Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Here's one of the most demoralizing feelings in this work:

You're doing everything you're supposed to be doing. Discovery visits, cultivation touchpoints, portfolio strategy.

You've been consistent. You care deeply about the mission.

And it still feels like nothing is moving the way it should.

When that feeling persists, it's natural to conclude that you are what's wrong.

That's almost never the right conclusion. Here's what's usually actually happening.

Structural Barriers vs. Strategy Gaps

When a fundraiser is doing the right work and not seeing the right results, it's almost always one of two things, and neither one is the fundraiser's fault.

The first is structural barriers. An over-full portfolio with no prioritization support. A CRM that gets used for data entry but doesn't support strategic decision-making. Administrative tasks crowd out cultivation time. A culture that rewards busyness over impact. These aren't personal failures. They're organizational design problems. And they are fixable, but only if someone names them.

The second is the timeline. Major gift relationships take 12 to 24 months to build from a meaningful first conversation to a six-figure ask. If you've been in your role for 18 months, you are building a pipeline that will produce results… but not yet. The cultivation work you're doing right now is the foundation for gifts that will close in year two and beyond.

Why This Matters to Name

Development directors leave, on average, after 18 to 30 months. Which means most organizations lose their development director exactly when she is beginning to see results from her early relationship building. The sector loses talent at precisely the moment the investment begins to pay off.

This creates a tragic pattern: the development director who has been doing everything right — building real relationships, running disciplined discovery, cultivating with genuine care — gets frustrated and leaves.

The new director starts the cycle over. And the donor relationships that were close to moving forward get reset.

The way to interrupt this pattern is to distinguish clearly between what is a strategy problem, what is a structure problem, and what is simply a timeline problem.

A Useful Diagnostic Question

When the work feels hard in a way that doesn't match the effort you're putting in, ask yourself:

When I think about the high-priority work that isn't getting done, is it because I don't know how to do it, or because something keeps getting in the way of doing it?

• Strategy gap: you need more knowledge, a better framework, or a sharper approach. This is the easiest problem to solve.
  
• Structure gap: you need something in the organization to change: staffing, systems, expectations, role clarity. This requires a harder conversation, but it's a tractable problem.
  
• Timeline gap: you need to trust the work and keep going. This is the most important thing to distinguish, because it's the one that requires patience rather than change.
  

The Fundraisers Who Build Programs That Last

The development directors who build major gift programs that genuinely perform over time don’t contain some mystery trait that the rest of us don’t seem to possess.

Instead, they are the most consistent. They do the right work, protect the time it requires, trust the relationships they are building, and know the difference between a problem to solve and a process to trust.

If you're in the middle of the timeline right now — doing the work, seeing slow movement, wondering if it's working — keep going.

The relationships you're building today are the gifts you'll close in year two or three.

And if it's a structure problem: name it. It's worth saying out loud.

If you'd like an outside perspective on whether what feels hard is a structure problem or a timeline problem, that's exactly the kind of clarity a development assessment provides. gailperrygroup.com/contact

The post Why Fundraising Feels Hard When You’re Doing Everything Right appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Estimate read time: 4 minutes

Here's something we’ve learned after years of working with nonprofit organizations:

A predictive variable in major gift success isn't always the prospect list. It isn't always the campaign case. It isn't always the staff size or the budget or the technology.

It's the relationship between the executive director and the development director.

And it's almost never talked about explicitly.

What the Partnership Looks Like When It's Working

When this relationship works well, the division of responsibility is clean and complementary:

•  The Executive Director opens doors. The development director walks through them with a strategy.

•  The ED carries the mission story and organizational credibility. The development director translates that into specific cultivation plans and prospect strategies.

•  The ED makes the relationship moves that only an ED can make: the personal call to a top prospect, the authentic conversation with a board member, the testimony that needs to come from organizational leadership. The development director identifies what's needed and makes sure it happens.

•  Neither person manages the other. They manage the work together.

This is not a management structure. It's a working partnership, and the distinction matters.

Partnerships require explicit conversation, shared understanding of each person's role, and regular check-ins to make sure both people are getting what they need from the relationship.

What Goes Wrong When the Partnership Is Strained

Three common failure patterns, all of which damage major gift outcomes:

The ED is absent from the cultivation work.
She trusts the development director to manage the major gifts program entirely, reviews reports, and doesn't make the relationship moves that only she can make. The development director, however talented, can't move key relationships forward without the organizational credibility that only the ED carries. Major gifts stall.

