Most Readers Embrace Philanthropy Magazine

To the Editor:

I would like to correct some of the misconceptions presented in Thomas Billitteri’s article in your January 29 issue (“Philanthropy Magazine Faces Some Questions — and a New Competitor”).

Last April, I was recruited by Randy Jones, chairman of The American Benefactor, to be senior strategic-planning and development consultant. I spent most of the summer talking directly to donors who receive the magazine, assessing their reactions to the Benefactor’s editorial policy, appearance, advertising, and cost. Every single interviewee gave an enthusiastic approval to the magazine and insisted that nothing be changed. Their embracement of The American Benefactor could not have been more clear.

In early fall, my finding was reinforced by a comprehensive survey of the entire readership, only a portion of which appeared in your January 29 article.

The enthusiasm came largely from middle- and upper-middle-class readers. Some stated they enjoyed the upscale ads because they aspire to afford the products some day. Others said that they liked the “classiness” of the magazine and that examples of medium-range gifts leveraged by planned-giving techniques made them feel that their own mid-sized gifts, blended with those of a wealth- ier community, could change the world.

It is a well-known axiom of publishing that “readers read up the scale, not down.” One knowledgeable benefactor who produces a high-quality magazine for the yachting community recognized that those “tony” ads make The American Benefactor affordable to charities.

Sixty per cent of the development directors I interviewed showed no concern about the gossip in the professional community regarding FMR Corporation’s partial ownership of the magazine. (FMR is the parent of Fidelity Investments.) Many had already seen at various conferences the legal contract between FMR Corporation and the Benefactor preventing control of the magazine by Fidelity Investments. Others, especially planned-giving professionals, already knew of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule that requires Fidelity to be a passive (non-controlling) investor.

Still others admitted in their interviews that, because development officers do not usually come from the high-net-worth arena, they really do not know what their wealthiest donors think and feel about publications. They were basing their wariness on their own emotions.

Those who actually subscribed to the magazine know that their donor lists are kept at a professional fulfillment company in Colorado and are not available to anyone except a single individual who is authorized to access names in an emergency. All of these issues were discussed thoroughly during the last week of October at a full-day meeting of an advisory group of distinguished colleagues from the National Society of Fund Raising Executives, the planned-giving community, and the legal world. The committee judged these concerns to be “at rest.”

Numerous groups have reported new gifts as a result of The American Benefactor’s influence. Examples are a $110,000 charitable gift annuity to the Los Angeles Orthopedic Hospital and a bequest to the Austin Symphony Orchestra. Thus, in its first year, The American Benefactor has reached the middle-income American as well as the high-net-worth individual with measurable results, while maintaining the integrity of donor relations.

There can never be too many voices blended in praise of philanthropy and in pursuit of donor education. Regardless of how many philanthropy magazines enter the field, taking the high road in all such efforts is critical to attracting new and continuing support for our charities.

Beverly R. Hoffman
Alexandria, Va.