The Contradictory Nature of Donor Recognition

Transcription

1 PENELOPE BURK

2 The Contradictory Nature of Donor Recognition by PENELOPE BURK As another issue of the annual report finally heads to the printer, one in which page after page is devoted to donors names listed by gift value, do you ever ask yourself, Do donors really care? Or, while swallowing hard as you review the bill from the supplier of your donor recognition wall, does it flash through your mind, What do people really think as they stand in front of it? Publishing and publicly displaying donors names are ingrained fundraising practices. 74% of not for profits surveyed in two national research studies 1 affirmed that they engage in these forms of donor recognition. According to respondents, one of the most popular justifications for honor rolls, giving categories and donor walls is the belief that they play an important role in donors decisions to give, to give larger gifts, and to remain loyal over an extended period of time. But when donors themselves were asked for their opinions on these same questions they told a different story. 71% said that published lists of names in annual reports or newsletters had no impact on their loyalty and future gift values. Instead, they treasured less obvious and simpler things such as thank you letters beautifully constructed, or impromptu phone calls from leadership volunteers or staff who had noticed and genuinely appreciated the effort they had made. 44% of donors said that a great thank you letter alone had the power to influence their next gift; an astounding 85% would give again is a leadership volunteer called them to acknowledge their support. Many donors we interviewed clearly articulated their position on the subject of public recognition versus private acknowledgement by saying, for us, acknowledgement is the recognition. Meanwhile not for profits spend considerably more money (donors money) and professional staff time recognizing donors publically than they do acknowledging them privately. Our research discovered that across the board, charitable institutions spend $30 recognizing donors for every 19$ they spend communicating with them. Donor recognition is expensive, and it begs the question is it worth it? 1 All statistics references in this article are from Donor Centered Fundraising, Penelope Burk, 2003, Cygnus Applied Research, Inc.

3 According to fundraisers themselves, donor recognition is also fraught with danger. In our research studies, no issue provoked more doubt, anxiety and introspection than did the subject of publishing donors names. Stories abounded of hapless fundraisers bracing themselves for the inevitable angry complaints from donors over misunderstandings about the criteria for inclusion in the annual published list. For instance, many not for profits categorize donors by total giving over the fiscal year, while their donors who keep track of these things, total their giving by calendar year and are understandably irritated when they find themselves in the bronze category instead of the silver level. As well, fundraisers worry constantly, and with good reason, about the potential for typographical errors. In a forty-page list of supporters in the annual report, (a list that has been vetted over and over by the stewardship officer until she runs screaming from the office), if just one name is misspelled out of eight thousand entries, you can bet that donor will be calling. Are donors contradicting themselves? If they say that donor recognition doesn t matter while scanning rows of 8-point font names with laser-like efficiency, what message are they sending and how should fundraisers deal with this issue? When we challenged donors on this, they had a clear and helpful answer. They reminded us that this kind of donor recognition came into being not because it had been requested by donors but because it had been invented by fundraisers. Over time it became a core fundraising strategy on the assumption that donors wanted it or liked it, without ever verifying this belief with donors themselves. Many donors explained it this way: if you print my name in your annual report, I m going to look to see if it s there. That s just human nature. However, it it s misspelled or I think it s listed in the wrong place, I will be irritated, and I m going to question the efficiency of the organization I ve supported. If you never print the list in the first place, however, I won t even care. Fundraisers soldier on, however, either believing or hoping that publishing donors names by giving category raises more money from existing donors or, at least, influences potential donors to become contributors. On the latter issue, not for profits own distribution policies contradict that belief. Over 90% of survey respondents said that distribution of the annual report or newsletter is limited to those whose names are already on the list. Fundraisers are justifiably reluctant to eliminate an accepted practice without real evidence that fundraising performance will not be jeopardized. After all, it wasn t 100% of donors who said that publishing their names had no effect on this giving.

