Sure, asking for money is hard. But asking for an estate gift? Even experienced fundraisers can get squeamish. As Anne Melvin puts it,

“For many of us, asking for a bequest is akin to asking, ‘So when are you going to die and what are you going to leave us when you do?’[1]

And yet, it’s vital. The right ask can be powerful. So, how can we do this? What are the right words and phrases? To answer this, let’s start with theory.

Theory and death reminders

Why is this so … uncomfortable? Simple answer. Because it’s about death. Death is an uncomfortable topic.[2] More than that, the reality of our own death is a serious psychological problem. People use two “solutions” to the problem: [3]

1. Ignore the problem. (This is called “avoidance.”)
2. Live on after death. (This is called “symbolic immortality.”)

Avoidance

Avoidance actively ignores personal mortality. It runs away from death reminders. It says, “This doesn’t apply to me.” It says, “I’ll deal with that later.” It’s why most people don’t have wills.[4] It’s why attendance at “planned giving” seminars is so small.

Symbolic immortality

Living on after death isn’t just about a religious afterlife. It means some part of one’s identity – one’s people, values, or story – will continue on after death. This continuation is called “symbolic immortality.” Death reminders increase the desire for this “symbolic immortality.” They increase interest in making a lasting impact. But to be meaningful, the impact must support one’s people, values, or story.

Research experiments show this. For example, death reminders make people more protective of their social group – and more resistant to outside groups.[5] Group opinions and social “norms” become more powerful.[6] People become more interested in social prestige,[7] fame,[8] a positive life story,[9] personal heroism,[10] or putting their name on something.[11] Death reminders highlight the question, “What will they say about me when I’m gone?”[12]

Phrasing = Preface + Ask

Academic theory is fine, but how do we actually do this? What do we say? The legacy ask usually consists of two parts: a preface and an ask. The preface makes the ask more comfortable. It provides motivation. It justifies the question or the gift. The ask then triggers a response.

Let’s look at some examples from experienced fundraisers. The ask itself can be harder or softer. It can be simple and blunt.

The simple ask: Will you?

Examples of the simple ask include,

• “Would you be willing to include our organization in your estate plans?”[13]
• “Say, Bill, does your will provide something for the [organization]?”[14]
• “Would you join me as a member of our Legacy Society by making a planned gift?”[15]
• “Would you join me in making a legacy commitment?[16]
• “Have you remembered XYZ in your will?”[17]
• “Can you tell me if we are included in your will plans?”

The soft ask: Would you consider?

The ask can be a little softer. One approach is to add a phrase like “would you consider.” Examples include,

• “Would you be willing to consider including us as one of the nonprofit organizations in your will?”[18]
• “Would you consider … including us in your estate plans?”[19]
• “Will you consider putting this organization in your will?”[20]
• “Would you consider leaving a [specific amount or percentage] of your estate to our organization?”[21]
• “Would you consider a pledge commitment that isn’t paid until you pass or when you no longer need it?”[22]
• “Would you consider making a legacy gift?”[23]
• “Of the types of planned gifts that we’ve talked about, which one would you consider?”[24]

The softer ask: Thoughts?

The ask can be softened even further. One way is to simply ask for “thoughts” on the topic. Examples include,

• “What are your thoughts about making this kind of gift?”
• “Do you know that we have a legacy society that recognizes our donors who have included our organization in their future plans? … Is that something you and I should be talking about?”[25]
• “What would you say to someone who might be considering including us in their last will & testament?”

The softest ask: Silence

The softest ask is merely implied. This approach begins with a preface. The preface mentions a gift in a will. This is followed by silence. The other person can continue that conversation. Or they can take it another direction. It all depends on their interest and comfort level.

Use an ask phrase that fits your comfort level. Or begin with a softer approach and then move to a more direct one.

Ask research: “Gift in a will”

Ask phrases are relatively simple. But words still matter. In one experiment, the likelihood of agreeing to

• “Make a gift to charity in my last will & testament”

dropped significantly when replacing “make a gift” with either,

• “Leave a legacy gift,” or
• “Make a bequest gift.”[26]

In another experiment, people were twice as likely to want to read about,

• “Gifts in wills,”

as compared with

• “Estate giving,”
• “Legacy giving,” or
• “Bequest gifts.”[27]

The same was true for

• “Will planning”

as compared with either

• “Estate planning” or
• “Legacy planning.”[28]

Some people perceive words like “estate” or “legacy,” as a bit too grand.[29] Those are for wealthy people – like on Downton Abbey. Those don’t apply to “people like me.” But a “gift in a will” applies to everyone.

If “gifts in wills” or “will planning” seems too narrow, don’t worry. People use these terms to refer to all estate transfers, including

• Living trusts
• Life insurance
• IRA transfer-on-death, and
• Bank account transfer-on-death.

