An annual event is held, well annually. Volunteers run this event. Sponsors give money to the event. Often sponsors are volunteers. Historically, sponsors who volunteer have had a job of high importance (running a portion of the event). Over the years, some sponsors have sponsored less and volunteered more, and a few to the point of not donating any money, but instead are providing quality volunteers for the portion they are running. Because those who used to raise money don't now, new sponsors are on board giving lots and lots and lots of money. These sponsors also want to volunteer, and want a job of high importance (running the event with new quality volunteers that they bring).
Now, all events are covered. Although there are new sponsors, there are no new events. What do you do?
1. Give the new sponsor a less prominant (though no less important) job? This could result in the new sponsor becoming bored, feling underapreciated, etc and so he may not bring in as much money next year. The new sponsor also can see what other sponsors get to do.
2. Give the new sponsor the ex-sponsor's volunteers job? Though not giving money, the ex-sponsor still volunteers and runs the event well with his group of volunteers.
~~working together is not an option -- this are big-wig important people who like to be in charge~~
Either way, you are going to step on someone's toes. What should you do?
I know what I think, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
7 comments:
Non-profs have to follow the money. If your volunteers who are great have stopped donating but still expect the perks, they dont understand why they got the perks in the first place. My solution would be to give the best jobs to the most qualified/highest paying or potential to pay people, if they want them.
People need boundaries. If they think they can get the same bonuses for less effort or expense on their part they will give less and less until the bonuses they want are taken away. Go machiavellian on them.
You should give the important jobs to the people with more experience and demonstrated commitment to volunteering. Bigwigs will still donate for the good publicity and the tax deduction. You may have originally given the good jobs to people for the wrong reasons, but they've been doing them for a long time, they know what to do, and they obviously have some passion for the cause. Those are not the people you want to alienate.
There will always be corporate donations as long as there is a section 170 in the Internal Revenue Code.
Maybe you can do other things to assuage the big donors - like give them fancy titles or take their pictures, something that makes them feel important without actually having to make them important?
Are these positions that we are talking about really that difficult? Is there really going to be a drop in performance if you change the entrenched freeloaders? I sincerely doubt it. People who are taking the "glory positions" without paying for them should not be allowed to continue to do so. They only offer continuity. And who is to say that fresh blood will not lead to a better job done since evidently these free-loaders are taking their position for granted.
I have to wonder why the old sponsors became no sponsors and why they couldn't be sponsors still.
Without knowing the whole story I would have to go for new blood. In my experience with these events that the same people in the same job will do the same thing year after year.
As for the comment that sponsors will always sponsor I have to beg to differ. I organized an annual race for a few years and sponsors needed to be coddled. There are lots of charities and lots of ways that people can donate their money and while the tax break is nice, they have to feel like they are getting their money's worth or that at least their money/sponorship means something.
oh..and the best way to do this is to get them knee deep involved.
I agree and disagree with much of what has been said.
Firstly, non-profits do have to follow the money, but there is a lot of money and if some one is being a pain, we can get the money from someone else.
Secondly, there are a lot of really great and dedicated people who can afford to donate their time and expertise, but can't afford to donate money.
This is sort of what has happend w/ ex-sponsor guy. The sponsors have their companies sponser. For years, he got his company to give us money, but he's now retired. He is still a great volunteer. I, for one, do not want to loose him and his group of 30 volunteers at my event that takes 1000 volunteers to run. I certaintly would not call him a free loader.
Similarly, I volunteer for alot of organizations, but I give virtually no money to them. I donate a lot of time and hours, and I do not want the shit jobs 'cuz some big-wig came in with a check. I should not be penalized becuase I don't have that kind of dough.
The positions are really that important. Unfortunately I cannot get into detail (for anonyminity's (sp?) sake. But, each prize position is in charge of about 30 volunteers that day and making sure things run smooothly for aobut 300 participants.
That said, new blood IS very important, and just becuase someone gives money doesn't mean he won't be a great volunteer.
Basically, the system we have set up is a bad one. It was created in the beginning as an insentive, but no where is it a rule that to get one of these "positions" you have to give X dollars. If it did, we'd just say, "Joe, it's time for you to go." As it is, I do not see that we can kick "Joe" out.
So...what do to with Mr. New Money...Obviously this relationshipo needs to be coddled (is that a word?)becuase we do not want to lose him. (and, by the way, he is not a pain, but awesome in his own right).
The way of thinking must be changed and presented differently to the new money people. We should not still indicate they will get a certain type of volunteer job. In truth, there are other jobs throughout the day that are much more coveted by people who have done various things at this event.
Still, in this particular situation, the damage has been done, and I have no answer. I just know I'm not going to kick ex-sponser Joe out on the grounds that although he does a fantastic job, he doesn't bring in enough money.
Fortunately, finding an answer to this cunumdrum is not my problem.
Thanks for all the great comments.
Post a Comment