Can we try something complicated for a change?

Have you read Lewis Cullman's book Can't Take It With You: The Art of Making and Giving Money?


I read it a few years ago.  Definitely worthwhile if you're a fundraiser.


But what really fascinated me wasn't the "Giving" section.  It was the "Making" part.


Lewis Cullman got rich, apparently, by innovating the "leveraged buyout."  He explains the mechanics of that process in great detail.  Frankly, I didn't understand a word of it.


But I was still fascinated. 


What I found so mesmerizing is that he and his partners decided to do something overwhelmingly complicated (and, I guess, unprecedented) which involved huge sums of money, most of which they didn't get to keep.  When the smoke cleared, there were still some millions left for him.


Anyway, I was thinking about Cullman's book on the subway today.


I thought of it because I was trying to read a fundraising magazine, which shall remain nameless.  (But I'll tell you it wasn't Fundraising Success.  I like Fundraising Success magazine.  More about that in a future post.)


I say "trying" to read because it was just too boring.  Everything seemed so self evident and tired.  


Look, I agree that we need to treat our donors like human beings and not pieces of data.  I know that we need to remember to say thank you soon and often.  I know how important it is to listen to our prospects, and not talk at them.  Read foundation guidelines; consider corporate business strategies when approaching them for a major ask; keep our messages short and relevant, especially in these challenging economic times.


And I admit that we can all use the occasional reminder about these and other fundamental points.


But isn't there something more challenging we can write about in this profession?


For the most part, no. Because we insist on sticking to basics.  And there just isn't much to talk about regarding those basics -- unless you're new to the profession.  (In which case you should take my course, which will cover all the basics in thorough detail.)


That's what made me think about Cullman.  He dared to do something new and complicated and it made all the difference.


I believe that the nonprofit world is petrified of complexity.  The only "business deals" we like involve at least 90% "profit" margins -- you give us money, we'll say thank you and put your name on a sign.  If someone proposes a sophisticated deal involving multiple parties where our nonprofit, for argument's sake, will gross a million and net a quarter of that, I daresay the vast majority of directors/CFO's/boards would reject it out of hand. 


Too risky, too little return, and even ethically questionable. (Though it seems to me that a 25% profit margin would be just fine for the vast majority of for-profit businesses out there.)


So instead we stick to the same dozen or so tactics


I say that it's time for the nonprofit world to embrace some risk and complexity -- and for our foundation friends to encourage it.


Go ahead, tell me you disagree.  I dare you!