Nonprofit Hub Radio

A Smarter Way to Run Capital Campaigns

• NonProfit Hub • Season 6 • Episode 38

Share episode

Send us a text

Capital campaigns don’t have to be mysterious, exhausting marathons. With Jason Lewis of Seed Fundraisers, we pull back the curtain on a simpler, smarter path: a four‑wave model that mirrors how donors actually give and how organizations can build capacity while they raise transformational dollars. Instead of forcing everything into “quiet” and “public,” we map the journey from experienced, asset‑based leadership gifts through staff‑driven cultivation, to broader, income‑based pledges—so momentum doesn’t stall and volunteers aren’t asked to do the wrong jobs at the wrong time.

We also tackle the hidden “undercurrent” that sinks campaigns when gift volume spikes: pledge management, receipting, data hygiene, leadership stability, and board continuity. Jason shares where to invest staff time, when to shift from one‑to‑one to one‑to‑many outreach, and how to structure a case for support that reaches three distinct major‑donor motivations: bricks and mortar, entrepreneurial program growth, and rapid‑response needs. If you’ve ever watched a lead donor step up only to be let down by the follow‑through, this framework shows how to bring the next wave with you—on purpose.

Along the way, we offer straight‑talk for newer fundraisers who feel out of their depth: get in front of donors more often, listen longer, and translate annual‑fund instincts to capital scale. Treat your campaign as a teaching instrument, not a one‑off production, and you’ll build internal muscle that lasts well beyond the ribbon‑cutting. Ready to rethink your next campaign—and keep what you learn? Follow the show, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review to tell us what wave you’re planning for next.

Support the show

Get free nonprofit professional development resources, connections to cause work peers, and more at https://nonprofithub.org

SPEAKER_00:

Marketing Support Network is proud to serve the nonprofit community by offering full service contact center, fulfillment, digital marketing, and fundraising services. Your vision is our mission, and we can't wait to partner with you. Visit Marketing Support Network.com for more information.

SPEAKER_01:

Welcome back to the Nonprofit Hub Radio Podcast. I'm your host, Megan Speer, joined today by Jason Lewis, who's uh one of the partners at Seed Fundraisers. You may remember we had Isaac on not too long ago. So it's good to have another voice from Seed. Jason, welcome in.

SPEAKER_02:

Hey, I'm glad to be here, Megan. Uh, you and I have yet to have the uh privilege of being in the same room together, but uh I am looking forward to getting that out of the way. But uh, I've enjoyed getting to know you at a distance and looking forward to today's conversation.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I'm excited to dig in. So for the audience who might not yet be familiar with you and your work, give us a little bit of background about your history with the nonprofit space and with fundraising in particular.

SPEAKER_02:

No, I've got a little bit of a complicated relationship with the nonprofit sector right now.

SPEAKER_01:

I feel like that's a fair assessment. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. I think um so uh I have said to some folks very recently that um, and in most cases I'm referring to the writing that I'm doing on Substack, that I'm in that mid-career sort of uh deconstruction phase where I'm sort of deconstructing my faith in everything that we do or what we don't do. Um I spend uh to answer your question very explicitly, you know, specifically, I spend about half my time, Megan, uh teaching uh at the local college. Uh I teach a non at your college of Pennsylvania, I teach a nonprofit management course every semester, a social entrepreneurship course, and a couple of other marketing and management courses. Um then I spend a great deal of my time um writing. Uh I have a fledgling Substack that's pretty popular, growing in popularity amongst the fundraising and philanthropic community. And then I do have a handful of clients. So I like to keep myself out in the field, uh you know, boots on the ground, as you might say, getting my hands dirty with some of the challenges that clients have. So that's kind of it's kind of the three prongs of how I spend my time.

SPEAKER_01:

Nice. Well, so we're gonna use a little of that background today to talk about actually something that I don't think we've talked about yet on the podcast since I took over as the host a year and a half ago. And that is a capital campaign. I feel like we have dissected every other tiny piece of fundraising across the board. So I'm excited to dig into a new piece of it and talk capital. It's I think maybe one of the scarier parts for a lot of people because it can be such a large undertaking. So let's let's set the stage for today's discussion because you have a different way of kind of viewing that campaign. And I think it goes back to actually how you opened, which is I have a little bit of a different view of how we do fundraising. So this this particular I mean, there's always kind of been the old school, we're doing this in two phases in a way we go kind of approach. Talk to me a little bit about your framework and how you think of it differently to get started.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, so um we're on a podcast, so those of us who are don't have the advantage of necessarily the visual, but do we broadcast this on um YouTube?

