Helen Brown Group

By Leave a Comment

A Peek Into Exclusive Golf Club Memberships

Sometimes when you’re in the middle of researching someone, you never know what piece of information is going to provide you with insight into their wealth. This week my colleague Heather Hoke wrote a treat of an article on exclusive golf clubs and how much a person would need to spend (or earn) to belong. Enjoy! ~Helen

We frequently associate private golf clubs with wealth and privilege. What comes to mind is perfectly manicured grounds, beautiful scenery, a massive clubhouse, parking valets, and members sipping cocktails in a room with an abundance of dark paneling. There is a high price to membership for such clubs with elite rosters, with initiation fees that can reach seven figures, and wait lists that can be years long.

The most exclusive golf clubs are quite secretive about the cost of membership and the process to become a member. Most are by invitation only and require that an existing member (or two or three) refer someone for membership. Then the Board often evaluates each candidate as well.

Among the costs to join a club are an initiation fee, annual dues, and a monthly minimum spend for food and drink. Some clubs also divide up the cost of grounds maintenance among its members.

How do you find out if someone is a member of an exclusive golf club?

I use GHIN (Golf Handicap and Information Network) which is a handicapping service provided by the U.S. Golf Association. There are more than 14,000 participating clubs and more than 2 million golfers using GHIN, and usage has expanded outside the U.S., too. It’s a great resource to check if an individual is a golfer and what clubs they are members of, and it is also a way to find possible connections to your organization. Here are some of the priciest clubs:

Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta, GA
  • Initiation fee: $250,000-$500,000; Annual dues: $10,000+
  • Home to the prestigious Masters tournament and voted the #1 Platinum Club of the World, Golf & Country Clubs for 2018-19, membership is strictly invitation only. In fact, making it known that you are interested in being a member is a sure way not to be invited! The club’s 300 members are not allowed to speak publicly about club policy.
The Bridge in Bridgehampton, NY
  • Initiation fee: $1 million
  • It has only about 150 members and is not a traditional club. It has a contemporary clubhouse with a relaxed atmosphere where wearing jeans or a cap are encouraged.
Cherokee Town and Country Club in Atlanta, GA
  • Initiation fee: $200,000; Annual dues: $7,500
  • To be considered for membership, a recommendation must be made by at least four members.
The Chicago Golf Club in Wheaton, IL
  • Fees: Unknown
  • One of the five founding clubs of the U.S. Golf Association in 1894, this club limits its members to about 100.
Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, MD
  • Initiation fee: $150,000
  • Founded in 1924, members of Congress and U.S. Presidents are among the membership. There is a 10-year wait list.
The Country Club in Brookline, MA
  • Fees: Unknown
  • This was the first country club in the U.S., starting as an equestrian and social club in 1882 (golf being introduced in 1893). It is surrounded by fence and has a guard house with a “guard” that is a mannequin named “Woody.” It has been selected to host the 2022 U.S. Open.
Cypress Point Club in Pebble Beach, CA
  • The fees are determined by yearly running costs which are divided between members regardless of how often they use the club. It has 200-250 members and on average, only 30 golfers play a day.
East Hampton Golf Club in East Hampton, NY
  • Initiation fee: $400,000
  • Members must either have a net worth of $1 million+ (excluding homes and cars) or earn more than $200,000 a year.
Fishers Island Club in Fishers Island, NY
  • Fees: Unknown
  • It is only accessible by ferry or private plane.
Friar’s Head in Riverhead, NY
  • Initiation fee: $250,000+
  • Described by some as feeling like a new-age luxury hotel, it has its own helicopter approach and landing pad.
Hillcrest Country Club in Los Angeles, CA
  • Initiation fee: $185,000-$275,000
  • A home visit and tax returns are requirements for membership.
Liberty National Golf Course in Jersey City, NJ
  • Initiation fee: $450,000-$500,000; Annual dues: $29,000
  • Across from Manhattan, it has a marina and private vessel for its 200 members. It cost $250 million to build, making it the most expensive golf course ever built.
The Los Angeles Country Club in Los Angeles, CA
  • Fees: Unknown
  • It’s considered ultra-exclusive and has a strict no ‘movie-star’ policy. It will be the location for the 2023 U.S. Open.
Nanea Golf Club in Kailua-Kona, HI
  • Fees: Unknown
  • Since its creation in 2003, it has become one of the most exclusive, secluded and secretive clubs in the world. Membership is by invitation only and it is even difficult to find by GPS.
National Golf Links of America in Southampton, NY
  • Initiation fee: $150,000+; Annual dues: $10,000
  • Opened in 1909 by a group of Wall Street executives, it has earned the nickname “America’s Snootiest Golf Course.”
Oakmont Country Club in Oakmont, PA
  • Initiation fee: $75,000+
  • Apart from Augusta National, Oakmont has hosted more major Championships than any other course in the U.S. and is considered one of the toughest courses in the world.
Pine Valley Golf Club in Pine Valley, NJ
  • Fees: Unknown
  • The member list is a closely guarded secret of the Board, who are the only ones allowed to extend invitations to potential members. The membership is male-only, with women allowed to play on Sundays.
Sebonack Golf Club in Southampton, NY
  • Initiation fee: $650,000-$1 million
  • Membership is capped at 200 at this club on 300-acres of waterfront.
Seminole Golf Club in Juno Beach, FL
  • Fees: Unknown
  • With only 300 members, it is so exclusive it even turned down golf pro Jack Nicklaus. Members get to take part in an annual tournament where members are paired with pro golfers.
Sherwood Country Club in Thousand Oaks, CA
  • Initiation fee: $160,000-$200,000; Annual dues: $7,300
  • It has around 475 members, including many Hollywood stars.
Shinnecock Hills Golf Club in Southampton, NY
  • Fees: Unknown
  • Host of the 2018 U.S. Open, it is the #3 Platinum Club of the World, Golf & Country Clubs 2018-19. Members can invite guests, but guest tee times usually fill up months in advance and there is a $350 green fee.
Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, NY
  • Initiation fee: $200,000+
  • It will host the 2020 U.S. Open.

