Long-form thinking in today's short-form world

I've written a lot about having a cogent strategy when you start a new nonprofit or small business. I'm beginning to think that the market for that advice is as dead as a fossilized woolly mammoth.

  

I get that in the age of information overload, you have about 7 seconds to capture your target's attention. I've written my share of SEO-friendly 50 character action posts and catchy sales pages.

All that's fine, well, and good, as long as there is some actual thought behind your hastily thumbed tweet.

The problem is that it seems as though our brains are now in permanent short-form mode.

Recently a twenty-something wanna-be nonprofit founder/entrepreneur asked me to come up with some content for their Twitter feed. As she put it, "something that will show people we care about "X" and need their money to help."

So I did what any consultant would do…I asked her to outline her value proposition or mission and vision statement so I could better represent her organization.

She didn't have anything, beyond the idea that if she could separate enough people from enough money, she could "help."

No budget, no program/product outline, not even a firm idea whether she wanted to be a nonprofit or a for-profit with a philanthropic division.

Her reasoning?  She did know that it takes money to make money, and she didn't have any, so she figured she'd get the money first and figure out what to do with it later. 

I'm not sure if she was simply naïve or she'd gotten her hands on some really good weed, but that ain't gonna cut it.

Maybe it's old-fashioned, but believe it or not, people actually want some substance available before they invest in anything.

 

If you want other people's money, you have to provide value.  It's just that simple.

As boring as it might be, you have to have a plan, objectives, results and at least some understanding of why people purchase or support anything.

In short, this business thingie is a lot of real, brain-busting hard work.

Hopefully, there are still people out there that can think in those terms. 

Hello? Is anyone in charge here?

As a grant and proposal writer, I find myself asking that question a lot, and too often the answer is no.

Oh sure, there may be someone assigned to answer questions or provide data, but no one seems to be able to make a firm decision. In fact, it happens so often that it has become one of my top questions when qualifying a client…what is your approval process for accepting a grant application or LOI deliverable? The least desirable answer is that it will be "reviewed by the staff and/or board".

The bane of any grant writer's existence is the serial editing process. That means you submit a proposal or LOI for review and it makes the rounds throughout the organization not once but many times.

You know you are in trouble when you get back multiple edit requests signed by six different people and they target six different goals.

What you have then is six different people all defending their piece of the turf. That doesn't move the process forward, and it may indicate to the grantor that your planning process is not effective as a means to provide long-lasting outcomes.

Understand, I don't have a problem with the people or the input. It's the lack of coherent planning that serial editing represents.

With rare exception, grantors focus on supporting a proposal that targets one of their must-have results. Let's say  they are into acquiring housing for the homeless. They are looking for ways to assist you in putting that roof over someone's head.

While many conditions contribute to homelessness, the grantor's ultimate goal is reducing the number of homeless people. However, in your organizations serial editing process, one person wants to include funding for substance abuse counseling, another wants to provide job training, another wants to address domestic violence, while someone else is focused on acquiring properties for temporary housing.

Only the last will meet the goal of this specific grantor. That doesn't mean the other three are not worthy of funding, or couldn't be presented as individual programs or phases, but they don't provide the physical roof.

Someone needs to be in charge of maintaining a focus and assigning a priority to the specific needs that align with both the grantor and grantee's mission.

In the example above, the physical building meets the grantors guidelines. All of the other peripheral elements can be targeted once the person is safely housed. That might require writing more grants and applying to several grantors.

It very seldom happens that one grantor will support every facet or nuance of fulfilling your over-arching mission. As a grant writer or adviser, it isn't up to me to  prioritize your needs. The best I can do is make suggestions that will strengthen your chances of winning funding.

The decision on whose interests or needs are most important within your organization at any given point in time needs to made before you approach a funding prospect. Then, when you review an RFP or a proposal one person should be able to make a decision and evaluate the proposal or grantor on that basis.

That saves you time and money by allowing me to provide you with a quality targeted proposal or assist you in finding appropriate grantor prospects to approach, and more importantly, it maximizes your chances of winning funding.

Make a plan and put someone in charge of it.  It will make both of our jobs easier and more productive.