<div dir="ltr">I agree that there are some excellent ideas in the article (<a href="http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/scrapping-synagogue-dues-a-case-study/" target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/scrapping-synagogue-dues-a-case-study/</a>) which we may be able to adapt to our own situation. I don't think that we can scrap the paid membership model (been there, done that, failed). But I could see our supplementing paid memberships better with monthly pledges, as follows:<div><br></div><div><ul><li>Determine our overall budget for the coming year.</li><li>Subtract out the special projects which we will continue to do dedicated fundraising requests for (e.g., ballot access, paying down the mortgage, legal offense, campus outreach, etc.). Itemize those categories.</li><li>Subtract out a conservative estimate of the amount expected from annual dues (defined for budgetary purposes as the same number as the previous year); and state that the rest needs to be covered by monthly pledges.</li><li>Inform our current monthly pledgers (which make up somewhere between 5 and 10% of our sustaining membership, I don't recall off-hand the exact number) that if they were to all increase their monthly pledge by the same "X" percentage, that would be enough for the LP to make its annual "nut" and have a sustainable income stream.<br></li><li>Calculate that "X" percentage as a dollar amount for each pledger, and make the pitch in terms of adding on that monthly incremental rather than asking for a new total amount. (Say it would of course be great if they could make the increment even larger, to make up for those who can't afford to do so.) Tell them what it would mean in terms of all the basic functions which the national party and the staff must accomplish.</li><li>Send out a separate pitch to non-pledging members, informing them that if we could just increase the number of pledgers by (for example) 50%, and if each new pledger were to do so at a level of "Y" dollars per month, that would be enough for the LP to make its annual "nut". Urge them to become one of those new 50-percenters to keep the LP working for them.</li><li>Repeat these pitches periodically throughout the year to both pledgers who haven't increase their amounts and to non-pledgers, each time telling them how much closer we are to our goal of fully-funding the LP's basic operations. Include a graphic display on our web page and in the emails and snail-mails.</li></ul><div>Dan Wiener</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org" target="_blank">chair@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Thank you for sharing that very insightful article. There are some very good ideas there that we may want to try.<br><br></div>-Nick<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Brett Bittner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brett@brettbittner.com" target="_blank">brett@brettbittner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><p dir="ltr">To follow up on my comments regarding the membership model today, please take a look at this case study regarding a "radical" idea to change how we view membership in the Party: </p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/scrapping-synagogue-dues-a-case-study/" target="_blank">http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/scrapping-synagogue-dues-a-case-study/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.</p>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><i>"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.<font size="2"><b> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.</b></font> It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”</i> -- Richard Feynman</font> <font size="1">(<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps</a>)</font><br></div></div>
</div></div>