Today’s experiment highlights a key legacy-fundraising concept. Mortality reminders trigger two responses: avoidance and/or pursuit of symbolic immortality.
The second response is about leaving a lasting meaningful impact. Think of it like this: Yes, I admit I’m going to disappear. (I’ve moved beyond the avoidance response.) But some part of my identity (my people, my values, my story) will continue on after I’m gone. Remind me that I’m going to disappear, and I’ll crave an impact that outlasts me. Simply put: death reminders make permanence attractive.
This idea matters for legacy fundraising. The largest gifts tend to go to permanent organizations (the oldest and largest ones) and permanent structures (like private foundations and endowments). This also matters for fundraising messaging. What works best for legacy gifts can differ from ordinary fundraising.
Today’s fundraising finding demonstrates that in an interesting way. In this experiment, participants could make a gift to a poverty relief charity. For half of the participants, the charity was described as “meeting the immediate needs of people.” For the other half, it was described as “creating lasting improvements that would benefit people in the future.”
Which description worked better? It depends. One group was first reminded of their own mortality through various writing exercises. The other group wasn’t. They instead wrote about a non-death negative (dentist pain). For this normal group, there was a clear winner. Using “meeting the immediate needs of people” resulted in an average gift size 2.5X larger ($258 vs. $100).
For the death-reminded group, the results reversed. Now, using “creating lasting improvements that would benefit people in the future” resulted in an average gift size nearly 3X larger ($236 vs. $81).
The experiment shows that language choices matter. The organization and gift structure stayed the same. But describing the impact using permanence language made all the difference.
Mortality reminders prompt avoidance and/or pursuit of symbolic immortality. We can use both insights in legacy giving communications. To sidestep the avoidance response, avoid death language. Instead use lead-in topics like tax planning, asset protection, or “giving smarter.” To tap symbolic immortality use permanence language.
Original article: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797612443967
For more on this topic see my open access books
- Inside the Mind of the Bequest Donor: Chapters 5 & 10
- The Storytelling Fundraiser: Chapter 9
- The Biblical Fundraiser in Ancient Words: Chapter 15-III
All are available in print on amazon or digital for free at EncourageGenerosity .com https://www.encouragegenerosity.com/
Russell James, J.D., Ph.D., CFP®️ is a professor at Texas Tech University. He directs the on-campus and online graduate program in Charitable Financial Planning and also teaches Charitable Gift Law at the Texas Tech University School of Law. Dr. James has over 100 publications in academic journals, conference proceedings, professional periodicals, and books including 20 on neuroimaging and neuroeconomics. He has been quoted in a variety of news sources including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, the Associated Press, Bloomberg News and the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Related Resources:
- The Fundraising Myth & Science Series, by Dr. Russell James
- 3 Ways Major Gift Fundraisers Can Talk About Legacy Giving Without Reminding Donors About Death
- A Fundraising Process That Builds Donor Trust
- Why Traditional Major Gift (and Legacy Gift) Fundraising No Longer Works