SPEAKER_01:

We will put so we'll put the graphic for this in the show notes for sure.

SPEAKER_02:

In the show notes, okay, good. So um, for those of those folks who are listening, we're talking about this visual that's actually quite well designed by a graphic designer, not myself, in a single square box. So all of this can uh, if you've got that visual in front of you, it'll make a lot more sense. But to jump off of your reference to the traditional two-phase, I have orchestrated and been actively involved in a number of campaigns throughout my career, uh, most of which small with smaller and less experienced organizations, Megan. And I have found that that two-phase traditional sort of public and or quiet and public phase has some flaws in it. The model that I have introduced and we've utilized with clients over the years doesn't completely dismiss those two what we might call phases in in our four-phase model. That very quiet phase would essentially just simply be the first wave in our four waves. And then that very public phase generally plays out in waves two and uh three and four. And so we've divided it. And what we're really trying to do first and foremost is deliver to the client a more intuitive and a capacity-building sort of resource that helps them visualize what a cap the way a capital campaign traditionally plays out in an organization. It's usually, it's probably best understood as an outgrowth or a uh an extension of a thriving, existing fundraising program. So you kind of know that your program has kind of reached a particular point when you're able to embark on a capital campaign. And with that said, that's one of the reasons why I don't think it should be nearly as intimidating as perhaps we sometimes make it to be. Um, I like to think that capital campaigns, just like this tool, like a lot of the tools that I've developed over the years, can be used as teaching, can we teach these things before we necessarily have to coach or consult? Um, if you can imagine convening a group of board members and leaders and fundraisers in a room for an organization that wants to embark on a capital campaign, can we perhaps teach them in a couple of hours or just maybe a couple of days in a retreat format all of the basics of the way a campaign works? And then perhaps they can leave from there and perhaps in some cases carry it out on their own.

SPEAKER_01:

Okay. So let's talk about because it sounds like still in phase one, we're we're still talking about that quiet phase. And I've heard a lot of varying opinions over the years around how much of the the overall goal should be raised in that quiet phase. How do we decide what that what that percentage looks like? I'm curious your opinion on on kind of the goal of the quiet phase and how you know when it's time to move out of it.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. So the best the first place, if you're looking at the visual, the first thing to pay attention to after you've sort of seen the fact that you've got these four waves is to differentiate between what we call asset-based giving or givers and income-based givers. And that's really just recognizing that um a large number of the contributions that we receive in a capital campaign, in many cases upwards of two-thirds of those contributions, are going to come from what we would traditionally refer to as an asset-based giver, which means they're giving from um accumulated assets, they're giving securities. They're also on what we what an economist might call the asset side of life. So they're 55 plus years old, they've paid off their mortgage, the children are no longer, you know, they've graduated from college. All of the financial things that we do in, you know, after, you know, during that very consuming side of life where we're spending more than we have, all of that changes when we get to uh generally, you know, for a lot of us when we're in our 50s and and perhaps our 60s, which frees up a lot of resources. That framing isn't to limit or or prohibit the possibility that some of those early gifts in the capital campaign might come from younger individuals. It's just that even amongst those younger individuals, they still will generally be uh they will come from assets. So what are we doing with this? We're we're recognizing that traditional first half or that very quiet phase generally comes from asset-based givers. So they're giving in very significant ways. And what we're doing with our with our four-phased approach is we're dividing that group into two parts, and we're just simply saying that there's a group of people who are more experienced with these types of contributions. They've given six and seven-figure contributions, they've been on the committees, they've participated in the feasibility studies. In many cases, they're quite weary of all of the hoopla and the pomp and circumstance that goes into these things. And then there's the other folks that are perhaps slightly younger, but similarly at a time of life where they're capable of very similar contributions that are not so experienced with this. And when you just draw the line there, so we're talking about, you know, let's think, you know, uh hypothetically, you're talking about two individuals. One of them is in their late 50s, early 60s, and they're thinking about making perhaps their first six-figure or even a seven-figure commitment to a campaign. And then you have someone who's 10 years older than that who's probably done this, may have done this a dozen times, you know. They've been so fortunate in their life that they're able to do those are two different conversations, two different experiences for the donor. Um, and that lesser experienced donor in many cases, and anyone who's been in these and in these scenarios will relate to this, that's a lot more work. So even if that can even if that, say, you know, quarter, half a million dollar donor is is a is a percentage, you know, is half or or or a fraction of what that that lead donor uh who is very much very experienced with these types of contributions, they're on a much, much more difficult journey, if that makes sense.

