Three Strikes Against Donor Lists (and One Home Run)

Do you hate donor lists as much as I do?

Year after year, countless nonprofits produce them along with annual reports, thinking this is important for building donor relationships.

They’re not.

The last comprehensive list I oversaw was about 11 years ago, my first year working in higher education. It took countless meetings, crazy data pulls, and painstaking proofreading.

When it was done we published the annual report online, and — no surprise — it got abysmal traffic.

I vowed never to do it again and spent six months in conversation with colleagues, getting buy-in for something different: a series of segmented impact reports. In the end, the consensus was to make the change. And it was a game-changer.

Donor lists are:
⚾️ Time consuming (Strike 1!)
⚾️ Prone to error (Strike 2!)
⚾️Impersonal (Strike 3!)

Most donors prize information over recognition. Why spend countless hours of staff time and resources giving them something they don’t want?

But, I’ll admit there is one fundraising situation in which I don’t hate them.

Here’s how to hit a homerun with donor lists: Use them in a solicitation.

Donor lists can be used very effectively when coupled with an ask. Here’s an example:

Swarthmore College has a loyalty society for donors who give for three or more consecutive years. Every fall, they send an appeal with a list of the society’s members. The request is directly tied to the list, encouraging people to continue their streak of giving and not lose their place on the list.

It works.

So, use lists sparingly and wisely with these rules in mind:

🏆 Solicitation over stewardship
🏆Segment and use for some, but not all, audiences
🏆Incentivize (i.e. getting on the the list is the reward)