Oddly, people were more likely to expect this full range of topics from clicking on

• “Gifts in wills” or
• “Will planning”

than from either,

• “Estate giving” or
• “Estate planning.”[30]

A longer list can also work if it starts with “gifts in wills.” For example, the share of people indicating they “might be” or “were definitely” interested in reading more on a charity website was

• 26% for “Gifts in wills,”
• 25% for “Gifts in wills, trusts, or retirement accounts,” and
• 24% for “Gifts in wills, trusts, retirement accounts, or life insurance.”[31]

For other planned giving instruments, the rule is simple. Simple words outperform technical ones.[32]

Ask research: Death avoidance

It’s important not to describe a gift with “death” language. In experiments, people were much more willing to,

• “Make a gift to charity in my last will & testament,” than to
• “Make a gift to charity in my last will & testament that will take effect at my death.”[33]

The gift was the same. But the description was different. Adding death reminders can trigger an “avoidance” response.

Another experiment showed this for annuities.[34] People were more likely to purchase one paying

• “Each year you live,” rather than one paying
• “Each year you live until you die.”

In another example, Patrick Schmitt of FreeWill shared,

“We just finished testing 50 different headlines (across approximately 12,000 people) to get folks to make planned gifts, and one headline performed nearly two times better than everything else … Here’s the headline: ‘Even if you plan to live to 150, you still need to make a plan.’”[35]

A later presentation shared an updated version as,

“Even if you plan to live to 150, you still need a will. Get started today.”[36]

These headlines don’t lead with death. They do the opposite. They lead with long life. Signing a will is for people planning to live a long time.

A logical headline might instead be,

“You should make a will because you might die tomorrow!”

But this doesn’t work. It leads with death. Death reminders trigger avoidance.

The preface

The preface comes before the ask. But it’s not mandatory. We can just make a “naked” ask. In one experiment, 2,000 people were completing their will planning.[37] Half weren’t specifically asked about charity. In this group, 4.9% left a gift to charity. The other half were asked,

“Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?”

In this group, 10.8% included a gift to charity. Just asking the question, by itself, worked. It doubled the share of wills including charity.

Asking works. But it’s often more comfortable or compelling to start with a preface. This can include

• The external issue preface. [This matches the avoidance response.]
• The identity preface. [This matches the symbolic immortality response.]
• The victory preface. [This also matches the symbolic immortality response.]

Let’s look at examples of each.

External issue preface examples

Many people tend to avoid estate planning. Why? Because it’s a death reminder. So, it can help to have a non-death reason to start the conversation. We wouldn’t normally bring it up. It’s just that some outside issue is pushing the conversation. This might be because of

• A campaign deadline
• A matching gift deadline
• A problem, or
• It’s my job.

It can also help to have a non-death reason to sign the will now. If the donor signs it now, something important happens. Example phrases include

1. Campaign deadline

• Legacy campaign deadline

“We’re in a campaign to get 100 new legacy society members before the end of the year. We’re making great progress, and … [ask]”

• Combined campaign deadline

“So far, we’re at 72% of our campaign goal for current gifts and 68% of our goal for planned gifts in wills. You’ve already helped us in the first goal … [ask]”

• Leadership campaign deadline

“The new planned giving campaign starts this fall. We’ll be announcing our board participation at the banquet. Signing your gift in a will before then could really influence others to take this step … [ask]”

2. Matching gift deadline

• “If signed by May 1, planned gifts of up to $250,000 will be matched with a 10% cash donation in your name from The XYZ Foundation.”[38]

[For several charities, this approach has doubled or tripled planned estate gifts.[39]]

3. We’ve got a problem

• “We’ve run into a bit of an issue. The number of new people joining our legacy society has fallen off in the last year. Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about your thoughts on this topic?”[40]
• “We need your advice on some new legacy fundraising ads. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on a few examples?”[41]
• “We held a planned giving seminar, but people didn’t show up. We’re trying to figure out why. So, we’re asking donors like you to share your thoughts in a focus group. Would you be willing to take part?”[42]

4. Helping you is my job

• “My job is to help donors plan their gifts. I help them make a lasting impact that is personally meaningful. This might look at multi-year strategies or even a gift in a will. Would you be willing to look at some of these options together?”
• “Part of my job is to show donors how to give smarter. For example, any IRA money inherited by family members triggers income tax. But naming [our charity] avoids those taxes. I’d love to show you some of these options. Would you mind getting together for a visit about this?”

These each give a reason to act. The reasons are about external, non-death issues. They’re about campaigns, matching gifts, influencing others, sharing opinions, or tax benefits. The motivation isn’t about death. This deflects the avoidance response. It makes starting the conversation easier.

