MASTER THESIS
THE FORGOTTEN FUNDERS
Selection and approach of nonprofit foundations
for project-based financial support at art museums
Name Anne Mager
Student number 10017615
Date 19-08-2016
First supervisor J.F.E. de Groot MSc
Second supervisor drs. E. Dirksen
Program MSc in Business Administration
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Anne Mager who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT 5
1. INTRODUCTION 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 The Production of Culture Perspective 9
2.1.1 Strategic Institutional Theory: The Influence of Funder Preferences 11
2.1.2 Field Theory: Power Dynamics in Fundraising 15
3. DATA AND METHOD 19
3.1 Research Design 19
3.2 Sample and Data Collection 20
3.3 Quality of the Research 23
3.4 Data Analysis 24
4. RESULTS 25
4.1 Mapping Foundations and Their Preferences 25
4.1.1 General Characteristics of Fundraising in Art Museums 25
4.1.2 Funder Preferences 29
4.2 The Fundraising Process 31
4.2.1 Project Development 32
4.2.2 Selection 35
4.2.4 Procedure 40
4.2.5 Power Dynamics 42
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 45
5.1 Summary and Discussion of Findings 45
5.1.1 Strategic Institutional Theory 45
5.1.2 Field Theory 48
5.1.3 Production of Culture Perspective 50
5.2 Implications 50
5.2.1 Theoretical Contributions 50
5.2.2 Practical Contributions 51
5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research 52
REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES 60
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 60
ABSTRACT
Cultural institutions in the Netherlands are becoming increasingly dependent on cultural entrepreneurship, mainly due to decreased government subsidies. Within art museums this is visible in the rise of fundraising departments. Funding within these departments
predominantly originates from private and public foundations. However, in scientific research foundations are still the forgotten funders of art support. The aim of this research is to fill this literature gap by researching how art museums select and approach nonprofit foundations for project-based financial support. The production of culture perspective is employed in order to understand how fundraising processes influence the production of artworks. Within this perspective, strategic institutional theory is used to to illustrate how museum fundraisers balance funder preferences while staying true to their organizational mission. Additionally, field theory shows how the fundraising process is subject to the power dynamics that are caused by differences in social and symbolic capital. A qualitative research design is used based on 15 semi-structured interviews with fundraisers. The study finds evidence for the role of funder preferences and social capital in fundraising processes. Thereby, this research contributes to the production of culture perspective by finding that the production of artworks is influenced by the way in which museum exhibitions are funded.
1. INTRODUCTION
The cultural field in the Netherlands is experiencing a powerful shift in approaches to acquiring funding. The trend of ‘cultural entrepreneurship’ is becoming more prominent, following the cuts in government art subsidies of 200 million euros since 2013 (SER & Raad voor Cultuur, 2016). Cultural institutions are required to substitute the loss of government subsidies with other funders, intensifying the competition for funding in the process.
Increased importance and competition for fundraising is especially visible within art museums (Museumvereniging, 2014). Often modeled after Development offices in the United States, fundraising departments of art museums in the Netherlands have grown and are increasingly involved with acquiring funding from private benefactors, corporations and foundations (Alexander, 1999; Smithsonian Institution, 2001).
However, when the trend of cultural entrepreneurship is discussed in the public and scientific arena, the focus predominantly lies on sources of funding such as corporate partnerships, individual donors or crowdfunding (e.g., DiMaggio & Mukhtar, 2004;
Martorella, 1996; Mollick, 2014). Another major source of income for art institutions is often overlooked, namely the funding by both public and private nonprofit foundations.
Foundations are differentiated from other funder types by the unique approach required by an institution to acquire its funding. While the specific requirements for receiving funding from these foundations differ, generally applicants need to write a grant proposal for project-based support. Support is often understood as a financial contribution to the institution by the foundation, but in some cases can also entail a partnership based on information sharing. The content of the grant proposal greatly depends on the requirements of the foundation, but often includes the artistic and societal value of the proposed project along with budget and audience
reach estimates (e.g., Mondriaan Fonds, 2016; Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds, 2016; Fonds 21, 2016).
The reasoning behind the perceived unpopularity of foundations in scientific research could lie in the complexity of the field of foundational giving. In the Netherlands alone, the authority on the administration of private foundations counts roughly around 700 private foundations (Vereniging van Fondsen in Nederland, 2016). The landscape is incredibly diverse: there is a foundation for almost every niche of the market. Furthermore, the landscape differs with regards to the country of interest. The United States, where the majority of the existing research has been conducted, has a greater history of private foundational giving by individual philanthropists than is known in the Netherlands (Rosett, 1991). However, during the past few decades American museums have also increasingly received financial support from public foundations, such as the federal fund The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and state art councils (Alexander, 1996a).
In order to add to the current gap in the literature on foundational giving in the Netherlands, the focus for this research will lie on fundraising at art museums in the
Netherlands. The following research question is formulated: How do art museums select and
approach nonprofit foundations for receiving project-based financial support?
In support of answering the research question, the production of culture perspective is employed. This perspective offers an approach as to how cultural institutions cope with
financial uncertainty and increased competition brought on by a sudden change in art funders. Within the literature review of this study, two theories are used in order to understand in what way museums deal with the increasing pressure to acquire independent funding besides governmental subsidies, namely strategic institutional theory and field theory. The first subchapter focuses on the influence of funder preferences and uses strategic institutional theory to explain in what way museums deal with financial uncertainty. The second
subchapter illustrates the importance of status dynamics in a competitive funding environment by using field theory. Following the literature review, the data and method section is used to explain the qualitative research design with regards to the research objective. Additionally, the results are presented based on a conscientious analysis of the expert interviews and are supported with participant quotations. Finally, the discussion and conclusion is used to reflect on the findings with regards to the literature review and provide insight into the theoretical and practical contributions of this study.
The scientific relevance of this study lies in its application of the production of culture perspective in a sample that has gone unnoticed in scientific research before. No previous research exists on the selection and approach processes of foundations by fundraisers in the nonprofit sector. Additionally, it proposes an alternative approach to the production of culture perspective by combining strategic institutional theory and field theory. The combination of these theories can help explain the coping mechanisms in the uncertain and competitive environment that constitutes the field for art funding in the Netherlands at the current time. Practical relevance lies in advancing the professionalization of fundraising practices in Dutch art museums. An attempt is made at describing and exploring the knowledge that is embedded in the human capital of museums. Hereby, museums can improve or cultivate their
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Production of Culture Perspective
Cultural institutions face more financial uncertainty and increased competition for funders due to the decrease in government art subsidies (SER & Raad voor Cultuur, 2016).