The ED is over-involved.
She second-guesses strategy, attends every cultivation meeting, and inadvertently crowds out the development director's ability to build her own relationships with donors. The development director's effectiveness is undermined, even when the ED means well.

The role division was never made explicit. 

Both people are operating on different assumptions about who owns what, leading to gaps, duplicated effort, and resentment neither person names.

The Conversation That Fixes Most of This

One structured conversation between the ED and development director, twice a year, that covers:

• Who owns which relationships, and which ones the ED needs to be personally active in.
• What the ED will do specifically in the next 90 days that only the ED can do.
• What the development director needs from the ED to do her best work.
• Where there's role ambiguity that needs to be resolved.
  

That's it.

Most of the failure modes described above don't require complex interventions. They require a direct conversation that most ED and development director pairs haven't had.

Schedule that conversation. Have it honestly. The major gift program will be better for it.

If you're an executive director, what are the three relationship moves only you can make in the next 90 days?

If you're a development director, have you given your ED the specific guidance she needs to be an effective partner, or have you been hoping she'd figure it out?

This is a great blog post to forward to your partner Executive Director or Development Director! Use this as a guide to have a level-set conversation.

The post The Partnership That Predicts Major Gift Success appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Here's a question every executive director eventually asks.

Usually quietly, and usually after a stretch of soft major gift numbers:

"Is my development team actually performing? Or am I confusing activity with results?"

It's harder to answer than it looks. Because most development performance gets measured by dollars raised, which matters… but misses a lot.

A team can hit annual fund goals while a major gifts program stagnates. An MGO can stay completely busy while their portfolio barely moves.

Activity and forward movement are not the same thing. Here's how to tell the difference.

The Four Indicators of Genuine Major Gift Performance

When GPG assesses a development program, these are the four things we look at:

1. Portfolio movement. Are major donor relationships actually advancing — moving from identification to discovery, from discovery to cultivation, from cultivation toward solicitation — or are they sitting at the same stage month after month? A portfolio that isn't moving isn't a cultivation program. It's a maintenance program.

2. Discovery visit activity. Are new major gift prospects being identified and genuinely engaged on a consistent, ongoing basis? A development team that isn't regularly running discovery visits is managing the current portfolio, not growing it. The pipeline that closes gifts in year three is being built right now… or it isn't.

3. Quality of donor strategy. Is there a real, written, individualized plan for each major relationship? A specific next step grounded in what the fundraiser actually knows about this donor? Or is strategy implicit, informal, and reactive?

4. Executive director's presence in the cultivation work. Is the ED actively involved in major gift strategy alongside the development team — not just reviewing reports — and making the relationship moves that only an ED can make? When EDs are absent from this work, the development director can't move key relationships forward, regardless of how talented she is.

Why These Are Hard to See From the Inside

The team sees the activity. The executive director sees the reports. Neither view tells the complete story of what's actually moving, what isn't, and why.

That's not a failure of leadership. It's a structural limitation.

Internal teams often can't clearly see their own blind spots, especially when the team is working hard and committed.

A development assessment creates that clarity: not as a judgment of the team, but as a map of what the program needs to reach its potential.

The Goal: Capable, Not Dependent

The point of an assessment isn't to find problems. It's to find the highest-leverage opportunities: the two or three changes that would have the most impact on major gift results. Then, you build a plan around those specifically.

Organizations that work with the Gail Perry Group leave with a clear, prioritized roadmap: what to build, what to restructure, what to invest in, and what to stop doing.

The value isn't only the findings: it's the direction that follows.

Your development team is almost certainly working hard. The question isn't whether they're working. It's whether the structure around them is built to support the results your organization is capable of producing.

P.S. If you'd like an honest outside assessment of your development program — what's working, what isn't, and where the highest-leverage opportunities are — let’s start a conversation: gailperrygroup.com/contact.

The post What a High-Performing Nonprofit Development Team Looks Like appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Estimated Read Time - 4 minutes

We hear this frustration from leaders constantly:

"The board says they want to help with fundraising. They show up to meetings. They believe in the mission. And when it comes to actually doing anything… silence."