Identity preface theory

A compelling fundraising ask (or “challenge”) will include the steps of

The resulting enhanced identity can be public (reputation) or private (personal meaning). In a cycle, these steps are

Death reminders not only trigger avoidance. They also trigger pursuit of symbolic immortality. This is a resistance to disappearing. It increases attraction to ways in which one’s identity – rooted in one’s people, values, or history – can live on.[43] A gift in a will can help. It helps when it continues the donor’s identity. It helps when it links to the donor’s people, values, or history.

The core message in the identity preface is this:

“People like me make gifts like this.”

[Original Identity → Challenge]

First, this says to the donor, “You are the kind of person who makes gifts like this.” Why is this true? Because the gift matches the donor’s history, behaviors, values, beliefs, or group membership. In other words, the gift matches the donor’s identity.

It also says, “Other people like you make gifts like this.” These are people who share the donor’s history, behaviors, values, beliefs, or group membership. In other words, they share the donor’s identity.

Identity preface examples

What does this look like in the real world? Here are some examples.

• “Many donors who give as regularly as you have put our organization in their will; what are your thoughts about doing that?”[44]
• “Mrs. Jones, you are such a wonderful and loyal donor. Many of our most loyal donors are including Kent State in their estate plans in order to make an impact beyond their lifetime. Have you ever considered remembering Kent State in your will?”[45]
• “I can’t say thank you enough for all your support for so many years. Would you consider extending your amazing legacy by including us in your estate plans?”[46]
• “Thank you so much for all your support for so many years – we truly appreciate it. Donors like you who have supported us for so long often include a gift in their estate plans. I’d love to say thank you for that as well if you’ve done so. Have you included us? Have you considered it?”[47]
• “John, you’ve been a terrific supporter of Friends of Shakespeare. I want to thank you for all you have done for us over the years. I’m curious: what are your thoughts about becoming a member of the Fortinbras Society?” [Response:] “What is the Fortinbras Society?” This allows you to describe other committed members of the society, mention some that he knows …”[48]
• “I’ve found the mission so compelling and the programs so meaningful that a few years ago I made a planned gift because I wanted to make certain that my support continued into the future. Other people I’ve met have wanted to make sure that their support continues as well and have let us know that they’ve made legacy gifts too. Could I take a few minutes before we’re finished here and tell you, briefly, about our legacy giving program and how we plan to use these gifts?”[49]

Identity preface research: People like you

Does this really work? Experimental results say, “Yes.” In a test with 3,000 people completing their will documents,

• 4.9% left a gift to charity without being asked. [They had no challenge.]
• 10.8% did so when asked, “Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?” [They had a challenge.]
• 15.4% did so when the ask began with, “many of our customers like to leave money to charity in their will…”[50] [This connected identity (people like the donor) with the challenge.]

The last group was more than 3x as likely to include a gift. Also, their average gift size was twice as large. Thus, asking the right question led to a six-fold increase in legacy giving.

In another experiment, people read the story of another donor, Sara. She had made a planned gift. The effect of this story on their interest in making the gift varied. Statistically, it depended on their response to this question:

Question: “How much do you identify with Sara?”

Options: “She is [ __ a lot __somewhat __a little bit __not really __not at all] like me.”[51]

A story about someone the person felt was “like me” was powerful. Otherwise, it wasn’t.

Identity preface research: Your life story

Another experiment showed the power of life story references.[52] It tested 24 bequest gift descriptions among nearly 10,000 participants. The phrase generating the highest intention to give was,

“Make a gift to charity in your will to support causes that have been important in your life.”

This worked much better than simply,

“Make a gift to charity in your will.”

Adding the last phrase was powerful. It connected the gift to the donor’s values and life story. This increased giving intentions.

Other results show the same answer. [53] The social norm statement,

“Many people like to leave a gift to charity in their will”

became more effective when it was changed to,

“Many people like to leave a gift to charity in their will because they care about causes that are important in their lives.”

The social norm was no longer just about other people making gifts. Now, it was about other people making gifts that connected with their values and life story. This made the social norm more powerful.

The donor’s life story comes up in other types of research, too. This theme arises in qualitative interviews with bequest donors.[54] It even matches with neuroimaging research. Charitable bequest decisions engage “visualized autobiography” brain regions.[55]

Identity preface research: Your people (family tribute)

Identity comes from one’s people, values, and history. A bequest gift in honor of a loved one links to the donor’s people. One experiment used the following steps:[56]

1. Ask if there was a “friend or family member who would have appreciated (or would appreciate) your support of [Cause Type] such as [Organization Examples]”
2. Ask about the friend or family member’s connection to the cause.
3. Ask about a bequest gift “honoring a deceased [or living] friend or family member”

Doing this worked. It dramatically increased charitable bequest intentions.

In practice, introducing this idea can be simple. Suppose a response card asks,

“Have you included [this charity] in your will or estate plan?”

