It will be a paycheck and NIL deals. Until there is a roster limit and enforceable multi yr deals signed, WSU and others, are fcked.
Roster Revenue sharing is here....
- Thread starter M-I-Coug
- Start date
It will be a paycheck and NIL deals. Until there is a roster limit and enforceable multi yr deals signed, WSU and others, are fcked.
You are holding on to what WSU hasnt got. It is delusional. Vast coincidence and powerball luck would have to happen for WSU to get a Power Conference invite. In fact, I think there are better odds of teams getting tossed from Power Conference’s than added to them.
WSU Advancement and Development have long had a central problem - the administration and staff within the department so much that it's hard to turn a profit. I used to know a VP of development who said that if you don't bring in at least 5x what you cost, you're a failure. That seems fair. But looking at the org chart for athletic marketing....they need to bring in a lot of money before they even start turning a profit.
WSU getting invited to the Big 12 is a dream that has been squashed continuously for 18 months, but people can't let it go. It's not going to happen. At least not until the next round of contracts and realignment...and at that point, the Big 12 might just be where we are - trying to be the best of the G6 conferences.
5x is a solid target for someone who has had time to develop relationships. Think of selling in the life (whole life) insurance model. If you sell a policy, you get an up front payment, and a residual every year thereafter as long as the payments are made. After the initial relationship is created, you simply stay in contact, traffic cop the occasional customer service question, and seek upgrades as time passes and financial circumstances change. Over time the total revenue grows. Organizational fundraising is very similar. On the service sales/project manager side of our commercial AC contracting business, I expect to lose money on a person I bring in for the balance of the current fiscal year in which they are hired. I expect them to fully cover their raw costs in their first full year. Generally there will be steady growth each year thereafter. By year 4 they should be bringing in and managing 4x-7x their cost, and by year 6 or 7 they should be at 10x if they are really good and people want to work with them. If they are continuing to grow beyond that, I'll need to get them some dedicated support. The exact numbers are different for every business, but the concept is similar. For WSU specifically, I'd expect that you would have a list of cold calls and a list of warm leads based on past giving. Then you go to work. If you pay enough that you don't lose the good ones after 2-3 years (always a problem in the past for WSU), it seems reasonable to me that they could be at 5x within 3 years, if they have talent and work at it. And all you need is one referral to a whale from one of your other contacts to push you way beyond 5x. Something the WSU fundraising brain trust seems to miss is that the whale referrals should be coming from your existing contributors. I have never (NEVER) been asked by a WSU fundraiser what other alums I knew that they should at least approach. Again, that is fundraising 101.
REally, what I expect is that within a few years - probably no later than the end of the current contract cycle - the NCAA will fracture. The SEC and Big 10 will go in one direction, and everyone else will go another.
Stay optimistic 95
And, the SEC and Big 10 at that point will probably not be exactly the same schools that are in those conferences now. I think they'll shed a couple, and maybe swap a couple others.
WSU also has an issue where if someone is bringing in money, they promote them and turn them into managers. So they're making more money, but they're no longer bringing in money. They hand off the relationship to junior people who turn over, and turn off the donor. The person who was good isn't talking to donors anymore, they're sending a string of faces to talk to donors. It doesn't work.
I don't like this in car sales, but cultivating donors shouldn't be based on a salary and a typical management structure - it should be more like commission-based. The more you bring in, the more you make. And you keep your stable of donors - you are the contact, you work with them and try to drive them up. They only get handed off if they stop donating or say they don't like you.
Good pivot here 95. I got curious and pulled the Advancement roster (below). Geezus they have a lot of central staff - I think that is what you were trying to say. Quit posting like Ed and we can understand you.