This is just a glimpse into some of the priciest golf clubs. Do you have any to add to the list? What exclusive clubs are near you?

By Leave a Comment

A snippet of usefulness from the World Wealth Report

Prospect research is an artfully scientific mixture of fact and conjecture. We spend a lot of time delving into sources of record like newspapers, SEC documents, real estate records, contact reports and other records from our own databases. Then we add informed opinion like white papers, rich lists, and our own experience. If we’re lucky, we can include some data science into the mix.

As we mature in the profession, what we become comfortable with is a curious amalgamation of truth and speculation that we use to rank, score, and predict which groups of people or individuals are likeliest to give to our organization.

It’s not a perfect science yet, but over the years we prospect development pros have gotten pretty good at uncovering useful information and helping organizations use it successfully. According to a recent MarketSmart major gift benchmark study, 84% of nonprofits that use prospect research meet their fundraising goals every year. Only 65% of nonprofits who don’t use prospect research meet their goals (which, you could argue is still pretty good odds, but why not be better prepared and 20% more likely to succeed?)

Last week I highlighted the Fidelity Donor Advised Fund Charitable Giving Report, which is worth adding to your reading list if you haven’t already (especially if your nonprofit type is in one of the top 5 giving priorities).

This week I want to highlight a key graphic in the 2019 Capgemini World Wealth Report (WWR) and add a little context.

In the graphic we can see the different categories of assets that high net worth individuals (HNWI) worldwide tend to hold, and the percentage of their assets that each category is.

How can we use this?

Research on people who live outside of the US is traditionally more difficult than domestic research, so any piece of information on international prospects is potentially useful. But specifically, let’s say you know one piece of the puzzle; that your French prospect has two properties beside their home. Once you find the value (or relative value) of those two properties, you know from the chart that those properties make up 14.5% of their total wealth. Calculate a back-of-the-envelope total visible asset figure et voilà.

No, it’s not hard, specific, factual, information about the individual you are researching, but it is another piece of the puzzle that you can use to get a less fuzzy picture of your prospective donor.

Something else I found interesting in the report was the discussion on how those asset allocations have changed since last year. Nervous HNW investors (whose wealth decreased last year) are moving their money out of equities and into cash, cash equivalents, fixed-income investments, and alternative investments like commodities and private equity. Does this point toward another global recession? Maybe not, but it sure doesn’t suggest that they’re bullish.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the World Wealth Report, and if you found anything interesting in it that you’d like to share here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Leave a Comment

How GIS mapping can improve your real estate searching

This week I’m delighted to welcome Senior Researcher Josh Ostroski back to The Intelligent Edge. If you’re a long-time reader, you’ll know that Josh is our go-to guy on real estate research here at HBG, and this week he has a great article to share on a very clever way to find property information. Take it away, Josh! ~Helen

I had planned to write a blog post about some of the things I’ve learned in my 15 years as a Prospect Researcher since all I ever seem to write about is real estate. However, I’ve been noticing a new trend while researching properties that I think would be helpful for everyone – Assessor GIS Mapping – so I decided to go for a real estate theme for a blog post again.