Under “Yes” simply add,

“in honor or memory of _________ (person) _________ (relationship)”

Whether or not the card is returned, it can still work. It can work just by introducing the idea. In one experiment, mentioning this option helped. It increased interest in a bequest gift for one out of four people.[57] In conversation we can ask,

“Some of the people with whom I meet are interested in hearing about ways to honor and memorialize their loved ones. Would you like to hear more about this option?”[58]

Victory preface research: Permanence

The final justification for a bequest gift is the most powerful. This is the “victory” justification. A victory describes a visualizable, personally meaningful outcome.[59]

Such “victory” outcomes are powerful for any type of gift. But legacy giving responds best to outcomes with permanence. Death reminds donors that they’re going to disappear. Legacy giving can help. It helps if it provides a way in which the donor’s identity – their people, values, or story – can live on.

Drs. Claire Routley and Adrian Sargeant explain,

“The choice of charity to receive a bequest gift could, therefore, be a way of extending one’s autobiography, and thus a sense of self, forward in time beyond one’s physical death.”[60]

This desire for gift permanence shows up in experiments. In one, a poverty relief charity was described as either,

1. “Meeting the immediate needs of people,” or
2. “Creating lasting improvements that would benefit people in the future.”

Normally, the first description generated more gifts. But for people reminded of their mortality, the results reversed.[61] Death reminders made the permanence language more attractive.

Other experiments show similar results. In one, people were three times more likely to prefer permanent funds for bequest gifts than for current gifts.[62] In another, the most powerful motivation to make a second gift in memory of a loved one was the chance to make the fund permanent.[63]

Victory preface examples: Permanence

The ultimate “victory” in legacy giving is symbolic immortality. The donor’s identity – his people, values, or story – lives on after death. Once the fundraiser understands this, she can use it. She can construct legacy “products” or giving opportunities that deliver this lasting impact.

Just using permanence language to describe the gift’s impact can help. But often, this will take the form of a permanent structure. This might be a scholarship, lectureship, or professorship. It might be an endowment funding a favorite part of operations. It might simply endow lifetime giving. (If the charity is new or unstable, it might use an established community foundation to manage this fund.)

The ask can include permanence language. For example,

“Would you consider leaving a legacy of a $100,000 bequest to ensure that the help you provide these families will continue in perpetuity?”[64]

Even more powerfully, the ask can reference both identity connections and victory permanence. This ask includes the full story cycle. It includes identity, challenge, and victory. For example,

• “You’ve been such a wonderful friend to [this charity] over the years. Many people like you want to include a gift in their will. My job is to help them plan that out, so their gift will make a lasting impact. Do you mind if I share some options with you?”
• “Look, Bob, you’ve given to us for 8 years now. You’ve given over $300,000. That’s fantastic! I’m here to build [this charity] for the long run and you’re building that with us. Have you thought about having [this charity] as part of your legacy plan?”[65]

Victory preface research: Define a victory

Large estate gifts come with instructions. It is the instructions – the story – that make large gifts compelling. This is nothing new. In two studies of wills from the 1800s, [66] charitable bequests were restricted in,

• 14% of small cash gifts,
• 58% of real estate or large cash gifts, and
• 70% of gifts of a share of the entire estate.

Large gifts produce a specific, usually lasting, impact. That’s the motivation for the size of the gift. Legacy income is all about the size of the gifts, not the number of donors. The money comes almost entirely from extreme gifts.

For example, most charitable decedents (60%) leave less than 10% of their estates to charity. These are the “normal” donors. Taken together, they transfer only 3.8% of all charitable bequest dollars.[67] The money doesn’t come from normal charitable decedents. It comes from extreme gifts.

The identity preface works to get a bequest gift. The donor includes the charity because of the donor’s people, values, and history. But this doesn’t give a reason for making a gift of a specific size. It doesn’t motivate the large bequest gift over the small one. To do that, we must define a victory.

Victory preface examples: Define a victory

Increasing the size of a planned bequest starts with victory. The donor can define a personally meaningful victory. This can begin with a question like,

• “Tell me, ‘What you would like to accomplish with your gift?’”
• “Have you ever thought about how you would like your gift to be used?”[68]

These questions lead to conversations about impact. For example, we might continue,

“The reason I ask is this. I was working with another donor; you remind me of him. You both have a real heart for this cause.” [This references Identity.]

“He decided to create a permanent endowment for a scholarship / lectureship / professorship / our __ operations. It will … [here describe the impact].” [This defines a Victory.]

“This will come from a $___ gift in his will. Would that type of gift appeal to you?” [This presents a Challenge.]

The donor’s reactions then guide the conversation. If the example gift is too large, their reaction will show this. We can then describe a smaller gift option. If the area of impact isn’t compelling, their reaction will show this. We can then discuss what area would be a better fit. The process helps the donor construct a personally meaningful victory.

When a larger gift creates a specific, lasting, meaningful victory, it makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn’t. For real money, the charity must offer real value. It must deliver real victory. Ideally, it offers symbolic immortality.