4 Luckily, several leading institutions have blazed the trail and their experiences are worth noting. Among them is the university of South Florida which discontinued the published list of donors, saving $17,000 in outright printing cost, let alone the precious staff time required for readying the list for publication. Under the bold leadership of Pete Fazio, Assistant VP of Donor Relations and Scholarship Management, the University reinvested that time and money in Fundholder reports, which resulted in a 47% increase in revenue in just three years. Number of complaints from donors whose names used to be on those lists: zero. Though impressive, this example does not address the possibility that the real value of public recognition lies in its ability to influence non-donors to give in the future. Here, donor walls are a better example than are published lists, as these installations have a considerably longer life and are seen by far more people than the number whose names are etched on those brass plaques. If breeding a desire to give is the intended outcome, then when a passer-by stops to look at a donor wall, we hope that he is impressed by the organization s ability to command the philanthropic attention of the rich and powerful; is awed by the sheer volume of pole who support the charity; thinks the donor wall is beautifully designed. But what if her looks at the donor wall and concludes that his more modest capacity to give means he could never play in the same league with those whose names are heralded in stone or marble? What if he feels that, with so many prominent donors, the organizations doesn t really need his gift? What if he wonders what the donor wall cost and hot much money was diverted from its intended purpose to produce this expensive monument? It s a gamble. So, should all donor walls be torn down, all recognition pages of the annual report ripped out and all honor rolls abandoned? Or, is it possible that a different approach to donor recognition could showcase philanthropy without passing judgment on donors according to their ability to give? Recently, I had the good fortune of seeing a different twist on donor recognition at The Mayo Clinic. Now, Mayo does have traditional donor walls lots of them and, as one would expect, the lists of names read like a Who s Who of America. But, there is one recognition installation that is unique. First, it looks completely different, which is what drew me to it. It is more like a museum display than a donor wall. Three-dimensional and surrounded by glass, it also serves as the wall on one side of the entranceway to the Mayo Heritage Museum. There are no lists of names here. Rather posts of various heights are placed artistically in the space, atop each of which is a frame and, inside the frame, a photo and a story. The first photo I noticed was that of a smiling thirtysomething man. As I approached to learn more, I assumed that this young person must

5 have inherited a lot of money from his parents, or perhaps he was an internet millionaire (otherwise how could he be among those recognized by the Mayo Clinic?). But the inscription told another story. He has a wife and two young children and a regular job, and he donates $30 a month. Next was a photo of a striking older couple who had named a wing of the hospital, along with their compelling story about immigrating to America. Each framed exhibit led me to the next, until I had gone right around the entire installation. My eye then caught something I had almost overlooked. Down on the floor, tucked between two posts, was a child s wagon. The brief accompanying narrative told of a young girl who had sold lemonade from her wagon throughout the previous summer, sending the proceeds to The Mayo Clinic at the end of the season. There is no way that I, nor anyone else, could miss the messages here that anyone, regardless of age or financial capability can be a donor to The Mayo Clinic, and that all donors, regardless of means, are treasured. These are the messages that are missing from traditional donor recognition actually, not just missing, but emphatically contradicted. In the end, all donors are giving generously within their own means, given the information available to them at the time they make their decision. Memorializing only the names of the wealthy does a disservice to everyone else. Producing a complete and accurate list of all donors giving over a certain amount is almost impossible and still fails to communicate the more powerful message. Though study donors in all giving categories were unimpressed with having their names published and, especially, published by gift value, the most uncomfortable were those giving in the platinum category at the top of the list. These donors reminded us that wealthy people give more because thy can, but that it takes all donors to get to goal. Perhaps one day all donor recognition will showcase the true meaning of philanthropy which is not giving over a certain dollar figure but, as any dictionary will confirm, being a lover of mankind. ~ UNITED STATES 444 North Michigan Ave, 12 th Floor Chicago, IL t: f: CANADA 69 John Street South, Suite 410 Hamilton, ON, L8N 2B9 t: f: