OK, the annual report (AR) took me no time.
You hoped for "constructive criticism." And I hope you'll see my comments that way, as I sincerely mean them to be helpful. Still, I'm no diplomat either.
Criticism #1: the AR has no message. It's a list of names, a scattering of uncaptioned pictures, and some cover boilerplate. "Reader" behavior is pretty predictable: they skim. That's your chance to get some key philanthropy messages across (like: "We need you!") in the big type. This AR takes no advantage of that predictable skim, which lowers its return on investment to near zero.
Criticism #2: there's no story. It's just a list. It might as well be a phone book. Where's the "long story" that philanthropy at ?U plays an important role?
Criticism #3: it's predictable. There are no surprises. It's therefore dismissible. We are hardwired to pay attention to new things. We are hardwired to ignore the familiar. If I'm a donor, I'll look up my own name, see that it's spelled right, maybe check out a couple of classmates. And I'm done. I've learned nothing new about ?U and it's need for philanthropy.
Criticism #4: it's not donor-centered at all. Yes, it's a collection of donor names. But where's the embarrassing, over the top love?
It did ?U no harm. It did ?U no good. As a communications opportunity to be exploited, I'd call it a cover-to-cover failure. Of course, I realize that may well be a result of a timid, conservative internal culture. Too bad, if so.
More to come.
--- EARLIER EMAIL ---
This [newsletter] is a C or a B, depending on which page I'm looking at.
Does it give me, the donor, joy in the first few seconds? No. That's a test that no top-performing donor newsletter fails.
In this issue, the front page delivers a straight news story about a specific fund. It's a nice piece of reporting, but it leads nowhere for most readers. Sure, if they knew Peter L., they might read deeply enough to realize that his widow set up a scholarship fund. But almost no one reads that deep, studies show. This was a missed opportunity. A box headlined, His wife of 36 years set up a scholarship fund to honor him forever. You can, too.... might have led other people to consider something similar. That would also have slightly made the story donor-centric. Now it's donor-centered for exactly one person, not for all.
As this front page story demonstrates, there is no room for pure news in a donor newsletter. A donor newsletter for a foundation is also, sub rosa, a sales effort. And the front page is your first impression and your most important real estate. You should be able to explain to yourself clearly what the story you select for that space is going to do for the foundation's fundraising efforts.
This issue is littered with deflating pitfalls that turn off other donors. The R. Family story on p2. The "big check" story on p3. The C. gift on the back page. They all say, in passing, read at 100 mph, "only big bucks really matter" ... which isn't at all true, as Pr. U. with its 63% annual fund participation rate will attest.
The headlines are weak, which is a major flaw for any news publication ... and a deadly one for donor newsletters. The weaknesses include jargon ("private support"), low energy verbs ("securing") and the absence of the word "you" (appears in just one deck).
The absence of "you" in the headlines make the publication seem distant and chilly.
The typography is simply wrong. Body copy should be set in a serif face, not a sans serif, for easy reading in print (online is the exact opposite). That's from Colin Wheildon's studies. And the body copy font size is too small for older eyes, which covers the bulk of your donors. That's from the AIGA.
I could go on, but that's enough to work on for awhile.
Sorry I couldn't find more to like, [anonymous]