Additionally, financial support from funders other than the government has also decreased because of smaller investment returns caused by the recession (Pilkington, Davies & McDonald, 2010). How cultural institutions cope with these problems can be understood through the production of culture perspective.
The production of culture perspective adheres to the general notion that the symbolic elements of culture are shaped by the systems in which they are created, distributed,
evaluated, taught and preserved (Peterson & Anand, 2004). For example, White & White’s (1965) research into the rise of impressionist art in nineteenth-century France shows that culture is not shaped by individual genius or societal change, but by changes in the market such as were created by Parisian art dealers and critics at the time of the Impressionists.
For the purpose of the sample used in this study, symbolic elements of culture can be understood as artworks that are produced by visual artists. The way in which museums mount their exhibitions – which artworks they include and which they do not - has the power to institutionalize artists and artistic movements into the art historical canon (Alexander, 1996b; Hooper-Greenhill, 1992). For contemporary art museums, their influence on artistic
production is sometimes even more direct, as museums can not only act as collector and exhibitor, but also as producer of artworks (Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, 2016). Therefore, the definition of artworks is, amongst several other systems, shaped by museum exhibitions.
Furthermore, the manner in which funders for these exhibitions are selected and approached can be expected to shape the outcome of exhibitions to a certain degree. In a
notable contribution by Alexander (1996b), she finds that: “museums mount a larger share of exhibitions in popular formats now than they have in the past” (p. 830). Alexander (1996b) ascribes this change to the influence of funder preferences for a certain type of exhibition. The influence of funders is not necessarily forceful of nature, in the sense that a cultural institution always retains the power to choose to accept or reject funding. However, these funder
preferences can be seen as ‘opportunity-providing’. This implies that more exhibitions happen in the sphere where the preferences of funders and museum curators or directors overlap (Alexander, 1996b). Thus, following the production of culture perspective, the way in which art exhibitions are mounted and funded influence the symbolic elements of culture, namely visual artworks.
In order to specifically understand how art institutions cope with financial uncertainty and competition for funders, this study combines two theoretical insights that can be
employed in the production of culture approach: institutional theory and field theory. For example, Franssen and Kuipers (2013) demonstrate the utility of combining these theories in order to make sense of cultural production in their article on the decision-making processes of Dutch editors involved in the acquisition of translation rights. Both theories hinge on the idea that actors and their decisions are embedded in and constrained by the organizational field. Organizational practices emerge in response to challenges in the field and can in turn shape organizational outcomes, such as the types of exhibitions that are mounted in a museum.
The main difference between the two theories is that the central problem in
institutional theory is uncertainty, whereas for field theory this is competition (Franssen & Kuipers, 2013). Combining the two perspectives is useful in a situation that is both uncertain and highly competitive, as is the case in the market for funding by foundations. The two theories are combined in this study to aid the understanding of differing aspects of fundraising processes. Institutional theory can help explain the development of routines and institutional
innovations to control uncertainty, whereas field theory helps explain the power dynamics that stem from differences in museums’ capital.
However, for this particular study it is proposed to use strategic institutional theory rather than institutional theory. In Alexander’s (1996b) definition of strategic institutional theory, the two theoretical strands of institutional theory and resource dependency theory are combined in order to address conflicting pressures in museums: those of artistic staff and those that are expressed by funders. Strategic institutional theory thus incorporates the notion that institutional decision-making is explicitly shaped by both organizational motivations such as legitimacy, as well as external pressures provided by the dependency on financial resources by funders.
In conclusion, strategic institutional theory and field theory work together to explain how fundraising processes influence the production of art, namely by looking at the influence of external pressures and possession of capital on institutional processes.
2.1.1 Strategic Institutional Theory: The Influence of Funder Preferences
In the Netherlands, due to decreased governmental financial support and the recession, cultural institutions are encountering a surge in other stakeholders. The prominence of new and different funders poses a challenge for museum management. Alexander (1996b) finds that different funders are inclined to sponsor exhibition types that align with their preferences. She states that all philanthropists have goals or objectives that focus their giving, meaning that different goals will encourage the funding of different projects. These demands can create conflicting pressures on museums and thus require careful management of multiple
organizational identities (Pache & Santos, 2010; Pratt & Foreman, 2000).
Strategic institutional theory incorporates both resource dependency theory and institutional theory, which is especially useful for this research in order to address conflicting
pressures at museums (Alexander, 1996b). The combination of two theories into one makes sense on a theoretical level, as Alexander (1996b) notes when she states that institutional resources (that provide legitimacy) and technical resources (that support production
processes) are hard to distinguish theoretically (Powell, 1991; Zucker, 1991). Rather, resource dependency theory should be included into the spectrum of institutional research, thus
forming the new terminology of strategic institutional theory. Strategic institutional theorists look at reactions to and interactions with environmental pressure (Alexander, 1996b).
Resource dependency theory explains how environmental influences can direct organizational behavior (Pfeffer & Slancik, 1978). The need for resources obtained from the environment make organizations potentially dependent on the external owners of these resources. Furthermore, resource dependency theory suggests that organizations facing resource scarcities will become more competitive in acquiring resources (Sherer & Lee, 2002). Relating this to the nonprofit field of art museums, it is visible that resource scarcity – with resources being defined as technical resources such as money - indeed leads to an increasingly competitive environment in fundraising (Museumvereniging, 2014). Resource scarcity can be explained by museum’s increased dependency on external financial resources, due to decreased government subsidies and less available financial resources from other funder types (Pilkington, Davies & McDonald, 2010; SER & Raad voor Cultuur, 2016).
Using the theory of resource dependency, Alexander (1996b) argues that external parties may influence the type of exhibitions on show in an art museum. This is due to the fact that museums are highly dependent on funding for large projects such as exhibitions, leading them to conform to a certain degree to the wishes of their resource suppliers. Furthermore, Alexander (1996b) illustrates the influence of funder preferences on museum output
Barman (2008) supports the argument made by Alexander (1996b) concerning funder preferences, stating that institutions must negotiate between goals of their resource suppliers while staying true to their organizational mission. Given this careful balance, Barman (2008) explores the tendency of nonprofit organizations to permit donors to ‘attach strings’ to their gifts. She finds that with an increasing frequency, donors obtain the power over the allocation and distribution of their contributions. Additionally, Toyasaki and Wakolbinger (2014) find that allowing for earmarking of donations leads to a lower overall cost of fundraising, because nonprofits are able to capitalize on media attention and donor interest. These researchers focus on a broad spectrum of nonprofit organizations, but examples of this phenomenon in art museums can be found in funders’ preferences to fund certain exhibitions or acquire a certain artwork (Alexander, 1996b).