Geographic Information System, or GIS mapping for short, is not necessarily a new technology, but I’ve noticed that it has popped up on most of the assessor sites now. I’ve found it so helpful that I wanted to share it so that more in the prospect development world are aware of it.

What is GIS Mapping?

GIS Mapping allows you to search for a property by address or by location and you will be able to see the property lines and, in most cases at least, who owns it and basic information about the property. Like all assessor sites, not all counties in the country share the same information and some are more robust than others.

Each site has its unique features and allows you to see different information, so be patient and play with each county (or sometimes state) sites. Even if it doesn’t give you all the information you need, you can at least have a visual of what the property looks like. Then you can use what you know and other resources to find out more specific information about the property. Often times the traditional assessor site will have more robust information on its site about the property.

Here is an example of what the map looks like. Each separate lot is outlined and you can simply click on the lot (be aware that some GIS Maps require you click on a tool in order for the assessor information to pop up), and the information will come up.

How is GIS Mapping Helpful?

I always use this feature when I’m looking at a property that has multiple lots; that way I can see what the property actually looks like. I’ve also found it helpful when someone may have multiple lots, but they are owned by different LLC’s or by family members.

Another way it is useful is when a mailing address and a property address don’t match. Sometimes that could be because the property is split between different streets or the owners bought an adjacent lot at a later date and use that mailing address.

Below is a screenshot from the San Miguel County, Colorado, GIS Mapping site. The property in question was located at 115 Francisco, Telluride, CO, which is Tom Cruise’s estate. It has been on the market for $59M.

What this shows us is that the property is owned by Client 2177 Living Trust, which if you run the property report shows an address in Los Angeles, CA, that is home to Chapman Bird Grey & Tessler, a Hollywood business management firm that Tom Cruise has been associated with. The other thing it shows is the properties adjacent to the main home that are owned by the same entity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this example, the adjacent properties are owned by the same name, but I have often found the names can be different but have the same mailing address. One example I came across just the other day was a home in New Jersey that consisted of six separate lots; each lot owned by a different limited liability company (LLC) (ex: 123 Briar Lane Acquisiton LLC, 129 Briar Lane Acquisiton LLC).

I always use a satellite view when using the GIS Mapping tool (I actually always use satellite view in life); that way you can really see what the home and property look like. You can also sometimes tell if a home was recently renovated or differs from what the assessment records indicate, which could be due to a delay in new information being uploaded.

Another example of how this has been very useful was a request from a gift officer after a meeting with a prospect. The prospect had mentioned in passing that he was selling some land he had accumulated over the years to a developer. It turned out he owned dozens of separate lots, all under different LLC’s and many with different mailing addresses. By using the GIS Map, I was able to click on all the lots in the area and determine if they were his or not.

He was indeed selling them off and to a developer that was building a new golf course community. We were also able to tell which lots he had recently sold and for how much. With traditional resources, it would have taken me much much longer to do and I don’t think it would have been as accurate.

How to Find GIS Mapping Tools

NETROnline.com is a great resource for individual assessor sites, including listing GIS Mapping links. The assessor sites are under the Public Records Online tab.

You can also do a search for “[County Name] Assessor GIS Map” and you will probably have luck. I’ve rarely found a county that does not have this capability. There are some outliers: Massachusetts, for example, does not do it by county, but the entire state has one map you can search.

Let me know what you think of GIS mapping tools, and what other interesting tools you use to find real estate information.

By Leave a Comment

Quantifying Crowdfunding: Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress

A few weeks ago, I received a request from a blog reader:

“I would be interested in an article on the topic of social media fundraising and prospect research. For example, a prospect giving to a Facebook birthday fundraiser for Save the Whales. My understanding is that donations to something like that won’t appear on iWave under the donor’s name because the donations are grouped together. Any ideas on how to quantify donations you may see on someone’s social media account?”

