BUDGET CREATION: The Revenue vs Expense Debate

One of the most widely, and often hotly discussed issues debated in almost every organization, is whether budget gaps/ deficits should be closed predominantly by addressing revenues/ income received/ generated, or by reducing expenses. In nearly every case, the discussion deteriorates to the level of vitriol, with both sides of the debate seemingly unwilling to listen to the other. However, the reality is, that in most cases, balancing a budget responsibly can only be done through a balanced approach. When there is too much cost cutting, particularly when it is simply done either randomly or across the board, the result in the long term is often far more detrimental than the starting point. When the concentration centers almost entirely on raising revenues, especially when that revenue will mostly be gained by raising either dues or fees, there is often a resultant attrition of membership and/ or supporters. No organization ever grows or benefits (especially in the long run) as a result of either reducing what it offers or provides, or when it prices itself out of relevance. While this discussion relates to organizations, the same rules/ concepts make sense for businesses, and independent contractors.

1. Are most organizations' budgets bloated and/ or out of whack in certain areas? Absolutely, and that is precisely why there must be attention to detail and ramifications used when preparing these budgets. It must also be remembered, however, that even the best thought out and developed budget loses its impact when the organization simply adds expenses to it throughout the fiscal year. The best way to create a budget continues to be by using zero - based budgeting, and evaluating each expense on its own merits. Expenses must be looked at in terms of how much is being spent in relation to its priority for the group, as well as whether the organization is getting the most bang for its buck. Is the group getting its maximum benefit, or can the desired result be achieved using an alternative, often less costly approach. Should the expense area be kept the same (meaning it is optimum under the fiscal conditions), reduced or increased. It should be reduced if either it is not being done effectively, or if the level of priority has been reduced from what it was. It should be increased if at that spending level the organization needs to spend more to achieve a priority that has an essential impact. I refer to that process as ramification expense priorities.

2. Should, and must dues, fees, and other member - directed revenues be adjusted upwardly? Groups need to look at their fees in relation to what other similar groups charge, as well as by the economic realities of the day. Has the organization created a strong enough feeling by distinguishing itself by the value and services it provides? How loyal are its members, supporters, donors and sponsors? What has been done in terms of motivating positive feelings and support? The reality is that revenues often need to be adjusted, but must be done in a way that the overwhelming number of supporters question the value of remaining involved. That can only be done when a rational, balanced approach is utilized. The most sustainable organizations have come to realize that small inflation - indexed dues increases rarely create negative feelings or ramifications, and thus they use a cost of living adjustment method of annually increasing revenues. Those groups that try to maintain their dues, etc., at present levels, and then find itself needing to make a substantial increase at a particular time, are usually the ones that create resentment and resistance.

Every action an organization does has ramifications. Failure to act can threaten its very existence and financial stability, but acting without analysis and balance can have an even more deleterious impact.