Examples:- I see 3 fundraisers for the Tri-Cities campus (only 1 for Vancouver?. A Senior Director, a Director, and a Coordinator. So, that's probably $300K in salaries and benefits
- IT (Innovation and Advancement Intelligence) has 19 staff? You have to be kidding me
- Finance - 17 staff? You have to be kidding me
And here's something I think is rather new (95?). A 5% upfront fee for any gifts to help fund Advancement. In addition to the 1.5% annual fee on all endowments (that part isn't new, but I believe it used to be 1% aways back). On the 5x salary to donation ratio, that seems low to me. An old Foundation CFO (long gone) once told me a Foundation should bring in 10X its total operational costs as a benchmark. Oh and unless they cut it, WSU subsidizes the Foundation as well. 95?
Finally, as is my nature, I did scroll through the entire roster and counted all the staffers that I'd really like to, or wouldn't at all mind - lets see - "getting to know". The full count was 37, although the "really like to" count was half that.
And by the time that split happens, WSU will be so far behind, they won't be asked to the dance. They'll be lucky to hang on with the ACC/BXII options tossed to the side within five years.
The new P12 is a joke, and I'll call the baby ugly. It won't drive game day traffic, ticket allotments, or funding. WSU doesn't have anyone creative enough in their holster to make sh*t happen. Fans (and message boards) will argue that it should be about WSU and not about who they are playing, but considering WSU lost NINE of your closest competitors (OSU the only leftover, I don't really count Utah or Colorado) faced for 100+ years, people won't care. The product isn't the same, no matter how it is cut. WSU in the Pac 10 was pre-private equity: it could sell a great brand, product, some gusto. WSU in this new P12 is after private equity gutted the product, sold off the good parts, raised the price of the product using the name brand, and ruined it. This will be like The Tortelli's versus Cheers or AfterMASH versus M*A*S*H.
I don't give two sh*ts about BSJC, GU, etc. or will pretend to have a "rivalry" with Oregon State. I've tried to convince myself I could, but yeah, I cannot foresee myself getting there. "Survival" got WSU a half-eaten, day-old, dry ham (sh*t) sandwich. The truth is: it's going to be very hard for WSU's athletic department (and university) to see the light any time soon. OSU has Nvidia guy in the shadows - at least that is something.
I'm sure I'll be hanging out on the board, but it will be easy to reinvest my time during the Fall to other things.
Thanks for the link, Loyal. I know a few of those folks. Talk about "title inflation"; apparently now everybody who is at the bottom level, soliciting directly to folks for money, is a "Director". That may mean that they can't pay enough without that title in what ever WSU uses for a compensation structure. And as 95 noted, the only way to go here is either full commission or salary + commission. Keep your best salespeople selling. It is the rare salesperson who is a good sales manager...there are a few (I was one of them), but not many. IMHO you have to be a combination hunter/farmer to manage, and most top salespeople are more hunters than farmers. Seldom works out for them as sales managers, and it takes your best hunters off the street. But you see it all the time.Good pivot here 95. I got curious and pulled the Advancement roster (below). Geezus they have a lot of central staff - I think that is what you were trying to say. Quit posting like Ed and we can understand you.
The roster includes Alumni, Athletics and various College fundraisiers so you have to factor that in. But IT and Finance, C'mon. No F-ing way was it anywhere near that when I was there. And it isn't like donations have tripled or something.
- I see 3 fundraisers for the Tri-Cities campus (only 1 for Vancouver?. A Senior Director, a Director, and a Coordinator. So, that's probably $300K in salaries and benefits
- IT (Innovation and Advancement Intelligence) has 19 staff? You have to be kidding me
- Finance - 17 staff? You have to be kidding me
And here's something I think is rather new (95?). A 5% upfront fee for any gifts to help fund Advancement. In addition to the 1.5% annual fee on all endowments (that part isn't new, but I believe it used to be 1% aways back). On the 5x salary to donation ratio, that seems low to me. An old Foundation CFO (long gone) once told me a Foundation should bring in 10X its total operational costs as a benchmark. Oh and unless they cut it, WSU subsidizes the Foundation as well. 95?
Finally, as is my nature, I did scroll through the entire roster and counted all the staffers that I'd really like to, or wouldn't at all mind - lets see - "getting to know". The full count was 37, although the "really like to" count was half that.
