The language of bequest
Howard Lake | 31 August 2009 | Blogs
We recently conducted research for the Association of Fundraising Professionals and Legacy Leaders that in part looked at the language donors used to describe their bequests. Our study focused on donors to public radio stations and a State University and the findings parallel exploratory research conducted in the domain of temporal decision making (Trope and Liberman, 2003) indicating that people think about decisions differently depending on whether they relate to the present or to the future. The results suggest that careful attention to the language employed in bequest solicitation would be likely to enhance levels of participation in this form of giving, since the bequest is a ‘future’ gift. The dimensions of interest are summarized below.
Abstract Versus Concrete
When taking decisions about the present individuals prefer to think in terms of concrete information. Asking for a one-off donation by indicating what a donation at specific levels will buy is therefore a good strategy to adopt. Telling a donor that $10 buys a meal for a homeless person would be an example of a ‘concrete’ appeal. When taking decisions about the future, however, individuals prefer to think in the abstract and would thus pay more attention to what these things might mean in the continuation of organizational values. Talking with passion about the quality of care, the relief of suffering, the dignity afforded to clients etc. would be more effectual in this future context.
Superordinate Versus Subordinate
In the present, informing people about the mechanics of how an organization is achieving its goals would be the optimal strategy. Thus in the University context, talking to donors about the current needs of students, the facilities, the number of professors, buildings etc. would all be appropriate. These are the nuts and bolts that a University to pursue its mission. In persuading individuals to offer a bequest, however, it may be more effectual to talk about what the successful achievement of the mission will deliver. Promotional messages stressing the organization’s ability to improve the community, open up life experiences and to make a difference in the lives of local people, would be more appropriate. ‘Why’ is more important in the future than ‘how.’
Advertisement
Decontextualized Versus Contextualized
Giving in the present can be bolstered by focusing on the organizational context and indicating the help it is providing in the here and now to beneficiaries. The rationale offered for support is very much set within the context of the organization. This nonprofit can help x number of beneficiaries, touching their lives in the following ways … For bequests the organization should give consideration to illustrating why the work of the organization is of broader social significance. For example, ‘society has a duty to provide the best terminal care that it can,’ ‘our loved ones might one day benefit from their work,’ ‘no-one should be allowed to suffer unnecessarily,’ etc. Rather than talk about the immediate impact on beneficiaries, the benefit to the local community and/or wider society should be emphasized.
Structured / Unstructured
Finally, in seeking to promote take-up of bequests, nonprofits can think through their long term vision for the organization. While annual appeals can be undertaken in a relatively unstructured way, focusing on the most immediate and pressing of needs, appeals for bequests need to articulate a longer term and coherent plan for what the organization is trying to achieve.
About Howard Lake
Howard Lake is consultant editor of UK Fundraising. He founded the site in 1994 and successfully sold it in 2022. As director of Giving X Ltd he is exploring growing giving on a massive scale.
He is the founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.