Using the Right Words

Small nuances in language can have a big impact on the effectiveness of our planned giving marketing efforts.  Here are two examples, both courtesy of Jeff Brooks, who pens the Future Fundraising Now blog: An online test revealed that using the word ‘my’ instead of ‘your’ in the call to action resulted in a 90% [...]

My Top 10 Takeaways from the New PG Research

by pfreedman on October 23, 2012 · 12 comments

Kudos to the Stelter Company for continuing to invest in donor research that assists each and every one of us in our effort to raise funds for good works. The research, conducted in June of this year, expands on and validates some of their earlier (2008) breakthrough research. The full report of the new research as well as the older research can be downloaded here after you register.

Here are my top 10 takeaways from the research which was conducted with 400 current and prospective planned givers age 40+. Prospective planned givers, the group that the research refers to as “best prospects,” are those who said they will definitely or probably make a planned gift to a nonprofit organization within the next five years.

1. The best prospects for a planned gift (60%) are donors age 40-54. This finding validates the Stelter research from 2008 and presents a stark contrast to the long-held belief that older people who have been loyal over decades are our best prospects. Indeed, 40% of the current planned givers who took part in the research are also in the 40-54% age group. It makes sense that 40-54 year-olds would be some of our best prospects, since those 55+ are more likely to be set in their planning with little chance that their plans will change. Of course, we can all cite an exception but anecdotal evidence is just that—anecdotal. And even if those in the older cohort have been our best prospects in the past, the times they are a changing. The WWII-era donors are largely gone and the Silent Generation, while still with us for now, represents a small fraction of our audience relative to the big bulge—the Baby Boomers. Maybe we need to change, too.

2. Affinity for the nonprofit’s mission trumps everything. This helps explain why younger donors can be good prospects. It’s not about longevity, it’s about passion for the cause.

3. Loyalty does not necessarily correlate with planned gift likelihood. The research revealed that 20% of the planned givers in the group had been donating for fewer than 5 years and another 21% had never donated prior to making their planned gift. The fewer years of giving might correlate with the younger age cohort since younger donors almost by definition have fewer years of giving than older donors. And the 21% who never donated doesn’t surprise me. Every organization I’ve ever worked with has gotten bequests, sometimes very large ones, from people who had never made a gift before. Big brand names like the American Cancer Society and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital probably get a disproportionate share of those gifts because their PR is so effective at keeping their name in the public consciousness but it’s common across the board. While 41% of our audience may have fewer years of giving, the stats still mean that loyalty is a factor for 60% of our audience. And, more importantly, as noted in #2, above, affinity trumps everything.

4. Wealth and large annual gifts do not correlate with planned giving likelihood. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. We’ve known for a very long time that most planned gifts (revocable ones) come from people of modest means and that very, very few estates are subject to the estate tax. Even if the estate tax threshold is lowered on January 1, the percentage of estates subject to tax will still be small.

5. Membership in a Legacy Society does not motivate donors to make a legacy gift. The report says unequivocally, “The idea of joining an organization for major donors and/or people who have made a planned gift to a charity was rejected by virtually every best prospect and current planned giver who was not already a member. Only 3% of nonmembers say they would welcome an invitation.” Again, this doesn’t surprise me at all. You can read my blog post from a few weeks ago on this topic by clicking here.

6. 53% of current planned givers said that less than a year elapsed between the decision to make a planned gift and executing their gift documents. The research also revealed that life events are not necessarily the trigger that prompts a planned gift. This latter point seems to tie neatly to the finding that older donors are not our best prospects. The conventional wisdom used to be that life events—births, deaths, divorce—are what trigger planned gifts. But as the research indicates, affinity trumps everything.

7. Family and friends, rather than tax or legal advisors, are the go-to resources for planned gift decision-making. This is in line with the skyrocketing importance of peer recommendations in our culture. Just think of Yelp, Trip Advisor and sites where reviews, even from complete strangers, inform decision-making. Good news for us, though, is that information from the charity and/or staff relationships rated highly on the influence scale.

8. Only 40% of planned givers notify charities of their intention. This is not a new finding but it’s good to have it validated.