Here's the thing: that's almost never a reluctance problem. It's a preparation problem. And it is completely solvable.

The Real Diagnosis: Ambiguity, Not Resistance

Board members who don't help with fundraising are almost never opposed to it.

They genuinely don't know what to do.

Nobody told them clearly.

And because they're accomplished professionals who don't like appearing uninformed, they say yes in the meeting… and then do nada.

The board members who become your strongest fundraising partners aren't always the ones with the biggest networks.

They're the ones who've been given the clearest, most specific guidance.

What Activated Board Fundraising Actually Looks Like

There's a meaningful difference between an educated board and an activated one.

Educated boards understand the campaign goal. Activated boards have personal ownership in the outcome.

Here's what activation requires:

1. A small, specific list. Three to five donors each board member genuinely knows and cares about. Not "reach out to your network." Named people with named relationships.

2. A framework for a conversation that they can make their own. Not a script. The shift from "ask your friends for money" to "introduce someone you care about to something you believe in" is enormous. Most board members, when they finally hear that reframe, lean forward.

3. A clear understanding. What they're asking prospects to consider at this stage, and what they are absolutely not expected to close alone?

4. Explicit permission to pass the torch. To say "let me connect you with our development director" rather than carrying the full conversation themselves.

The One-to-One Briefing That Changes Everything

The board conversation that converts ambiguity into activation isn't a presentation at a board meeting.

It's a one-to-one conversation with each board member, about their specific three to five prospects, what they know about each person, and what a first conversation could realistically look like.

One hour. Per board member. Worth every minute.

Because here's what happens when a board member finally gets it: when they realize fundraising isn't asking strangers for money but connecting people they love to a mission they believe in.

Their body language shifts. They lean forward. The skepticism converts to advocacy.

And you know what’s funny? That board member — the one who brought in the $4 million lead gift — is often the person who was most skeptical in the beginning.

A Note on Timing

This activation work needs to happen before the campaign, not during it.

Once active solicitation begins, there's no time for the preparation that makes board members effective. Build the activation now. Then, when the campaign launches, you'll have a board that is ready and genuinely excited to help.

The question worth asking your board isn't whether they want to help. They do

The question is whether you've given them something specific enough to actually do.

Board activation is some of the most impactful work our consulting team does, and one of the most directly tied to campaign and major gift outcomes. gailperrygroup.com/consulting

The post Why Your Board Won’t Fundraise — And How to Fix It appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Here's the most common feasibility study misread: the numbers come in lower than hoped, and the organization interprets it as "not ready." The campaign gets delayed… sometimes indefinitely.

Here's what that organization missed: a feasibility study is not a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. It's not a prediction of what you'll raise. When it's read correctly, it is your first campaign strategy session.

What a Feasibility Study Is Not

It is not an audition for the campaign. It is not a referendum on your leadership or your mission. It is not a data collection exercise with a pass/fail threshold at the end.

A feasibility study that's treated as pass/fail will either push organizations into campaigns they aren't ready for (when the numbers look good) or delay organizations that have more capacity than the numbers initially suggest (when the numbers look soft). Neither outcome is ideal.

What a Feasibility Study Actually Reveals

Every interview in a feasibility study is telling you these things:

1. Where the relational groundwork is solid.

2. Where it needs more work.

3. What your donors are excited about that you may not have named in your case.

Specifically, a well-read feasibility study reveals:

•  Relational temperature: not just gift ranges, but which donors are excited, which are hesitant, and which are surprised. That last category is the most important. Surprised donors reveal exactly where the pre-campaign relationship work is incomplete.

•  Case refinement: the gap between what you think you're saying and what donors are actually hearing. The study surfaces this gap in a way that nothing else does. Organizations that pay close attention to this come out with a stronger case than they walked in with.

•  Leadership gift signals: not confirmed commitments, but tone, language, and follow-up questions that tell you where your most significant gifts are most likely to come from.

A Recent Client Example

We recently conducted a planning study for a client. Their feasibility study turned up just over 10% of the goal and no identified lead gifts… not exactly a promising opening.

But what did it truly reveal?

Donors who had never been cultivated relationally, a mission with profound personal resonance for every single interviewee, and a board that wanted to help but had never been given specific direction on how.

That's not a verdict, it’s a roadmap!

