Taking a look at the rather lengthy discussion about the troubles currently going on at KRM its kind of got me thinking about this particular question.

Why after nearly 50+ years of the rail preservation movement are most museums still waiting for that guy from the monopoly board to walk through the door one day, dump a big bag with a $ symbol on the side on the floor, and walk back out?

Seriously has that EVER happened?

Yes, it actually happened to the Minnesota Transportation Museum. Except, the guy with the deep pockets is still around--he didn't walk away. And, another long-time member who passed on last year bequeathed something like $900k to MTM. How sweet it is!

But, with the exception of one or two other museums who were recognized in deceased members wills (OERM & WRM come to mind), I think most of us rely on farebox & ticket income, along with a few member's generous donations, to keep our trains and streetcars restored and running if possible.

Thanks!

I think if you or your organization is simply sitting around, waiting for the Monopoly Guy to show up, you are in trouble.

Does your organization have a fundraising strategy? What would make your organization attractive to donors large and small? Do you have a track record of getting results? Or, are you spending the donations to simply cover operating expenses?

Even if the Monopoly Guy shows up, there is no guarantee he will be impressed enough to leave a bag of money.

If I had a big bag of money and was thinking about what the characteristics of a worthy recipient of a donation would be, waiting for me to step in and solve their problems wouldn't be on the list - it would probably be on the HELL NO list. Why throw money into a pit where it will get used, lost, and become meaningless when the recipient fails down the line?

dave

Yes, it has happened, in a sense. I personally know of more than one instance where, out of the blue, someone showed up, and left a big chunk of money at some place. In one instance, it smacked way too much of that episode of "Seinfeld" where George's boss walks up to George and says "hey, the bosses told me we have to get rid of a bunch of change in charitable giving by the year's end, so tell me more about this 'Human Fund' you gave a donation to instead of our Christmas presents..." (Skip the plot line where George made up a fictitious "charity" to get out of giving gifts to his co-workers....) The other was a local corporation that came in, saw what the place was doing, negotiated a little, then underwrote a $650K restoration project in exchange for a name to be carried on the car/loco.

The point is NOT to sit around waiting for the money bag to be dropped off. The point should be to make yourself such a worthy and "successful" operation that Mr. Moneybags gives you serious consideration when he's walking around with that bag.

If you look over such projects as what you see listed in the United Way or the Pepsi Challenges, we're always going to come out a loser. ANY project involving children, education, big-eyed puppies, and/or other things involving defenseless critters or nature is typically likely to lose out to restoring an old rail car or station. But it doesn't have to be a perpetual loser. Instead, make your project worthy in many ways--incorporate nature, education, and history goals as much as possible.

Depends what kind of "problems" you mean. I agree, the money man should not show up for an organization that is wandering aimlessly. However, if an organization has a reasonable plan, and is merely stymied at executing that plan for lack of funds, then that is a horse of a different color.

But one of the problems of which I am all too familiar is the organization which does not have a vision, and does not make plans, because they consider such "soft" activities to be a waste of time, since they have little hope of ever achieving funding. Which is, in turn, because they are ignorant of how things work in charitable giving, in turn, because they love playing with trains and don't love all that "soft" stuff, learning about paperwork and planning, and all that tedious and contentious consensus building. Or they're just TOO DAMN BUSY, their voluntarism was once a beautiful dance, but now they're "dancing as fast as they can" trying to keep their struggling organization's head above water. With time the scarce element, planning/vision work is a luxury they cannot afford.

So goes their reasoning anyway. It's madness. But try talking sense to them. PLEASE.

Oh. and don't even start me on the angry naysayers (a couple examples of the breed are well known on this forum) who splash water on any visionary plan or good idea in the name of "REALITY", of which they are the sole arbiter of course. When we examine their version of reality more closely, we find mostly "Making Stuff Up" just to slow the enterprise with FUD -- a recent example being all the wild gesticulation about lead, PCBs and asbestos in GG1s.

This thread reminds me that twice in the past week I've seen public appeals made to "the super rich guy" to fund some pet preservation project.

One case I noticed was a website to save an old depot. On the website, the group said that since Warren Buffett was so wealthy, surely he wouldn't miss a million dollars spent on fixing this old depot.

Another case was an appeal made to save an old ship. A private citizen (not affiliated with any group) wrote a letter to the local newspaper begging a well-known tech-billionaire to fund the total restoration of an old ship, since he obviously has plenty of money.

To me, it's embarrassing to read these public appeals to the rich guy. It comes across as unprofessional and childish.

It was once suggested to me that museum members should buy life insurance policies that make the museum the beneficiary. Paying the yearly premium would end up being a phenomenal contribution. I don't know anyone who has done this, but is it common?

Stephen

The Monopoly guy showed up several times. One more recent visit was a major gift from a member following the fire in 2003. He told me the Museum was going to get the gift in his will, but he knew we could use it at that time. The big visit was when the Museum relocated due to highway construction. I believe all of Mr. Monopoly's visits were greatly influenced and aided by the years of planning that had been undertaken by the Museum board and volunteers. We had, and still have, a set of clearly defined plans and goals. I think you'll find this to be true of Mr. Monopoly's visits elsewhere. Strategic planning is a pain, especially when there is work to be done in the shop and a crew needed to staff the place during public hours, but it pays off in the long run.

Wesley

Is there a thread on RYPN concerning some problems at KRM? Link please? Thanks in advance.

Rob Gardner

Rob,

http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32023

and

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32037

Around 11 pages worth. Enjoy.

To the others, I'd suspect the same planning, presentation, goals and other things that make an average person donate $25-$100 to your organization would be the same things Mr. Moneybags is looking for.

Exactly. Wealthy donors aren't going to just throw their money at any old organization that asks for it any more than they would invest in any venture that says "we're gonna make you rich!" since that isn't how they became rich. They will treat donations just like investments (a donation is really just a different sort of investment, after all) and will research your organization just as they would any company or corporation. Give them a good reason to contribute and they'll be more likely to do so; otherwise, don't waste time asking them to donate.

Here is a relevant quote from Michael Kaiser, President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC.

It all starts with mission. I always say it's really easy to run a corporation becuase it's in the words 'for profit' - it's very clear what you're there for. And in the arts world we're not for profit. We only know what we're not for. And the first job of being a not-fo-profit is being extremely clear what you're trying to do and then do that. You say what is my organization about? And who am I trying to serve? The goal is not to try to do everything and please everyone, it's to please those who are drawn to your aesthetic extremely well.
Source: Washington Post; December 18, 2011; Pg G2

Wesley

I would tend to agree.

Generally speaking, I think "mission statements" are a crock for most companys. ("Pipe and Plunger Plumbing's mission is to be the best plumber in the..." and they pay some idiot big money to come up that?)

But in the case of non-profits, and other similar organizations, they go from being a farce to being a very valuable tool. Like Wes says, in a for profit company, the mission is obvious, "MAKE MONEY!" For a museum or tourist railway, it's not as obvious. Is you goal to preserve old #87? Does that include operation? Historical interpretation? Collecting artifacts? Building a museum? When you move out of the realm of making widgets to make a living into something more "warm and fuzzy", having a clear and concise mission is important.