Posts tagged ‘gift planning’

December 16, 2014

Special Report: Congress Passes the Charitable IRA Rollover

At 7:32 PM (EST) this evening, Dec. 16, 2014, the US Senate passed HR 5771, the bill that retroactively extends several tax provisions, including the IRA Rollover. The law will expire on Dec. 31, 2014, without any grace period. However, it’s important to note that the measure will not become law until signed by President Obama, which is expected.

While approval of the IRA Rollover is good news, it unfortunately comes extremely late in the year. This means most nonprofit organizations will be unable to fully take advantage of the provision. Nevertheless, there are a couple of simple actions you can take:

  1. Look at your donor file to see which individuals have made gifts from an IRA in the past. Then, call those donors to let them know of the opportunity for 2014, assuming President Obama signs the measure. At the very least, email those donors.
  2. Email all of your older donors to alert them to the opportunity for them to give from their IRAs. Even if they don’t take advantage of the IRA Rollover, they’ll appreciate that you informed them about this late breaking news.

December 7, 2014

Special Report: House of Representatives Approves IRA Rollover

[Publisher’s Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are usually not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including “Special Reports,” please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

 

On Wednesday, Dec. 3, the US House of Representatives passed a short-term tax extenders bill. The bill extended certain tax provisions for 2014, including the IRA Rollover, a provision long supported by the nonprofit sector. The package would cover 2014 but NOT apply to 2015 or beyond. The bill now goes to the Senate.

US Capitol by Glyn Lowe Photoworks via FlickrSen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has questioned whether the Senate will have time to pass the House bill before the end of the year. However, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the White House have shown a willingness to move forward with this one-year retroactive fix, according to Jason Lee, General Counsel at the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

For more information about the bill, click through to:

The Hill“House Approves Slate of Tax Breaks”

The Hill“Reid Indicates Senate Might Not Pass House Tax-Extender Bill”

The sad reality is that even if the tax extenders bill passes the Congress and is signed by Pres. Obama, there is precious little time for charities to take advantage of the IRA Rollover provision in 2014.

November 14, 2014

One Word is Costing Your Fundraising Effort a Fortune

If you’re like most nonprofit development professionals, you’re doing it. You’re using one particular word in your fundraising effort that is costing your nonprofit organization a fortune.

I have the research that proves it.

If you talk with prospects about and ask them for a “bequest” commitment, you’re leaving enormous sums of money on the table. That’s the conclusion of recently released data shared by Russell James, JD, PhD, CFP, a leading philanthropy researcher based at Texas Tech University.

wordsthatwork3-01James will be sharing his research-based insights during a free webinar hosted by MarketSmart, on Wednesday, November 19 at 1:00 PM (EST). Words That Work: The Phrases That Encourage Planned Giving will explore the words and phrases that inspire donors to give and give more. Conversely, James also will look at the words and phrases that development professionals traditionally use that are actually counter-productive, such as the word bequest.

Consider this: A 2014 survey of 1,418 individuals found that 23 percent of respondents were “interested now” in “making a gift to charity in my will.” By contrast, only 12 percent were “interested now” in “making a bequest gift to charity.”

In other words, talking about bequest giving cuts your chance of getting a bequest commitment nearly in half! For greater results, it’s better to use simple, approachable language. As James suggests, when communicating with donor prospects, it’s a good idea to imagine you’re talking with your grandmother.

Not only do the individual word choices we make have a massive impact on the money we raise, how we use simple phrases can likewise make a huge difference.

James recently reported that 3,000 actual testators in the UK, not simply survey takers, were randomly placed into one of three groups when speaking with an estate planner:

  1. No reference to charity.
  2. Would you like to leave any money to charity in your will?
  3. Many of our customers like to leave money to charity in their will. Are there any causes you’re passionate about?

When the estate planner did not raise the subject of charitable giving, five percent of testators initiated the inclusion of at least one charity. In the second group, which was asked about including a charity, 10.4 percent agreed to do so. Clearly, asking has a significant, positive impact. However, members of the third group, which heard that others were including charities in their will, were even more likely to make a commitment. Now, here’s one of the key findings: Among those in the third group, 15.4 percent included at least one charity in their estate plan.

The commercial sector refers to the simple phrasing used with the third group as the bandwagon effect or social-norm effect. People are more likely to take action if they know others are already doing so. As the research demonstrates, this principle holds true when encouraging people to include a charity in their estate plan.

Interestingly, the positive impact does not stop at just the percentage of folks willing to make a charitable plan.

