It's Not Just Advancement's Campaign

One of the more interesting shifts I've noticed in comprehensive campaigns over the past year is what's no longer always front and center at launch: a public fundraising goal.

Some institutions are going public without announcing an overall dollar target. Others are placing greater emphasis on engagement and participation alongside philanthropy, something I explored in my last issue.

I think both developments are worth paying attention to. And they lead me to an even bigger question:

What should be stronger about an institution when its campaign is over?

Having spent years leading campaign communications from inside an institution and now advising others as they prepare for their next campaigns, I believe the answer should go well beyond dollars raised or people engaged.

Three kinds of institutional value

At their best, comprehensive campaigns can strengthen three interconnected things:

REPUTATION. A campaign creates an unusually powerful opportunity for an institution to get aligned around where it's heading, what it stands for, and why its ambitions matter beyond campus. Done well, that shared vision can strengthen how the institution is understood and valued by the people and communities it serves. But if the story lives mainly in donor proposals and fundraising materials, much of that opportunity is lost.

RELATIONSHIPS. Campaigns give institutions new reasons to connect with alumni, donors, industry leaders, faculty, parents, and other important communities around a shared future. Some relationships will produce gifts. Others can lead to advocacy, collaboration, mentorship, and connections that benefit the institution for years. The point is to build relationships whose value extends beyond the campaign itself.

RESOURCES. Yes, campaigns raise money. But they can also attract expertise, partnerships, influence, talent, and other forms of support that help institutions fulfill their missions. And when reputation improves and relationships deepen, an institution's capacity to attract future philanthropic support can grow, too.

These aren't isolated outcomes. They reinforce each other:

Reputation → Relationships → Resources → Institutional Impact → Reputation

It's a cycle institutions can deliberately strengthen through the way they plan and run their campaigns.

What gets left on the table?

Here's where I see a familiar contradiction.

Institutions often expect campaigns to raise substantial money, strengthen their reputations, deepen relationships, and rally their communities. Yet they frequently organize the effort as though those outcomes are primarily Advancement's responsibility.

Consider how that plays out.

A provost or dean may be asked to approve fundraising priorities rather than help make the difficult institutional choices behind them. Marketing and communications colleagues may be brought in to promote the campaign after its direction and narrative have largely been determined. Faculty and alumni leaders may be asked to participate in events, make introductions, or lend their credibility without having much influence over the larger effort.

All of those contributions have value. But there's a difference between asking people to support a campaign and giving them meaningful ownership in its success.

And the consequences extend beyond internal coordination.

The campaign's narrative may never reach its full potential as an institution-wide reputation-building platform. Relationships may remain concentrated within fundraising portfolios rather than develop into broader institutional partnerships. Opportunities to attract expertise, advocacy, and other forms of support may go unexplored because they fall outside the campaign's primary measures of success.

That's a lot to potentially leave on the table.

What changes when ownership broadens?

Imagine a campaign where the president, provost, and deans actively shape and champion the institutional ambitions behind it—not simply the fundraising priorities.

Where faculty help articulate why those ambitions matter and what achieving them could make possible.

Where Advancement MarCom and Central MarCom are involved while Advancement and academic leaders, often with outside fundraising counsel, are defining campaign priorities and developing the case for support. That gives communicators an opportunity to help shape the broader institutional narrative, rather than simply being asked to promote an already-established fundraising story.

And where alumni leaders, boards, and volunteers see themselves as partners in advancing the institution's future, not simply helping Advancement meet its goals.

None of this means everyone becomes a fundraiser. Advancement still needs to lead the philanthropic strategy, build donor relationships, and secure support.

But everyone doesn't have to do Advancement's job to have an important role in the campaign's success.

That distinction should influence how institutions plan campaigns, involve their leaders, assign responsibilities, and ultimately measure what they've accomplished.

Because if reputation, relationships, and resources all matter, the institution needs to be intentional about advancing all three—not simply hope the first two improve while everyone concentrates on the financial goal.

Beyond the finish line

Fundraising goals still matter, whether or not an institution announces a public number. They create focus, accountability, and an important measure of success.

But they shouldn't define a campaign's full value.

I'd argue that one of the better measures of success is what the institution has strengthened along the way—and what remains long after the final campaign report is published.

Which brings me back to something simple.

Maybe we should start putting one word in front of campaign: our.

But let's also make sure we've given people across the institution a meaningful role (not just a performative one) in shaping it.

Otherwise, it's just a word.