SPEAKER_01:

Okay.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. So that's kind of what we're doing. That's what we're doing there with each of the waves is we're dividing it between the folks who've exp who have a degree of experience and maybe not so much, and then where those resources come from. Do they come from assets or do they come from regular income?

SPEAKER_01:

Okay. Now, uh what I think is interesting about what you just said is it makes me think of who's on the flip side, right? So when we're talking about people who are regularly being approached for that size of a gift, who are used to functioning in that realm of philanthropy. In most organizations that I have seen go through capital, they are not dealing with an experienced fundraiser.

SPEAKER_02:

Yes, yes, right.

SPEAKER_01:

So I'd love to take just a second and talk to the person who has found themselves, you know, they're used to doing an annual an annual fund drive, they're used to doing some online or some event, and now all of a sudden they've been thrust into capital and are trying to deal with managing the expectations of donors who are used to that level of giving when we're not used to that level of asking. Right? So I'd love to hear your your take for the fundraisers themselves on that side of it.

SPEAKER_02:

So there's the fundraiser, so that you're kind of describing two fundraisers. Um you're do you're describing the less experienced fundraiser. So the fundraiser who hasn't been around the block a few times, even in that annual fund. They're new to fundraising. Yeah. And then you're or you're exp you're describing somebody who's been running an annual fund for for perhaps years or decades, and they just simply haven't done a campaign of the scale in terms of size of gifts. One of the things that these four waves is trying to is also trying to help us see is that Pareto principle, that 80-20 rule that plays out in really any campaign. So whether we're talking about an annual fund, think about the way that an annual fund plays out in an organization or a capital campaign, they almost play out in very identical types of waves. So you have the most significant and most experienced givers, oftentimes giving the largest contributions. They oftentimes give up front. And that's a cut, that's a contributor who's giving in the annual campaign very much the same way that they would in the capital campaign. And I think that's an extraordinary, you know, extraordinarily important question as it relates to why we're trying to push this sort of a model out there is because I'm trying to give credit to that annual fund director who sees the underlying logic of their of their annual fund that really plays out in the same basic sort of movement. It's just the size of the contributions just aren't as large. And if you can see that the scale is really the only difference, you can start to intuit, okay, this is what happens at this point, this is what happens at that point. You know, that that wave one donor, I'm sure you've had experiences with this particular donor. So that wave one donor, whether they're giving at the beginning of a capital campaign or an annual fund, is oftentimes the donor who is more than willing to take the lead. But in some cases, they've been asked to take the lead more than one time. And they've oftentimes been promised that these what we call wave two donors are going to follow their lead. And so the disappointment that oftentimes is accompanied these wave one commitments is the is not is the lack of follow-through that organizations oftentimes make in not bringing that additional wave of asset-based donors. Oftentimes you see donors who are giving, you know, extraordinary six and seven and sometimes eight-figure gifts, and then the campaign all of a sudden jumps to that opposite end, the other extreme, and they're like, why didn't you bring anybody else in to kind of tag along with me? That's that's some of what we're trying to differentiate. We're thinking about the donor's experience, both in terms of what that Wave One donor is experiencing.

SPEAKER_00:

At Marketing Support Network, we are proud to support nonprofits by providing top-tier customer service solutions for your donors. Live U.S.-based agents are able to assist your callers by phone, email, website live chat, or social media response 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. From taking donations to updating records, answering questions, to placing orders, let Marketing Support Network help you take donor care to the next level. Visit Marketing Support Network.com for more information.

SPEAKER_01:

So if we're if we are a fundraiser who's maybe used to that approach, we understand how that goes, now we're looking at we're, you know, these gifts are exponentially larger than what we're used to in an annual fund. Help us see then where we make the jump from wave two to wave three.

