Are your women donors invisible?
Change your database before 2009 ends
Quick. Grab a copy of your last annual report or newsletter or program book or whatever you use to thank people who have given to your worthy cause.
Now look at all the couples who gave. Can you read all the first names of the women?
I suspect not. Instead, it probably says "Mr. and Mrs. Horatio Alger". Even though it was Abigail Alger who pushed the stingy Horatio into donating, he will get the credit. She will be invisible.
The irony was really driven home for me this month as I reviewed lists of donors for two of my clients' Women & Girls Funds. Those too read "Mr. and Mrs. Horatio Alger". Sigh. All those years of burning bras for naught.
Garbage in, garbage out. Stop blaming the database.
This isn't the worst item that nonprofits and foundations fail in my communications audits, but it's certainly in the Top 10. I'll tell you why you're shooting yourself in the foot (or elsewhere) a little farther down.
I'm always surprised though how defensive the agency is to get this criticism, though, especially since I'm a guy and nonprofits are overwhelmingly staffed by women. I expect them to rise up in anger with me and say, "Da(r)n. How the heck did this happen? Burn all those annual reports immediately!"
Instead I hear first, "It's the way the donor asked to be listed."
To which I respond, "I'm going to bet that you send them a letter acknowledging their donation and the boilerplate language always says 'Unless you tell us otherwise, your gift will be noted as from Mr. and Mrs. Horatio Alger'."
And I get one of two answers: 1. "That's what was written on the check" or 2. "That's how our database automatically records names."
I retort, "Look who signed the check."
Yup, it was the woman.
Hey folks, the times have changed, really!
Truth is, both the bank that issues the checking account and the software company that creates the default in the database are usually taking the safe, traditional, Amy Vanderbilt approach. And you're lazily following along.
So are your donors, admittedly. They get the 'thank you' letters and ignore the offer to change how they will be acknowledged. The missus later sees her name (or actually doesn't) in the program book and thinks to herself, "Hmmm, how do I change that?" and then forgets to follow up.
(For that matter, I'm still perplexed that women are taking their husband's last names. I note Hillary has regained her 'Rodham' and Angelina hasn't gone to the 'Pitts'.)
Four reasons why you're shooting yourself in the tuchas
1. Women (and their enlightened men) want to be acknowledged. Forget the gifts. Take a look at the name of every family foundation. For that matter, look at any permanent endowment set up at your agency. Is it the "Mr. and Mrs. Bill Gates Foundation"? Not if he wants to keep half his fortune. Yes, there are foundations and endowments in one person's name, and lots of foundations and endowments in the family's name alone, but I challenge you to find one permanent endowment that only identifies the woman as "Mrs." I'll list it in my next eBlast. I won't reserve much space.
2. Women are the charitable ones. In a new but unsurprising survey, Ledbury Research for Barclay's Wealth found that wealthy women in the
3. Women live at least five years longer than men. Sure, go ahead, focus on the guy. But it's his widow who will be holding the estate.
4. Women & Girls Funds are quickly changing the landscape of women's giving, according to a new report by the Women's Funding Network.
What to do, what to do. Is 2009 already lost?
The Boston Globe recently began an article about giving by gay couples with the question about how to acknowledge gifts, e.g. whose name goes first.
You've probably already addressed that question for your differently-last named couples. And, I agree, it would be odd and space consuming to write "Mr. Horatio Alger and Mrs. Abigail Alger".
I like the solution in the annual report I received this week from the Community Foundation of Abilene: no "Mr. and Mrs.", just "Brady and Bea" and "Cecil and Herma". And
Otherwise, I guess it's "Mr. and/& Mrs. Horatio and/& Abigail Alger", however you choose to configure the "&", "/", and "and"s. Better to do the input correctly, but all is not lost if you haven't. You can take the text file and do a universal "find and replace".
The bad news is that if your nonprofit or community foundation is one of the woman-ignoring groups above, you have already erringly logged most of your gifts for 2009. Next year's annual report will reflect the same.
I see three possibilities:
1. Change your policies starting January 1, 2010 so that you never ignore married women again. Acknowledge that you'll have one more year of shame, and promise in the 2009 annual report that you will never do it again, unless women specifically request being invisible.
2. Change your policy immediately for the gifts that will come in over the next 35 days. Most nonprofits get 75% of their gifts in the fourth quarter of the year anyway.
3. Send out a letter to all your married couples that are likely to be listed as "Mr. and Mrs. His Name" and say you've had a change of heart. Imagine how surprised they will be to get that letter!
Congratulations and thanks, Connie
Congratulations to lunch pal Connie Worthington who was just named AFP's Philanthropist of the Year in
Connie also wrote after my eBlast on direct mail envelopes to say you should shred those letters before you put them in recycling. You're right, of course, Connie, but there are so many to dump!
What would Elvis do?
I don't know, but a whole website is dedicated just to celebrity giving. Check it out in this month's Philanthropy Tidbits: odd pieces of charitable news.
See you next month! Your ideas for columns always welcome.
Rick