The study became the first chapter of the campaign strategy and NOT the last word on its viability.

Eighteen months later, the campaign has raised $6 million in its first eight months of active solicitation.

How to Read Your Feasibility Study

Read the numbers. But read the conversations underneath them more closely.

Where did donors light up?

Where did they hesitate, and what specifically were they hesitating about?

What did they volunteer that wasn't in your case?

Those answers are worth more than the headline number.

The feasibility study is the beginning of the campaign, not an audition for it.

If you're preparing for a planning or feasibility study and want an experienced outside perspective, that's work our team does.gailperrygroup.com/consulting

The post What a Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Actually Reveals appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Here's the most common misread in feasibility studies: the numbers come in lower than expected, and the organization interprets it as "not ready." The campaign gets delayed… sometimes indefinitely.

Here's what that organization missed: a feasibility study is not a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. It's not a prediction of what you'll raise. When it's read correctly, it is your first campaign strategy session.

What a Feasibility Study Is Not

It is not an audition for the campaign. It is not a referendum on your leadership or your mission. It is not a data collection exercise with a pass/fail threshold at the end.

A feasibility study that's treated as pass/fail will either push organizations into campaigns they aren't ready for (when the numbers look good) or delay organizations that have more capacity than the numbers initially suggest (when the numbers look soft). Neither outcome is ideal.

What a Feasibility Study Actually Reveals

Every interview in a feasibility study is telling you these things:

1. Where the relational groundwork is solid.

2. Where it needs more work.

3. What your donors are excited about that you may not have named in your case.

Specifically, a well-read feasibility study reveals:

• Relational temperature: not just gift ranges, but which donors are excited, which are hesitant, and which are surprised. That last category is the most important. Surprised donors reveal exactly where the pre-campaign relationship work is incomplete.
• Case refinement: the gap between what you think you're saying and what donors are actually hearing. The study surfaces this gap in a way that nothing else does. Organizations that pay close attention to this come out with a stronger case than they walked in with.
• Leadership gift signals: not confirmed commitments, but tone, language, and follow-up questions that tell you where your most significant gifts are most likely to come from.

A Recent Client Example

We recently conducted a planning study for a client. Their feasibility study turned up just over 10% of goal and no identified lead gifts… not exactly a promising opening.

But what did it truly reveal?

Donors who had never been cultivated relationally, a mission with profound personal resonance for every single interviewee, and a board that wanted to help but had never been given specific direction on how.

That's not a verdict, it’s a roadmap!

The study became the first chapter of the campaign strategy and NOT the last word on its viability.

Eighteen months later, the campaign has raised $6 million in its first eight months of active solicitation.

How to Read Your Feasibility Study

Read the numbers. But read the conversations underneath them more closely.

Where did donors light up?

Where did they hesitate, and what specifically were they hesitating about?

What did they volunteer that wasn't in your case?

Those answers are worth more than the headline number.

The feasibility study is the beginning of the campaign, not an audition for it.

If you're preparing for a planning or feasibility study and want an experienced outside perspective, that's what our team does. gailperrygroup.com/consulting

The post What a Capital Campaign Feasibility Study Actually Reveals appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Estimated read time: 3 minutes

In almost every board meeting before a campaign decision, there's a moment where someone says: "When are we doing ours?"

The room gets excited. Someone mentions a peer organization that just closed. Someone else references the new building proposal.

And the executive director smiles… and privately wonders whether they're actually ready.

That question - not "can we raise $X" but "are we genuinely ready" -  is the one that predicts campaign success.

And it's almost never asked out loud.

The Question Behind the Question

Campaign readiness isn't about donor capacity or case statement strength. The real question is this: have you done enough relational work with your most important donors that an ask at a campaign level would feel natural to them, and not transactional?

The organizations that launch campaigns and succeed early are the ones whose lead donors already feel like insiders.

They've been cultivated with genuine intention. They know the vision. They've been treated as partners, not prospects. When the campaign is announced, they feel excited… not surprised.

If your most important donors would be surprised by a campaign announcement, the pre-campaign relational work isn't done yet. And no case statement fixes that.

Three Honest Readiness Markers

Rather than a 20-point audit, here are three markers that tell you more than most feasibility studies will:

First: if your top 10 donors heard today that a campaign is coming, would they be excited or surprised? Excited means the groundwork is done. Surprised means it isn't. This is the single most predictive indicator of early campaign momentum.

