Donor Wall Questions: What Makes a Major Donor

I remember a few years ago, when then-Atlanta Falcons starting Quarterback Michael Vick was criticized for donating $10,000 to Virginia Tech after the school shooting on April 16th, 2007. Yes, you read that correctly; the star athlete was criticized for not making a large enough charitable donation. After all, Vick's annual salary was over $10 million that year, not including endorsements. So the $10,000 was considered cheap in comparison, despite the fact that it was the largest donation the school would receive.

On the flip side, there is the story featured in GONZO, a documentary on the life of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. Early in his career, the late journalist and his family were struggling financially. At some point shortly after the birth of Thompson's son, an old friend approached his wife asking to borrow some money. Mrs. Thompson apologetically refused to do so, knowing their bank account was down to a measly $500.

A few days later, the friend mentioned casually to Thompson, without requesting assistance, that his finances were low. Without any hesitation, the late journalist turned to his friend and asked "Do you need any money? I can give you 500 bucks."

It is two very different stories with two very different financial numbers. And from strictly a numbers stand-point, the athlete is offering much, much more than the journalist. But any person who properly views the two stories would be hard-pressed to find a reason why Thompson's donation wasn't just as generous, if not more so, than Vick's.

So if you're building a Donor Wall, and there is only room for one of these men which one do you put? The athlete's donation is lengths longer, but then again, he could have given more. The journalist's donation is all he has, but then again, it's not that much.

Should generosity be viewed strictly by the numbers? Or is it relative to the means someone has to give?

Jason Dick tackles these questions in his article entitled "All Donors as Major Donors," viewable on his blog ASmallChange.net. He also poses the question "Why do we only personally cultivate donors at a specific level?" He discusses what the qualifications should be for spots on things like donor plaques and donor walls.

Dick also discusses the idea of going-after donors with bank accounts of all sizes, which makes little sense from a donation standpoint. After all, if the financially-struggling friend had a choice of who to go to for money, Vick or Thompson, he likely would have chosen the athlete, because he was richer. While that might appear heartless, it is in actuality a wiser use of resources. So to go after all donors like they are all major donors may sound like a good idea, the fact is that it's an educated decision and beneficial to revenue flow.

However, the idea of honoring all donors like major donors is a different animal entirely. Having your name on a donor plaque shouldn't be based on the bottom line number. It should be a combination of how much you gave and how much you were able to give.

Michael Vick gave Virginia Tech a lot of money, there is no arguing that. But in no way shape or form does the number of zeroes at the end of the number play any role in estimating his generosity. On the flip side, Hunter S. Thompson offered, in comparison to Vick, an embarrassing amount. But the fact that it was everything he had to give, showed a selfless, honorable character that deserves as much recognition as the most major of donors.