I've been thinking with this BC/EFA is "losing" money thing...

[jordangirl]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 3:27pm

Isn't it really that they're losing donations they assumed they would be receiving? They should HAVE money from all the events that have been held so far, they're just not getting NEW money, right? So that's not really losing money. Losing money indicates that they spent it without knowing they had it to spend ~ or that without any coming in they're spending $300K or $350K a week. And somehow I don't think that's what they mean.

So what's the case? Is it that they're estimating that's what the donations they're not getting would be? Or is someone there so fiscally irresponsible that they spent money they didn't know they were going to get?

I have no problems with BC/EFA ~ Lord knows I've given them enough money this year. But the more i think about it, the more (I hope) the "losing" tactic is just plain deceptive. There was never a GUARANTEE that people would donate, it's an assumption.

I'm all confused.

[Lorelai]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 3:34pm

When a non profit makes a budget each year, which includes salary for staff, operating costs (like paying rent etc.), they set a fundraising goal for themselves which is based on money raised in years past. They basically assume they will have a certain amount of money because they have worked out some way that they will raise it during their fiscal year and operate with the assumption that they will raise that money (which is why they never choose a goal that is too far out of reach).

Since a big chunk of their budget comes from the fundraising they do during this time of year, a big chunk of the money they were counting on is now not there. And now that's happened, they are going to start to have problems and may have to start letting their staff go.

(edited for spelling)

Updated On: 11/28/07 at 03:34 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 3:40pm

How do you think non-profit charitable organizations keep their doors open and fulfill their missions?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 3:42pm

I don't think BC/EFA has ever said that they were losing money. I think other posters have said that they're losing money because they can't fundraise like they normally do, which would be a loss for them monetarily. Much like the producers who are losing money, from the strike, there was no guarantee that people would buy tickets to the performances, but they were going on the assumption that tickets would be sold, based on past sales. I've looked over their website and the only mention of the strike or their funding is found here:

http://www.broadwaycares.org/news/strike.pdf

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 3:57pm

They ARE losing money, since fundraising is HOW they achieve an operating budget. This isn't like extra income...it IS income. They are losing money the same way ushers, actors, musicians, stagehands, wardrobe, etc. are losing money.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 5:05pm

Most non-profits have some sort of a set income and then their donations, while figured into things, are on top of that. But it's different to depend solely on random donations at the end of shows than it is to have full-out fundraising drives with memberships, mailings and so forth. THAT should be the majority of any non-profit's donations income. I worked in churches for 5 years and my father has worked in them for more than 40, and while there is a bit that's "loose monies collected in the plate", if their finance committee is smart, they put that amount far under the previous year's actual collections and almost NEVER apply that money to anything until they know it will flesh out.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 5:20pm

What BC/EFA has said is that the fundraising money they're not receiving right now is going to have a negative impact on the grants and assistance they are able to offer in 2008. They aren't depending on the after-show collection from Avenue Q to keep their doors open. Without those donations, though, they have that much less money to offer to their partner organizations and clients with HIV/AIDS next year, which will hurt.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 6:02pm

I had a question regarding their statements concerning 'loss' as well. Why can't they simply alter their collection schedule? Collect for the same number of shows and I would think that they will lose nothing. Am I missing something?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 7:40pm

If I'm not mistaken, I think the Producers of the shows have to approve of the scheduling as well. So, in order to reschedule they'd have to get that approval. I don't think that it would be a big deal to go to the producers and ask for an extension. But, who knows.

"But it's different to depend solely on random donations at the end of shows than it is to have full-out fundraising drives with memberships, mailings and so forth."

The two times a year that they solicit for donations at the the theatres, are their major fundraising drives. They usually take in several million dollars during those times. They also send out mailings during the year soliciting contributions. Plus, numerous smaller events to raise money. You should go to their website, it lists all or nearly all of these events.

Updated On: 11/28/07 at 07:40 PM

[jordangirl]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 8:21pm

I've been to several of their events, so I know about those. I think they would be better served trying something resembling a solid fund-raising thing like memberships, etc. rather than depending on tourists giving after shows. That money is never a guarantee...or it should never be.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 9:30pm

*shrug* What BC/EFA has done has worked for the past 20 years. They *do* have more conventional fundraising activities, such as memberships, book and CD sales and targeted mailings, for people who want to give that way. And those aren't any more of a guarantee than any other type of donations. They don't depend solely on the after-show collections, but those do make a difference because they happen at Broadway's busiest times of the year, when the most shows are open and people are in a giving mood.