I think you feel how most Cougs are feeling.
We want to care, we want to see WSU admin actually fighting for our football team to get the resources to compete, but what you see if flat statements from McCoy that underscore she really doesn't give a sh#t. She's just here to collect her paycheck and wait for the pension to kick in.
I don't want to take the "doomer" approach, but with where things stand, I feel I'm being realistic. Which sucks, and is not a fun attitude to have, especially about a place that is special to so many.
Is it really that hard? Seems to me there’d be executable playbooks you could copy/paste from other successful programs. Why can’t we do this?
Minimum cut is 5%, from some things they take more. Not sure how much WSU subsidizes them - that may have been reduced, which led to the increased “sharing.”Good pivot here 95. I got curious and pulled the Advancement roster (below). Geezus they have a lot of central staff - I think that is what you were trying to say. Quit posting like Ed and we can understand you.
The roster includes Alumni, Athletics and various College fundraisiers so you have to factor that in. But IT and Finance, C'mon. No F-ing way was it anywhere near that when I was there. And it isn't like donations have tripled or something.
- I see 3 fundraisers for the Tri-Cities campus (only 1 for Vancouver?. A Senior Director, a Director, and a Coordinator. So, that's probably $300K in salaries and benefits
- IT (Innovation and Advancement Intelligence) has 19 staff? You have to be kidding me
- Finance - 17 staff? You have to be kidding me
And here's something I think is rather new (95?). A 5% upfront fee for any gifts to help fund Advancement. In addition to the 1.5% annual fee on all endowments (that part isn't new, but I believe it used to be 1% aways back). On the 5x salary to donation ratio, that seems low to me. An old Foundation CFO (long gone) once told me a Foundation should bring in 10X its total operational costs as a benchmark. Oh and unless they cut it, WSU subsidizes the Foundation as well. 95?
Finally, as is my nature, I did scroll through the entire roster and counted all the staffers that I'd really like to, or wouldn't at all mind - lets see - "getting to know". The full count was 37, although the "really like to" count was half that.
Another issue is that there is a high amount of churn within the positions that are making the routine contacts with donors. While this is ok for the 80% that does 20%, you need a reasonable amount of continuity for the 20% that does your 80%.
Missed part of this -Good pivot here 95. I got curious and pulled the Advancement roster (below). Geezus they have a lot of central staff - I think that is what you were trying to say. Quit posting like Ed and we can understand you.
The roster includes Alumni, Athletics and various College fundraisiers so you have to factor that in. But IT and Finance, C'mon. No F-ing way was it anywhere near that when I was there. And it isn't like donations have tripled or something.
- I see 3 fundraisers for the Tri-Cities campus (only 1 for Vancouver?. A Senior Director, a Director, and a Coordinator. So, that's probably $300K in salaries and benefits
- IT (Innovation and Advancement Intelligence) has 19 staff? You have to be kidding me
- Finance - 17 staff? You have to be kidding me
And here's something I think is rather new (95?). A 5% upfront fee for any gifts to help fund Advancement. In addition to the 1.5% annual fee on all endowments (that part isn't new, but I believe it used to be 1% aways back). On the 5x salary to donation ratio, that seems low to me. An old Foundation CFO (long gone) once told me a Foundation should bring in 10X its total operational costs as a benchmark. Oh and unless they cut it, WSU subsidizes the Foundation as well. 95?
Finally, as is my nature, I did scroll through the entire roster and counted all the staffers that I'd really like to, or wouldn't at all mind - lets see - "getting to know". The full count was 37, although the "really like to" count was half that.
The link is missing some people. Tri-cities has at least one events person, and I think an admin position. your $300K estimate is probably low, but not by a lot.
I have my doubts about whether they reach the 5x threshold, but they’re a clear improvement over the old group. The previous director was, well….clueless. She used to show up late to WSU fundraising events driving her car with Oregon plates. Not state of Oregon - university of Oregon.