SPEAKER_02:

So, yes, that's that's fine.

SPEAKER_01:

Because that's I feel like that's gonna be a the deciding factor there is a lot different than somebody that's used to reading that wave in an annual fund.

SPEAKER_02:

So So that line, that line is the same line that we traditionally draw between your more public and you're, you know, you're you're quiet and you're that's the same line. It's the point at which the fundraising activity moves away from more one-on-one to a more one-to-many type communication. So um it's also the point at which, so it's the point at which your donors tend to be younger. They tend to be giving those more income-based contributions, oftentimes. So in a private independent school setting, oftentimes my wave three donor is a parent who's uh had a professional, you know, a successful career. They're not nearing retirement. They're they want to make for the first time an extraordinary multi-year pledge. So he or she might be thinking of$25,000 or$50,000 a year that committed over five years amounts to something extraordinary, something they've never done before. But you see how the the way in which they're gonna construct that, the way they're gonna put that commitment together is very different than the way that those asset-based donors did. Um, but you also notice that they're very similarly at a time and place where they may have either had done that or they've never done that at all. What you also see in both two and three is a much more staff-driven uh activity. I can generally in an organization get the volunteers on those two book ins, those two traditional and more familiar waves. I can generally get both of those organized and I can get those gifts secured with the traditional committee structure, and and we give three or four names to so-and-so, and they go out and and solicit that gift. You can usually get that done with those two bookend categories, but those two middle categories tend to require more staff. The other thing, and this is where the visualization helps. Uh, and and I I I try, you know, you're probably looking at the visual as I am. In wave three, it's where what we call the undercurrent. So this visualization is all we're using waves, so like water. And you know, an undercurrent, the way an undercurrent works is it's always there, whether you're in the deep water or the shallow water. It's just that an undercurrent is very dangerous the more shallow the water you happen to be in. And oftentimes, to your question, it's in the third wave where you start to realize that some of the undercurrent or the problems that you opted not to address in those deeper waters just simply because it wasn't necessary start to become an issue. Like, for example, you don't have a you don't have a five-year contract in place for your president. You have turnover on the board that disrupts the process. You have a disgruntled fundraiser who's not happy. You have infrastructure, you don't have a good software program that's properly accounting for gifts. In wave three, think about this, Megan. In wave three, your volume of gifts now dramatically increases, even though the size of the gifts goes to about half, right?

SPEAKER_01:

Sure.

SPEAKER_02:

Now you need receiping to actually work. And you need to have thought through, okay, how are we going to receipt this? And and now you're collecting multi-year pledges, which means I've got to actually think about collecting on those pledges, which means I've got to not only collect the, you know, the those big checks that our first wave and second wave donors were giving, but I also actually have to make sure that our donors are fulfilling the the second and third and the fourth and the fifth, say they're making five-year pledges. That's where that undercurrent that was very easy to ignore when Mr. and Mrs. Smith was giving you, you know, a seven-figure gift, that's where that starts to really show its um yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

So I'm curious to know because as we're talking about this, there are we the capital is a long game. Right? This is not an immediate, and I do feel like that fatigue can set in or when people don't necessarily see progress. So what are some ways that you find to kind of as as we even move from wave to wave, where you have been able to like either encourage the folks you're working with or you have done yourself to stay committed and excited about the project so that we don't hit that fatigue in the middle and start to lose out on gifts.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. So here again is where I think the consulting world has made a mistake in terms of how we teach and institutionalize organizations, how we bring them up to speed on how these capital campaigns are going to play out. If you think about the question you're asking and you look at the visual that we're trying to create here, you start to make sense that a lot of your donors essentially participate in these waves over time. So the donor who was a wave one, uh, you know, in that in wave four, that later wave, eventually moves into those, you know, the other waves. If you begin to understand that, you can actually start to develop a much more holistic and a much more long view of the way that capital campaigns play out in an organization because you know that the donor who gave to you, the income-based donor who gave to you in wave three, is going to want to be a leadership giver in your next campaign. They're gonna, but they're gonna be older, maybe a little more resource, you know, they're gonna have more more additional resources because they've paid off the house and you know the company's done really well, and and the their two daughters are out of college and finished grad school, et cetera, et cetera. You can see these stories sort of play out. Yeah. But the more you can see that, the more, the more that the organization has this sort of this collective consciousness of how these things play out, the more you start to make sense of why in higher education we see institutions that never, they never really stop being in campaign mode. There's always a campaign going on. It's just these are the most extraordinary, you know, most transformative, most perhaps impactful initiatives that the institution's doing, and they're always moving a category of donors that aligns with their time of life and their their giving, you know, their abilities to give closer and closer to those most significant uh levels of support.

