(09-03-2014 01:18 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

If the point is merely philanthropy, giving more money to a small university with a $4.84 billion dollar endowment seems like an odd choice.

The school has budgeted a certain amount to athletics. It is a quite substantial amount, but it needs to be more and the school has made it clear that the department needs to make it or raise it. If we want athletics to get to where we want it to be and we believe in the positive influence that a strong athletic department can have on how the school is viewed, then that's why we need to give more.

I'm curious as to what perks have declined over time. Not much has changed over the last few years I don't believe.

(09-03-2014 01:24 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:18 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

If the point is merely philanthropy, giving more money to a small university with a $4.84 billion dollar endowment seems like an odd choice.

The school has budgeted a certain amount to athletics. It is a quite substantial amount, but it needs to be more and the school has made it clear that the department needs to make it or raise it. If we want athletics to get to where we want it to be and we believe in the positive influence that a strong athletic department can have on how the school is viewed, then that's why we need to give more.

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy the perks of a more successful athletic program or donating money to help build a program, such donations certainly don't count as purely (or even primarily) philanthropic. When the issue is as trivial as college athletics, the additional perks offered by things like the Owl Club matter to a lot of people.

(09-03-2014 01:54 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:24 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:18 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

If the point is merely philanthropy, giving more money to a small university with a $4.84 billion dollar endowment seems like an odd choice.

The school has budgeted a certain amount to athletics. It is a quite substantial amount, but it needs to be more and the school has made it clear that the department needs to make it or raise it. If we want athletics to get to where we want it to be and we believe in the positive influence that a strong athletic department can have on how the school is viewed, then that's why we need to give more.

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy the perks of a more successful athletic program or donating money to help build a program, such donations certainly don't count as purely (or even primarily) philanthropic. When the issue is as trivial as college athletics, the additional perks offered by things like the Owl Club matter to a lot of people.

And that's fine. I'm just curious what perks have diminished over the years that make people not want to give.

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

Which makes sense me and you, George, but you're presumably already an Owl Club member. If we want to recruit new members, it makes sense to worry quite a bit about what makes sense to them.

I just got off the phone with Tyler Maines. As previously stated, SIG donations do not apply to Owl Club benefits. He wasn't sure the reasoning, but that was inherited from before Dr K came on. They are working on a new branding approach for all fund raising, but that is in planning stages.

I mentioned to him the concerns raised about benefits of the Owl Club donor levels as an issue to bring in new donors. I mentioned the benefits between $50 and $500 are very small and we should probably take a look at those to adjust to be more appealing to new donors.

I haven't had the question of benefits brought up to me yet, but I will start asking what would be appealing to those I talk to. The disparity in levels is what I see as a problem not the actual perks. If I donate $499, I only get a lapel pin more than if I donate $50. What do you think would be good to offer?

(09-03-2014 10:35 AM)KingNayte Wrote:  Walt, stories like that are so crucial to reminding the administration how and why they need to make sure and support athletics whole-heartedly. While there certainly hasn't been at least as much support from this administration as from administrations in the past (as I understand it), I have definitely not seen nearly the support they're capable of.

Athletics would do well to take a page from the university and push HARD to get students to enroll in the Owl Club on their way out the door. In the fundraising course I took in grad school, the instructor talked at length about how much easier it is to get someone to increase their giving than it is to get someone to give for the first time.

Also, people are much more likely to show up to things they're supporting financially. We want to increase attendance dramatically across the board. We play schools without name recognition and are trying to attract an uninformed populous. That requires buy-in to Rice.

The Annual Fund already does a decent job of encouraging outgoing seniors to donate, you would think the Owl Club could have a similar outreach effort. Like your instructor said, even getting a person to donate just a small amount right after they leave Rice can at least help ingrain a giving mentality throughout the rest of their life.

(09-03-2014 02:23 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

Which makes sense me and you, George, but you're presumably already an Owl Club member. If we want to recruit new members, it makes sense to worry quite a bit about what makes sense to them.

Yes, and that's the point: the value proposition (what "makes sense to people") has to be the cause itself, not the perks. By definition the perks can never equal the value of the donation you're seeking. That's a bedrock principal of all non-profit fundraising: if you really want to bring in donors and raise money, the primary message has to be not "look what you get for your money", but "here's the good that your money does". Perks and trinkets are fine as lagniappe, but if you make those the main point of your message, you are selling your cause and your audience short.

