May 15, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
While some may celebrate that more big donors are giving quietly, there are downsides to this new trend, writes Judith H. Dobrzynski on Forbes magazine’s Web site.
Citing a Chronicle study that showed an uptick of large anonymous gifts during the past 10 months, she welcomed a decline in donations that would require buildings or other facilities be named after the contributors.
“Naming gifts,” she writes, “have proliferated like swine flu.”
But if this does mark a decline in what she calls conspicuous philanthropy, it could mean hard times for fund raising.
“The best givers are those who’ve already given, and perusing lists of gifts is a big way that fund raisers find prospects,” she says. “If anonymous gifts grow, development officers will have a tougher time finding new supporters: Where will they go for clues if donors go underground to avoid new solicitations?”
“So the age of competitive mega-philanthropy may have ended with a whimper,” she continues. “Along with it, the inspirational role it played in encouraging smaller donors may also be lost (and donors in other countries as well).”
What do you think? Does the growing number of anonymous gifts mean trouble for fund raisers?