Second: do members of your board have specific roles? Not "help with fundraising," but a specific responsibility or list of contacts they will help engage? A board that's been educated about a campaign is very different from a board that's been activated in one.

Third: is your development director spending most of her time on major gift cultivation, or on administration, reporting, and everything else? A campaign multiplies whatever's already happening in the development office. If cultivation is getting crowded out now, a campaign makes it worse.

What to Do If a Marker Is Missing

Spoiler alert: a missing marker is not a campaign-stopper. It's a pre-campaign priority.

The organizations that invest 12 to 18 months in building the foundation before they launch don't just meet their campaign goal; they exceed it, in less time, with far less board fatigue than organizations that launched without the groundwork.

That investment has a name. We call it a growth plan. And it is not a consolation prize: it's the strategic move that makes the campaign succeed.

Here's the question worth sitting with this week: if you called your three most loyal donors tomorrow and told them you were thinking about a campaign, what would you hear?

The honest answer to that question tells you more than anything else about where you actually stand.

If you're trying to answer the campaign-readiness question seriously, whether you're pre-campaign, mid-campaign, or still deciding, we'd love to be part of that conversation. Contact us here: https://gailperrygroup.com/contact/

The post Is Your Nonprofit Ready for a Capital Campaign? appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Here's a fundraising truth that doesn't get said enough: the second gift is harder to earn than the first.

Not because the donor's capacity changed. Not because they moved on. But because most organizations stop doing the relational work the moment the first gift arrives. The thank you letter goes out. The acknowledgment gets filed. And then, unless the CRM fires an action item, the donor hears from you primarily when you need something.

That's not stewardship. That's maintenance. And maintenance doesn't build the kind of relationship that produces a second gift meaningfully larger than the first.

Here are five specific moves that actually work.

1. Share a Specific Story From Their Gift

Not a general impact report. Not a year-end summary. A specific, named moment that happened because they gave: a student, a patient, a family, a piece of land preserved. The more specific the story, the more powerfully it lands.

The difference between "your gift supported our programs this year" and "because of you, Marcus completed his first year of recovery and called his daughter for the first time in three years" is enormous. One is data. The other is personal.

2. Ask the Question That Says You're Listening

Six to twelve months after a gift, reach out. Not to report, but to ask: "What would you most love to see happen with this organization in the next two years?"

This question does something powerful. It signals that you see them as a partner, not a transaction. It gives you intelligence you can use. And it almost always surfaces something worth knowing: a new interest, a shift in priorities, a connection you didn't realize they had.

Then listen to the answer like it's the most important information you'll gather this week. Because it probably is.

3. Reference Something Personal in Your Next Contact

Donors remember whether you remember them as people. Not portfolio entries… people.

The fundraiser who says "how did your daughter's college search go?" three months after a casual mention is doing something the CRM cannot replicate. 

It says: I was paying attention. You matter to me beyond the check.

This isn't complicated. It requires writing things down immediately after every conversation and reading your notes before every contact. That's it.

4. Involve Them Before the Next Ask

The donors who give at increasing levels are almost always the ones who've been brought inside. A program tour, an introduction to someone their gift supported, an invitation to an intimate conversation with leadership before a public announcement.

Involvement deepens ownership. Ownership deepens generosity.

The invitation doesn't need to be elaborate. It needs to feel genuine.

5. Reach Out Because You Thought of Them

Not because the CRM told you to. Because you read something, saw something, or heard something that made you think of them and you took two minutes to send a note.

This kind of contact is impossible to automate and impossible to fake. Donors can feel the difference. And a fundraiser who cultivates authentic, genuine relationships, rather than simply managing them, will retain more donors, close more gifts, and find this work far more rewarding.

Donors don't remember that you thanked them. They remember whether you made them feel like an insider. That's the standard worth working toward.

If major donor retention is an area where your organization wants to build more structure and intentionality, we'd love to talk. gailperrygroup.com/consulting

The post 5 Major Donor Stewardship Moves That Drive the Second Gift appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

After nine years of partnership, we're sharing some bittersweet news: Kathryn Gamble wrapped up her consulting career with Gail Perry Group at the end of 2025. While we'll miss her enormously, we want to take a moment to celebrate everything she built with us.