I know that this is a topic that has interested Brent Grinna of EverTrue for a long time, so I asked Brent if he’d be willing to tackle this question. I’m delighted that he said yes! Thanks, Brent, for sharing your thoughts here! ~Helen

$24,000 to monitor the health of honeybees. $10,000 to bring water filters to a girls’ school in Bangladesh. $250,000 to build an educational therapy center for special needs children in a remote area of India.

Each crowdfunding success story is completely unique. What they all have in common is their reliance on a large number of donors giving small amounts…and spreading the word organically.

Crowdfunding has changed the face of philanthropy in recent years and left many traditional fundraising institutions wondering how best to harness its power and mitigate its risks. Nonprofits around the world have successfully launched crowdfunding campaigns to send student groups on mission-driven trips abroad, support a specific research project, or cover a unique, one-off initiative. Many institutions have embraced this uncertain fundraising approach and reaped significant benefits, both for donor engagement and for major gift pipeline.

The authentic, actionable, impactful nature of crowdfunding campaigns is what makes them so compelling. Friends, coworkers, and family are the donor base, and we are intrinsically driven by a sense of community and a desire to join the crowd. Especially if the crowd shares a common commitment to make the world a better place.

At EverTrue, we’ve been especially proud of many of our advancement friends for holding their noses and jumping into the crowdfunding game. In some ways, it has been a counter-cultural move, but so many organizations now have a myriad of success stories on smaller projects and programs that would not have been possible without crowdfunding, with donors that would have otherwise been disengaged (take the University of Oregon, for example).

Now that many nonprofits have embraced crowdfunding and are currently coordinating and managing a number of campaigns, we’re collectively faced with the question of how to identify, quantify, and steward donors to crowdfunding campaigns?

We struggle right alongside our fundraising partners to answer this question. Part of the struggle is due to the fact that many crowdfunding donors choose to be anonymous or donate under a pseudonym. And if the campaign is not managed by an advancement employee who has established a direct link between the crowdfunding software and the school’s CRM, identifying donors is even more elusive.

We may never arrive at the moment where we can identify every person who has donated to a crowdfunding campaign. But, think about this: perhaps we don’t actually need or even want to.

Donors who give to crowdfunding campaigns are exploring a new means of supporting their favorite nonprofit or cause. If they’ve chosen to give anonymously to a small-scale cause they care about, it wouldn’t be donor-centric to move that individual through the traditional donor pipeline by mailing them letters of thanks, adding them to telefund lists, and listing them on the printed donor roster.

Rather than give in to the “Quick! Quantify!” urge, remember first and foremost that these donors are engaging authentically and organically with a cause that resonates with them.

Before jumping to examine crowdfunding campaigns through traditional fundraising lens, fight that impulse. And instead, remain curious. What about these crowdfunding campaigns is working, and what isn’t? How are previously disengaged donors reacting? How many anonymous donors are there? Does the crowdfunding campaign have a defined purpose and impact statement? And, how can these insights inform the more traditional fundraising approaches of our development offices?

The suggestion to remain curious isn’t a decree to sit back and let it all unfold. There are ways to identify engaged donors and begin understanding the crowdfunding donor profile. Start by taking lessons from these campaigns and replicating them in the more familiar and comfortable annual/regular giving space (all with the vision to build your major gift pipeline). Here are some suggestions for that:

  • Ensure that crowdfunding campaigns are shared on your school’s professionally managed social media sites. Track likes, reactions, shares and comments on campaign posts. Use this valuable data to build insights on crowdfunding donors, and route them to annual fund or major gift portfolios, as appropriate.
  • Take note of the powerful effect of peer-to-peer fundraising, especially on social media. Who are your social media champions? Which of your alumni, members, friends, patients, etc. are highly engaged on your nonprofit’s social media accounts? How can you earn the respect and trust of these champions so that they can help to spread the word about your nonprofit’s longer-term fundraising priorities by sharing relevant content across their social networks? (Look to Oklahoma State for insights on how they increased donations to the marching band by 40%.)
  • Do not miss the opportunity to learn about the programs that are being supported by successful crowdfunding campaigns. These are causes, however small, that your constituents genuinely care about. Do your research; meet with campus partners; discover whether there is a program or project that needs longer-term, more sustainable support.
  • Bring the crowdfunding model to a larger scale. Work with your Development Communications team to create inspiring, relevant content on that program area. Share it across your organization’s social media platforms. Track results. And take action on every engaged constituent. (Does this sound like a larger scale crowdfunding campaign? It should!)

