The Opportunity I Killed

Issue #49
3-minute read

Hi Reader,

We had prospects, but nowhere to put them.

Tech companies. Startups interested in supporting the mission. But our existing partnership model wasn’t built for them.

I hated saying no - especially in this market. So I tried to build something new. A fee-for-service model that would create a pathway where none existed.

I spent three months on it. Consulted with people who do this work. Built toward something I genuinely believed could open a new revenue segment.

Then I shelved it.

What the Research Revealed

The deeper we got, the clearer the structural problem became.

A nonprofit's value to any partner is inseparable from its reputation. No product endorsement. We don’t lend our credibility in ways that blur that line.

That’s not a legal technicality. It’s the asset. It’s why partners want to be associated with us in the first place.

A fee-for-service model would have put that asset at risk. Not because our intentions were wrong. Because the structure of the relationship — payment flowing from the company in exchange for something — creates an inference of endorsement that we can’t control once it’s out there.

We’re proud of how firmly we protect that line. It took sitting inside the research to see how close this model would have come to it.

The ROI sealed the decision. We’d need to service 10 to 15 of these companies to match the revenue from one major sponsor. That math, on top of the endorsement risk, made the call clear.

What Stopping Cost

Time. Months of research, consultations, and internal conversations.

A revenue opportunity we won’t pursue.

Entry to a market segment we ultimately decided wasn’t right for our strategy.

Those are real costs. I’m not minimizing them.

We also learned something we couldn’t have learned any other way.

I got a glimpse into the world of funding tech startups, what investors look for in them, and why the fit with our model was never going to work. That knowledge has value even without a product at the end.

Sometimes the research is the outcome.

When Ending It Is the Strategy

Most of the sunk cost pressure in this kind of situation comes from the time already invested. We don’t want to walk away with nothing to show for it.

But killing a flawed model before you build it out is not the same as failing to build it. It’s a different kind of ROI — one we rarely name as a win because there’s no revenue line to point to.

The question worth asking isn’t “should we have started?”

It’s “did we make the right call when the evidence was clear?”

We did.

On My Radar

I just read Campaigner’s piece on building a customer journey roadmap. It's not about donors, but full of transferable thinking.

The reframe that stuck: most donor roadmaps are built around fundraiser activity. The better question is, what does this donor need to believe before they can deepen their commitment?

I’m using this as a foundation for reinventing our annual fund program. More on that in a future issue.

Your Turn

Before Friday, name one initiative you’re still funding with your time, attention, or budget. The structural problem is visible, but you haven’t called it yet. You don’t have to act on it this week. Just name it.

Coming Next Week

Next Sunday: Issue 50 is next week. I'm writing something I've never written here before.

Cheers,
Christine

PS — If you’re sitting with a build vs. kill decision on something right now, hit reply and tell me what you’re navigating. I read every message, and I respond.

I’m Christine Bork, Chief Development Officer at the American Academy of Pediatrics. I write Chief Fundraiser Weekly to share what I’m learning as I lead a growing team and try to do the work in a way that’s sustainable and thoughtful.

Full disclosure:

Some links in CFW are affiliate links. If you click and buy, I earn a small cut or a discount — no markup to you. I only link to things I'd tell you about over coffee anyway. The commission is just a bonus for not keeping my opinions to myself.