Funny that you say this. One of our current WSU Foundation AVP's ( I won't say who but it sounds like Bull Durham) showed up to a WSU-Oregon BB game in the Bennett era wearing an Oregon coat. This F-er is paid by WSU to represent WSU. I mean f-ing really? I gave him shit, turns out he isn't even a Duck but roots for them since he is from Oregon. That was the game where Baynes, in a sold-out Beasley, got called for a BS last -second foul and we lost.
Nothing but the finest for us Cougs.
Man, that is a whole lot of management, overhead, bloated administration!Good pivot here 95. I got curious and pulled the Advancement roster (below). Geezus they have a lot of central staff - I think that is what you were trying to say. Quit posting like Ed and we can understand you.
The roster includes Alumni, Athletics and various College fundraisiers so you have to factor that in. But IT and Finance, C'mon. No F-ing way was it anywhere near that when I was there. And it isn't like donations have tripled or something.
- I see 3 fundraisers for the Tri-Cities campus (only 1 for Vancouver?. A Senior Director, a Director, and a Coordinator. So, that's probably $300K in salaries and benefits
- IT (Innovation and Advancement Intelligence) has 19 staff? You have to be kidding me
- Finance - 17 staff? You have to be kidding me
And here's something I think is rather new (95?). A 5% upfront fee for any gifts to help fund Advancement. In addition to the 1.5% annual fee on all endowments (that part isn't new, but I believe it used to be 1% aways back). On the 5x salary to donation ratio, that seems low to me. An old Foundation CFO (long gone) once told me a Foundation should bring in 10X its total operational costs as a benchmark. Oh and unless they cut it, WSU subsidizes the Foundation as well. 95?
Finally, as is my nature, I did scroll through the entire roster and counted all the staffers that I'd really like to, or wouldn't at all mind - lets see - "getting to know". The full count was 37, although the "really like to" count was half that.
As for your body count, I say there is only about 15 that fit the definitely doable category. another 15 or so would fit the "I need a full body picture to go with the head shot before committing" category. Remember that at least 40% of Americans are obese.
I'd argue that having only 15 in that category is also a strategic mistake. It's a fundamental human truth that people are more likely to talk to someone who's attractive. So when you're hiring people to go squeeze money from donors, you need to be factoring in what they look like. I'm not just saying it about the ladies either - you also need to have some men who are objectively attractive....although if you're chasing football fans, you're probably safe being 80/20 women to men.
They can't just be attractive and dumb though - they need to be able to think on their feet. And they shouldn't all be smoking hot either - just attractive, and probably a little flirty. As you get into the mid and upper level - the closers that handle the biggest donors - you can start letting them be older and brainier. Big donors aren't writing 7 figure checks because someone giggles at their jokes.
But if you're trying to get middle aged dudes to show up to an event and drop a couple hundred or a couple thousand - then you need to have plenty of long legs and short shorts. It's transparent as hell, and everyone will know what you're doing - but it will work. And it will work more than once. Based on what I see at that link, there are less than 10 who I'm going to sit and listen to them tell me why I should give anything. Maybe 2-3 that I'll still be listening to when they hit 4 figures. And none of those 2-3 are actually in fundraising.
OK, there's another path to successfully reaching men - get a former star into fundraising. Dudes will fall over themselves to have a beer with someone they used to watch play, listen to his stories, and get him to laugh at their jokes.
And while you guys are fawning over Leaf and Gesser, I'll be over by the long legs and short shorts.
AD wanted FMR Star to bring long legs and short skirts to “help” with fundraising, according to legend.
And that’s when the trouble started brewing, again, according to legend.
Yeah, nothing wrong with selling sex to the schlubs, but whales want competency, whether from a male or female. Not being a troll would be a plus (there seemed to be a disproportionate amount of trolls on our payroll, which I have a theory on but won't go into here), but being able to discuss where the money is going and how it will be used, in depth, is higher value imho.
Similar threads
