mean and standard deviation; One-way ANOVA;Pearson's r and Multiple Regression;Structural Equation Modeling;
Independent t-tests etc. Four Contributions Agreement;
Positive RQ8: To what extent does fundraising team and donors perceive
agreement/ disagreement between themselves and the other side
on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? RQ9: To what extent are the fundraising team and donors accurate/inaccurate in predicting the other side’s views on evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? Both generally accurate
Donors underestimated the views of fundraisers
Fundraisers significantly overestimated the views of donors RQ 10: What coorientation states exists between the fundraising team and charitable donors on the evaluation of the nonprofit-donor relationship? State of consensus Measurement Approaches

Traditional- one organization
New approach- multiple organizations Refining previous relationship dimensions
Adding new cultivation strategies
Measuring both sides of organization-public relationship
Measuring the organization-public relationship across multiple organizations For Future Studies

About coorientation measurement:

1) Deep discussion about fundraising team's division of work
2) Including decision-makers of higher levels in the evaluation of organization

3) Comparison between major gift donors and annual giving donors
4) Waters: planned giving donors; e-Philanthropy
5) Alternative classification of donors (personality, habits of building relationships may differ)

6) Measuring relationship based on behaviors What do you think lead to the difference in perceived agreement between donors and fundraising team?
What would be the implication for practice? Agreement Perceived agreement Accuracy Coorientation state About multiple organizations approach

1) Waters: beyond healthcare sector; involving hospitals of various sizes

2) Balance between diversity and similarity For Future Studies Continued Discussion Questions II What is the role of fundraisers? Can they represent the decision-makers in the organizations? or are they just boundary spanner (keeping one foot inside the organization and one foot outside in the community)

To gain a more comprehensive evaluation from the organization, should evaluations of dominant coalition be included as well? Discussion Questions I Source: http://www.richardwaters.org/researchinterests.htm Now let's Welcome Dr. Waters! PhD, University of Florida; MS, Syracuse University; ABJ, University of Georgia

Public Relations professor and consultant to Fortune 500 companies and Philanthropy 400 nonprofit organizations

Specialties: Fundraising strategy, Communication campaigns, Market research Assistant Professor of Marketing and Public Relations University of San Francisco 2011-Present

Assistant Professor of Public Relations North Carolina State University 2007-2011 Resource:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/richard-d-waters-ph-d/1/84a/39a
http://www.richardwaters.org/researchinterests.htm "procademic" Richard D. Waters
Full transcript