Are goals just great ideas, while budgets are financial needs?

In my organization, we set an annual fundraising goal for our general missions offering. The goal is promoted throughout the denomination, with the hope people will be motivated to reach the goal. Regional groups of churches set a goal as well, and local churches and individuals are encouraged to set goals, too. We've even used the goals concept in a lot of our past promotional materials. An annual theme once challenged people to "press toward the goal" (Phillipians 3:14), and a video another year used soccer to generate some excitement about making goals.

We set a goal for the offering because that's the way we have always done it. But as Seth Godwin points out, we also set goals because they challenges us and provide a way to measure success. It is also reasonable effective, as we usually reach the goal.

Yet, we didn't meet the goal in 2008. It's easy to blame the economy, but I know of at least one ministry that raised its full budget. The Christian radio station Air1 initially fell short during their fall pledge drive. They did an additional end-of-the-year appeal, asking people to donate $100 so they could be "fully funded" in 2009. The DJs continually refered to the amount they needed to raise as their budget, but once, he slipped and called it a goal.

Almost immediately, he corrected himself, explaining: "It's not just a goal that would be nice to meet. It's a real financial need. It's our budget for 2009, and we need to be fully funded. Otherwise, we won't be able to do the ministry we have planned." By the end of the campaign, they had raised their full budget, and yet people still continued to call and donate.

His comment has stayed with me and caused to rethink our reliance on the word goals. I shared the idea with the ministry directors of our organization, but I'm curious what you think as well. Are fundraising goals just amounts that it would be nice to have, while budgets are the money a group needs?