We understand that the fact that we can’t pin down and call every donor to a crowdfunding campaign feels inherently like a missed opportunity. But rather than try to make crowdfunding fit into the traditional fundraising model at your organization, think of it as an incredibly useful pilot program that you can learn so much from. Remember: change is the only constant in life!

We are EverTrue are working closely with Facebook to explore the back-end capabilities of Facebook Fundraiser for gathering useful donor data and insights. There is more to come, but suffice it to say that we look forward to sharing what we learn with all of you!

In the meantime, don’t miss the opportunity to track engagement with crowdfunding campaigns on your nonprofit’s social media pages. But by the same token, don’t spend frustrated hours trying to identify and quantify every donor that made it possible for your school’s a cappella group to travel overseas for a competition. Instead, learn what made this mini-campaign so successful, and replicate it on a larger scale using the well-established resources of an advancement shop. (UVA took this approach and funded two $3M professorships.)

All the while, keep in mind that tapping in donor interests and acquiring donors via targeted campaigns is the first step towards building long-term philanthropic relationship.

Curiosity will build a bridge between the old and the new. Good luck (to all of us)!

Brent Grinna founded EverTrue in 2010. He is CEO of the company, which has 50 employees and is based in the beautiful seaport area of Boston, MA. Brent is on Twitter at @BrentGrinna.

By Leave a Comment

7 Highlights from the Knight Frank Wealth Report

One of the yearly reports that sends a tingle up the collective spines of the prospect research community is The Wealth Report from Knight Frank. The 2019 edition came out this week, and my copy is already highlighted and sticky-noted – how ‘bout yours?

If you haven’t had a chance to download and read it yet, here are seven highlights I didn’t want you to miss… [Read more…]

By Leave a Comment

How the wealthy say ‘I do’ to philanthropy

Since June is the most popular month for the pledging of troths, it got me to thinking about The Giving Pledge, which is an organization of billionaires who pledge to give away 50% of their fortunes while they’re still alive.

I realized that I hadn’t really heard much about the Giving Pledge when it resurfaced in the news recently with MacKenzie Bezos’s sign-up. That could be because interest in the club seems to have waned a bit in the decade since Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet splashed out the announcement at its founding. 122 people signed on in the first four years, but only 68 have committed in the five years that have followed. [Read more…]

By Leave a Comment

The Unease of the One Percent

We talk about “the 1 percent” a lot in our line of work. Yesterday, the HBG Book Club met to talk about chapter one of Uneasy Street; The Anxieties of Affluence by sociologist Rachel Sherman, and what spurred most of our conversation was the ambivalence high net worth people had toward their wealth.

In the book, Sherman interviewed wealthy Manhattan-ites to learn their attitudes towards their wealth and what they felt it means to be considered wealthy. She recognized a distinct pattern over time, and shares two distinct categories she observed depending on how people spoke about their wealth: upwardly- and downwardly-oriented attitudes.

The “downward-oriented” wealthy share an unease with having so many resources in a time of stark income disparity. Sherman found that this group are more likely to have inherited their wealth or have come from more modest origins. Most are not in a high-pressure earning environment. More liberal politically than the upwardly-oriented, people in this group are be more likely to mix with a more racially and income diverse group of friends. We posited that people with these attitudes might fall into the shirtsleeves-rolled-up volunteer-donor category.

The “upwardly-oriented” wealthy, she wrote, tend toward the attitude of “sure, I’m comfortable, but not like that guy. He’s really wealthy. I’m middle class compared to him.” There aren’t many inheritors in this group; they tend to be earners who make their money in finance, real estate, business, or corporate law. More conservative politically than the downwardly-oriented, their charity involvement may be less hands-on and more focused on opportunities to network with others.

As we were discussing this chapter, I was thinking about what it actually means to be a one-percenter, and if the attitudes of Manhattan one-percenters toward their money are the same as Mercer Island’s, or England’s, or if each locale’s attitude is like Darwin’s finches – unique to that island.

Naturally, I decided to do some research to see what it means to be a one-percenter elsewhere than New York City. Unsurprisingly, it really depends on your geography. Someone working in a senior leadership position in a large nonprofit in New York, Boston, or San Francisco would probably qualify as a one-percenter in Arkansas, where in 2017 the bar was set at annual income of $237,428.

Before seeing the article, I had assumed that NYC would be the top, but Connecticut actually beat out New York by a mile, $659,979 to $517,557. Even New Jersey got New York’s upper hand, at $547,737. What’s also fascinating to see in the article is that the average annual income for members of the one percent in each state is usually much, much higher than the threshold.