Victory preface external competition

Every charity has competition. This may include older, more established charities. But mostly, it’s the private family foundation.

In philanthropy, the most powerful permanent expression of identity is the private family foundation. It lives forever. It follows the donor’s values and rules forever. It’s typically named for the donor or the donor’s family. For estates over $5 million, 78% of charitable bequest dollars go to private family foundations.[69]

Let that sink in. Public charities get only 22% of charitable bequest dollars from estates over $5 million. Charities are losing the battle. Many don’t know they’re even in a battle to start with. Many aren’t even trying to compete.

Victory preface internal barriers

Charities are losing to private family foundations. One reason is that few are even trying to provide value to legacy donors. They aren’t offering any victory, much less a permanent one. Charity managers often resist doing this. Their attitude might sound like the following:

“Deliver value to legacy donors? No, no, no. The donor’s job is to deliver value to us! Besides, that just turns unrestricted money into restricted!”

Helping a donor define a meaningful victory works. It makes the gift larger. But charity managers don’t like donor instructions. How can we convince them?

One way is to point to the competition. For example, we might say,

“The donor wants to put these instructions with their money. They can use a private family foundation. They can use the community foundation. But I would rather they gave it directly to us to manage. What do you think?”

Or justify donor conversations as “risk management.” They avoid future problems. For example,

“I ask legacy donors what they want to accomplish with their gift. That way I can learn if they’re going to put any instructions in their wills. Sometimes those instructions are a problem. If we don’t learn about it until after they die, we might have to reject the gift. We just lose that money. But if we can talk about their plans in advance, then we can agree on some feasible option.”

Delivering victory becomes “managing risk.” Or it becomes “managing competition.” Either way, the goal is to translate. We want to deliver a powerful victory for the donor. But we need the charity manager on board as well.

Conclusion

There isn’t just one magic phrase. Instead, there are unlimited expressions of the magic ideas. A compelling ask connects the donor’s

A compelling estate ask also does this. And it considers both avoidance and symbolic immortality. Remember these core principles. Then, choose whatever phrase you like best. But you can do it. You can ask for the gift in a will!

Postscript

The 4S method: Stacking it all together

We’ve looked at the theory. We’ve looked at the phrases. Hopefully, you’ve found something that feels right for you. But what if you haven’t? What if you’re still nervous about all this? Let me end with the easiest, softest, but still highly effective method. It’s my favorite. Anyone can do it.

I like to call it the 4S method.[70] That stands for 3 Stories then Shut up. At some point in a conversation, it’s common to give the donor an update. Suppose, for example, an alumnus asked, “What’s new at Texas Tech?” I might respond by mentioning a new coach. Then, I might mention a new building. Then, I might say,

Oh, and Jon Smith did a neat thing. Did you know Jon? He graduated two years before you. No? Well, Jon spent his career helping other people get their finances in order. And he recently signed a new will that one day will endow a permanent scholarship for our financial planning students!

And then, I take a drink. Silence. Wait for a response. If the donor wants to pick up this conversation, he can do so. If he doesn’t, I could choose to then move up the list of asking phrases. But even if I don’t, just sharing this little story is powerful.

Notice the details here. It’s the third story. (We don’t “lead with death.”) It’s about someone like the donor. (It shows that “people like you do things like this.”) The gift reflects that person’s life story. (It’s an expression of identity.) The gift makes a permanent impact. (Their identity “lives on.”) The details match both avoidance and symbolic immortality.

This works. It’s not just a matter of speculation. I’ve tested many approaches to increase interest in a charitable bequest. The most powerful was this one. Share examples of other living donors whose estate gifts reflect their life stories.[71]

This brief story does that. It does so even if the conversation then moves in a different direction.

Of course, the details of the story can change. The person need not have graduated near the same time. They might be similar in some other way. Or you might simply say, “You remind me of another donor; he …” It might be a story of someone you know. It might be someone you only heard about. But as long as it incorporates the underlying principles, the story can be powerful.

Asking for a bequest gift can be scary. But anyone can learn to share three stories and then shut up!

Footnotes:

[1] Melvin, A. (2011, October). Mission possible: Get in the door and get what you came for [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, San Antonio, TX. p. 8.

[2] Kastenbaum, R. (2000). Psychology of death (3rd ed.). Springer. p. 98. (explaining that there is “general agreement that most of us prefer to minimize even our cognitive encounters with death.”)

[3] Kosloff, S., Anderson, G., Nottbohm, A., & Hoshiko, B. (2019). Proximal and distal terror management defenses: A systematic review and analysis. In Handbook of Terror Management Theory (pp. 31-63). Academic Press; Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process model of defense against conscious and unconscious death-related thoughts: an extension of terror management theory. Psychological Review, 106(4), 835-845.

[4] James, R. N., III. (2020). The emerging potential of longitudinal empirical research in estate planning: Examples from charitable bequests. UC Davis Law Review, 53, 2397-2431.

