The Final Nail for the Traditional Capital Campaign

The Final Nail for the Traditional Capital Campaign

Covid19 is the final nail for the traditional capital campaign! Capital campaigns have been around since the mid 20th century. Billions of dollars were raised through capital campaigns primarily for buildings. Now as every church is reevaluating the need for buildings I believe the time has come to finally to bury the traditional campaign. The need to rethink traditional capital campaigns dates from before COVID19. The pandemic simply has hastened the demise and death of traditional capital campaigns.

Thankfully my industry is finally waking up to this new reality. Now you are seeing firms pivoting away from the traditional campaign model. Here is an excellent post from a competitor,

https://auxano.com/fresh-content/post-covid-capital-campaigns-the-shifting-dynamics

Below are two posts that I wrote last year about the trend in capital campaigns.

Here is a post, from July of 2019 entitled, “2 Reasons Capital Campaigns Are Doomed.” https://acts17generosity.com/2-reasons-capital-campaigns-are-doomed/

Here is another post from November 2019 entitled, “A Wake Up Call for Capital Campaigns.” https://acts17generosity.com/a-wake-up-call-for-capital-campaigns/

Another way of looking at capital campaigns is to realize the difference between,

Dead Versus Different

The need to raise capital has not gone away. It never will. Even if a church never builds another building they will need to raise capital dollars for upkeep and renovation. Churches that survive post COVID19 will be faced with huge restructuring issues, most of which will need to be funded. Some churches will adopt failing churches which is positive. In almost every instance of a church adoption, however, major dollars have to be spent to bring facilities up to date. Where does that money come from?

What guys like me and others are contending is not that the need for raising capital is dead but that the old 20th-century process must die! We must have a different approach, not for the sake of being different but to be effective.

In June of 2019 I wrote the following in a post called, “My Big Idea,” https://acts17generosity.com/my-big-idea/

The stewardship firms have had it wrong.  Our focus has been upon helping churches when they need to raise capital dollars not week to week dollars.  But as one of the leaders in the field of church analytics, I discovered that campaign giving comes almost exclusively from top tiered donors.  While we are busy collecting big bucks for your building we are short changing the discipling of the next generation of donors.  What good have I been to you if I help you build the building but you can’t pay the electric bill?

We are operating out of the past, failing to fund the present with no regard for the future!  Our systems scream 1980.  It’s past time to restructure how we help churches raise not just capital dollars but budget dollars.  THAT, is what started me thinking why shouldn’t a church get expert advice for BOTH?

I opened that post back in June with a sentence that fits well here. I asked this question,

My big idea is why shouldn’t a church get someone to help them that specializes in all things generosity related? 

Are you ready for something that is not only different but more effective? Join my team! We are on the path to financial security. Join us! https://acts17generosity.com/memberships/

Mark Brooks – The Stewardship Coach

@StewardshipMan

Leave a Reply