It just costs more to get the same perks. The lowest level for getting many perks (Owl Club room entry and seating preference) has gone up from $100 or $150 to $500 in the last 30 years.

(09-03-2014 08:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:23 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

Which makes sense me and you, George, but you're presumably already an Owl Club member. If we want to recruit new members, it makes sense to worry quite a bit about what makes sense to them.

Yes, and that's the point: the value proposition (what "makes sense to people") has to be the cause itself, not the perks. By definition the perks can never equal the value of the donation you're seeking. That's a bedrock principal of all non-profit fundraising: if you really want to bring in donors and raise money, the primary message has to be not "look what you get for your money", but "here's the good that your money does". Perks and trinkets are fine as lagniappe, but if you make those the main point of your message, you are selling your cause and your audience short.

(09-03-2014 08:42 PM)75src Wrote:  It just costs more to get the same perks. The lowest level for getting many perks (Owl Club room entry and seating preference) has gone up from $100 or $150 to $500 in the last 30 years.

(09-03-2014 08:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:23 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 11:46 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  After reading it I was inspired to reach out to an old friend and a fellow ex-Jonesian. I basically pasted to him your paragraphs.
He said he looked into it, and found that the perks of Owl Club were small, and have actually decreased over time.

Perks are nice, but the point is philanthropy, not quid-pro-quo.

Which makes sense me and you, George, but you're presumably already an Owl Club member. If we want to recruit new members, it makes sense to worry quite a bit about what makes sense to them.

Yes, and that's the point: the value proposition (what "makes sense to people") has to be the cause itself, not the perks. By definition the perks can never equal the value of the donation you're seeking. That's a bedrock principal of all non-profit fundraising: if you really want to bring in donors and raise money, the primary message has to be not "look what you get for your money", but "here's the good that your money does". Perks and trinkets are fine as lagniappe, but if you make those the main point of your message, you are selling your cause and your audience short.

Looking at the lower level perks, I do think they need to be spruced up a bit. Something I'm going to think about and send an email to Dr. K on.

At the same time, the value of perks does have to go up a bit with time. I mean, just by inflation alone to make sure the department is getting the same value for them (granted, these have gone up faster than inflation, but not too much faster).

I am curious what percentage of the foreign students who graduated give to the Owl Club?

(09-03-2014 10:10 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I am curious what percentage of the foreign students who graduated give to the Owl Club?

I don't like picking fights. But getting angry about the fact that people from other parts of the world are part of the Rice community doesn't do anybody any good, adds nothing to this discussion, and is unwelcome.

My mother, an immigrant, is a Rice alum and a season ticket holder in baseball in spite of only being able to make a handful of games a year. She listens to every single game on the radio, but that's besides the point.

If you want willingness to financially support athletics to be a prerequisite for admission to a university, you're just never going to be happy.

(09-03-2014 10:15 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:10 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I am curious what percentage of the foreign students who graduated give to the Owl Club?

I don't like picking fights. But getting angry about the fact that people from other parts of the world are part of the Rice community doesn't do anybody any good, adds nothing to this discussion, and is unwelcome.

My mother, an immigrant, is a Rice alum and a season ticket holder in baseball in spite of only being able to make a handful of games a year. She listens to every single game on the radio, but that's besides the point.

If you want willingness to financially support athletics to be a prerequisite for admission to a university, you're just never going to be happy.

+1000. You beat me to it. Why do one or two posters repeatedly harp on the foreign student population? This diversity is one of the strengths and attractions of Rice as a thriving University. It may very well be true that such students are not as supportive of Rice athletics as a group....but even if true, who cares...and what's your point?

As somebody who will be working at the International Students Football Clinic tomorrow, I'll be sure to give a full and detailed report on the enthusiasm level displayed !

(09-03-2014 10:19 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:15 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:10 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I am curious what percentage of the foreign students who graduated give to the Owl Club?

I don't like picking fights. But getting angry about the fact that people from other parts of the world are part of the Rice community doesn't do anybody any good, adds nothing to this discussion, and is unwelcome.

