Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart 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
Public Relations and Fundraising_Oral Presentation
Transcript of Public Relations and Fundraising_Oral Presentation
San Francisco General Hospital
Marin General Hospital
Children's Hospital and Research Center
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
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):
Control mutuality, which measures the balance of power Relationship Cultivation Strategies
Hon & J. Grunig (1999); Kelly (2000,2001)
Sharing of tasks
Stewardship (reciprocity, responsibility, reporting, relationship nurturing) Coorientation Methodology
(Broom & Dozier, 1990; Kelly, 1998) Coorientation Methodology Continued Four coorientation states (Broom & Dozier, 1990)
False conflict Research Questions & Hypotheses Organization
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
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:
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.richardwaters.org/researchinterests.htm "procademic" Richard D. Waters