Enterprise > Silos: The Model That Wins
Since diving deep into the world of Advancement nine years ago, one pattern keeps showing up across organizations that hurts more than any other: silos.
Silos slow progress. And more specifically, they slow fundraising. Donors don’t give to an institutional maze. They give to a clear story that shows where their gift goes and why it matters.
That’s why a division-wide, enterprise Advancement MarCom model beats a fragmented approach. Especially in the current environment.
When we act as one team with one story, one plan, and one voice, alumni and donors get a smoother experience, work stops tripping over itself, and leaders can see what’s actually working. We also stop paying the “silo tax” caused by duplicate tools, mixed messages, extra rounds, and last-minute scrambles that drain people and steal precious time away from true priorities.
Why the enterprise model
Here’s what improves when Advancement MarCom acts as one team.
One story. Donors hear the same core message across Annual Giving, Major and Principal Giving, Alumni, Schools/Units, Donor Relations, and University Leadership. That consistency builds trust and makes the case for giving clearer.
One plan. A single shared calendar cuts collisions and fire drills. It also lets you sequence outreach so the most important moments get the right visibility.
One voice. Campaigns, emails, proposals, events, and other activities feel aligned—even when different teams execute. Shared voice guidelines reduce rewrites and protect the brand.
Smarter spending. Fewer duplicate vendors, platforms, and creative costs. You also get more value from the partners you keep because your work is better coordinated.
Faster work. A single intake process, clear owners, and clear turnaround times reduce back-and-forth and rework. Teams spend more time creating and less time chasing feedback and approvals.
Better data. Unified lists and reporting reduce mixed messages and fatigue that lead to opt-outs and lower engagement. A comprehensive view of the donor helps you target, not carpet-bomb.
Clear priorities. Effort lines up with principal and major gifts, pipeline, and participation. When trade-offs are needed, the plan guides the choice instead of politics.
Real results. Common measures show what’s working across the division, so you can shift resources quickly instead of waiting for the post-mortem.
Insights from the field
Ongoing conversations I've had with Advancement MarCom leaders have reinforced a series of notable patterns:
- Project management is the unsung hero. When one system is used for requests, approvals, and deadlines—and leaders back it—speed increases and “rogue” projects fade.
- Cadence beats chaos. Weekly stand-ups on active work, short intake/priority huddles, and monthly alignment sessions with peers like Development keep work visible without blowing up the plan.
- “Frameworks” and “templates.” Frameworks set the rails (core story, proof points, messaging) that any unit can tailor for its audience. They protect consistency without feeling restrictive. Templates speed the work (pre-built email layouts, deck slides, one-pager shells, remark outlines, social graphics, etc.), so teams produce faster and with fewer errors.
- Content reuse multiplies impact. Adopt a default rule of using every top-level story five ways (e.g., email, web, social, presentation decks, remarks) to deliver more output with the same resources. Save net-new creation for important priorities.
- Embed where speed matters. Seating a development writer alongside the Principal Gifts team shortens the cycle for proposals, cases, acknowledgements, remarks, etc., while keeping voice control centralized.
- Mind the complex units. I’m not going to name any names, but you know who these are within your institutional ecosystem. They should follow the same processes and guardrails as everyone else, but consider assigning a liaison to aid collaboration. You don’t want them dominating the system or calendar, but you also don’t want them ignored.
- Plan for the “after.” Teams that plan staffing and message shifts before a campaign winds down avoid the stall and brand drift many experience post-close. Decide with leadership how the campaign identity, messaging, and materials will convert for post-campaign use. A phased plan is likely more realistic than flipping the switch all at once.
You don't need a reorg to start
Pilot your way in by trying one (or more) of these approaches:
- Stand up one intake and one calendar (select two partner teams). Route all new requests through a short brief. Empower your project manager / operations lead to keep the intake queue clean, publish priorities, confirm owners, and track request-to-delivery time so everyone can see the gains.
- Run a content reuse sprint over the next month. Pick three recent wins and republish each in five formats. Set a simple goal: increase total reach and reduce time spent vs. creating net-new content. At the end, report what saved the most time and which formats performed best so you can apply those insights moving forward.
- Embed for velocity. Assign a development writer to sit with Principal Gifts for 60 days. Map current cycle times for proposals, concept papers, and other commonly developed material, then aim for specific reductions (e.g., first draft in three business days, final in ten). Gather stakeholder feedback at 30 and 60 days and decide whether to extend or even scale.
Bringing it home
You’ll almost certainly hear concerns as you try to move toward a different approach. That’s normal—anticipate it. The goal isn’t to win the argument, but to keep momentum and show how a one-team, enterprise model solves tangible, persistent problems.
Here are some objections you may encounter and ways to respond.
- “We’ll lose unit voice.” You won’t. The framework sets the rails; units tailor for their audience and local proof points. It’s consistency with room to breathe.
- “Central will slow us down.” One intake, one project management tool, shared calendars, and clear turnaround times actually speed things up. Less back-and-forth and fewer do-overs = more time strategizing and creating.
- “We can’t afford this.” You’re already paying—through duplicate tools, vendor sprawl, staff time spent chasing, and sometimes even more marketing and communications positions than your organization needs. Acting as one team reduces waste and, done right, lets a leaner central group do more of the right work.
If this topic resonates, start a conversation with your teammates and supervisor. Even a short discussion about the benefits of an enterprise approach is a win—and often the spark that gets a simple pilot off the ground.
Reader, let's build the case together. What would you change or add based on your context?
Dan
P.S. Want to go deeper? 🎧 Listen to Episode 5 of The IA MarCom Shift. Jaime Hunt and I expand on how to break free from silos and share a 90-day blueprint for how to start your team’s strategic evolution.
