The Real Problem With Recognition Societies (And What To Do Instead)
- 3 hours ago
- 6 min read
Recognition societies are a hotly debated topic in fundraising circles, including among those of us at DRG. Our recent Pulse of Donor Relations highlighted this debate: for the first time in years, we saw an uptick in practitioners who believe recognition societies are effective.
Even so, the question remains: to society? Or not to society?
I have seen recognition societies work beautifully. The organizations who get it right give their donors a sense of belonging, help organize communications, support proactive stewardship, and create a useful framework for future giving conversations.
I recently had the privilege of spending time at Oxford University’s beautiful and storied campus. Their donor relations team is a delight, and they are doing great work, including in the recognition society space. Their Chancellor’s Court of Benefactors, which recognizes lifetime giving of £5M+, hosts a beautiful induction ceremony with all the pomp and circumstance one would expect from a 900+ year-old institution.
And if you want goosebumps, or chicken skins, depending on which side of the Pond you are on, take a look at their autumn 2024 meeting. I am obsessed with the pageantry, as well as the fact that the regalia is kept and worn at all subsequent meetings. These meetings bring Benefactors up close and personal with Oxford’s biggest changemakers as well as establishing the induction itself as a memory to cherish forever.
But in reality, I have to be honest, I have also seen recognition societies become a lot of staff work for very little donor return. The luncheon happens, the pins arrive, the list gets printed, and the society technically exists, but largely on a strategically placed hidden page of your organization’s website
.
Recognition societies are not inherently good or bad. They are a tool, and like any tool, they should be judged by how well they are doing the job they are designed to do. In order to judge the efficacy of recognition societies, let’s zoom out and take a look at the role recognition plays in the donor experience.
The job of recognition is to help donors feel seen, remembered, and known by the larger organization (not just individual gift officers) over time. At its best, good recognition answers the donor’s quiet question:
Would you notice if I wasn’t here?
That question is at the heart of this debate. If a recognition society helps answer it, and produces appreciable fundraising results—more on that later—wonderful. Keep it. Improve it. Measure it.
However, if your society has become more of a rote list of activities, then it may be time to think beyond the society.
Or, outside the bun, if you will. Taco Bell reference. Just me?
The Problem With Many Recognition Societies
Before we get too in the weeds here, let’s get ultra clear on one thing: recognition societies are a tactic in service of the greater strategy of noticing and remembering our donors. The difference is not semantics. Too many folks in our sector think recognition societies are synonymous with recognition itself.
They are not.
Recognition societies are simply one tool we can use to help accomplish the strategic objectives of donor recognition.
Now that we’ve got that squared away…
Recognition societies were created with very good intentions. Through some historical and archival research, I’ve discovered the largest uptick in what we would consider modern recognition societies being created in the early 1960s at campuses like Harvard.
They were designed to build loyalty and to make donors feel part of something bigger than themselves. They gave organizations a structure for recognizing donors proactively, rather than only communicating with them when checks arrived.
But over time (about 60+ years’ worth!) nearly all of their accordant benefits have become passive.
Penelope Burk, author of Donor-Centered Fundraising, has long challenged our sector to think carefully about the differences between active and passive recognition. Passive recognition looks like the things we know too well: honor roll listings, plaques, certificates, logo items, and pins. Active recognition is, in Burk’s words, participatory in nature. She highlights the power of carefully planned recognition events and their ability to produce unsolicited gifts as one example of active recognition.
Passive donor recognition is not bad. We’ve heard our friends at the University of Tennessee Knoxville tell hilarious stories of donors who have sold their cars and then called in to request backdated “Tennessee True” decals for their new car.
Because the donors are loyal! The cars? Not so much.
The key to determining whether you’ve got a sticker with trade-in value, or whether it’s just collecting dust in the proverbial scrapyard, is to see whether your recognition tactics are influencing donor behavior.
Consumption Is Not the Same as Behavior
It is easy to measure whether donors are consuming the offerings associated with our recognition societies. We can track whether they attended the event, opened the newsletter, accepted the invitation, or placed decals on their cars.
Those are not useless measures. They do tell us something.
They just don’t tell us enough.
Because recognition tactics, such as recognition societies themselves, are tools, they should be evaluated by what they help us accomplish. If a recognition society is working, we should see more than consumption of the associated offerings. We should see movement in the donor-institution relationship after the touchpoints are offered.
That might mean stronger retention. It might mean renewed giving. It might mean increased gift officer activity. Different recognition touchpoints or programming can accomplish different organizational objectives.
The key is taking it one step further.
For a planned giving society, don’t just say, “Our newsletter had this many clicks.” Instead, try, “This story highlighting the impact of blended gifts resulted in three donors emailing back to request more information about how to make their blended gift.”
For a loyal donor recognition society, don’t just measure donor satisfaction with the annual event. Measure how many loyal donors disclose bequest intentions after attending the annual event.
And I know what you’re saying: it’s not always going to be an immediate result.
I hear ya!
Instead, look at your recognition society membership and compare those donors against donors who are not members. Ideally, you’ll see that recognition society members have a higher rate of bequest intention or a shorter leadership annual gift to major gift lead time, as examples, than the general donor population.
What to Do Instead of Recognition Societies
In full candor, I don’t advise my clients to invest further in recognition societies. I think they’ve had their proverbial day in the sun and have been left out to get a little too crispy.
But the alternative to recognition societies is not “no recognition.”
Please do not print this blog, storm into your office, and announce that donor recognition is canceled because somebody at DRG said so.
Cuz I didn’t!
I quietly struggled with how to articulate the distinction between creating touchpoints that recognize donors and assuming those touchpoints must occur inside recognition societies. Then I heard the amazing Jen McGrath perfectly summarize the distinction in an ADRP presentation: “Build protocols, not programs.” LIGHTBULB MOMENT!
A recognition society is a program. It often has a name, levels, benefits, events, and eligibility rules. That may be useful, but you do not always need a program to reinforce the donor behaviors you want to see again.
Sometimes, what you need is a protocol.
A protocol says, “when this donor behavior happens, here is what we as an organization will do next to show that we noticed.”
When a donor gives for five consecutive years, what will we do to show we saw this?
When a donor makes their first gift after lapsing, what will we do to show that donor this is something we are excited about?
That is the real work of recognition. Not sorting donors into categories or levels, but noticing meaningful behavior and responding in ways that reinforce continued engagement, future giving, and a stronger relationship with the organization.
The society, or program, is optional. The protocol is not.
Because donors do not want to feel like members of a list. They want to feel like their presence, consistency, and generosity are noticed.
So, make magical moments. Build the protocol. Then decide whether you still need the structure a formal recognition society, or program, provides.
And if you have any questions, reach out to let us know. We’re here to help!
Written by Colton Withers
Colton Withers is a recovering major gift fundraiser who learned early that every donor conversation eventually becomes a donor relations conversation. As a consultant and strategist, Colton helps nonprofits build donor experiences that move beyond transactions, helping supporters feel known, remembered, and meaningfully connected to the missions they make possible.