[5] See Burke, B. L., Martens, A., & Faucher, E. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 155-195; James, R. N., III. (2016). An economic model of mortality salience in personal financial decision making: Applications to annuities, life insurance, charitable gifts, estate planning, conspicuous consumption, and healthcare. Journal of Financial Therapy, 7(2), 62-82.

[6] See, e.g., Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., Kayser, D. N., & Koranyi, N. (2010). Existential threat and compliance with pro-environmental norms. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 67-79; Gailliot, M. T., Stillman, T. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Maner, J. K., & Plant, E. A. (2008). Mortality salience increases adherence to salient norms and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 993-1003.

[7] van Bommel, T., O’Dwyer, C., Zuidgeest, T. W., & Poletiek, F. H. (2015). When the reaper becomes a salesman: The influence of terror management on product preferences. Journal of Economic & Financial Studies, 3(05), 33-42.

[8] Greenberg, J., Kosloff, S., Solomon, S., Cohen, F., & Landau, M. (2010). Toward understanding the fame game: The effect of mortality salience on the appeal of fame. Self and Identity, 9(1), 1-18.

[9] Dechesne, M., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., Ransom, S., Sheldon, K. M., Van Knippenberg, A., & Janssen, J. (2003). Literal and symbolic immortality: The effect of evidence of literal immortality on self-esteem striving in response to mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 722; Landau, M. J., Greenberg, J., & Sullivan, D. (2009). Defending a coherent autobiography: When past events appear incoherent, mortality salience prompts compensatory bolstering of the past’s significance and the future’s orderliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1012-1020.

[10] McCabe, S., Carpenter, R. W., & Arndt, J. (2015). The role of mortality awareness in heroic enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 104-109; McCabe, S., Carpenter, R. W., & Arndt, J. (2016). The role of mortality awareness in hero identification. Self and Identity, 15(6), 707-726.

[11] See Burke, B. L., Martens, A., & Faucher, E. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 155-195; James, R. N., III. (2016). An economic model of mortality salience in personal financial decision making: Applications to annuities, life insurance, charitable gifts, estate planning, conspicuous consumption, and healthcare. Journal of Financial Therapy, 7(2), 62-82.

[12] See, e.g., Cohen, D. (2017). What will they say about you when you’re gone? Creating a life of legacy. Health Communications, Inc.

[13] Zou, H. & Schmitt, P. (2017). The real reason donors aren’t making planned gifts, and what to do about it. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, Baltimore, MD. p. 37.

[14] Seymour, H. (1999). Designs for fund-raising (2nd ed.). The Gale Group. p. 134.

[15] Sargeant, A. & Shang, J. (2010). Fundraising principles and practice. Jossey-Bass, p. 427.

[16] Fridman, N. (2021, May 26). Why now is the perfect time to have a conversation about values, giving and your family’s legacy [PowerPoint slides]. Life and Legacy Annual Gathering, online. p. 22.

[17] Ciconte, B. L. & Jacob, J. G. (2009). Fundraising basics: A complete guide. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 318.

[18] Zou, H. & Schmitt, P. (2017). The real reason donors aren’t making planned gifts, and what to do about it. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, Baltimore, MD. p. 37.

[19] Shuba, J. J. (2020, October). Navigating planned gift conversations with your donors. [Paper presentation]. Charitable Gift Planning Conference, online, p. 2.

[20] Samers, W. D. (2011, October). Creative bequests and the unalterable will: Soliciting and drafting bequests. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, San Antonio, Texas, p. 10.

[21] Henson, R. (2016). Planned giving: How to ask for transformational gifts. iUniverse. p. 54.

[22] Buderus, A. A. & Smith, G. P. (2013, October). Blended gift, eh? Making the most of this emerging workhorse for major and planned gift officers. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Planned Giving, Minneapolis, MN, p. 9.

[23] Lassonde, G. (2013, October). The “why” of giving & getting to the legacy ask. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Planned Giving, Minneapolis, MN, p. 6.

[24] Sargeant, A. & Shang, J. (2010). Fundraising principles and practice. Jossey-Bass. p. 427.

[25] Tumolo, J. (2016). Simplify: A simple approach to building a sustainable planned giving program. Independently published. p. 44.

[26] James, R. N., III. (2016). Phrasing the charitable bequest inquiry. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 998-1011.

[27] James, R. N., III. (2018). Creating understanding and interest in charitable financial and estate planning: An experimental test of introductory phrases. Journal of Personal Finance, 17(2), 9-21. Table 4.

[28] Id.

[29] Sargeant, A. (2014, May 2). Personal communication. Professor Adrian Sargeant, Plymouth University. Comment regarding unpublished focus group results.

[30] James, R. N., III. (2018). Creating understanding and interest in charitable financial and estate planning: An experimental test of introductory phrases. Journal of Personal Finance, 17(2), 9-21. Table 5.