The reason BC/EFA works is because it *is* unconventional...someone might not want to buy a 'membership,' but they'll happily buy a poster or drop a dollar in the bucket on the way out of the show. It's also more cost-effective. Only about 10% of people who receive mailings respond to them, you waste a lot of time, paper and postage. Whereas when you have a cast member volunteering fifteen minutes to hold a hat at the end of the show, there's no overhead.

It's not unusual for charities to depend largely on one or two events or fundraising appeals for a bulk of their fundraising. If Unicef couldn't rely on Halloween donations or the AIDS Walk benefiting the GMHC was canceled, those organizations would hurt the same way BC/EFA is hurting right now.

Updated On: 11/28/07 at 09:30 PM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 9:34pm

For non-profits, no money is "guaranteed." That's why when their funding is cut, some nonprofits are forced to close their doors. Perhaps you could do some research on 501(c)(3)s to understand how it works.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 9:35pm

I was about to post exactly the same thing...only in a much longer and boring way. Thank you Marona.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 9:42pm

My pleasure, JustaGuy. :)

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 9:46pm

It takes years of "fundraising trial and error" to figure out what works best for an organization. BC/EFA has built this particular campaign up over many years. They have a good idea of what to expect and what they can safely propose will be raised toward their budget. This is but one effort in their "fundraising mix." It is, in fact, necessary for nonprofits to have a diverse funding base...in the event that some funding falls through, which it invariably does since there are NO "guarantees."

[Switz78]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 10:47pm

They have extended the fundraising campaign by 2 weeks. The Gypsy of the Year Event is being held on the 17th now instead of this coming Monday, but that still doesn't make up for 20 days of missed opportunity. It is a shame that this year might be the first in BC/EFA history that the collection has not exceeded the previous years. The nice thing is that the touring companies have still been able to collect and add an additional 2 weeks of time to do so.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/28/07 at 10:52pm

Let's hope that people will have an even stronger emotional response to the campaign in the coning weeks and give more than they may have originally. I'm sure the on-stage appeals will be quite moving.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 11/29/07 at 5:52am

Oh well. I've already given them over $200 this year (probably closer to $500 when I add everything up) ~ which is more than just as and even much more deserving charities I support have gotten, so sorry, for Christmas giving, I've got to give elsewhere.

Maybe I'm just tired of them acting like they're the ONLY charity that needs money. Anyway. Enough of a discussion.

Updated On: 11/29/07 at 05:52 AM

[ken8631]

Posted: 11/29/07 at 7:56am

Yes they are losing money.

The only ones saving money are those who got tickets refunded and can't attend the show....

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/29/07 at 9:30am

"Maybe I'm just tired of them acting like they're the ONLY charity that needs money. Anyway. Enough of a discussion."

You're on a B'way message board. BC/EFA is a charity that was started by members of the theatrical community and has been supported for 20 years by that community and the theatre going audience. Why wouldn't they make an appeal to the people who have supported them in the past, to give more, since their usual fund raising efforts were stymied by the strike. I don't believe they've ever stated that they that they are the only charity that needs money, you've come to that conclusion yourself. How you've drawn that conclusion is anyone's guess, but I don't believe that you can support you're statement that they're acting like they are the only charity that needs money. You may disagree with their fund raising strategy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

Once again if you go to their website you'll see that they not only give grants to HIV/AIDS related programs, but also to a host of other organizations, and charities including those involved in women's health issues.

If you feel like you've given all you can to BC/EFA, fine. No one is going to begrudge you for that. But why denigrate the organization?

Updated On: 11/29/07 at 09:30 AM

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 11/29/07 at 10:05am

When they do their fundraising, EVERY nonprofit makes it sound like they're the one to give to...that's their JOB! They are trying to appeal to people who have many options in terms of giving to worthwhile causes. A nonprofit puts forth a lot of effort to compel you to choose them.

I was a nonprofit fundraiser for years and years. It was always one of the most demanding jobs within the agencies I worked (sometimes THE most). Now I am on the "other side"--giving the money away, and my heart goes out EVEN MORE to nonprofits competing for funds and struggling to provide the important services communities need.

I hope BC/EFA exceeds their goals this year!

[bardolator]

Posted: 11/29/07 at 1:31pm

jordan--Churches often set a budget based on pledges made by members, as well as on past income. They can never be fully assured that the money will be forthcoming, but they do have to set a budget based on PROJECTED income. "Loose monies" are a separate category because you never know how much a visitor or non-pledging member is going to give, but unless the church also has a business side (bookstore, restaurant, etc.), the budget is based on projected income, at least in my experience as a PK. :)