What we discussed in our book club was being aware of these geographic differences and, as always, understanding the context of where our prospects are in their life – living in an aspirational neighborhood with two kids in private school, or two-income, childless and nearing retirement. Taking Sherman’s observations into consideration as well – whether prospects are upwardly- or downwardly-oriented – may also provide us with help as we plan how to involve and steward major donors and volunteers.

Are you reading this book as well? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

By Leave a Comment

A hole in the water

I recently became the owner of the rear half of a tandem kayak, and what I very quickly learned is that the adage “a boat is a hole in the water that you throw money into” is no joke. After paddles, roof racks, waterproof bags, storage racks, water shoes, skirts, and other must-have sundries (and this is a KAYAK, mind you) I’m beginning to get an idea of what yacht owners have to go through.

Well, okay, what yacht owners’ employees have to go through. The ones who oversee the dingy in the 15th storage hold. But still. I get it. There’s a lot of stuff beyond just the boat that you have to account for. Some more than others.

One thing I don’t have to do (that yacht owners do) is register the boat/yacht. That noise you heard last week was a team cheer that went up in our company chat room when our colleague, Kelly, discovered that Lexis Nexis is now featuring Watercraft as a searchable field.

LexisNexis says:

  [t]he Watercraft file contains Boat Registrations and Titles for 38 states (25 updating and 13 historical (including US Coast Guard Merchant Vessels)).

Updating coverage includes 25 states:

AK, AL, AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MS, MO, NE, NM, ND, OH, OR, TX, VA, WA, WI, and WY.

Historical coverage includes 13 states + U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Vessels:

CO, IL, MD, MN, MT, NV, NH, NY, NC, SC, TN, UT, WV, and US Coast Guard Merchant Vessels.”

So that’s exciting, eh? Even more exciting is that the records include (among other things) the owner’s name and mailing address; hull number; description (year, make, model and length); registration number, issue date, expiration date and status; title number; title status, title issue date and title type; and vessel make, use, year, type and length.

Most of those fields are searchable as well as some additional ones, like company name.

I know! Awesome, right?

But wait, there’s more

For due diligence research, you can search the US Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange database to learn if there has been any contact between the Coast Guard and the vessel you’re researching – and what the nature of that contact was. It’s not a detailed report by any means, but I did learn that in 2015 a 38-foot pleasure craft called the ‘Monkey Business’ ran afoul of the Coast Guard in Washington, DC for being a pollution source. (That’s what dump stations are for, mateys).

Interested to learn more about a particular Super Yacht? Check out the database at SuperYachts. You can search by name of the craft or just browse through the entire database. In addition to the general specifications of the yacht, including the designer, builder, and dimensions, there are usually photos of the ship, information about the number of crew on board, and the name of the owner (if known).

What It Really Costs

Owning a superyacht takes a lot more than the couple of hundred bucks I plowed into peripherals for my kayak. I found these articles about the affiliated costs of yacht ownership to be a useful guide to understand that asset in context.

Lightening Round – useful boat-related sites

These five resources (and many more) can be found on the HBG Research Links pages, accessible through the free-with-registration portal on our website.

  • The folks at BoatInfoWorld have compiled a database of over 400,000 vessels, sortable, downloadable, and ranked by county, if you like. King County, WA wins the prize for most boats registered, in case you were wondering. It’s $20/month to access detailed information and use advanced search strategies, but if you search for boats a lot it might be worth it.
  • If you want to race a yacht, you have to register for the race. Check out Yachtscoring.com, where you can select a race, see which yachts are racing in it (“Current Entry List”), the name of each boat’s owner(s), home yacht club/home port, size of the yacht, and more.

What other resources do you find useful when researching yacht owners? Share them here in the comments for everyone to use.

By Leave a Comment

Alert and Prepared

Not long ago, a client confided to me that she was worried that her major gifts team was missing information about their top prospects. She fretted about a recent instance where information had come to light – six months too late – about a dear donor/volunteer that had sold their company to another for a significant amount of money.

Which, from a fundraising standpoint, we all know isn’t great. You’d rather know about these things in real time, or at the very least within the month.