9. There is room for improvement in our stewardship of planned givers. Of the fraction of planned givers who have notified the charity of their gift, 62% rate the stewardship they receive as excellent and 31% say it is good. In my opinion, we should be at 100% excellent with this audience. No excuses.

10. Written communication is more appealing than in-person communication, especially with older audiences and most donors do not wish to receive more communication of any kind. I think we need to take this finding with a grain of salt. Another way of saying this is that donors are mostly satisfied with the type and frequency of communication they are receiving from us. And, I’ve always believed that relevant communication is always welcome.

Over the couple of weeks I’ll propose action steps you can take in response to these findings.

Phyllis

{ 12 comments }

Michael J. Rosen, CFRE October 23, 2012 at 7:13 pm

While I appreciate the investment that The Stelter Company is making in planned giving research, this latest report contains some flaws in addition to the useful tidbits. I identify some of the flaws in my post at https://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/.

My biggest concern is that readers will, like you, assume that the data suggests that planned gift donors do not want to be part of a legacy society. While that may indeed be the case, we cannot draw that conclusion from this study.

First, the study did not take into account social bias. In other words, many respondents might have said they did not want a legacy society invitation simply because of the social belief that giving should not depend on recognition.

Second, many of those questioned probably do not even understand what a recognition club is and how it can benefit them and the organization. So, many likely did not know what they were turning down.

Readers should keep in mind that the same study found that 40 percent of respondents believe that “giving to a charity is a good way to become part of a community of like-minded people;” that’s one of the functions of a recognition club; this statistic seems to contradict the other stat and certainly suggests that donors and prospects might not really understand the function of a recognition club.

Clearly, more research in this area is necessary before anyone writes-off the idea of a planned gift recognition club.

pfreedman October 24, 2012 at 6:27 am

Hi Michael
Thanks so much for commenting. I respect your opinion tremendously but have to disagree with you on this one. First of all, I wouldn’t characterize the study as ‘flawed.’ Data are subject to interpretation and every research project is nuanced and has to be understood as such. One only needs to look at the Presidential polling data to know that there are many ways to view the same statistics!

I’m not suggesting by any means that we should do away with Legacy Societies. But I do think that organizations that use joining a Legacy Society as their central offer soliciting planned gifts (if you make a gift you’ll become a member of this club and receive these benefits) ought to re-think their approach. I don’t think that’s what motivates people to give. What motivates people to make a planned gift is the idea of leaving the world a better place, making their mark and ensuring something (fill in the blank) for future generations. I posted on this topic a few weeks ago. I think another data point from the Stelter Research helps bear out the questionable value of Legacy Societies. Even when donors are members of a Legacy Society, they don’t rate their treatment very highly. So, I don’t think Legacy Societies are doing a good job of accomplishing what I consider to be their primary function–stewardship–rather than recruitment.

Regards, Phyllis

Jonathan Gudema October 24, 2012 at 9:01 am

Now I am going to be forced spend a few hours reading Stelter’s report and coming up with my own response!

Having read the previous reports, and thought quite a bit about their conclusion that the best planned giving prospects are in the younger groups, it dawned on me that for their business to thrive, that conclusion is very helpful for charities to buy into. Makes me wonder – just a tiny bit – about the whole thing.

pfreedman October 24, 2012 at 10:40 am

Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your always provocative point of view! I don’t have any concerns about the integrity of the data. The research was conducted by a highly respected, nationally recognized third party research company. I think you can quibble with how some of the questions are worded and as I said in an earlier comment, debate interpretation of the data, but I don’t think the Stelter Company has any particular agenda except the same goal you and I have–delivering qualified leads and closed gifts to our clients. If that’s best accomplished by marketing to younger donors, then that’s what we should do. Next week I’m going to suggest some action steps for responding to the research. I think you and other readers will see that I try to take a balanced approach.

Regards, Phyllis

Greg Warner October 24, 2012 at 9:07 am

I think Legacy Societies are sometimes used as a crutch or a quick fix. In other words, one might think to themselves, “we really need to thank donors” or “we need something that will compel hidden bequest donors to show themselves”.

