<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Latest Stelter Report Flawed but Still Insightful</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/</link>
	<description>Thoughts from the author of &#34;Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 02:36:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2452</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Rosen, CFRE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2452</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nicole, thank you for commenting and sharing your strategy. It is always a challenge to determine how to deploy limited resources in the most effective way. As your experience proves, some broad marketing efforts to create awareness can certainly payoff in a significant way, though we might not always know in advance.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nicole, thank you for commenting and sharing your strategy. It is always a challenge to determine how to deploy limited resources in the most effective way. As your experience proves, some broad marketing efforts to create awareness can certainly payoff in a significant way, though we might not always know in advance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2450</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Rosen, CFRE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ronald, thank you for taking the time to comment. Research about planned giving can certainly be helpful. However, we need to be sure that we are drawing the correct conclusions from the data.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ronald, thank you for taking the time to comment. Research about planned giving can certainly be helpful. However, we need to be sure that we are drawing the correct conclusions from the data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2449</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Rosen, CFRE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mick, thank you for commenting. You&#039;re certainly correct when you write that selling gift vehicles is &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; the best way to promote gift planning. Having a donor-centered, holistic approach to development will yield the strongest results. And, as you suggested, deserving trust is important as well. While this study did not look at the impact of trust on planned giving, a study by Independent Sector and another study by Adrian Sargeant looked at the impact of degree of trust on size of gift. While neither study focused on planned giving, they do provide good insight that I feel is nevertheless relevant. The higher the degree of trust a donor has in the nonprofit, the more likely s/he is to make a gift. And, the greater the degree of trust, the larger that gift is likely to be. Since planned gifts usually involve large donations, we can expect that they will be made only when the donor has a very high level of trust in the organization.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mick, thank you for commenting. You&#8217;re certainly correct when you write that selling gift vehicles is <em>not</em> the best way to promote gift planning. Having a donor-centered, holistic approach to development will yield the strongest results. And, as you suggested, deserving trust is important as well. While this study did not look at the impact of trust on planned giving, a study by Independent Sector and another study by Adrian Sargeant looked at the impact of degree of trust on size of gift. While neither study focused on planned giving, they do provide good insight that I feel is nevertheless relevant. The higher the degree of trust a donor has in the nonprofit, the more likely s/he is to make a gift. And, the greater the degree of trust, the larger that gift is likely to be. Since planned gifts usually involve large donations, we can expect that they will be made only when the donor has a very high level of trust in the organization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mick Koster</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2448</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mick Koster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 02:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2448</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you, Michael, for both sharing this report and for your comments. From my experience, a formulaic approach to planned giving - such as trying to &quot;sell&quot; various gift vehicles or membership in some legacy society - that is advanced so frequently in the charitable world has been woefully inadequate. This survey, along with your critical observations, seem to confirm this. 

First, until the gift planning profession dramatically improves its ability to articulate how gifts of accumulated wealth can be used to finance their organization for the long term, and rely less on describing all the various intricacies of a split-interest gift, this trend of mediocrity will continue.

Second, nonprofits need to improve their fiduciary ability to manage legacy-type gifts. I&#039;d be interested if the survey attempted to explore the levels of trust - or lack thereof - that donors had in a charity&#039;s ability to effectively manage a large estate gift. Or, if they fear that the organization will burn through that gift just like an irresponsible child might do. 

Finally, I would attribute many of these survey findings to a general reluctance by organizations to truly invest in charitable gift planning. When the average tenure of a gift planning officer is about 18 months, and the average time it takes to cultivate and close a planned gift is about two years, statistically the average gift planner will never experience a completed gift from inception to execution. For a committed long term donor, consider how many staff people might have come and gone. Is that a message of stability?  Couple that with the fear that as soon as they tell of a planned gift, that same organization intrudes on their privacy and starts listing names in annual reports, donor walls, etc. No wonder new or unknown donors seem to be more likely to make a planned gift than those more familiar with the organization!