While credible research exists on the preferences of corporate sponsors for popular and individual philanthropists for scholarly exhibitions, little is known about the preferences of foundations (Alexander, 1996b). DiMaggio voiced in 1986 that foundations are the forgotten funders in studies of arts support. Alexander (1996b) makes a small step towards rectifying this voiced literature gap and finds, contrary to her prediction, that foundations funded more popular than scholarly exhibitions. This contradiction is due to the fact that in her classification, she aligns foundations’ preferences with those of individual philanthropists. Foundations by private individuals only make up a small part of the wide array of
foundational giving, especially in the Netherlands. The diversity of foundations’ preferences thus persists to be unspecified. DiMaggio’s (1986) call to research the forgotten funders of arts support remains largely unanswered as much as thirty years later.
Foundations can be both private and public, with their source of income ranging from governmental subsidies, corporations or individual benefactors. This seems to implicate that foundational giving spans a wide area. However, they are often treated as a single category in
most scientific research, and researchers remain unsure about foundation’s funding
preferences, selection criteria and selection system orientation (Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2012). Following the discussed theory on resource dependency, the question arises whether foundations are approached differently based on their preferences, and whether these
preferences stem from the source of income such as Alexander’s (1996b) research indicates. Thus, resource dependency theory predicts that funder preferences can shape an art museum’s behavior, for example by funding certain types of exhibitions. However, resource dependency theory also predicts that managers will react to these external pressures by attempting to maintain autonomy and control (Alexander, 1996b). Museum managers aim at limiting the influence of funder preferences. The combination of resource dependency theory with institutional theory lends itself to understanding the complexity of balancing external pressures with organizational practices.
Institutional theory explains that organizations not only make decisions based on tangible resource flows such as available funds, but also based on legitimacy (Scott, 1987; Sherer & Lee, 2002). The dominant selection system in the art world of expert selectors implies that the most valuable source of legitimacy is provided by the artistic and innovative value of an art museum (Bhansing, Leenders & Wijnberg, 2012). Thus, while balancing funder preferences an art museum should maintain its legitimacy by prioritizing the artistic value of projects as perceived by experts.
As the influence of funder preferences is growing according to Barman (2008), it is essential for managers in cultural institutions that they are aware of funder goals in order to balance them with their own artistic mission. Their legitimacy can for instance be retained with the help of a strategy that Alexander (1996b) names ‘resource shifting’, which
be funded with internal funds. As such, museums balance funder preferences with their own internal resources.
Additionally, art museums can create a diverse external funding base that supports exhibitions of all sorts: ranging from popular ‘blockbuster’ programming to scholarly exhibitions that are largely focused on building the museum’s artistic reputation. Lachman, Pain and Gauna (2014) confirm this strategy with their finding that despite the growth of private funding for art museums, museums have retained their autonomy by diversifying their funding mix. Furthermore, Camarero, Garrido and Vicente (2010) underline this strategy with their finding that museums with a mix of private and public funding are more likely to
innovate, as opposed to museums that depend too much on either private or public funding. In addition to creating an overall broad funding mix, it could be interesting to find whether art museums also strive towards creating a funding mix within their support from foundations. In this manner, museums can further enhance their understanding of creating a careful balance between their legitimacy and funder preferences that do not always align with the museum’s organizational mission.
In conclusion, the combination of both resource dependency theory and institutional theory into strategic institutional theory offers a theoretical background on how fundraisers balance institutional pressures for legitimacy with external pressures from funders who own the financial resources.
2.1.2 Field Theory: Power Dynamics in Fundraising
According to the theoretical framework of Bourdieusian field theory, cultural production is situated in a field. The position of an agent in this field is determined by their capital, namely because the accumulation of capital grants a position of power over other players in the field (Shrum, 1991). These power dynamics form because capital has the capability to create
profits (Bourdieu, 1986). The artistic field is characterized by an increasing competition for financial support by external funders. The ownership of specific forms of capital can thus aid museums at ‘winning’ the competition for funding.
Bourdieu (1986) defines three types of capital: economic capital, which can provide immediate monetary value, cultural capital, such as educational qualifications and social capital, which is made out of connections. Each of these three types can also be regarded as symbolic capital, namely when they are perceived and recognized as legitimate. Symbolic capital is thus not a fourth type of capital, but rather the recognized form of the three types: economic, cultural and social capital.
Bourdieu defines social capital as follows: “Social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and
recognition.” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 119) Social capital can be found within ones network and relates to the number of ties (the number of relationships) and the amount of trust and shared values that exists with a network (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Thus, as Bourdieu (1986) states, the volume of social capital that an agent possesses depends on the size of the network of connections he or she can effectively mobilize and on the volume of capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) of these connections.
Researchers confirm the importance of social capital in the nonprofit sector. King (2004) states that fundraising requires social capital in order to raise philanthropic support. Additionally, Galaskiewicz, Bielefeld and Dowell (2006) find that networks are more beneficial to nonprofit organizations than its commercial counterparts, because they largely depend on donations and gifts rather than independently earned income.
Following Bourdieu’s definition, an individual or group can possess social capital. For example in the case of museums, social capital can thus lie with individuals such as the
artistic director or the fundraiser. This can potentially be a great risk for an art museum. Namely, when one or several individuals within the organization manage relationships with key network partners, their social capital can be lost when they resign (Ruzzier, Hisrich & Antoncic, 2006). The importance of social capital suggests that the relationship between a museum fundraiser and a foundation can influence their selection as well as their approach strategies. It could be interesting to determine specifically how social capital is employed by fundraisers at art museums to secure financial support by foundations.
Furthermore, besides the relevance of social capital as a status dynamic in the artistic field, the effect of symbolic capital should also be considered. Symbolic capital is defined as follows: “the acquisition of a reputation for competence and an image of respectability and honourability” (Bourdieu, 1984: 291). Hence, a museums’ reputation or image can be seen as a form of symbolic capital. Following the definition by Brown, Dacin, Pratt and Whetten (2006, p. 102), reputation is understood as “mental associations about the organization actually held by others outside the organization”. The reputation of an art museum thus consists of the perception of its actions in the eyes of external stakeholders. An illustration of the value of reputation is provided by a study from Bhattacharya, Rao and Glynn (1995), who find that members’ identification with a museum is positively related to perceived
organizational prestige.