[31] Unpublished results from the study reported in James, R. N., III. (2018). Creating understanding and interest in charitable financial and estate planning: An experimental test of introductory phrases. Journal of Personal Finance, 17(2), 9-21.

[32] James, R. N., III. (2018). Describing complex charitable giving instruments: Experimental tests of technical finance terms and tax benefits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(4), 437-452.

[33] James, R. N., III. (2016). Phrasing the charitable bequest inquiry. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 998-1011.

[34] Salisbury, L. C., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2016). Solving the annuity puzzle: The role of mortality salience in retirement savings decumulation decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 417-425. (Study 3, Table 2: 25.8% chose the annuity option when described as paying “each year you live until you die” and 35.8% did so when described as paying “each year you live”.)

[35] Schmitt, P. (2019, March 7). 14 magic words for planned giving. [Blog.] https://medium.com/freewill-insights/14-magic-words-for-planned-giving-a641e1b77ed6

[36] Schmitt, P. (2021, February 23). 3 strategies for success with older donors in 2021. [Webinar slide deck]. Slide 47. https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/7139016/FW%20Webinar%20-%20Older%20donors.pdf

[37] Cabinet Office. (2013). Applying behavioral insights to charitable giving. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. pp. 22-23. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203286/BIT_Charitable_Giving_Paper.pdf

[38] Modified from “Bequest Matching Form” at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_legacy_challenge_form.pdf

[39] Kendrick, J. & Tsai, C. (2017, October). Implementing a legacy challenge match program at a major, multifaceted institution. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, Baltimore, MD; Lydenberg, J. (2016, June). Meeting the challenge of raising more planned gifts. PG Calc Featured Article. https://www.pgcalc.com/pdf/0616-Featured-Article.pdf

[40] Concept from Sargeant, A. & Stergiou, C. (2019, January 10). Personal communication. Message from Christiana Stergiou, Co-Founder of Moceanic, referencing text copy originating from Adrian Sargeant, Co-Founder of Institute for Sustainable Philanthropy.

[41] Concept from Davis, L. & Biles, S. (2019, March). Reinventing an established gifts in wills program. [Slide deck]. Fundraising Institute of Australia Conference 2019, Melbourne, Australia.

[42] Concept from Bigelow, B. E. & Kolmerten, C. A. (2008, April) Focusing on planned giving: Using focus groups to find new donors, Journal of Gift Planning, 12(2), 18-21, http://charitabledevelopmentconsulting.com/s/Focusing-on-Planned-Giving-Using-Focus-Groups-to-Find-New-Donors.pdf

[43] This dual result from death reminders means we don’t always want to avoid them. Certainly, if we want a larger audience, avoiding death reminders is important. If people can avoid a personal mortality related topic, many of them will. But once we have a “captive” audience, avoidance may not be an option. In that case, death reminders can help. They can help because they also trigger a desire for pursuing “symbolic immortality,” also known as a lasting social impact. Typically, this is expressed by an increased desire to benefit heirs (rather than personal consumption), but it can also fuel the desire to make an impact on one’s community or “in-group.”

[44] Melvin, A. T. (2014, October). The art (and science) of persuasion. [Paper presentation]. National Conference for Philanthropic Planning, Anaheim, CA. p. 9.

[45] Aleman, M. (2011, October). Harness the power of your phone center to increase planned gifts. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, San Antonio, TX. p. 4.

[46] Shuba, J. J. (2020, October). Navigating planned gift conversations with your donors. [Paper presentation]. National Charitable Gift Planners Conference. p. 2.

[47] Id.

[48] Melvin, A. (2011, October). Mission possible: Get in the door and get what you came for. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, San Antonio, TX. p. 7.

[49] Swank, K. (2009, October). What women want: Understanding the needs and objectives of women’s philanthropic giving, including planned gifts. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, National Harbor, MD. p. 10.

[50] The full sentence was “many of our customers like to leave money to charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re passionate about?” However, in subsequent testing, I found that only the first part increased bequest giving intentions. Thus, I exclude the second part here to emphasize the social norm statement only. Quoted from Cabinet Office. (2013). Applying behavioral insights to charitable giving. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team. p. 22-23. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203286/BIT_Charitable_Giving_Paper.pdf

[51] James, R. N., III. (2019). Using donor images in marketing complex charitable financial planning instruments: An experimental test with charitable gift annuities. Journal of Personal Finance. 18(1), 65-74.

[52] James, R. N., III. (2016). Phrasing the charitable bequest inquiry. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 998-1011.

[53] Id.

[54] Routley, C. J. (2011). Leaving a charitable legacy: Social influence, the self and symbolic immortality. [Ph.D. dissertation]. University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. p. 220. (“When discussing which charities they had chosen to remember, there was a clear link with the life narratives of many respondents.”)