My mother, an immigrant, is a Rice alum and a season ticket holder in baseball in spite of only being able to make a handful of games a year. She listens to every single game on the radio, but that's besides the point.

If you want willingness to financially support athletics to be a prerequisite for admission to a university, you're just never going to be happy.

+1000. You beat me to it. Why do one or two posters repeatedly harp on the foreign student population? This diversity is one of the strengths and attractions of Rice as a thriving University. It may very well be true that such students are not as supportive of Rice athletics as a group....but even if true, who cares...and what's your point?

Piling on to a ridiculous statement with some facts about the population as a whole:

As of 2008, we had 46,509 living Alumni.* we have ~1100 Owl Club members, of which about 50% are alumni.

So what percentage of ALL alumni give to the Owl Club?

If we use that 2008 number, which is probably low now, and pretend that all 1100 members are alumni (which is NOT the case) 2% of ALL LIVING ALUMNI donate, so in actuality its about 1%. If zero international students donate to the Owl Club, basically the same rate as those from America.

*http://alumni.rice.edu/legacycontent/faq_file.html

(09-04-2014 08:17 AM)lou Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:19 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:15 PM)KingNayte Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 10:10 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I am curious what percentage of the foreign students who graduated give to the Owl Club?

I don't like picking fights. But getting angry about the fact that people from other parts of the world are part of the Rice community doesn't do anybody any good, adds nothing to this discussion, and is unwelcome.

My mother, an immigrant, is a Rice alum and a season ticket holder in baseball in spite of only being able to make a handful of games a year. She listens to every single game on the radio, but that's besides the point.

If you want willingness to financially support athletics to be a prerequisite for admission to a university, you're just never going to be happy.

+1000. You beat me to it. Why do one or two posters repeatedly harp on the foreign student population? This diversity is one of the strengths and attractions of Rice as a thriving University. It may very well be true that such students are not as supportive of Rice athletics as a group....but even if true, who cares...and what's your point?

Piling on to a ridiculous statement with some facts about the population as a whole:

As of 2008, we had 46,509 living Alumni.* we have ~1100 Owl Club members, of which about 50% are alumni.

So what percentage of ALL alumni give to the Owl Club?

If we use that 2008 number, which is probably low now, and pretend that all 1100 members are alumni (which is NOT the case) 2% of ALL LIVING ALUMNI donate, so in actuality its about 1%. If zero international students donate to the Owl Club, basically the same rate as those from America.

*http://alumni.rice.edu/legacycontent/faq_file.html

Maybe we are being a little super-sensitive here. Some demographic research into the alumni base and the Owl Club base could help target the most likely to join. Grad students in general I think have more of an identification with the athletics at their undergrad school. I know I give zero to the school where I got my grad degree and trash their mailings immediately, yet I am an Owl Club member.

Recent alum living in Houston. Someone explain to me how to join and donate.

(09-04-2014 09:04 PM)EOL_Owl Wrote:  Recent alum living in Houston. Someone explain to me how to join and donate.

Great, glad to have you!

If you stroll over to http://www.riceowls.com, take a look at the links across the top and there's a drop down that says "Giving" look for the "Make a gift now" link.



From there it will take you to the Rice Ticketmaster site and you can create a profile. From there you can donate and be able to buy tickets for event later with the same profile.

You're the first new member from this thread, therefore the first additonal $25 I will donate in your honor. Spread the word among your friends!

Just gave my first donation to the Owl Club and purchased a football season ticket.

(09-05-2014 10:38 AM)dragon2owl Wrote:  Just gave my first donation to the Owl Club and purchased a football season ticket.

(09-02-2014 06:07 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 04:15 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I'm not sure what is confusing. The Owl Club is for general scholarship fund and it has been pushed as the main arm for raising money for Rice Athletics. The SIGs are for each individual sport. If you want to give something specific, the SIGs are there for that. The department decided that the benefits for these groups should be separate like the donation allocations were.

I suppose you could combine it all under the Owl Club, but I'm sure there is fear that you would get a lot of earmarking.

I believe that some corporations will match employee donations to the Owl Club because it is scholarship.

And I know at least one, the one for which I've worked for 37+ years, that won't. The good news is they match Annual Fund contributions 3 to 1. So I have made, and will continue to make, contributions to both, like a lot of folks here.