Organizational reputation can be established in comparison to other similar
organizations (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). One of the most prominent signals that can be used for comparing reputation is organizational size. As opposed to the more ambiguous artistic reputation, organizational size can be measured using visitor numbers or revenue. Research indicates that a larger organizational size has a positive effect on fundraising. For example, DiMaggio (1986) finds that foundations have the tendency to support
on fundraising efficiency. Additionally, Skinner, Ekelund and Jackson (2009) find that there is a positive causal relationship between museum attendance (the number of visitors) and funding.
The number of visitors is not the only factor that defines reputation, the perception of other external stakeholders of the museums, such as funders, is also of high importance (Balser & McClusky, 2005). Reputation can be transferred from one organization to the other by inclusion in a network of well-established reputations (Schweizer & Wijnberg, 1999). Here, it is important to note that funders can benefit from the reputation of the museum, and vice versa. The reputation that is interchanged in the relationship between the museum and foundation forms a self-reinforcing feedback loop where the reputation of both parties is confirmed by the other (Dubois, 2012). While beneficial for large art museums with an established reputation, this feedback loop could be detrimental to smaller art museums’ chance of acquiring funding.
Furthermore, Borgonovi and O’Hare (2004) find that a museum’s diversified funding base is an important criterion for the support of foundations. In this case reputation is
provided by the support of other foundations, which leads to an institutional crowding in effect. The importance of reputation raises interesting questions with regards to fundraising approaches of art museums based on their scale. The reputational benefits owned by large art museums are difficult to transfer to smaller scale museums, which could be reflected in a differing approach to fundraising.
Conclusively, the power dynamics that shape the artistic field can alter a museum’s ability to attract funding. Amongst others, it could be interesting to determine what the effects of artistic reputation, organizational size and location are on fundraising processes.
3. DATA AND METHOD
3.1. Research Design
The aim of this research is to acquire empirical data on the selection and approach of foundations for project-based financial support at art museums. In order to do this, the study follows a
qualitative research design. Specifically, an inductive approach is used to build theory through the use of multiple case studies. This implies that specific observations can be used to progress towards broader generalizations and theories. It also allows for a detailed understanding of the research context (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Additionally, the purpose of this research is both descriptive as exploratory. A descriptive approach can be used in order to describe the
fundraising process that fundraisers in art museums employ in order to acquire funding by foundations. An exploratory approach adds to this by exploring the attitudes of the fundraisers towards this process.
In order to get access to expert data, semi-structured interviews are conducted. This implies that an interview protocol was created in order to ensure that all topics are covered in each interview. However, semi-structured interviews also allow for variation in the order of the questions, or to add or leave out questions based on the relevance for each interview participant (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The interviews include questions on background and demographic, experience and behavior and opinions and values (Patton, 2002). Themes in these interviews relate to the literature streams of strategic institutional theory and field theory.
Finally, the research design is chosen in service of the research objective. The in-depth knowledge that is provided by the expert interviews cannot be found in other types of data. The unit of analysis consists of fundraisers in art museums in the Netherlands. This group is suitable because it has both the knowledge on fundraising processes within an
organizational framework, as well as experience with foundations’ funding preferences that might not be visible from foundations’ publically stated criteria.
3.2 Sample and Data Collection
The population of this research consists of art museums in the Netherlands. A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment (ICOM, 2007). The definition of a museum differs from other presentation institutions in that a museum manages its own collection. Specifically, an art museum manages a collection of which most objects concern fine art objects. The population of art museums in the Netherlands consists of 66 museums, according to the last count by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) in 2013.
From this population of art museums, a sample of large-scale to small-scale art museums is gathered. For the purpose of this research, organizational size is understood in terms of visitor numbers of museums, as stated in museums’ annual reports from 2015. In total, 24 museums are approached to participate in the research. These museums are selected based on their location in the country (taking into account budget and time constraints), organizational size and the employment of a fundraiser that attends to foundations. Hence the sampling strategy is purposive, indicating that a small sample is collected via the judgment of the researcher based on the research objective (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Specifically,
heterogeneous sampling is used in order to include a diverse range of characteristics in the sample. For example, a heterogeneous sample implies that fundraisers with differing sources of capital can be compared.
A preliminary study of a short unstructured interview with a fundraiser from a large museum in the Netherlands is used in order to gain connections to several fundraisers in the
field. The approach then generally consists of an e-mail and follow-up e-mail should the fundraiser be non-responsive at first contact. 3 museums were non-responsive after these attempts and thus excluded from the sample. 6 museums declined the interview, with reasons varying from a lack of time, a lack of fundraising efforts in the organization and vacations or other types of absence of the fundraiser. 15 museums agreed to participate, of which an overview can be found in Table 1, ordered according to size. This amounts to a total response rate of 62.5%.
Table 1 shows an overview of the specifications of the sample, focusing on
organizational size and location. This shows that the sample is roughly evenly divided with regards to organizational size, namely with 6 small, 4 medium and 5 large museums. The locations of the museums included in the sample are mostly the city of Amsterdam (7), followed by Den Haag (2). Furthermore, cities included in the sample are Haarlem, Utrecht, Arnhem, Rotterdam, Eindhoven and Leiden. The sample further included 4 male and 11 female employees. The majority of the sample occupied their current position for less than 5 years, which can be related to the relatively new organizational trend of creating fundraising departments at museums.
Interviews were conducted with 15 fundraisers in June until the beginning of July. The length of each interview varied between 30 and 60 minutes. The majority of these
interviews were conducted face-to-face, with the exception of 1 interview that was conducted by telephone. The interviews predominantly took place in the museums in which the
fundraisers worked, varying from private or public offices to cafes. During all of the interviews an interview protocol was followed, which can be consulted in appendix A.