SPEAKER_01:

So it it really, at least if I can summarize the way that I understand what you're saying, is that we we as a whole need to stop looking at capital as a as a one-time thing that we're gonna do, we're gonna build the building and we're gonna move on with life, but it really is setting up the organization for a much more stable future long term if we can embrace what we learn in the process.

SPEAKER_02:

Yes. If you if you think about if you studied, if you sort of studied the history of the both the fundraising profession and you've you've looked as critically as I have about the way that we consult as these third parties, you start to make sense that the capital campaign and the the feasibility study mantra and all of that tends to be a very expert or third party oriented approach. And so the expert comes in, he or she comes in and delivers on their expertise and facilitates perhaps a rather successful capital campaign. That's great. And then the campaign initiative is turned off and and everybody gets back to normal and everybody forgets what we just learned during this process. And then five years later, when the when it's time to do that again, the same consultants get hired and the same fees and get going through that same process. I started thinking about this in a much more general sense, Megan, early in my consulting career when my my uh at the time business partner and our our senior partner said to me that a consultant should never, a client should never have to hire a consultant for the same thing twice. And I took that to heart. And I think that's where we see the the capital campaign and the feasibility study really being something that we need to look at critically, that your client perhaps shouldn't have to hire you for the same service twice, because if you are, if they are, they're they're creating a degree of dependency and and that that internal knowledge and the institutional awareness of how this works is never being never being built. And so consequently, the it's great for the consultancies, uh, it's not so great for the uh for the clients. And I find I think a lot of fundraisers who are on the payroll may you know doing this work day in and day out are getting wise to that. I don't think you and I, you know, I'm certainly not the only one who's starting to figure this stuff out.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

So I'm curious um if there is a difference in your mind or or how we would approach it. So a lot of times we see capital campaigns tend to be for obviously for building, right? We're making we're making some sort of big investment change, etc. And that happens a lot in faith communities.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

Where you know the church is expanding or growing or they're building a new site or location, or you know, those kind of those pieces. Is it at all does it does the approach here vary at all depending on the type of organization, right? Because a church who's doing this one probably you know, uh very few churches are doing a capital every five years, whereas a college or a school is continually evolving and growing and has maybe a different track record for being in that consistent campaign model. Plus, I think sometimes a lot of churches don't necessarily look at themselves, even if they're running a campaign like that, they don't look at themselves as fundraisers. So is there a different mentality there that they need to embrace?

