The problem with annual reports.
It’s January and for many organizations, it’s time to start preparing your annual report.
It’s often a bloated document. Best case, we find compelling stories to pull from each program area that support our mission. In most cases, the annual report reads like a self-congratulatory list of accomplishments with an accompanying index of donors, painstakingly divided into segregated lists of “support levels.”
The overly sanitized success stories we choose for the report fly in the face of effective fundraising. We present our audience with a vision of just how great we are, ignoring the fact that a very clear need still exists. It’s time we rethink this nonprofit tradition.
Annual reports are resource hogs.
Our staff spends a ton of time sourcing stories, compiling data, finding appropriate photographs, and designing the annual report year after year. An equal amount of time (if not more) is spent poring over donor lists before we finally approve the proofs, print a few of these on a nice heavy (expensive!) stock, and mail them off to a handful of our biggest contributors.
The rest of our supporters “didn’t give enough” to receive the print version so they’re sent an email with a shiny button that links to a pdf document. Forgetting about the twisted metrics we used to make that decision and the values it projects — we scratch our heads, wondering why the only engagement the “annual report pdf link email” produced was an uptick in unsubscribes.
segregating donors by gift size is regressive.
Our program staff spends the entire year providing services that are a byproduct of socio-economic inequity in our communities. Nonprofit policy teams spend afternoons on Capitol Hills across this country advocating for progressive measures to advance our mission. Meanwhile, we divvy up our donors into bite-size lists, placing our largest donors at the top of the menu.
Publicly ranking individuals based solely on their capital contribution(s) perpetuates inequitable systems.
Our annual report is a reflection of our values. Creating a donor hierarchy sends a message that money is the most important gift that anyone can give. We use terms like “major donor” or “leadership circle” to reinforce the message and risk alienating our staff, volunteers, and countless others who make gifts of time, knowledge, and expertise to advance our mission.
We have donors who are reaching much deeper, contributing a larger portion of their overall wealth because they have a profound connection to our mission. We hear incredibly moving stories from donors giving $10 or $20. But year after year, these individuals are lost in eight-point type if they make the cut at all.
And the only person reading them…
Perhaps our biggest problem is that our target audience could care less.
I found this annual report in a restroom trashcan at my last job, less than twenty yards from staff mailboxes. If our own teams can barely make it around the corner with this thing, who do we think is reading it?
The formulaic approach and overly positive stories do little to captivate an audience. In fact, they may harm our fundraising efforts by neglecting to present the ongoing need for our services. Day after day, we work tirelessly to address society’s most complex challenges. And it’s the work that is yet to be done, that can invite your reader into your stories.
What needs can they help to fulfill?
How and where can they continue to direct resources toward your mission?
Let’s get creative!
Our stories have power because we do powerful work. But we don’t do that work in a vacuum. Invite staff from across the organization to share their ideas and provide input for your next annual report. Drop the toxic positivity and present your work with honesty and transparency. Finally, if you have to recognize individuals, recognize all of them, without regard for giving level.