Table 1
Specifications of the sample
# Museum Location Size* Visitors Title of participant
1 Rijksmuseum Amsterdam Large 2,350,666 Accountmanager
Fondsen
2 Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam Large 1,900,000 Fondsenwerver
3 Gemeentemuseum
Den Haag
Den Haag Large 719,000 Fondsenwerving &
Relatiebeheer 4 Stedelijk Museum
Amsterdam
Amsterdam Large 731,000 Fonds Relaties
5 Mauritshuis Den Haag Large 500,000 Hoofd Development
6 Amsterdam Museum Amsterdam Medium 480,000 Fondsenwerving en
Sponsoring
7 Hermitage Amsterdam Medium 444,000 Development
8 Museum Boijmans
van Beuningen
Rotterdam Medium 270,000 Relatiemanager
Fondsen
9 Museum het
Rembrandthuis
Amsterdam Medium 249,255 Hoofd Development
10 Centraal Museum Utrecht Small 156,000 Externe
Betrekkingen en Fondsenwerving 11 Frans Hals Museum /
De Hallen Haarlem
Haarlem Small 144,126 Coördinator
Fondsenwerving en Relatiebeheer 12 Joods Historisch
Museum
Amsterdam Small 121,928 Fondsenwerver
13 Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven Small 95,718 Hoofd Marketing,
Bemiddeling en Fondsenwerving
14 Museum Arnhem Arnhem Small 85,381 Fondsenwerving &
Sponsoring
Fondsenwerving en Relatiebeheer
* Small = < 200,000 visitors | Medium = 200,000-500,000 visitors | Large = > 500,000 visitor
3.3 Quality of the Research
The quality of the research is assessed based on the following criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. This is done in order to ensure the trustworthiness of the research design.
First, credibility of the research relates to the establishing of confidence in the truth of the findings. The truth of the findings is corroborated with the participants of the
interview by providing 60% of the participants with an ability to check the transcripts. Furthermore, due to the amount of interviews that were conducted, repetition was visible in expert opinions. This leads to believe that the observation from the field is truthful.
Second, the aim of transferability is to provide insight into the applicability of the data across other research settings. This is done by carefully describing the research setting and detailing how the interviews were conducted.
Third, dependability ensures the availability of an audit trail (documentation of the data). This also relates to the detailed description of the data collection process, as well as the use of audio recordings and transcriptions of the interviews. The data is carefully documented and the decisions that are made by the researcher are visible in the interview protocol and coding structure that are provided.
Fourth, the concept of confirmability also envelops an audit trail as a means to demonstrate quality. As mentioned, the audit trail provides insight into the applicability of the findings into other settings, but also allows for replication of the data collection by other researchers. Furthermore, the methodology that is used includes a heterogeneous sample that
qualitative research design, the manner in which the sample is selected does provide an attempt at generalization across art museums. Because the industry of art museums in the Netherlands in relatively small, the validity of making logical (rather than statistical) generalizations is higher.
3.4 Data Analysis
The collected data, consisting of 15 audio recording of interviews with experts, is first transcribed in order to perform the analysis. The transcriptions are then analyzed using the software NVivo. Excerpts from the transcripts are coded into nodes, from which patterns are identified. The coding tree consisting of nodes and child nodes can be viewed in Appendix B. Furthermore, the results are based on the careful analysis of transcripts and are supported with participant quotations.
4. RESULTS
Quotations from expert interviews are used in order to support the findings that are presented in the results section. The participants are indicated with a number ranging from 1-15. The numbers do not correspond with the specifications of the sample in Table 1.
4.1 Mapping Foundations and Their Preferences
4.1.1 General Characteristics of Fundraising in Art Museums
The organizational structure of art museums has changed and thereby showcases the increased attention that has been directed towards fundraising in recent years. Whereas fundraising was often part of curators’ job descriptions on a smaller scale and most funding came from
government subsidies, now separate fundraising departments are created that employ people who dedicate their time and attention solely to attracting financial support for the museum. Especially fundraising with foundations on a small scale has a longstanding tradition in museums, as one participant (15) illustrates: “Foundations are something that we really have been doing since the start of the museum.”
Fundraising departments that are included in the study are often titled Development departments, but other combinations also include the terminology Fundraising, Sponsoring, Relationship Management and Philanthropy. The results show that separate fundraising departments are also created in small museums with limited staff members. Here, the department often consists of one employee who attends to all funder types. Furthermore, results show that the bigger the museum is, the bigger the fundraising department and the more specified employees become. Within big fundraising departments, employees often only attend to one type of funder.
Generally, museums’ main income derives from governmental subsidies, whether they are municipal or state subsidies. Museums earn an additional income from entrance tickets, facilities such as museums shops and restaurants or renting out parts of the museum for events. Furthermore, museums occasionally receive donations of artworks. Besides these income streams, the external funders that financially support art museums can be classified into three main categories: private benefactors, corporate sponsors and foundations.
Foundations can further be divided in public and private foundations, where public
foundations are funded by government subsidies and private foundations stem either from private benefactors or institutions. The museums in the sample mostly attract funding from foundations located in the Netherlands, with a few exceptions that have financial support by more than one international foundation.
Between the three aforementioned funder types, foundations bring in the largest share of income in the majority of the sample. This implies that the largest external funding source for museums in the sample, besides governmental subsidies, comes from foundations.
Participants note however, that the income of foundations is largely dependent on the projects that museums execute each year. For example, a participant (10) remarks on the size of foundational support with regards to other funder types: “That is a significant part, though it varies greatly each year. That depends very much on the programming.” Another participant (6) indicates: “It varies and depends on the projects. Last year was an exceptionally good year, but that had to do with a major purchase. We acquired a painting […]. Yes, whole other amounts of money are available than when you are dealing with exhibitions or publications.” Or: “Look, grants by foundations, those are contributions that […] move with the projects you do. In other words, in periods that you have a lot of projects that foundations can support. For example projects with side programming or educational projects, you have more grants than in other years.” (9)
Participants report an increased level of competition in attracting funding from foundations. Increased competition can be credited to heightened dependence on foundations for financial support by museums. This is both due to decreased government subsidies and the
privatization of municipal museums. A participant (11) says: “Because of the whole change in the system and the budget cuts there are simply more fish in the pond. To give an example, the [anonymous] foundation has received way less budget, but has to service more people.” However, the participant (11) goes on to say: “So the competition is very strong, but I do not see that as a bad thing. I see that more as a sign that you simply have to think very carefully as a museum what you have to offer.” This shows that competition for funding is not only seen as detrimental, but can also improve museums’ output. The word distinctiveness is often named in this regard. For example, one person (1) indicates that museums have to “[…] step up their efforts if they really want to be distinctive”. Another (10) states that “Every
institution has their own identity and own character, so if everybody presents their project in the best way. I think you just become more distinctive, instead of becoming a competitor. It is kind of like, what is our right to exist as a museum or whatever kind of institution. Why are we here and what do we do differently than other institutions? I think that this has been a good influence from a bad starting position, from the budget cuts.”