It all started with a phone call.

Nine years ago, Gail called Kathryn with a simple ask: "I have a potential client - can you go see them?" That one call set everything in motion. When it came time to present to the board, Gail and Kathryn drove there together. As they pulled away afterward, a bald eagle swept across a field in front of them. They stopped, looked at each other, and took it as a sign.

They were right to.

GPG closed 2019 with four clients. By 2021, they had twelve clients across five states - growth that accelerated through the pandemic and kept building. The campaigns GPG supported grew from seven-figure efforts to eight- and nine-figure endeavors. What began as a promising venture became a nationally recognized fundraising consulting firm.

None of it happened by accident. Kathryn brought deep experience from some of the region's most respected institutions – UNC Chapel Hill, East Carolina University, Saint Mary's School, and the North Carolina Museum of Art - along with an MBA from Queens University of Charlotte and a PhD from NC State. She helped build GPG's core consulting methodologies, recruited and mentored the team, and brought what Gail describes as "strategic rigor, intellectual curiosity, and a steady presence to every client engagement."

She also had one foot in the academy throughout - teaching Nonprofit Governance and Leadership in the Master of Nonprofit Management program at Johns Hopkins University, where she continues today.

One of Kathryn's proudest contributions to GPG's future: helping recruit Gina Vaughn, who now leads the GPG consulting team. "I know the work will continue to thrive under Gina's leadership," Kathryn says.

As for what's next - Kathryn is heading into this chapter with her husband Lyne, their family, and seven grandchildren. That sounds like exactly the right kind of next chapter.

Kathryn, thank you for everything. GPG exists the way it does because of you.

The post The Woman Who Helped Build GPG: Celebrating Kathryn Gamble’s Next Chapter appeared first on Gail Perry Group.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

"How do I know when a donor is ready?" It's a common question when we review portfolios with development directors and major gift officers. And the honest answer is: there's no formula.

What there are, instead, are signals. Learning to read them accurately and honestly is one of the most valuable skills in major gift fundraising.

Because bad timing doesn't just cost you a gift. It can set a relationship back by a year.

Signals That a Donor Is Likely Ready

A donor who is ready for a meaningful gift conversation is almost always showing you – IF you're paying attention. Here's what to look for:

• They initiate contact without prompting. They reach out with ideas, questions, or expressions of excitement about the mission… not in response to your outreach, but on their own.
• They ask about the organization's needs or plans. Not because you told them to think about it, but because they're genuinely curious about where things are headed.
• They reference the mission in personal terms. 'What you're doing for our community' instead of 'what your organization does.' Personal pronouns signal ownership.
• After a first gift, they ask how to be more involved. That question is an invitation.
• When you share a challenge the organization is facing, they respond with 'what can I do?' rather than sympathy.

Any one of these matters. More than one in the same conversation is a strong signal. The fundraiser who notices and acts on these signals will outperform the one waiting for the "right moment" on the calendar every time.

When It's Probably Too Soon

Equally important: knowing when to wait. It's too soon when:

• You know more about their capacity than you do about what they care about.
• Your last substantive conversation was an organizational update, not a real exchange.
• They've never asked a question about where the organization is heading.
• The relationship feels warm, but only on your side. They're responsive but not initiating.

Here's the honest test: can you describe this donor's giving motivation in their own words? Something they've actually said, not something you've inferred? If the answer is no, they may be willing, but the relationship isn't ready.

What to Do When You're Not Sure

When you're genuinely uncertain whether the timing is right, there's a low-risk move: name the thing without making the ask.

In your next visit, try something like: "I've been thinking about what a deeper involvement in this work might look like for you, and I'd love to explore that together. What's on your mind?" That's not a solicitation. It's an invitation to co-create one.

Donors who are ready will lean in. Donors who aren't will redirect you, which is ALSO valuable information! Either way, you've advanced the relationship without overreaching.

When the timing is right, the ask rarely feels like an ask. It feels like a natural next step in a conversation that's been building for months. That's what you're working toward: not a perfectly timed proposal, but a relationship where the question almost answers itself.

P.S. If solicitation confidence is something your team is working to build, our consulting work supports exactly that. Reach out to us at gailperrygroup.com/consulting

The post How to Know When a Major Donor Is Ready to Be Asked appeared first on Gail Perry Group.