What was worse was that the client felt like they’d missed the opportunity to celebrate with the donor. Selling their company was an event that the donor had mentioned with delight and anticipation – a new chapter was opening in their life. My client felt like the fundraising team had unwittingly blown it. Congratulating the donor half a year later felt lame and tainted with opportunism, which wasn’t the message they wanted to give. [Read more…]

By Leave a Comment

Still Interested? Expanding the Use of Donor Interest Codes

Following the close of UC Berkeley’s last capital campaign in 2013, the campus recognized that the fundraising community needed a better way to understand the interests of current and potential donors if they were going to meet the goals of their next campaign.

The University Development and Alumni Relations team was also given a new priority to identify prospects interested in multidisciplinary institutes, such as the Berkeley Food Institute and the Berkeley Institute for Data Science.

So in 2014, Mallory Lass and Abbey Myszka of UC Berkeley’s Prospect Development team led a working group (which included multiple advancement operations partners) to examine and overhaul their interest coding. They had no idea it would be a project they would still be shepherding nearly five years later!

After hearing their presentation at the Apra conference, I was so interested in their project that I asked Mallory and Abbey to tell us more about it in a blog post so you could hear about it, too. I’m delighted that they said yes! ~Helen

You may have attended our 2016 APRA presentation Got Interest? Improving the Utilization of Donor Interest Codes and are thinking to yourself, “But I thought they finished that project…?!” You would be correct – and it’s also a project that found new legs.

When we first undertook a complete overhaul of our interest coding, the project entailed creating a new data table that was hierarchical in structure (this allows us to capture parent/child/grandchild level data which we can use broadly or narrowly), reviewing data integrity on the nearly 30K existing codes, and creating new processes and a new culture around the way we thought about and documented interest codes.

The focus of this project was our constituents’ outside philanthropic interests, but after talking to other EllucianAdvance users and other institutions such as University of Chicago that were also undertaking their own interest code projects, we realized the value of exploring internal philanthropic interests as well. This would lead us to code interests down to program level specificity. A whole new phase was born!

Since then we have taken ownership of prospect related interests and see this as an ongoing data stewardship and data acquisition project that may never see its “end.” That is both daunting and exhilarating.

The bulk of our efforts over the last five years have been focused on building and maintaining two distinct interest code areas: one to reflect outside philanthropic interests and one for internal interests. Sometimes those overlap, too.

For example, a donor to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art would get an outside philanthropic interest code for Art and Museums, but, depending on other circumstances, might also be coded for an internal interest in the Berkeley Art Museum.

In conjunction with our development and database management teams, we steward the creation of new codes (interesting new additions include cryptocurrency, cannabis, and astrophysics) which makes our data reactive to changing needs, to new research and, in a lot of cases, anticipatory.

For example, we created a code for an interest in cannabis in January of 2017 and in January of 2019, UCB announced a New Cannabis Research Center to explore environmental and social impacts of legalization.

This forward-looking focus helps us to pose questions, think about, and define the structure we have been working to implement over the last year. One question we worked on was “How do we best incorporate outside data sources into our prospect-interests ecosystem?” We discovered that this involves determining the integrity of the outside data source, assessing the value-add to our internal database, and deciding whether the data should be mapped to outside or internal philanthropic interests.

External data: The Federal Election Commission

We started with Federal Election Commission (FEC) data because it was easy for our analytics team to capture and studies show that people who contribute to political campaigns are more likely to also contribute to charitable causes.

FEC data includes individual giving to political action committees, and the subject matter of those PACs is what was mapped to our interest code area. Based on political giving data identified and matched by the Prospect Development analytics team, we have been able to add over 166K interest codes on 72,920 entity records.

Internal data: past giving 

Our crowdfunding team is another great source of data we can use to map a data set to our internal philanthropic interests. For example, donors who gave to a Cal Band initiative to purchase new lockers would be coded for an interest in Cal Band. We are also assessing how we can leverage eGiving and donor survey comments.

What the future holds

After attending a CARA presentation where James Sinclair from the University of Southern California explained mapping foundation funding priorities directly to campus programmatic needs, we have begun thinking about the feasibility of using foundation data for interest codes as well. The potential to leverage outside data sources for this project is almost limitless – this project might never end!

If you would like to talk to Abbey and Mallory in more detail about this project feel free to contact them by email at amyszka {at} Berkeley dot edu  or  mlass {at} Berkeley dot edu. If you’re working on your own interest-coding project, tell us about it!

ABOUT HBG

The Helen Brown Group was formed in 2002 with a goal to be different.

Allow me to explain my personal philosophy to you.

Latest Intelligent Edge Articles

Privacy Quick Links