It is also noted by participants that there is a growing need for funding due to increasing ambitions of museums after the first wave of government budget cuts. A
fundraiser, as well as former employee of a foundation (6) notes: “I noticed from my time at the foundation that the last years that I worked there more and more people contacted us. […] I noticed at the foundation that in the height of the economic crisis there was a decrease in applications, that it really became significantly less. I think that had to do with the fact, in order to be able to do a grant proposal, you have to have a certain organizational mass. Because of a number of cultural budget cuts, a whole number of institutions appeared to be
less able to run projects, they only kept busy with: how do we make sure we survive at all? And you simply notice that people are slightly over that and bigger initiatives are coming up. That is what I noticed there.”
Increased competition goes hand in hand with an increased intensity of fundraising. Participants report that the intensity of fundraising with foundations has increased in the last couple of years: both on an organizational as well as individual level. The higher intensity of organizational fundraising is visible in the statements of the participants. They indicate that they are often the first person to be responsible for attracting funding from foundations. New jobs are created especially to cater to foundations; “You talk about that everybody sees opportunities. Also are increasingly willing to dedicate man-hours to that, which is of course what you should do as a museum. […] You also see that, usually following an American example, that it simply shows that if you put in the work, it pays off.” (6) Higher intensity is also visible on the individual level of fundraisers, namely in the higher amount of work that one grant proposal requires. For example: “It is just, it is really not that easy anymore for foundations – you really have to be very good. In that sense, the work that goes into it has become more. It has to be of strong quality, because there are simply so many grant proposals.” (1)
In order to cope with the increasing amounts of grant proposals that foundations have to manage, foundations became more formalized in the last years. A participant (10) states: “Yes, the foundations, the application processes have become much more intensive in my experience. So you spend more time to submit a grant proposal and after it has been approved also more time on the finalization.” This heightened competition is visible in the increasing digitization of application processes. One participant (1) remarks: “In the past three years that I have been a fundraiser there have really been so many foundations that have switched to digital applications. Where in the past I had to post whole packages.”
4.1.2 Funder Preferences
Foundations, along with other funder types, have preferences that guide their giving. In the context of this study the term preferences is used over other notions such as criteria or objectives. In line with Alexander’s (1996b) use of the term preferences, this term indicates both formal criteria as well as implicit and unexpressed preferences. Or as one participant (2) puts it: “I think that it is both written and unwritten. So that there are rules that indicate certain preferences of a foundation, and that there are unwritten rules of what a foundation does and does not want to do.” Another example of this is: “The criteria are of course not always airtight. It is not always that what is stated, is what it really is. If you look at certain foundations, then there is always a director behind it who has certain preferences.” (12)
Preferences often stem from the moment the foundation is founded. This can for example derive from the preferences of a private benefactor or director that founded the foundation. Other foundations are shaped more by the projects that they have funded
throughout the years; projects of “which they see that it has had a good effect or that it really fits their identity” (2). However, foundations’ preferences are not static, but rather dynamic and react to changes in the field. A new director can for example change the preferences that a foundation has, or governmental subsidies can influence the direction of foundational giving.
Furthermore, increased competition in fundraising has in some cases also led to the narrowing of foundations’ preferences, for example: “The [anonymous] foundation sharpens their criteria, because they simply get too many grant applications. So you see that this
happens at a given moment, that they think: we need to focus more.” (12) Another participant (7) states: “I think that foundations are also drafting their criteria more specifically, because they feel more pressure from different angles. You notice that they are sharpening very quickly. […] If you communicate that clearly, you save yourself a large amount of work.”
The participants unanimously agree that foundations’ preferences cannot be generalized into a single category. Furthermore, participants were also reluctant to generalize preferences based on the distinction between public and private foundations. The sample suggests that no major differences in preferences exist on the dividing line between public and private foundations and preferences differ for each individual foundation; “No, I find it hard to make a generalist statement about that, because I think that you just have more different foundations.” (14) Or: “It is really difficult to make a general statement on that. Each foundation just differs a lot in where they put their emphasis.” (5)
Generalizations into a single category or between public and private foundations were not found in the sample, because of differing funding preferences between foundations. However, it is possible to distill these differences into a total of three categories in which foundations’ preferences lie based on the expert opinions of fundraisers, namely format, content and goal. Examples of these categories are provided in Figure 1, based on patterns that were found in the interviews. However, it is important to note that the examples are used illustratively and thus do not provide a complete overview of foundational preferences.
Content (What?) Format (How?) Goal (Why?)
Period of art Link to region Sustainability Exhibition Publication Research Education Acquisition Restoration Experimental Audience reach
Figure 1: Funding preferences of foundations
Figure 1 illustrates the categories in which funding preferences of foundations can be separated and understood. First, preferences are identified based on the type of content
foundations prefer to fund. For example, a foundation could prefer to fund a particular period in art history or be interested in funding certain topics such as sustainability. Also,
foundations that focus their giving on a specific region prefer projects that have a direct link to that region. Second, the preference of foundations can also lay in the format of a project, such as an exhibition, an exhibition with a strong educational programming or the acquisition of an artwork. Third and last, foundational preferences are guided by the overarching goal of the project, namely if it is either experimental or has a broad audience reach. An experimental project can for instance hold an exhibition of an unknown artist but also a project of which the outcome is undetermined or unprecedented. A project with a broad audience reach can be understood as more accessible programming, for example a blockbuster exhibition of artists that are known to a wide public or educational programming aimed at children.
The results further show that in order to attend to the range of funder preferences – and thereby gain the most possible financial support – it is important to have a diversity of
projects in both format, content and goal. For example, one participant (8) highlights the dependence of fundraising on the diversity in projects of the museum: “Yes, well, I think it is rather difficult. You can only appeal to the same foundation a set number of times. Then we have three exhibitions a year, all of which actually are on the same topic.”
4.2 The Fundraising Process
The analysis of expert accounts leads to assume that fundraising processes regarding
foundational giving are often similar for different museums. The fundraising process – which for the purpose of this research relates specifically to foundations – can be described using the phases: project development, selection, approach and procedure. Each phase comes with its own challenges for fundraisers. The differences that are accounted for in fundraising
processes by field position, or the possession of differing types of capital, are also taken into account.
