We want your help to decide! - Name formats

I definently think that some update to the language used for RE and RE: NXT would be really helpful for introducing new users to the database, especially those that will only need limited use of the database. The changes so far make a lot of sense. Is there any chance that similar fields/records/terms be updated within RE also?

Chris Rainwater:

I definently think that some update to the language used for RE and RE: NXT would be really helpful for introducing new users to the database, especially those that will only need limited use of the database. The changes so far make a lot of sense. Is there any chance that similar fields/records/terms be updated within RE also?

Chris, until they do (or don't?), it is possible for your org to rename fields to help make them clearer within your own organization(s).  Whoever has access at your org to the Config area, it's in the Fields area of Config.  For each field, if the Display As column is white, you can type over it with something that works better for you.

Jarod Bonino:

Hello Raiser's Edge community! 


As many of you are aware, as we build functionality in RE NXT web view, we take the opportunity to rename potentially misleading or outdated fields/records/terms as needed (Maiden name to Former name, Proposal to Opportunity, Attributes to Custom fields, etc). We have done our best to only do this when we feel it's necessary or would help materially, but we're having a hard time coming to a decision on a new topic, so we're turning to you for help and feedback!


We're curious if you have an opinion on whether or not the terms "Addressee" and/or "Salutation" as they are used in Raiser's Edge today are clear and relevant. If not, we want to know what term(s) you prefer! If you're interested in providing your input to help us make this decision, please take 3 minutes and fill out this survey: https://goo.gl/forms/9UbaZQflSQCSXsYQ2



Thanks,

Jarod Bonino

Product Manager, Raiser's Edge

I was a big advocate of changing the naming of Proposals to Opportunities, long before NXT, and I think it was the right move.  The functionality was never about, as it never should have been about, what in fundraising is called a proposal--a written request for a contribution.  As someone who has consulted with dozens of organizations on this functionality and trained dozens or hundreds of more people on it, the confusion caused by its name was overwhelming and clear, and I adamantly argued, cajoled and begged for this function to be renamed.  This functionality should be used long before an ask ever gets to the proposal stage and there can be more times than not when a "proposal" is not presented to the prospect.  This functionality is about tracking major gift and grant opportunities and where they are in the process.  If I'm running what I consider a "real" major gifts program, I anticipate major gifts asks anywhere from 6 months to 18 months or more before the prospect will ever be asked for any money, and this functionality should be used to track that process from identification and through cultivation, again, long before any proposal enters the picture, if ever.  In major gifts fundraising, a "proposal" may never be presented:  if the cultivation has gone well, the right people might just be able to sit in front of the prospect(s) and say, "Mr. and Mrs. Smith, would you consider a gift of $50,000?"  We call that a solicitation in fundraising, but a verbal ask like that is usually not called a proposal.  I've seen over and over and over where organizations thought they couldn't use this function until they actually made an ask--and that's wrong, confusion caused by labeling this "proposal" in RE 7 to sound more fundraising-like.  Except that's not what the function is for when used right.  So I strongly agree with Blackbaud's decision to rename this and generally--not always, but generally--with the other things being renamed.  Yes, it adds a little confusion to folks using both systems, but I really don't think it's that hard; most fundraisers will be using the NXT view only anyway, not both (though there are certainly exceptions as Karen rightfully notes and development of NXT is taking way too long as Steve rightfully notes); and better to fix things and do them right going forward than perpetuate mistakes, IMHO.  

Bill Connors:     most fundraisers will be using the NXT view only anyway, not both

That's really what NXT is all about anyway -- making a strictly fundraising database accessible to people who as a career, really aren't Development Professionals. We call our Board members and other peer-to-peer supporters "fundraisers" but that often makes us forget that they are not trained in the skills and language of a Development officer who lives and breathes fundraising terminology. The whole NXT phenomenon is an example of a platform catering to non-database users, even when that means sacrificing some of the functionality that DBMs value. (But, let's face it, the DBM exists to serve the CEO/Board, so if the Board finds a platform more usable, it is the DBM's job to accomodate.) And, in the grand scheme of things, what we're eventually working toward 20 years from now is a platform that donors themselves can partially access and update, just as they can now with their email preferences in MailChimp and Luminate. Would a donor understand the word "Salutation"?


That's why it makes sense to change the field "Salutation" to "Greeting name" in NXT as Deborah proposed, even though I strongly feel that any Development staff should learn the proper meanings of the correct terms "Addressee" and "Salutation". 

Bill is absolutely right about opportunites.  Proposals is too narrow a term and the system should be broad enough to cover everything.  I wasn't able to fill out the survey, it is closed but I think that leaving addressee and salutation would be best.  I can't think of anything more appropriate.  On name formats I do have a strong opinion on the Nickname updated to Preferred Name.  I think this is the opposite from the change from proposals to opportunities as preferred name is more specific and, I think, misleading.  My nickname is Ellie but that is not my preferred name unless you are related to me and/or knew me in elementary school.  We have nicknames for board members and they may prefer our executive director use that name but certainly would not prefer that all staff use that name.  I feel strongly this change should be reversed.  Thank you!