Of The 4 PIllars of Donor Relations, perhaps the fastest changing pillar is that of recognition. Even saying the word “recognition” brings certain institutional practices to mind–but are those trusty methods a little rusty? Or, to be a little less folksy, are these recognition tactics strategic, effective, and practical in our modern era? The answer, of course, is “it depends,” but here’s a look at some of the most hotly debated donor recognition practices and some “hot takes” for you to ponder:
1. Donor Honor Rolls: We’ll start with an easy one–just say no! At DRG, we are firmly in the “no honor roll camp.” Our industry is moving further away from simple listings of donor names as evinced by the most recent edition of the Pulse of Donor Relations Survey. But be warned–you’ll always have leaders and donors who swear by this stale practice. I recently completed a donor recognition survey with a consulting client, and heard responses from two donors who promised they would give more if they saw their name in an honor roll. Or who swore that their classmates' competitive edge would kick in if they saw “Joe Donor” giving more than them. And while that may be true for those two comments (out of the 300+ respondents), research tells us that the vast majority of donors aren’t motivated in this fashion. Research from the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy suggests that women give “based on empathy for others”, while the giving of men is “more about self-interest.” Donor honor rolls are relics of an era when men made the household financial decisions and comprised the bulk of college graduates. Research has shown that nowadays, women are key decision makers in philanthropic decision-making (often the deciding voice), and women now comprise the bulk of college graduates in the workforce. When you add in Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy Research findings which estimates that women are expected to inherit 70% of the $41 trillion intergenerational wealth, it’s safe to say that we can put the honor roll (and other competitive fundraising practices) in the “used to do it” pile. If your leadership insists on producing a list of donors, consider these practices to revamp and revise your honor roll.
2. Naming Rights:
Nothing is more sacrosanct (and ready for a reckoning) than the practice of placing a donor’s name on something–from a building, to a professorship or research position, to a center, to an art gallery, to lavatories at a music center. The list could continue endlessly as there doesn’t seem to be much that won’t be named these days. However, cautionary tales are abound from the art world, higher education, and healthcare. As development professionals, we need to ask ourselves if putting a donor’s name on something in honor of their giving is really the best way to recognize them. Just ask Ruth Gottesman, who made keeping the Einstein School of Medicine’s name a condition of her $1B gift. Ruth is joined by countless other philanthropists who are uninterested in seeing their names in the proverbial lights. While I’m not recommending that the practice be discontinued wholesale, I am advocating for fundraising staff to not make naming a default recognition technique. This, of course, requires more work on our part. We need to ask our donors some big questions, including how they wish to be recognized, or if they even want public recognition at all. Donors are often just as happy with a shoutout in a publication or a private reception with the researcher who receives their funding. And forget perpetuity–at DRG, we’re big advocates for termed naming agreements. That means clearly defining how long a building (or lavatory…) will bear a donor’s name, and the terms in which the name may be changed.
3. Recognition Societies: Once the gold standard of donor recognition programming, these groups deserve a second look in terms of efficacy. A recent survey conducted by GG+A through their SurveyLab (below) found that less than ⅓ of donors to two different Ivy League schools were able to accurately identify their level within their giving society framework. That same survey found that only 16.9% of respondents found society membership to be influential in their giving. FOLKS. It’s time to KISS our recognition societies–Keep It Simple, Sweeties–goodbye! Worry less about who is at the emerald or ruby level and worry more about creating experiences for donors that connect them to their giving. Recognition societies can be effective in engaging donors, but lapel pins and membership certificates don’t go far when attempting to encourage donors to further invest in your organization’s mission. Finding ways to bring donations “to life” is key and a true test of the efficacy of donor recognition society programming.
You can check out the full GG+A Survey below:
The bottom line is that donor recognition programs must be continually evaluated in order to remain effective. A simple survey of your recognition society membership can help you determine, with empirical evidence (and not just anecdotes!), what is working and what can be improved upon or optimized. DRG has helped many clients build and analyze donor surveys, so if you’re stuck and need some help, reach out to let us know!
My colleagues Angie Joens and Matthew Helmer recently took a deeper into this important topic. You can purchase the recording of “Yay or Nay: The Most Debated Donor Recognition Practices” here. I hope you’ll check it out to hear their “hot takes” and discover new ways to challenge your own recognition status quo!
What victories or challenges are you facing with donor recognition at your organization? We'd love to hear about it in the comments below!
Written by Colton Withers
Colton Withers, Director of Operations, is a consultant and educator who has helped clients inspire donors through exceptional communications, building and implementing innovative programs, designing and analyzing surveys, and training employees on the art and science of donor relations.