[55] James, R. N., III & O’Boyle, M. W. (2014). Charitable estate planning as visualized autobiography: An fMRI study of its neural correlates. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 355-373.

[56] James, R. N., III. (2015). The family tribute in charitable bequest giving: An experimental test of the effect of reminders on giving intentions. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(1), 73-89.

[57] Unpublished results from an online survey conducted by author in November of 2014. After reporting interest in making any gift to charity in a will, respondents were then asked a second question. Some were asked to report interest in “Honor a family member by making a memorial gift to charity in my will.” 24% (119 of 504) reported greater interest in this second gift. Others were asked to report interest in “Honor a family member by making a tribute gift to charity in my will.” 29% (147 of 505) reported greater interest in this second gift.

[58] Brovey, A. P. & Roenigk, P. L. (2008, October 25). How old are you and did you know you could…. Initiating planned gift discussions and getting answers to key questions. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Planned Giving, Denver, CO. p. 14.

[59] Anne Melvin shares this example, “We need you to establish a $100,000 charitable remainder unitrust for financial aid so that students in the future like Erick Pomeroy from Santa Fe who we just discussed can come here in the future, even if they have a father who passes away in their junior year, like Erick’s did. Will you do that for us?” Melvin, A. (2011, October). Mission possible: Get in the door and get what you came for. [Paper presentation]. National Conference on Philanthropic Planning, San Antonio, TX. p. 4.

[60] Routley, C., & Sargeant, A. (2015). Leaving a bequest: Living on through charitable gifts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(5), 869-885, 876.

[61] Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tost, L. P., Hernandez, M., & Larrick, R. P. (2012). It’s only a matter of time: Death, legacies, and intergenerational decisions. Psychological Science, 23(7), 704-709.

[62] Unpublished results from an online survey conducted by author in March and April of 2013. Respondents chose between “an immediate expenditure of all funds to advance the cause of the charity” and “the establishment of a permanent fund generating perpetual income to advance the cause of the charity forever.” Among 881 respondents, 319 reported a different preference for current and bequest gifts to the same organizations. Of these 243 (76.2%) preferred more permanence for the bequest gift and 76 (23.8%) preferred more permanence for the current gift.

[63] James, R. N., III. (2019). Encouraging repeated memorial donations to a scholarship fund: An experimental test of permanence goals and anniversary acknowledgements. Philanthropy & Education, 2(2), 1-28.

[64] Levine, J. & Selik, L. A. (2016). Compelling conversations for fundraisers: Talk your way to success with donors and funders. Chimayo Press. p.74

[65] von Laer, W. (2019, October 23). Building an impactful development team. [Audio podcast]. Bragdon, T. (Host). 7-Figure Fundraising Podcast. Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/show/6ftRSw1hCnB8NAGcO8d3QW at [29:10].

[66] See summary in James, R. N., III. (2020). American charitable bequest transfers across the centuries: Empirical findings and implications for policy and practice. Estate Planning & Community Property Law Journal, 12, 235-285, 241-242 citing to Knaplund, K. S. (2015). Becoming charitable: Predicting and encouraging charitable bequests in wills. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 77, 1-49.

[67] See James, R. N., III. III. (2020). American charitable bequest transfers across the centuries: Empirical findings and implications for policy and practice. Estate Planning and Community Property Law Journal, 12, 235-285. p. 280. citing to Joulfaian, D. (2019). The federal estate tax: History, law, and economics. The MIT Press. p. 83.

[68] Lumpkin, S. & Comfort, J. (2018, August 23). How to have the MOST productive conversations: From here to eternity… [Paper presentation]. Colorado Planned Giving Roundtable, 30th Annual Summer Symposium, Denver, CO.

[69] Raub, B. G. & Newcomb, J. (2011, Summer). Federal estate tax returns filed for 2007 decedents, Statistics of Income Bulletin, 31, 182-213, 191. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/11essumbulestatereturns.pdf

[70] This suggestion originated from Jeff Comfort, Vice President, Principal Gifts and Gift Planning, Oregon State University. Comfort, J. (2014, May 29). Lessons learned. [Conference presentation]. Western Regional Planned Giving Conference. Costa Mesa, CA.

[71] See James, R. N., III, & Routley, C. (2016). We the living: the effects of living and deceased donor stories on charitable bequest giving intentions. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(2), 109-117. Unpublished results from this same study showed that these “living donor stories” were significantly more effective than other messages such as statistical evidence indicating the people agreed with the practice of including a charitable gift in a will or evidence of heirs tendency to quickly spend inheritances.

 

Related Resources:

• Donor Story: Epic Fundraising eCourse
• The Fundraising Myth & Science Series, by Dr. Russell James
• The Importance of Asking Permission to Ask More Questions
• Finally, the questions you should ask that have been proven to lead to gifts from wealth

 

LIKE THIS BLOG POST? SHARE IT AND/OR LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW!