ProPublica fundraising adviser manages expectations
You might expect the fundraising consultant just hired by ProPublica to be optimistic, if not ebullient, about prospects for a tech-savvy, grassroots campaign to help sustain the nonprofit financially for the long haul. But Madeline Stanionis, CEO of Watershed Co., pronounces herself “skeptical.” “I’ve never drunk the Kool-Aid,” Stanionis told me in a phone interview Wednesday.
Why the skepticism? It has to do with donor expectations.
Stanionis thinks donors to political and other “citizen-powered” campaigns have been conditioned to believe that the candidate or institution that receives their donations will respond directly to their demands. But journalism does not — and should not — operate that way, she said. “I just think trying to force a journalistic endeavor into a hole created by these campaigns is not correct,” she said.
Stanionis is confronting the central dilemma facing journalism startups, nonprofit and for-profit alike: How to create a strong, independent editorial voice while also keeping the revenue flowing. For ProPublica, the stakes are particularly high. Though it has a rolling, three-year commitment for as much as $10 million a year from Herb and Marion Sandler, it needs to build a long-term revenue plan.
Enter Stanionis, whose clients have included The Nation and Mother Jones. ProPublica hired her firm and another — New York-based Community Counselling Service Co., which will focus on large grants — with a $1 million grant from the Knight Foundation. Like most grants from Knight, the money comes with the condition that ProPublica share the knowledge it gains. But how that will happen isn’t clear yet, said ProPublica general manager Dick Tofel. “[We] need to identify outputs relevant to others before we can determine how to share them,” he told me in a recent email.
Stanionis is just getting started, but she’s already sorted out a few elements of her approach. For one thing, ProPublica differs from her previous journalism clients, which have well-established brands that “border on a personal relationship with readers.” ProPublica — like new regional nonprofits such as MinnPost, Voice of San Diego and Texas Tribune — has positioned itself as a non-partisan, non-ideological investigative news source. It can be difficult for an outfit with that kind of professed independence to tell readers it needs their help. “You have to be okay with saying over and over again, ‘We need your support,’” Stanionis said.
There’s also the issue of managing reader/donor expectations. There’s definitely room for a two-way conversation with readers in which they provide data and other inputs, Stanionis said. But that doesn’t mean they get to dictate what stories get reported and written. “The nuance is important,” she said.
So what kind of grassroots strategy will work for ProPublica and other nonprofits? What might help, Stanionis said, is if a reward for donating is something “fun” — like the ACLU membership card. But as CUNY’s Jeff Jarvis also warned, Stanionis knows that focusing too much on premiums and other rewards carries risk of drift from the mission, which is a nonprofit’s primary reason for existing.
“It becomes a coffee cup and totebag machine,” Stanionis said. “Is that what we want to be doing? Is that where we want to be in 20 years?”
Jim Barnett | Oct. 15, 2009 | 12:56 p.m.
Tags: Community Counselling Service Co., fundraising, Herbert and Marion Sandler, Knight Foundation, Madeline Stanionis, MinnPost, Mother Jones, nonprofit, ProPublica, Richard Tofel, Texas Tribune, The Nation, totebags, Voice of San Diego, Watershed Co.









I can’t wait to be dunned for support to pay Paul Steiger’s inflated salary!
Even as a grassroots, penny-by-penny donating party: I would throw a tax-deductible $100 a year to ProPublica…if Paul Steiger weren’t paid what he’s getting. You can’t work for a struggling nonprofit and make a little under half a mil. That’s absurd.
I have to agree with the previous two comments. I run a nonprofit that fundraises for independent journalists. And I’m talking about REAL independent journalists – folks that really NEED to raise money so they can keep reporting on topics. None of them, me included, make anywhere CLOSE to what the top brass at ProPublica make. Nor do they run organizations with as padded a budget.
I love ProPublica – but this represents a real disconnect for me.
I would disagree with Madeline that small donations or the atomization of content is a bad way to go. I think it is silly to think there is a quid pro quo thing going on with small donors to journalism. I love skepticism in my reporting – not in my online experiments.
People have a right to know where their money is going and organizations should be held accountable for where the money is going – which goes exactly to the point of the last two comments.
If they don’t know where the money is going – they’ll assume the worst – to pay for inflated salaries. Especially if we are talking about such a large organization.
I also love Knight Foundation (I have my obvious disclaimer of bias here) but I don’t really understand giving ProPublic which has a budget of 10 million a year guaranteed for another three years an extra million dollars so they can hire a fundraiser who will try and make them even more millions. They couldn’t find that spare million in their budget? I really want to see where this money is going.
End skeptical rant here…. I will go back to being a cheery, relatively bootstrapped entrepreneur now.