Q: What are your thoughts about including an annual roll of donors in a (printed) annual report? Our staff is split 50/50 on whether that is still useful, necessary, or appropriate. Thanks.
A: This is a very common question! We all know we’re supposed to thank donors. (Although it seems few nonprofits actually do!)
I have no idea why anyone would think a donor list in an existing annual report would be inappropriate. After all, you’d only include donors who’ve given permission (otherwise they’d ask to be anonymous).
So if you already do a printed annual report, I’d say print the list! Lists give people an excuse to look — if only for their own name. And if you tier the donors by giving category, some may be motivated to boost their giving.
Some organizations are moving away from annual reports because of the cost of printing and mailing. You may want a smaller annual report. Or add the annual report to something useful, like a calendar. Or design it to use it as a year-round marketing piece.
But here’s a word of caution: resist the urge to go 100% digital.
I was on the board of a national nonprofit association that went all digital in its communications. We lost so many people. For 65 years, we’d trained people to get used to seeing mail from us. When that stopped coming, they’d figured we’d ceased to exist. Plus, we didn’t get updated addresses because emails don’t often come with “return service requested.”
If you do create a printed list, just know you’ll always make mistakes. No matter how hard you try, someone will be listed wrong or someone’s name will be wrong.
I used to think this was a reason to discontinue the list. But no more. Adrian Sargeant reports that donors who complain and have their complaint addressed actually become more loyal to the nonprofit!
So go ahead, print the list! Let those donors, and your entire community, know you’re grateful!
[Do you have a question about nonprofits or fundraising that you’d like considered for Question Marc? Send it to marc@fundraisingcoach.com.]
Marc an interesting piece. People often respond to the this question the way you have, it creates an illusion of being logical. What I do not understand is how unwilling the nonprofit community is to question if the printed list, Annual report is worth the time and expense. Is just do it because it couldn’t hurt really the kind of battle cry our industry needs. I say question every penny and activity you do to advance your mission. Is a piece designed to thank everyone actually thanking anyone?
My experience in ignoring tradition and customizing thank you communications saw a 700% increase in average size gifts, 145% increase in the length of time leadership donors remained donors and a 350% increase in annual support. I suggest before people decide to do something because it couldn’t hurt I suggest folks actually think about what will have the biggest positive impact. But then again I could be wrong 🙂
Marc – I totally agree about not going completely digital. Online newsletters, email and posting annual reports online are great additional ways to reach people. You can replace some of your mailings this way too, but people should still get something by mail every now and then.
You can also ask people if they want to opt-out of regular printed mailings and just get the email. Our church did this last year plus went from a weekly mailing to every other week. They were able to get better printing quality on the bi-weekly newsletters and combined with the email-opt out, save significant amount of money.
Jay: Thanks! In the original version of this post, I was going to encourage people to question printing the report at all. But it felt like the post was getting too long and convoluted. I’m so glad you mentioned it in the comments!
Sandra: Good point. Personally, I’d prefer digital communications.
Marc – Jay’s point is so important. Too often we focus on the “can’t hurt” versus the “what’s the best practice”, whether in fundraising, marketing, or delivering our service. That speaks to strategy – and we all ought to have one!
My experience is there is no one-size-fits-all, and most nonprofits would benefit by using a mix of custom, print and digital formats.
This year we featured our donors in the centerfold of the annual report with a watermarked “Thank You!” over it.
It was very well received!
Great post as always Marc!
I’m 100% in agreement with you that mixing it up, communication-wise, is the best way to go (see my blog post http://www.pamelasgrantwritingblog.com/547/to-engage-with-younger-donors-connect-with-them-where-they-live/).
However I tend to agree with Jay that putting more effort into your stewardship efforts will produce a greater long-run ROI. Is the time and effort of publishing a professional Annual Report – not to mention compiling the list – the best use of those resources? If you’re communicating on a consistent basis (12-14 “touches” per year), you’re already keeping your donors informed.
This was originally my question and I’m revisiting it today. Our donor list at Hospice was incredibly long – 13,000 donors, many who make a one-time memorial gift and are not what many orgs would call “annual” donors (but you never know who will convert). Even listing only cumulative donors of $125+ (which ignores some of the most loyal donors) was still many, many pages. For next year, we are leaning toward a new kind on annual report that is 4 pages total instead of the 30-page AR we’ve done in the past. We may or may not include the donors’ names in an addendum online, so those who want to see their giving level, can.
Too much grief is placed on the list of names. Pulling the list of donors is not hard when you have a clean database, but the design of the rest of the piece did consume many resources I’d rather see spent elsewhere.
Katie: Thanks for the update!
does anyone have a sample acknowledgment letter requesting donors to confirm how they prefer to be listed?
I don’t. But it’s easier if you say, “This is how you’ll be listed. Let us know if you’d like to change that.” Something along those lines.
Of course, with major donors, This is just oat of the conversation.
How is this holding up? 11 years later do you still recommend a donor roll in an annual report?
Great question, Melissa.
I don’t recommend them. They seem more trouble than they’re worth. I find a focused impact report with clear stories on what donor support has created is more effective.
But I know many organizations still like using them. And some donors like seeing their names.
So I think it goes back to (1) knowing your purpose in having on and (2) knowing what truly matters to your donors.