Help us redefine midlevel-major cooperation

January 23, 2025 by Mark Rovner

We’re embarking on another mini-study and hoping you can help. The topic for this one is the working relationship between the midlevel and major gifts teams.

Here’s why we’re interested:

Over the course of our work, there seems to be a variety of working relationships between the midlevel and major gifts teams at various orgs. I’d put them in the following (admittedly arbitrary) categories:

  1. Strained. These organizations have ambiguous, confusing or no business rules governing which donors go into (or out of) major gift portfolios. Relationships between the midlevel folks and the major gifts folks are strained over attribution rules. Passing donors back and forth looks a little like a Cold War prisoner swap. This is most common when midlevel lives primarily within membership/direct marketing/annual fund.

  2. Arms length. These organizations’ teams get along but mostly work in parallel. Reasonably clear business rules and reasonably equitable attribution rules help smooth over most disagreements. Midlevel and major donor events are separate. Not a lot of informal cooperation.

  3. Collegial. These groups are “arms length plus.” Still basically parallel play but some collaborative efforts, e.g. some shared events, some donors are in portfolios and receiving midlevel mailings, etc… Even fewer quibbles with attribution.

  4. Collaborative. This is where the midlevel and major gifts operate almost like one big team. MGOs and midlevel folks have each others’ backs. Lots of joint programming. Some donors may be under joint purview of the midlevel and major gifts folks. Attribution is a non-issue.

Full confession: we have yet to work with an organization at stage 4 but we’re hoping they exist. Sadly we have worked with one or two organizations at stage 1.

Here’s why this matters:

It seems possible that midlevel and major gifts teams are each built on outdated assumptions that may not align with what donors want today. We know from our research that many major donors do not want to be in a portfolio and prefer an arms-length relationship. We know that some midlevel donors are just the opposite. We’re told of major donor-only events that surface midlevel leads that may not be followed up.

Here’s where you might come in:

We especially want to hear from fundraisers who would characterize their level of mid/major cooperation as stages 3 or 4. What’s the secret of your success? Has it always been this way? What is your organization doing that could serve as a model for others? I’d love your perspective whether you are a midlevel person, a major gifts person, a CDO, or something else. Email me with your thoughts.

Are you at stage 1 or 2 and wanna dish? We will keep your note confidential.

Either way, email me at mark@seachangestrategies.com.

There have been calls lately to “rethink the fundraising pyramid.” The distinction between midlevel and major giving might be evidence that thinking needs to change (not to mention the close connection between midlevel giving and bequests).

The structure of development and fundraising teams seems like it’s been on autopilot for a long time. Your participation could contribute to new thinking that better matches the philanthropy of 2025.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Leadership