“Ah! A Legacy Society! Sure, that’ll do it! With a Legacy Society they’ll surely jump at the opportunity to be part of the club and we’ll be able to say ‘thank you.’ ”

As long as the Legacy Society is vibrant, thoughtful, engaging and mission-oriented, I think it’s a fantastic idea. But if it’s used as a crutch or a quick-fix, then it needs to be re-thought.

pfreedman October 24, 2012 at 10:36 am

I think this is a useful way of framing things. Thanks for sharing your point of view, Greg.

Regards, Phyllis

Diane @ home sweet homemade October 24, 2012 at 10:05 am

thanks for sharing Phyllis! Point #1 is certainly provocative and is (somewhat) in contrast to the recommendations presented from our planned giving consulting group. Points 3, 4 and 6 are of particular interest to me since I strive to identify the promising candidates – always a challenge.

pfreedman October 24, 2012 at 10:42 am

Hi Diane
I think alot of us are still absorbing the data and trying to figure out what it means and how to apply the new information. I’m sure you’ll be hearing more about this over time.

Regards, Phyllis

Janet L. Hedrick October 24, 2012 at 1:22 pm

I agree with both Mike and Phyllis. Yes, the report is open to interpretation – as noted in “Effective Donor Relations,” which I authored, when you ask a donor if recognition is important to their giving, they may say “no” because they don’t want it to appear that recognition is why they give. However, time and again, we find that recognition groups do result in gifts. Sometimes the recognition group is why donors give a specific level. In the case of planned giving, recognition is probably not “why” they make the decision, but it may be the impetus for them to tell the organization about their gift.

With planned giving, recognition societies or circles plays a different role than recognition for annual giving – recognition groups encourage some donors to let the organization know about a planned gift intent and that gives the organization the opportunity to steward those gifts. I agree with Phyllis that organizations do not always provide the stewardship that donors expect and being a member of the planned giving recognition group may not meet the needs of the donor for recognition and, more importantly, for feeling the gift is appreciated and will serve the mission of the organization. the major problem is making a big deal about the gift when the intent is indicated and doing nothing after that. My experience has been that encouraging board members and others to let you recognize them so others will be inspired to follow their example is a positive way to get donors to understand why recognition is important, especially with planned gifts. Another benefit is when a donor tells the organization about a planned gift intent, they are less likely to change that intent – that is if the organization is appreciative and thanks them appropriately not just when the intent is indicated but beyond that.

pfreedman October 24, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Hi Janet
All I can say in response to your comments is “amen!” Your input, as the author of such a important resource, is especially valuable. Thanks so much for weighing in.

Regards, Phyllis

Elissa Leif October 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Thanks, Phyllis, for providing both the report and some analysis. Also, thank you, Michael and others for your analysis and perspective. As someone with a slightly different angle on planned giving, I am wondering if people have given any thought to how the social media section of the report could be expanded in future surveys.

Especially with the conclusion that best prospects are in the 40-54 age range, the social media area would seem to be the “mother lode” for such things as examining relationship-building with these potential planned givers and for gaining insight into newer forms of interaction that influence gift decisions.

While the report focused on which social media platforms people used, future reports could and should, we think, dive deeper on whether and to what extent people have engaged by reading/watching, sharing, rating, or posting as related to their charities of choice. The media of the online communication (tweet, longer post, e-blast, e-newsletter, photo share, videos) also could be an important angle from which to approach the question.

As video communication becomes more pervasive and as a producer of planned giving videos and other fundraising-related videos, I would love to see something in the survey on this engaging form of communication. Our experience has shown that donors and planned givers find videos fresh and welcoming–at least in this moment. Video can be presented via the various social media platforms mentioned in the report, and we are increasingly seeing clients and others call on planned giving (or other giving) prospects by putting ipads with videos on them in the prospects’ hand.

Would love to know what other readers–and perhaps even the Stelter folks–think of how the research on planned giving and social media could be advanced. Thanks!

pfreedman October 24, 2012 at 5:43 pm

Hi Elissa
You make a good point! I’m sure the team at the Stelter Company will find it useful to hear from readers like you involved in some of the newer approaches to planned giving about what might make good areas of discovery for future research. Thanks for weighing in.

Regards, Phyllis

Previous post:

Next post: