Does the Donor Pyramid need replacing?
A new old debate resurfaced recently in the Chronicle of Philanthropy: the Donor Pyramid may be bad for charitable giving. I disagree.
You may not have heard of the donor pyramid so here is what it is. It has legacies (a.k.a planned giving) at its pinnacle and one-off first-time donors at its base. It has been a staple of fundraising courses since the dawn of time. I suspect this argument is almost as old, I remember blogging about it in 2013.
Back then two important names in fundraising, Claire Axelrad, J.D., CFRE and, Andrea Kihlstedt were debating whether social media had killed the Donor Pyramid. Claire’s opening salvo was that pyramid is where people go to die!
Both however agreed on two principles.
? Major Gift fundraising is extraordinarily important.
? The Pareto Rule (80/20) is alive and well.
领英推荐
The debate, then as now, I think misplaces the utility of the Donor Pyramid. Its strength is that it is a planning tool. It is not an empirical proven theory. What it does show, however, is that an organisation’s largest gifts, including bequests are generally the result of having a large base of donors and gifts.
At issue, is not how these donors are acquired: via social media or not. Nor how well they are treated: the one would hope that all donors are valued and regularly thanked and informed about the importance of their gifts.
The second principle above is also often described as a pyramid. This is the Major Gift Pyramid which is a very important planning tool which should be seen as complimentary to the Donor Pyramid. Of this there is more empirical evidence. It says that the most dollars raised, or the largest gifts are from a small number of committed and usually high net worth donors.
Putting the two planning principles demonstrated by these two pyramids together it should be obvious that it is important to invest in engaging encouraging support from the many at the base. It is equally as important to identify, invest and engage donors who have the capacity at interest to make large gifts: this includes bequests.
It is also very important, as a Chronicle letter writer pointed out: a gift pyramid does not prevent an organization from “showing appreciation to all donors, regardless of their gift size”.
The Frontline Fundraiser -- teacher, speaker, consultant on major gift planning
1 年I'm always glad when this topic comes up, inviting me to offer my thoughts on the giving pyramid. I'm unable to attach my article to this message, so I hope those interested will find it in a post I just made on my own LinkedIn feed. Feedback and pushback are equally welcome.
Principal, DLBHICKS, LLC & Faculty, Columbia University MS Nonprofit Management Program
1 年Well said! Pyramids are hierarchical and not reflective of the journey that a donor takes that can culminate and a legacy/planned gift. I suggest a more accurate visual representation is a pathway where some donors enter at the beginning and take a longer voyage, others with more resources and maturity may enter mid-point an an on-ramp. Along the way there are increasing opportunities for engagement, education, and impactful giving.
Partner at More Partnership
1 年An interesting discussion John - of course, the extent to which the Pareto Principle applies is often directly proportionate to the size of the campaign, notably in the HE sector. The largest ￡/$ billion campaigns (whether Oxford. Melbourne or Sydney) have a ratio closer to 97/3 rather than 80/20 or even 90/10. Also, the make-up of the organsiations prospect pool and strategy will also directly affect the shape of its likely gift table so donor pyramids, pillars, hourglass etc. are all possible.
Executive Director, Chapel & York Singapore/Asia Pacific Foundation
1 年Fully agree but that 80/20 rule needs updating for this century, have found mostly to be more 90/10 with organisations I have worked with.