I don&#039;t mean to sound über-critical of charities, but this survey - while modestly flawed - should begin serving as a wake up call to the entire industry.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Michael, for both sharing this report and for your comments. From my experience, a formulaic approach to planned giving &#8211; such as trying to &#8220;sell&#8221; various gift vehicles or membership in some legacy society &#8211; that is advanced so frequently in the charitable world has been woefully inadequate. This survey, along with your critical observations, seem to confirm this. </p>
<p>First, until the gift planning profession dramatically improves its ability to articulate how gifts of accumulated wealth can be used to finance their organization for the long term, and rely less on describing all the various intricacies of a split-interest gift, this trend of mediocrity will continue.</p>
<p>Second, nonprofits need to improve their fiduciary ability to manage legacy-type gifts. I&#8217;d be interested if the survey attempted to explore the levels of trust &#8211; or lack thereof &#8211; that donors had in a charity&#8217;s ability to effectively manage a large estate gift. Or, if they fear that the organization will burn through that gift just like an irresponsible child might do. </p>
<p>Finally, I would attribute many of these survey findings to a general reluctance by organizations to truly invest in charitable gift planning. When the average tenure of a gift planning officer is about 18 months, and the average time it takes to cultivate and close a planned gift is about two years, statistically the average gift planner will never experience a completed gift from inception to execution. For a committed long term donor, consider how many staff people might have come and gone. Is that a message of stability?  Couple that with the fear that as soon as they tell of a planned gift, that same organization intrudes on their privacy and starts listing names in annual reports, donor walls, etc. No wonder new or unknown donors seem to be more likely to make a planned gift than those more familiar with the organization!</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t mean to sound über-critical of charities, but this survey &#8211; while modestly flawed &#8211; should begin serving as a wake up call to the entire industry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bitzer</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2445</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bitzer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some fund raising survey work is helpful in planned giving; I have always opined that the traditional f-r pyramid is hogwash based on my experience of start-up planned giving programs in Los Angeles; in some century planned giving may be perceived as the most highly individualized area of philanthropy --- fertile ground for an extraordinary array of cultivation activities.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some fund raising survey work is helpful in planned giving; I have always opined that the traditional f-r pyramid is hogwash based on my experience of start-up planned giving programs in Los Angeles; in some century planned giving may be perceived as the most highly individualized area of philanthropy &#8212; fertile ground for an extraordinary array of cultivation activities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2442</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Rosen, CFRE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scott, thank you for commenting. It&#039;s always great hearing from you. Your question is a good one. However, I&#039;m going to hold-off with a response. The question deserves its own blog post. In the coming weeks, I&#039;ll write a post that addresses the issue of legacy societies and donor disclosure that were touched upon in this post. Meantime, don&#039;t be so sure that legacy societies hold little interest for donors.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, thank you for commenting. It&#8217;s always great hearing from you. Your question is a good one. However, I&#8217;m going to hold-off with a response. The question deserves its own blog post. In the coming weeks, I&#8217;ll write a post that addresses the issue of legacy societies and donor disclosure that were touched upon in this post. Meantime, don&#8217;t be so sure that legacy societies hold little interest for donors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Staub</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2441</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Staub]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael, you write  Development professionals need to do a better job of articulating the benefits of disclosure to encourage more donors to do it.  Aside from recognition, what other benefits do you see in encouraging donors to disclose they&#039;ve remembered a nonprofit in their estate?  It doesn&#039;t seem the Legacy Society or whatever name, annual meeting/luncheon, etc., is a big motivator.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, you write  Development professionals need to do a better job of articulating the benefits of disclosure to encourage more donors to do it.  Aside from recognition, what other benefits do you see in encouraging donors to disclose they&#8217;ve remembered a nonprofit in their estate?  It doesn&#8217;t seem the Legacy Society or whatever name, annual meeting/luncheon, etc., is a big motivator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicole</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2438</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nicole]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 23:16:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2438</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for your thoughts on this.  Our organization&#039;s &#039;suprise&#039; bequests are right around the 20% benchmark stated in this survey, if not higher, but I suspect it may be because our formal planned giving program is really just a few years old.  Prior to that, we just weren&#039;t encouraging people to tell us, nor did we do a lot of asking.  So of course bequests that were drafted 7-10 years ago, and are now maturing, were not known to us.  

We also have good brand recognition and visibility among &#039;non-donors&#039; so that even if they haven&#039;t donated, they likely know who we are, so we may have a slightly higher rate of bequests from people who have never given a single gift.  

Recognizing that resources often dictate early stage planned gift programs, we market to younger donors/prospects (40-60 ish) but focus our personal visits and gift officer resources on those older donors 65+ (or slightly younger, but interested in documenting a large planned gift, often with recognition opportunities) in order to balance the use of our limited dollars with marketing and outreach.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your thoughts on this.  Our organization&#8217;s &#8216;suprise&#8217; bequests are right around the 20% benchmark stated in this survey, if not higher, but I suspect it may be because our formal planned giving program is really just a few years old.  Prior to that, we just weren&#8217;t encouraging people to tell us, nor did we do a lot of asking.  So of course bequests that were drafted 7-10 years ago, and are now maturing, were not known to us.  </p>
<p>We also have good brand recognition and visibility among &#8216;non-donors&#8217; so that even if they haven&#8217;t donated, they likely know who we are, so we may have a slightly higher rate of bequests from people who have never given a single gift.  </p>
<p>Recognizing that resources often dictate early stage planned gift programs, we market to younger donors/prospects (40-60 ish) but focus our personal visits and gift officer resources on those older donors 65+ (or slightly younger, but interested in documenting a large planned gift, often with recognition opportunities) in order to balance the use of our limited dollars with marketing and outreach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2423</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Rosen, CFRE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jan, thank you for commenting and for buying a copy of my book. I greatly appreciate both. I&#039;ll try to keep things interesting here for you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jan, thank you for commenting and for buying a copy of my book. I greatly appreciate both. I&#8217;ll try to keep things interesting here for you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Rosen, CFRE</title>
		<link>http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/latest-stelter-report-flawed-but-still-insightful/#comment-2422</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael J. Rosen, CFRE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:10:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/?p=1498#comment-2422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lisa, thank you for commenting. I appreciate your suggestion for a future blog post. I&#039;ll work on it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lisa, thank you for commenting. I appreciate your suggestion for a future blog post. I&#8217;ll work on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