4.2.1 Project Development
Project development is the first phase in the fundraising process. When the project is initiated, the interaction with funder preferences also commences due to the involvement and mediation of fundraisers. Project development is always the first phase in fundraising, since the financial support of a foundation is project-based and thus always earmarked for a special project. Project development is followed by selection and approach phases, and continues to exist until the project commences. The phases of project development, selection, approach and procedure can thus be understood as succeeding each other, while also being fluid in the sense that preceding phases are not concluded before the next phase begins. For example, when foundations are selected and approached for funding, their preferences continue to be voiced during project meetings. Or, when the approach of foundations appears to be less successful, a fundraiser can step back to the phase of selection in order to attract other funders.
The fundraiser has an important mediating role between foundation and museum, as he or she is responsible for voicing foundations’ preferences in the organization during project development. In practice, this often comes down to the early inclusion in project meetings, for example for exhibitions: “Yes, I sit with every project meeting on all exhibitions. […] Then I also look at, what are the demands of the foundations and do the ideas of the curators meet those in relation to this exhibition and this foundation. So when I say: well, guys, we can do a grant proposal with a foundation that really pays attention to this and this and this - keep that in mind, because that is interesting. So I always sit there.” (11)
During project development, fundraisers gather input in order to write a grant
is the quality of the content. A participant (3) underlines this thought with the following statement: “The most important thing is that your proposal is really good, always. So that you – that the content is just completely there and all the other things around it […] have an influence, but it stands or falls with the content and the story.” A grant proposal is often the product of input from a wide range of museum staff members. For example: “That current proposal I am writing together with the curator, but also with the people of communication, education – everybody can contribute there.” (13) The quality of the grant proposal’s content thus depends on connections between the fundraiser and other staff members in the museum.
The separation of fundraising departments from the curatorial staff in a museum brings with it the specific challenge for fundraisers to retain these connections. Participants insist that is of great importance to stay connected during the development of projects for which they are deemed to raise funds. The majority indicates that they are involved during the development of the project at an early stage, often with the financial reasoning “to see
whether, okay, what can and can’t I raise with this project”. (10) Another reason that is brought forward is the short-term and long-term planning, or strategic distribution of which project to pitch to which foundation. One participant (1) indicates: “It is clear that I have to know beforehand what a project is going to be like before I can actually start fundraising. And that is because I need the content, but also because I need to make plans for the coming three years. I want know now what I am going to be doing in three years.”
Another benefit of the fundraiser being included at an early stage in the development of projects is that foundations can also be involved early. “So that you involve them from an early moment, that is what I find the most desirable approach. But that requires your
programming to be done in time. And I think that foundations also really enjoy it that way, because then they feel like they are very involved in the process. And that they can steer somewhere, although this might not always be the case.” (12)
The topic of foundations that ‘steer’ projects that are being developed, is something that is handled carefully by participants in the interviews. Most are quick to state that the content of the project is leading, not the preferences of foundations. For example, a participant (5) says on the selection of foundations for funding: “I see what fits from the content of the project, never the other way around”. Or: “Personally, as a fundraiser, I find it very important that the content is leading. That you do not touch the DNA of the museum, even though you need funders. […] I can’t change a project or inject the preferences of a foundation in a project purely because we get funding.” (7)
While fundraisers are persistent in denying the direct influence of funder preferences, it is visible from examples in the interviews that sometimes projects happen where
preferences of foundations and the museum overlap. “The foundations care about audience reach and how you deal with your public. That is useful for me in my department as well as for the entire museum, because we have the tendency – or have had this in the past – to approach everything very intellectually. […] So we have worked on our way of wording and naturally we have invested a lot in education, accessibility and inclusion in the last four years. So that it also becomes easier to talk about those things.” (13) Another example also
illustrates this: “Well, there was an exhibition where a foundation wanted to give money for the educational aspect of these exhibitions. So then an extensive educational project was developed, which was especially funded by that foundation.” (11)
With regards to balancing foundations’ preferences and the museums’ vision on the development of projects, it is interesting to note that fundraisers often do not speak of a direct clash between these pressures. Foundations are described as more compatible with the goals that museums strife towards with their projects, than for example funders such as corporate partners. This leads to less conflict between museum and funder preferences. Fundraisers attribute this to the focus on (artistic) content that most foundations share with museums.
Additionally, fundraisers state that should they encounter a clash with a foundation, “you just neglect them”. (8) Another participant (9) underlines this sentiment: “If a foundation does not feel comfortable with it, then there is no match. Then I have to focus on other funders.”
4.2.2 Selection
Once fundraisers are involved in the development of a project, they often make immediate mental associations on which foundation could be a good match with the project at hand. These associations are based on experience with foundations’ preferences, for example based on previous projects that have been funded. Next to experience, fundraisers state that they select new foundations based on extensive research. For example: “Well, if a project – if I know that a project is coming up, then I just start researching. Often on the artist, or the artists who are involved. Then I see what they have done in the past and see who has financed them to get that going.” (12) Fundraisers also note that they gather tips from other funders or employees in their museum: “I get a lot of tips sometimes. And I get - I can use everybody’s network and I do because then I have a bigger reach.” (14)
Furthermore, fundraisers indicate that they also pay attention to other museums when selecting foundations. “That is actually very simple, you have to be alert. As a fundraiser, I always have a sort of – I think all fundraisers should have this – a sort of sensor that is always on when I visit an exhibition, I always look at the colophon. In the catalogue I always check the colophon. With everything that I go to I am always curious: who made this possible. And sometimes you encounter a foundation that: oh, I have never heard of before or you think: yes, of course, they still exist. We should see if we have an interesting project.” (7). All fundraisers employ these tactics, or as one participant (9) states: “I think we all do this to each other.” This comparative behavior is accepted amongst fundraisers: “That is the fun thing about this sector, it is not very closed off.” However, one participant (12) states that this
openly comparative behavior is allowed until a certain extent: “We talk about the foundations, we do not necessarily talk about the entrance into these foundations. Because with
international foundations it is the case that you have to have an entrance, you can not just apply for funding. So you will have to figure it out, that entrance is of course worth a lot of money. […] So you help each other a little, but – and you talk about new foundations – but not about people.”
However, sometimes foundations’ preferences remain unclear, such as the following participant (8) indicates: “Sometimes I find it rather difficult what they want and if you can not contact them. Some foundations do not want contact beforehand, so then it is a bit of a gamble. For instance, I have this foundation from which I really have not idea what they really want, but have received money on several occasions for totally different things. But I do not know their criteria and I have invited that woman many times, but she does not have the time for it. But she does give money. So I do not know.”
