 |
2023-24 Annual Giving Report Memo To: Class of ’72 Executive Committee From: Tom Hoster ‘72 cc: Sue Walsh, Chris Olofson ‘92, Zorela Jimenez, Traslyn Butler h72, Maribeth Regan h72 Date: July 5, 2024 Re: Annual Giving Results 2023-24 I am pleased to report that the Annual Giving results for the past year for the Class of ’72 were excellent, even by Class of ’72 standards. For the Annual Giving year 2023-24 – our 52nd Reunion year – the Class contributed $398,000, while achieving a participation rate of 65.4%, with 503 out of 769 classmates making a gift. Participation. Princeton has 83 classes with living alumni. Remarkably, our participation was the fourth highest of all 83 classes. We trailed only the Classes of ’63, ’43, and ‘99 in participation. That means that our participation was higher than every major-reunion class but one and higher than every other off-year class but two. Our participation rate of 65.4% marks the twenty-sixth year in a row that the Class of ’72 has been above the magic 60% level. Our Annual Giving participation was almost 19 percentage points above the average for the other nine classes in our decade of the seventies (which, remember, includes two major-reunion classes). Our participation rate was 65.4%; the average for the other nine classes in our decade was 46.6%. This graph says it all. 
At $398,000, our dollar total was, remarkably, the second highest of any of our 42 off-year campaigns! Overall Campaign Results. Overall, the University’s Annual Giving campaign was a success – more than $66.7 million was raised. Overall participation continues to be challenging – at 45.0%, participation was down a bit compared to last year. Volunteers. Our results would not have been possible without the efforts of almost twenty classmates who made calls, sent emails, and did their follow-ups. That group included Ron Brown, Owen Curtis, Andy Dayton, Daryl English, Doug Harrison, Bob Hodrick, Charlie Hughes, Barbara Julius, Arthur Kent, Chris Loomis, Rod McNealy, Merc Morris, Mike Schneider, Rob Smart, Tony Tichenor, Bill Watts, and Bob Wright, and that does not include classmates who participated in phonathons. The usual phonathons at the Princeton Club in New York were off the table again this year, with the Club shuttered, but Robby Robinson stepped up and invited a number of classmates to his apartment in Manhattan for a phonathon, with food and goodies provided by the Annual Giving office. It is significant, and gratifying, that the majority of our Annual Giving volunteers serve other roles in Class leadership positions – they take on their Annual Giving responsibilities in addition to everything else they do for the Class. Our success validates, I believe, our philosophy on solicitations – that we need to make our solicitations more personal, not more numerous. It is tempting – and easy – to hit classmates with a never-ending barrage of Princeton letters, emails, and other solicitations; we don’t let that happen. The Class of ’72 volunteer team embraced the philosophy of making solicitations personal, fostering and continuing personal relationships with their chosen classmates. Our outstanding results reflect that approach and their efforts. It can be challenging to make emails personal – it is, I think, an inherently impersonal medium. In the 154 emails that I sent out in the campaign, I sent them one at a time, putting the classmate’s name in the subject line (“One Month Left, Bill!”) and including a unique first line in the body (“I hope that things are good in Vermont”). Emails are impersonal, but they can be a good vehicle for soliciting a classmate who gives online, because the link to the AG giving site can be embedded in the message. This was the ninth year that I have written a personal thank you note to each of our donors – 502 notes this year. For this year’s thank-you notes, the Annual Giving office printed up notecards for us with a photograph of the wonderful marquetry cabinet made by Silas Kopf ’72, an award-winning craftsman, that has a place of honor in the Class of ’72 Dining Room in Whitman College.  This was my 32nd year as Class Agent. It was another challenging year, as a number of classmates declined to give, following the University’s general “woke-ness”, or some other issue (pick your poison). The volunteers and I were, however, able to convince a few of these folks to make token gifts to support class participation, which shows the strength and spirit of the Class. Excellent participation in Annual Giving can be very hard to achieve – it seems that with every passing year, more classmates grow distant from the University and the Class. Retrieving those classmates and bringing them back into the Annual Giving fold can be a real challenge. But we benefit from Class leadership that believes that our Annual Giving results are a unifying theme that brings the Class together. In the Annual Giving office at Princeton, our new front-liner, Zorela Jimenez, supplied us with everything we needed to be as productive as possible. Since I started my Class Agent work 37 years ago, I have seen the Annual Giving office transition from mail to fax to the Internet – from printouts to downloads. The AG Office continues to evolve with the times, now exploiting the available technology in their mission. That said, the Class of ‘72 continues to rely heavily on handwritten communications – in both solicitations and thank-you notes – and the High Priestess of Printing, Maribeth Regan h72, has never failed to come through for us. In addition to the 502 thank you notes, I sent out 157 handwritten solicitation cards, using notecards that Maribeth printed for us in previous years. The Class of ‘72 continues to be in an excellent position to extend our string of successful Annual Giving results as we cruise into our sixth decade as alumni. That’s it. I’m taking the summer off. Cheers, Tom And one last graph:  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2022-2023 Annual Giving Report Memo To: Class of ’72 Executive Committee From: Tom Hoster ‘72 cc: Sue Walsh, Chris Olofson ‘92, Traslyn Butler h72, Sandy Price, Maribeth Regan h72 Date: July 8, 2023 Re: Annual Giving Results 2022-23 I am pleased to report that the Annual Giving results for the past year for the Class of ’72 were excellent, even by Class of ’72 standards. For the Annual Giving year 2022-23 – our 51st
Reunion year – the Class contributed $296,000, while achieving a
participation rate of 66.8%, with 516 out of 773 classmates making a
gift. - Remarkably, our participation was the third highest of all 83 classes with living alumni. We trailed only the 60th Reunion class and the 55th Reunion class in participation. That means that our participation was higher than the 25th Reunion class. Higher than the 50th Reunion class. Higher than twelve other major-reunion classes. And higher than every other off-year class.