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, we we could start a whole nother we could start a whole nother conversation, but this is so you know, we've been talking about the capital campaign itself. And my my general critique over the whole thing, you know, starts with the way that we orchestrate these feasibility studies. And I I think the answer to your question, one of the things that you learn as a consultant who's done these feasibility studies as often as I have is that you your donors, once they get to the place where they're giving in these most extraordinary ways, what we call these, you know, wave one and two, what you start to see is they do tend to fall in three categories. And you can look at feasibility study outcomes, and you can also look at the history of what we call comprehensive campaigns. Again, we're pointing to these big campaigns that happen in higher education. And you start to make sense that essentially you make sense of the idea that the donors at these most extraordinary levels are oftentimes inclined to give in three different areas. That first one is that donor who gives to the, gives brick and mortar, who gives to, you know, put a building up. But you're lucky if half the donors in a feasibility study want to necessarily give to that. Everybody who's got the means to build buildings, you know, in terms of their capabilities, doesn't necessarily, they're not motivated, they're not compelled. That's not where their heart's at. And so you very easily can dismiss a large chunk of your donors just because you're, you know, you're talking about faith-based organizations or even churches, you know, you're you're immediately sort of, you know, setting a handful of donors off to the side simply or undermining the opportunity simply because you're you're narrowing the scope of what they are being invited to give to. Those other two categories, which I consistently find to be about 50-50. So I tend to find that you can, you know, donors are inclined, maybe 40% of the donors, maybe at best 50% of the donors in a feasibility study are very motivated by the the bricks and mortar opportunity, right? But the other two tend to kind of be divided into two categories. And the the second group is what I sometimes call the kind of the entrepreneurial donor or the person who kind of wants to expand on the program. They understand the organization in a way that they they understand that that uh if you're thinking about a school, they understand that your science labs need to be taken to another level. Or if you're talking about a, you know, uh a housing organization, they understand that the you know that you have a men's program, but you could benefit from a women and children's program. Or so they know that your existing program has some gaps and they want to expand that. I think some of the giving that McKenzie Scott is doing uh kind of aligns with this entrepreneurial sort of program expansion, sort of. I think I sense in some of the stories that I've read about her giving and what she tends to give to, that she's not as motivated by bricks and mortar. She doesn't want to give, put the constraints that this has to go here. And so that entrepreneurial spirit comes in there. But then the last one is that I think you also have a category of donors, which this, and this is where these extraordinary donors get overlooked for organizations that are just trying to keep the lights on after the capital campaign's over with. And this is the donor who wants to meet emergency immediate needs. They're capable of giving you huge gifts. Of the sort that you would, you know, that would move mountains in terms of moving a capital campaign. But they're much more responsive to things like we're in a crisis and I need somebody to cover this. And I think we forget that those are donors that are oftentimes identified during a capital campaign. We sometimes don't we don't craft the case for support in a way that allows them to have that opportunity because this is a very, you know, linear, well-orchestrated process. It doesn't look like it's sort of this screaming need that says we have to get this taken care of tomorrow or the you know the everything's gonna fall apart. I think there's people in our constituencies that are very responsive to that, and we need to know who they are. And I'm sure every organization you've worked for, just like the ones I have, you know, there were times when you needed a donor that you could call on who would be willing to give$50,000, you know, at a moment's notice. Um but too often we narrowly sort of pigeonhole these donors into these other categories and we make it seem like the only place we can plug their money in is to build another building.

SPEAKER_01:

No, that's a really good call out. That's great. Jason, this has all been extremely helpful. And I think, especially for those folks who are maybe newer to Capital or who are in the midst of their first one, I think is going to be really useful information. So thank you for sharing all of this. Definitely make sure you go check out the show notes so that you're taking a look at that graphic that we have been referencing, because I think it'll help put a lot of this into perspective. Uh, but as we wrap up, Jason, the question that I have been asking everyone in this season is if you could give one piece of advice or wisdom or encouragement to nonprofit professionals, what would that be? Yeah, so your parting wisdom.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, my parting wisdom, it's the answer I've been at. I mean, it's the answer I've given a lot. And it's usually the answer that I give to a young or an inexperienced fundraiser, probably the fundraiser we've referenced a couple of times. Sure. And very true to the, to even the uh the underlying logic behind this model that we've talked about. But it's it's just getting in front of and closer to your donors. I think the uh, you know, if I'm asked a question like that, Megan, at an event, uh, you know, if I let's say I've done a speaking engagement, I come down off the platform or something, and a young fundraiser walks up to me, I'm gonna say to them, find a place and an opportunity, get in front of the donor, as close, you know, as close and and intimate with the donor as you possibly can. Not necessarily to close the biggest gifts, but to really understand what that dynamic's like. Yeah. Um, and so as it relates to your question and as it relates to this moment, because I know this moment is there's probably a lot of listeners who are, you know, maybe they've lost subsidy from the federal government, maybe the, you know, the summer slump has hit them and they didn't the summer didn't perform as well as they wanted to, et cetera, et cetera. I don't think anything better than those higher context conversations can remedy that. And I think we have to learn how to pick up the phone and invite people to lunch without having to ask them for checks and all of those things that you can really only do by getting in front of the donor and getting out in the field.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah.

unknown:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01:

That's great. Yeah. Thank you. Again, my guest today has been Jason Lewis, who's one of the partners at Seed Fundraisers. Jason, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate all the wisdom that you had to share.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, this has been a lot of fun. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01:

This has been another episode of the Nonprofit Hub Radio Podcast. I'm your host, Megan Speer, and we'll see you next time.