[ajibril]

Some of our Proposals have naming opportunities (i.e. naming big donor after a clinic or spaces), and we record that naming information in the Proposal Attribute within the Prospect tab. And, I am wondering if we even need to record that in the Gift of that Proposal? I thought that is an overkill since the Proposal will be linked to the gift, but one of my senior staff suggested that we should record that in the gift as well.

Please let me hear your suggestion or where you record that info. in your RE.

[Elaine Tucker]

We put it in the gift because not all of our naming opportunities have a proposal attached to them.

[ajibril]

Elaine,

But if all of our naming opportunities have Proposals attached to them, then would it be good idea to keep the naming info. in the Proposals?

[Elaine Tucker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajibril

Elaine,

But if all of our naming opportunities have Proposals attached to them, then would it be good idea to keep the naming info. in the Proposals?

Yes! that way when you need to query or report on or send the donor a verification of "your plaque will read as follows, please let us know if there are any changes needed" letter then you only have to pull it from one place.

If you have the data duplicated there is a high risk of typing it one way in one place and a different way in the 2nd.

Stick to your guns, assure the PTB that you can get the data from RE and that is IS associated with the gift because the proposal is LINKED to said gift...

Good luck,
Elaine

[ajibril]

You are a hero, Elaine.

I am sure there is always an exception to any rule; so in the case where we have a gift without proposal, we need to put it in the gift.
Thanks,

[Elaine Tucker]

awe. thanks, but really just another rider on the bus. Glad I could help

[stancliff]

How would you handle split gifts, in which only a percentage of a gift was for the naming opp. Rare case, I know, but have you considered it? I don't think I have an answer.

[Elaine Tucker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stancliff

How would you handle split gifts, in which only a percentage of a gift was for the naming opp. Rare case, I know, but have you considered it? I don't think I have an answer.

Excellent point!

We try to stay away from split gifts as much as possible, since campaign reporting (and other reports) become a GROWLY BEAR when splits are involved. ( I would almost say we NEVER enter a split gift, but I'm sure there's some in our db....)

So, alas I have no suggestion for you.

[ajibril]

Elaine,

We have so many multiple naming opportunities available, and I wondering what method that other people use to keep track so we do not offer/sell/name one room/ward/wall to multiple donors?

[Elaine Tucker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajibril

Elaine,

We have so many multiple naming opportunities available, and I wondering what method that other people use to keep track so we do not offer/sell/name one room/ward/wall to multiple donors?

We currently have two capital projects underway.

To manage the naming opportunities, I created Funds in RE for each naming opportunity.

They start out like:

20_CentGifts_CL-A111 - classroom on the 1st floor in Bldg A
20_CentGifts_CL-B232 - classroom on the 2nd floor in Bldg B
20_CentGifts_OF-B101 - office on the 1st floor in Bldg B
20_CentGifts_Conf-B100 - conference room in Bldg B

Once the naming opportunity has been taken:
21_CentGifts_CL-A111 is the fund ID
Fund Description: Classroom in Centennial Hall to be named by the Tucker Family

This way we can easily see what opportunites have been taken and which are still open based soley on the fund ID.

I used this same format when I was at TLU and we were in a MAJOR capital project for 4 buildings, 2 athletic fields and all the associated items that go along with them... scoreboards, bleachers, furniture, endowment for bldg maintenance etc.

Hope this makes sense, if not ask more questions and I'll try to expand on the explanation.

Cheers,
ET

[stancliff]

We're struggling right now with how to keep the inventory of naming opportunities in RE. I almost started a thread on it today, but will just bring the discussion here.

We've actually created constituent records for each naming opportunity, and are linking the opportunity to the donor via Relationships. I'm not certina that this is the best way. We will be engaging the consultative services of Blackbaud on this in a few weeks.

I think I might like to talk to you, Elaine, offline about your process.

[Elaine Tucker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stancliff

We're struggling right now with how to keep the inventory of naming opportunities in RE. I almost started a thread on it today, but will just bring the discussion here.

We've actually created constituent records for each naming opportunity, and are linking the opportunity to the donor via Relationships. I'm not certina that this is the best way. We will be engaging the consultative services of Blackbaud on this in a few weeks.

I think I might like to talk to you, Elaine, offline about your process.

I'm here... 214-346-8226

[DrewAllen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stancliff

We've actually created constituent records for each naming opportunity, and are linking the opportunity to the donor via Relationships. I'm not certina that this is the best way. We will be engaging the consultative services of Blackbaud on this in a few weeks.

This is how we implemented it when we converted. It was Blackbaud's recommendation to do it this way.

You track potential donors with one type of relationship, and committed donors with another type of relationship. You can also use a fund relationship if it is tied to one particular fund.

I don't use that portion, so I can't tell you how well it is working except to say that we haven't heard anything about it not working.

Drew

[stancliff]

That's a smart idea to track potential donors and committed donors. Not sure we had thought of that.