Heading into the fall fundraising season, one trend had become readily apparent this summer. More than ever, the most popular fundraising auction lots sell relationships, not stuff.

We’ve long been advocates of selling “access” at charity auctions, and by that we mean “selling access to that which you cannot buy elsewhere.” Anyone can walk in to Michael Mina’s restaurant to have dinner. But a cooking class for two people where Chef Mina himself teaches you how to prepare a multi-course feast, followed a few weeks later by a dinner party at your house where you cook and Chef Mina is your sous chef is truly amazing (be sure to ask Ed about that one).

We used to include in our definition of access places you couldn’t normally gain entrance to. VIP access to a major sporting event, for example, used to sell fine on its own merits. But even those types of lots have lost their allure, if the buyer isn’t sure that they’ll be building a relationship while they attend it.

A celebrity golf event in Raleigh this past August provides a prime example of this. We had a lot that included VIP access to the Allstate Sugar Bowl in New Orleans over new year’s eve. It included airfare, hotel, and access to the Sugar Bowl, one of the major bowl games in NCAA football. We were never able to clarify exactly what we meant by “VIP Access,” so I simply compared attending the Sugar Bowl as Allstate’s guests to getting a tour of Spago’s kitchen with Wolfgang Puck.

When it came time to sell the lot, Dennis Haysbert, the official spokesman for Allstate, was on stage with me. He gave a brief overview of how incredible New Orleans is over new year’s eve, and how much fun the Sugar Bowl can be. We got the bidding going and as quickly as it started it was over: with only two bids. As I was selling it, Dennis stepped forward declaring that this simply could not be, and went on to explain in more detail/alter the lot on the fly.

Now Dennis himself was going to be your host, he would take you down to the field pre-game, then take you up to Allstate’s VIP Box to watch the game, and even join you on Bourbon Street after for a little partying. We started the bidding over, and this time it sold for more than twice what it had sold for before. Access to the Sugar Bowl was one thing, access to the Sugar Bowl with a chance to build a relationship with Dennis Haysbert is an entirely different beast.

The relationships you strive to sell don’t have to be A-list celebrities from Hollywood - but if you have said relationships, make the most out of them. The definition of celebrity varies as much from event to event a the organizations themselves.

The National Pain Foundation, for example, used to do a fundraising auction in San Francisco. Every year one of the biggest selling lots would be dinner with Dr. Eliott Krames and his wife in their home, prepared by them and paired with wines from their cellar. Dr. Krames founded the NPF, and for the myriad pharmaceutical executives and doctors in that room he was one of the biggest celebrities we could have found. No offense to Eliott when I say that if we took that lot elsewhere it wouldn’t have the same cache. Celebrity is a relative term.

When planning your fundraising auction, encourage your committee and board members to creatively think about all of the relationships they have. Is there anyone they know who people would love to get to know as well? Sometimes the biggest money-making lots are right under your nose - or on the tip of your iPhone, as it were.

The question always comes up as we start working with a new client;

“In the catalogue should we list value or opening bid?”

In fact the choice is broader than that.  I have used the following options over the years, each has it’s own advantages and disadvantages.

1. Value.  The advantage is that it is straight forward.  We are not trying to trick the bidders into over bidding through ignorance.  The main disadvantage is that it acts as a barrier telling the bidder to bid this high and no higher.  There is a minor secondary problem.  Sometimes the donor includes a totally unrealistic valuation.  In that case what value do you list?
2. Opening Bid.  The advantage is that there is one less decision for auctioneer, making his or her life easier. The disadvantage is that it removes one of the best tools in the auctioneers toolbox.
3. Estimate .  I use a simple formula to determine an estimate based on the value.  I list a estimate of 10% down and 50% up.  For example, if a lot is valued at $1000, I would put the estimate at $900 - $1,500.  The advantage of this method is that does set the relative value of all the lots and it also starts the bidders thinking about the higher price.  The disadvantage is that the upper price level sets an impenetrable barrier.
4. Priceless or equivalent. I understand having to list the occasional  lot as priceless.  Literally no one knows the price.  The advantage is that while the term priceless just means no known price, big or small, the tendency is to assume a high price If you list  more than a few lots this way it becomes precious.
5. Leave it blank.  The advantage is that it is really easy.  In many ways the whole purpose of auctions is to determine a price and whatever a lot sells for is the true value of the item on that day.  The disadvantage is that it can be confusing for the bidders.  The Central Coast Wine Auction has never list any prices or values and it has worked well for years. The reason is that Archie McLaren, the founder and executive director, writes the most complete, detailed and best promoting catalogue in the business.

Unfortunately there is no one correct answer to this except to stay with whatever system you are currently using, as any change may confuse your audience.  If you are hosting a first year event I would recommend choosing from options one, two or three.  If you are as lucky as a couple of our events you would label the value as “Opening Bid” and just go from there.

(Reflections on the eve of the Inauguration)

We are hired by Democrats to raise money from Republicans.  Ok, I admit that’s a gross generalization, but we do have our feet firmly in both camps.  Colleen is at times surprised by the comfort with which I move between the two.  I find it relatively easy.  Except for the kooks on both sides of the spectrum, I believe that the vast majority in this country agree on our goals, we just disagree on the policies that are going to get us there.  I can get excited discussing policy differences, I just don’t get mad.   No one is evil because they believe in Monetary .v. Fiscal Policy.

Which brings me to Jack.  We have been friends since 1978.  He was the first, closest and best friend I made on emigrating to the US.  We were even in business together for a time.  That didn’t work well because we spent so much time laughing that any project we worked on took twice as long as necessary. During this 30 year period we have never agreed politically, and for most of it, it couldn’t have mattered less.  We knew that we were never going to change each others opinion but enjoyed defending our views.  Even though I believed that he was consistently wrong on his political choices I also knew that he was incapable of encountering anyone in pain or suffering or need without offering to help.

This situation continued through Carter, Reagan, Bush One, Clinton and the beginning of Bush Two.  The change occurred sometime after 9/11.  It was not 9/11 itself because there was never a time when the country, if not the entire world, was more cohesive in their beliefs.

It was the sometime during the war in Iraq.  Not right at the start, but sometime near the beginning of the campaign, two trends began.  Firstly it became obvious that there were no WMD’s and the campaign was not being run competently. Concurrently the administration began assuming that any criticism revealed a lack of patriotism.  If you supported the administration you were no longer able to tolerate opposing viewpoints.  Your opponents were not just wrong, but were unpatriotic and endangering the country by enabling foreign terrorists.  Political discourse came to a grinding halt.   For even truly great friends like Jack and I.

One of my greatest hopes for this new administration is this acrimony will evaporate.  We have far more in common than than that which separates us. Everyone wants children to be safe, nourished and educated.  We all want the sick to receive care and to discover cures for the diseases that decimate us.  We want the Arts to flourish, the air to be clean, the elderly to be cared for, our friends and families to be safe, and the list goes on.

Our differences are in our priorities and choice of policy. We should be able to discuss these with passion but not anger.  The country is faced with serious problems.  We stand no chance of solving them if we unable to discuss them without getting mad.  The first step is to recognize the good intentions of your opponents.  It’s hard to get mad at someone who is trying to do good.