This example also illustrates the tactic that almost every fundraiser in the sample employs should they want to identify unknown preferences: they contact the foundation personally. However, as another participant (1) states, it is important to retain a delicate balance of asking and knowing: “You should not ask foundations too much about what they really want to know, you should just get what a foundation wants to hear. Then it appears natural, if I instantly deliver a grant proposal that matches.”
Besides the importance of funder preferences in the selection of foundations, the funding mix is another factor that fundraisers hold into account. “It really is a puzzle that I want to do really well beforehand”, one participant (1) says. This implies that which
foundations are selected to apply for funding, does not only depend on the match but also on additional factors such as the long-term planning of project. With regards to this, a participant (1) argues: “You can not do a big grant proposal right now when you know: in two years an
even bigger one has to be done.” Foundations often try to achieve a certain spread in their giving, meaning that the same institutions do not apply for funding within a set amount of time. Multiple participants state that they want to prevent cannibalizing on their own income. Long-term planning is thus required in order to find the best match possible with funder preferences given the projects in the coming years.
With regards to achieving a balance in the funding mix between private and public foundations, participants often mention that they have not considered this. Rather, a funding mix is pursued for foundations in combination with other funder types such as private givers or corporations. For example: “I do not think purely in the division: I have to have this many public foundations and this many private foundations. It is more about on the one hand which projects need support and what we need. And on the other hand I also think that certain foundations that are large or I deem important, I want to involve with something each year or every other year.” (3)
However, in selecting foundations fundraisers do pay attention to the value that a grant of a specific foundation holds for others. One participant (6) speaks from experience at a foundation: “We also found that when other foundations participated in a project, that was sort of a confirmation of, yes, this project has widespread support.” The participant (6) goes on to provide an example from the viewpoint of a museum: “If you are doing an acquisition, and you for example only write to one foundation – a big acquisition. That is totally
ridiculous. If you do not have the [anonymous] foundation, if they say: we’ll do it, then that is a stamp of approval for other foundations. This is a really important acquisition, because a knowledgeable group of people has looked at it. […] Then you strive for a mix – you want the one foundation to give something and the other foundation to also give something.”
4.2.3 Approach
After selecting foundations that match a given project, fundraisers approach the foundation on their interest in providing financial support for the project. The fundraisers in the sample agree that the majority of grant proposals are never submitted unannounced. Often a
foundation is approached with a specific project, in order to test whether the project matches the foundations’ preferences. The following participant (15) illustrates this process: “If there is a good match, then the first contact is actually always by telephone. Then we check: well, we have these plans, how would that match with your goals.” Other times, conversations with foundations are more open and multiple projects are pitched to find the right fit. One
participant (2) states: “Normally I have a conversation with a foundation, or invite someone at ours and we get to know each other. Based on that a project comes up which is interesting and provides meaning for both parties.”
The reasoning behind this personal approach is often one of efficiency. A grant proposal takes up a lot of time and effort and the match between the foundations’ preferences and project should thus be optimal. While funding is never guaranteed after this first contact, fundraisers admit it does aid in the process of getting the funding application approved. In a few examples, the effect of reaching out to foundations is made explicit: “I have just also made an appointment after an application with a foundation that states that they support cultural projects, and we are getting one rejection after another. I say: yes, these are all cultural projects. Well, so then, we do so many things and there must be something in there that you like. He could totally imagine that, so then I find it really pleasant when someone comes by, so that our range – a museum in fact does everything. There is always something there that someone likes, it is about the match I think.” (6)
After first contacting a foundation on a project, fundraisers write a project plan based on the input of employees from other departments, or compile and edit a project plan based on
their writings. It was mentioned before that during the project development phase, fundraisers are careful with allowing funder preferences to alter the programming. One strategy that fundraisers employ in order to balance funder preferences is composing grant proposals in multiple ways according to differing preferences. For example: “A project, an exhibition or an acquisition, that should be what it is from the vision of the curator or the director. But of course in my grant proposal I do – if I know that a foundation values the educational aspect, or the translation to the audience, then of course I look to the plan: how can I highlight this.” (3) Also, it is mentioned again that the diversity of projects that the museum offers is
beneficial to fundraising in this regard. “The story always has to add up. Within these constraints I think that a lot is possible, in the sense that you – well, we of course have the luck at the [anonymous] museum that we have a large, broad collection. And we are relatively agile, because we do a lot. So often you can find a connection.” (3)
It thus appears that after the selection phase where foundations are chosen based on the match between their preferences and the project, the approaches are even more specified based on preferences. The same project is pitched to different foundations, where in each proposal a different facet of the project is brought forward. In proposals fundraisers
sometimes also make use of ‘magic words’ or ‘core concepts’ that they know foundations are looking for. This strategy highlights aspects of the projects and signals the match with the foundation. For example: “Education is always an important one. Yes, participation is also such a word, a magic word. Tiresome, all those words that you always – audience
participation, collaboration with other institutions. Those are always the things that
foundations – crowdfunding is another one of those words, if you drop that: yes, we also do crowdfunding. Then you always have a competitive edge. That is often also in their
Furthermore, a project plan is sometimes exchanged between the museum and foundation before it is handed in and enters the ‘official’ procedure. Fundraisers often have the same contacts at museums that they approach for this. They often ask their contact for input on the project plan, how it can be aimed even more at the foundations’ preferences and ask directly whether the project applies for funding by the foundation. Next to producing practical information for the fundraiser, this process also forges a collaborative bond between the foundation and museum around the project. This can in turn aid the chance of acquiring funding, in the sense that “if you have personal contact with the foundations and they know you. They of course have to defend a project against a commission or a board. If they have trust in you, they deliver that more enthusiastically than when there is no trust in the organization.” (4)
4.2.4 Procedure
Once the foundation has been selected and approached, the formal phase of the application process begins. Especially the larger foundations in the Netherlands have formalized their processes and require additional question forms and attachments along with a project plan and budget. After submitting the proposal, contact is often retained between the foundation and fundraisers in case of additional questions and concerning updates on the status of the proposal. Then the financial support is either accepted or rejected, based on the decision by for example a director, board or advisory commissions. Public foundations often show more visibility during this phase, because they have to legitimize their spending of public money.
As a fundraiser, retaining contact with other staff members in the museum is equally important during this phase as it is when developing the project and writing a project plan. For example: “Then everybody here is already working on the new projects and I am the troublemaker who: by the way, what about those objectives, were they achieved?” (10) After
