Before you answer, let me ask the same question in a more practical, perhaps more helpful way.

After you receive the gift, how long does it take, on average, for your institution to thank and extend a gift receipt to a donor?

In the past, I have suggested that the timing of an institution extending gratitude and a donor’s gift check clearing the bank should coincide very closely.  A day or two difference is “ok,” but not much more than that.

Ten, even five years ago, this wasn’t such a difficult standard to meet.  Paper checks were cleared by one bank sending the check to another via U.S. mail.  So, the institution had time to process an acknowledgement and get a gift receipt to the donor.  However, technology is making this standard more difficult to achieve.

What does this mean?  Well, my wife and I recently made a gift to an institution and, within 3 days after sending in our check (we didn’t make the gift online because we wanted to include a handwritten note), it cleared our bank.  We knew this because we bank online – a few clicks and we saw it had cleared.  Today paper checks are cleared electronically, greatly reducing the time to post the debit to a donor’s bank account.

We waited three weeks for a thank you letter and gift receipt.

Fairly or not, we came away from that experience with a perception about what that particular institution cared most about.

And this isn’t a small issue.  According to a 2010 study by Fiserv, “[N]early 100 million U.S. families use the internet, and a surprisingly high 72.5 million of those households contain someone who uses online banking.”

Technology can bring with it unintended consequences.  Our gift acknowledgement processes need to keep pace with the changing environment and expectations.

Using email or other electronic means as a way to extend thanks to your donors immediately can be a solution.  Perhaps for your institution, an email thanks is followed by a more traditional letter and gift receipt.

Whatever the solution for your institution, thanking donors should never be perceived as an afterthought.

Is that it?  Is that all that happens?

Despite all the talk about “engaging donors,” I’m afraid to say that for many educational, healthcare, and non-profit organizations, the answer is “yes.”

So, what else should we be doing in response to a donor’s gift?  Here are 3 simple responses, which, when included in a letter with a gift receipt, could transform your organization’s relationships with its donors.  After expressing ample gratitude in the letter,  why not:

1. Invite them to join you at an event or other activity.  A student fine arts performance or an athletic event on your campus.  The concert by the Woman’s Choir that is being given during the Christmas season at your hospital.  A community festival or event important to your organization.  Or, if they live outside of your region, alert them to an outreach event that you are planning in their area.
2. Ask for their advice.  Let them know that your development office is seeking donor feedback on how your organization can make the donor experience more meaningful.  That you’d like to talk with them via phone for a 10-15 minute survey.  Develop questions if you don’t have some good ones and conduct a survey.  Imagine what you just might learn.  And imagine how many relationships you may strengthen.
3. Let them know you’d like to visit them.  Even if you already know them, a statement such as, “Our institution is enjoying such momentum currently.  I would welcome the opportunity to visit with you and share the many positive developments.”

Our work is about building purposeful relationships with donors.  Saying “thanks” in response to a gift is appropriate – but it is also the bare minimum of responses.  To generate the kind of engagement we say we want with our donors, we must stretch beyond extending gratitude and, instead,  extend ourselves.

Occasionally, donors say, “Hello??!!??”  They are upset with our inept response to their gifts.  They will write a letter or email, typically to the President/Vice President and complain.  They claim to be complaining not for themselves of course but, “for the other donors who may take offense” with our shoddy donor stewardship practices.  And while these missives are troubling and demand quick responses, we should thank these donors for pausing to say, “Hello??!!??”  We now have an opportunity to fix our response.

The real problem comes when our donors simply go away – quietly, frustrated, and determined not to give us another chance.  We’ve missed an opportunity to learn and grow as an institution.  We’ve lost a donor and we have no clue as to why.

I’ve grown convinced, both from experiences with my own giving and in receiving gifts, that responding with sincere gratitude to donors is just about the most important act in the philanthropic process.  And while that may sound like a “well, yeah, of course!” statement think about your shop – are you really doing donor stewardship well?

What do you do for your $1,000 annual donors?  Are there multiple methods of expressing gratitude in place?  What about those donors who give $500 annually?  Or $10,000 annually?  Do you have a stewardship plan in place more robust than your gift receipting policy?

Here’s a strategy:  Before one of your donors says, “Hello??!!??” how about surveying your donors to find out how they might respond to your donor stewardship plans.

And don’t ask the questions phrased as, “Would you like to be thanked in the following ways. . . ”  Instead, simply ask them what they think other donors would like.  Remember, they don’t say, “Hello??!!??” because they feel taken for granted, they just don’t want others to feel that way.

Recently, I was visiting with a donor stewardship director at one of our country’s most distinctive universities.   Together we were reviewing her first draft of a new comprehensive donor stewardship plan, paying close attention to her new plans for leadership donor stewardship activities.

“I’m not sure I can sell all these strategies to my vp, because of cost – but the donor appreciation and long-term institutional benefit would be tremendous,” she stated, looking for counsel on how to prioritize.

My response was to produce the following Donor Stewardship Prioritization Matrix:

I suggested that she plot all of the leadership level donor stewardship strategies on the matrix and eliminate any that fell into the high cost-low impact cell, reduce those that landed into the low cost–low impact cell, and transform those in the high cost-high impact cell to fit in the low cost- high impact cell.

Moving initiatives from the high cost–high impact cell to the low cost-high impact cell encouraged her to question the wisdom of creating new donor stewardship events.

We discussed an integrated approach in which every public activity of the institution could serve as a vehicle to recognize leadership-level donors.  Pre-game at the football game?  Publicly recognize a donor.  The next theatre production?  Publicly recognize a donor.  An event at the art gallery?  Publicly recognize a donor.

We quickly identified over 30 events throughout the year that had great potential to serve in this stewardship capacity.  Since these events were already planned, there was minimal increased cost.  And since these events were part of the fabric of the University, she would be enhancing donor relationships in an authentic way. . .bringing donors closer to the essence of the University’s work.

Development professionals are creative folk.  When they are given a problem to tackle, such as enhancing donor stewardship, they tend to lean in the direction of new creations, new events, and new initiatives.  However, if we structure our options (as above), we may find alternatives which can better meet donor and institutional goals as well as reduce costs.