Our participation rate of 66.8% marks the twenty-fifth
year in a row that the Class of ’72 has been above the magic 60%
level. The Annual Giving office used to publish a list of the classes
that had achieved more than 60% participation for more than ten years in
a row. When I was starting out as a Class Agent, more than 30 years
ago, that list had more than two dozen classes on it. Today, there are
only three: the Class of ’51, the Class of ’63, and the Class of ’72. Our Annual Giving participation was more than 20 percentage points
above the average for the other nine classes in our decade of the
seventies (which, remember, includes two major-reunion classes). Our
participation rate was 66.8%; the average for the other nine classes in
our decade was 46.4%. This graph says it all. 
-
At $296,000, our dollar total was excellent for a class in its
“hangover” year (i.e., the year following a major-reunion year).
Overall Campaign Results.
Overall, the University’s Annual Giving campaign was a success – more
than $73.7 million was contributed. Overall participation continues to
be challenging – at 47.3%, participation ticked up slight compared to
last year. Volunteers. Our results would not
have been possible without the efforts of almost twenty classmates who
made calls, sent emails, and did their follow-ups. That group included
Ron Brown, Owen Curtis, Andy Dayton, Daryl English, Doug Harrison, Bob
Hodrick, Charlie Hughes, Barbara Julius, Arthur Kent, Chris Loomis, Rod
McNealy, Merc Morris, Skip Rankin, Mike Schneider, Rob Smart, Ed
Strauss, Tony Tichenor, Bill Watts, Art Wood, and Bob Wright, and that
does not include classmates who participated in phonathons. The
usual phonathons at the Princeton Club in New York were off the table
again this year, with the Club shuttered, but Robby Robinson stepped up
and invited a number of classmates to his apartment in Manhattan for a
phonathon, with food and goodies provided by the Annual Giving office. It
is significant, and gratifying, that the majority of our Annual Giving
volunteers serve other roles in Class leadership positions – they take
on their Annual Giving responsibilities in addition to everything else
they do for the Class. - Our success validates, I believe, our philosophy on solicitations – that we need to make our solicitations more personal, not more numerous.
(It is a message that I try to deliver to my colleagues on the National
Annual Giving Committee.) It is tempting – and easy – to hit
classmates with a never-ending barrage of Princeton letters, emails, and
other solicitations; we don’t let that happen. The Class of ’72
volunteer team embraced the philosophy of making solicitations personal,
fostering and continuing personal relationships with their chosen
classmates. Our outstanding results reflect that approach and their
efforts.
It can be challenging to make emails personal – it can be
an inherently impersonal medium. In the emails that I sent out in the
campaign, I sent them one at a time, putting the classmate’s name in the
subject line (“One Month Left, Bill!”) and including a unique first
line in the body (“I hope that things are good in Vermont”). This
was the eighth year that I have written a personal thank you note to
each of our donors – 515 notes this year. For this year’s thank-you
notes, the Annual Giving office printed up notecards for us with a
photograph of the newly refurbished McCosh 50, whose renovation was paid
for with funds contributed to Annual Giving.  This was my 31st
year as Class Agent. It was another challenging year, as a number of
classmates declined to give, following the University’s general
“woke-ness”, or some other issue (pick your poison). The volunteers and
I were, however, able to convince a few of these folks to make token
gifts to support class participation, which shows the strength and
spirit of the Class. Our results this year are particularly
gratifying. Excellent participation in Annual Giving can be very hard
to achieve – it seems that with every passing year, more classmates grow
distant from the University and the Class. Retrieving those classmates
and bringing them back into the Annual Giving fold can be a real
challenge. But we benefit from a Class leadership that believes that
our Annual Giving results are a unifying theme that brings the Class
together. In the Annual Giving office at Princeton, Traslyn
Butler h72 and her new sidekick Sandy Price supplied us with everything
we needed to be as productive as possible. Since I started my Class
Agent work 36 years ago, I have seen the Annual Giving office transition
from mail to fax to the Internet – from printouts to downloads. The AG
Office continues to evolve with the times, now exploiting the available
technology in their mission. That said, the Class of ‘72 continues to
rely heavily on handwritten communications – in both solicitations and
thank-you notes – and the High Priestess of Printing, Maribeth Regan
h72, never failed to come through for us. In addition to the 515 thank
you notes, I sent out 175 handwritten cards, using notecards that
Maribeth printed for us in previous years. It was satisfying to
make Traslyn and Maribeth honorary classmates of the Class of ’72 at
Reunions last May, recognizing the contributions that they have made to
the Annual Giving successes of the Class of ‘72. The Class of
‘72 continues to be in an excellent position to extend our string of
successful Annual Giving results as we cruise into our sixth decade as
alumni. That’s it. I’m taking the summer off. Cheers, Tom And one last graph: 
2021-2022 Annual Giving 21-22 Annual Giving Report
2020-2021 Annual Giving 2020-2021 Annual Giving Report follows: 2020-2021 AG Report
Archived Annual Giving Report |
|
|
