Earlier this month, the Met Gala reportedly raised a record-breaking $42 million for The Costume Institute, the Met’s fashion and costume museum department.
But what interested me most about the Met Gala news was not just the extraordinary fundraising result. It was the quieter story sitting alongside it: that The Costume Institute has been intentionally setting money aside to build its own endowment for years, strategically planning for a future in which the annual Met Gala event may no longer hold the same place in the global social calendar.
Resilience has to be built with money. Too crass?
No organization should allow one event, one funder, one donor group, one grant stream, one membership model, or one commercial partner to carry too much of their financial model.
Yes, the Met Gala operates at a scale most nonprofits will never experience (most of us don’t have a 100 million+ quasi-endowment). But the principle still holds. If one source of income matters too much, the organization needs a plan for what happens if it changes.
That means diversifying with intent, not chasing every possible source of money. A first-time supporter might become a regular giver. A regular giver might become a major donor. A corporate sponsor might become a long-term strategic partner. A restricted funder might come to understand why unrestricted support matters. That takes time, relationship-building, and proper fundraising expertise.
It also means having the confidence to set money aside and being able to explain to donors why that is the right financial strategy for the future. There is often pressure for every dollar to be spent immediately, especially when the need is urgent. That is understandable. But reserves, surpluses, and endowments are not separate from your mission; they protect it.
In the UK, where I work, the Charity Commission expects nonprofits to include their reserves policy in their annual report, singling out the level of reserves and why they are held. The appropriate amount depends on risk, operating costs, and the organization’s circumstances. Too much in reserves can rightly invite questions.
But in my view, holding larger reserves gives organizations choices. It helps them make better decisions. It gives them time to respond properly. And it can stop them from being on their knees if an important donor walks away, a grant stream closes, or a pandemic shuts down a major revenue stream overnight.
Making money, and consequently saving money, should not be treated as a dirty secret. It should be a core part of your mission.
The rockstars your nonprofit isn't celebrating (but should be)
There is a lot of discussion in the nonprofit sector about whether organizations are becoming too commercial or too corporate, too focused on money. I understand the concern. Nonprofits exist to deliver a mission, meet a need, and create public benefit.
But I have always found the discomfort with “making money” interesting. There are fantastic commercial businesses doing mission-driven work, and I have had the pleasure of working for a couple. One does not necessarily exclude the other.
When I first worked in a nonprofit, I had a conversation with a team leader who made it very clear she did not think the organizational priority should be making money. I was surprised. My view was, and still is, that the more financially stable an organization is, the more good it can afford to do.
That does not mean chasing money at any cost. It means treating income generation as core to the mission.
In commercial businesses, salespeople are often the rockstars. In nonprofits, development and fundraising teams often sit quietly in the background while the spotlight goes to those leading the programming and impact work. But without money, there are no programs to create impact, to pay people properly, and no room to respond when demand grows.
Fundraising is skilled, strategic work. It should be a regular drumbeat, regardless of whether the organization currently has steady income. I would like to see a world where development and partnership teams are seen as rockstars, not just by the executive team and board, but by the whole organization.
Knowing when to say yes, and when to say no
Many nonprofits are operating in an incredibly difficult environment. Demand is rising, costs are rising, and this can lead some nonprofits to make reactive funding decisions that don’t take into account long-term impact. Restricted gifts, grants, and contracts can all be transformative, but only when they align with strategy and cover the real cost of the work. A grant can look attractive on paper, but if the application process and reporting are time-consuming and the internal effort is disproportionate, the real value may be much lower than the headline figure.
Turning funding down rarely looks good at the moment. But if money pulls an organization away from its purpose, or creates commitments it cannot sustain, saying no is the right decision.
This is where a clear and concise mission matters: What change are you trying to make? Why are you the right organization to deliver it? Why does this work matter now? The answers to these questions matter because they can become a framework for saying no: to funding that does not fit your mission, to projects that flatter but deplete your staff, to work that keeps everyone busy without building long-term resilience.
Business thinking is a muscle: use it or lose it
In for-profit organizations, revenue generation is treated as business-critical. Sales teams are rewarded because income is understood as essential to growth. That same confidence around money is a skill nonprofits can build, too.
In nonprofits, senior fundraisers already do this every day: they bring in significant income, manage complex relationships, and protect organizational integrity. The opportunity is to spread that thinking across the whole organization.
Mission matters. And so does the expertise that funds it.
Investing in fundraising and development teams is a start. But imagine if everyone in your organization understood the true cost of the choices that sit behind the money that is spent. Not in a cold or transactional way but as a shared foundation for making better decisions together.
That knowledge shouldn't be optional. And the good news is, it can be taught.