March 7, 2014

Latest, Greatest Secret to Fundraising Success Unveiled!

Most nonprofit development professionals would love to find the Holy Grail of fundraising. Discovering a new piece of research, a proven technique, a new technology that could unleash a torrent of funds would be undeniably wonderful.

But, do we need the Holy Grail?

Some folks seem to thinks so. Perhaps that’s why, when I’m invited to speak at conferences or lead workshops, my hosts frequently want me to present the “latest, greatest” ideas for fundraising success. Perhaps that’s why so many articles, blog posts, and seminar titles include buzz words such as “secrets,” “great tips,” “powerful,” “fresh,” “innovative,” “simple,” “key tools,” etc.

I’m not immune. I’m always on a quest for new, robust ideas. In addition, I title many of my articles (see above) and seminars with the buzzwords I know will attract attention.

In one planned gift marketing seminar I did a few years ago, I shared a variety of ideas for promoting planned giving. I knew I had a diverse audience, so I provided both simple and sophisticated ideas. While my suggestions were certainly not revolutionary, they did push the envelope of current practice.

Following my talk, a fellow came up to me and said, “You didn’t say anything I didn’t already know.”

Ouch! That’s not the feedback I like, even if it was just one person’s opinion. I always want everyone to come away from my seminars with at least one terrific idea.

After receiving the stinging feedback, I said to the man, “I’m sorry to hear that you didn’t get any fresh ideas. However, I’d love to hear about how you’ve used the phone to market bequests.”

He replied, “I haven’t implemented a phone program.”

“Ok, then tell me how your direct mail campaign has done,” I requested.

“I haven’t done a planned gift mailing,” he said.

“Ok, then tell me about your website and how it allows you to track and rate visitor interaction,” I requested.

“Our website isn’t that sophisticated,” he said.

The conversation continued. The point is that this fellow knew what he should or could be doing, but he was not doing it!

While finding the Holy Grail of fundraising would be spectacular, the truth is that such a singular, miraculous method or tool does not and will never exist. However, I have some good news. We do not need a Holy Grail.

Low Hanging Fruit by defndaines via FlickrMy latest, greatest idea for fundraising success is something that can benefit virtually all nonprofit organizations: Master the fundraising fundamentals and grab the low-hanging fruit.

At this point, you might be thinking, “Sheesh! There’s nothing new or great about that idea.”

Well, if that’s what you’re thinking, you should be right.

Unfortunately, I see far too many examples, far too regularly that charities simply have not mastered the fundamentals, and they have left plenty of low-hanging fruit on the tree. Just like the fellow who came up to me after my seminar, many folks may know what they should be doing but they’re not doing it.

Consider this: A new study by Dunham and Company found that charities could be losing literally billions of dollars in donations because they have failed at the online basics. For example, 84 percent of nonprofits do not make their donation pages easy to read and use with mobile devices. By the way, that statistic includes some of the nation’s largest charities.

The fundamentals matter. The evidence shows they could add up to billions for the nonprofit sector.

Do you want more money for the annual fund? Then tell me, do you have a monthly donor program? Do you do second gift appeals? Do you effectively steward gifts to ensure a high donor retention rate? Do you use database analysis to help you better target asks, even in your direct mail appeals?

February 28, 2014

Warning: US Volunteerism at a Decade Low!

The rate of volunteerism in America fell to the lowest level in a decade, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics report Volunteering in the United States — 2013.  This appears part of a downward trend.

Nonprofit organizations should find this trend alarming for a number of reasons, including:

Volunteers provide an essential labor pool. Approximately 62.6 million (25.4 percent) Americans volunteered at least once between September 2012 and September 2013.

The median volunteer spent 50 hours on volunteer activities during the study period. These significant volunteer hours mean that volunteers are a valuable part of the nonprofit labor force. Declining volunteerism rates mean charities will either have to limit services, discontinue certain activities, or pay for employees to perform the tasks formerly handled by volunteers.

Volunteers serve as ambassadors. Individuals who volunteer usually act as ambassadors for the organization. They obviously have a high-degree of interest in the organization, which is why they volunteer with it.

Through volunteer experiences, provided they are good ones, the volunteers will become more engaged with the organization and more passionate about its work. They will speak of the organization with family and friends. When they do, it will be in a positive, passionate tone. This word-of-mouth promotion will help your organization to attract additional volunteer and donor support.

Volunteers are more likely to donate. The more engaged an individual is with his community, the more likely he is to volunteer and contribute money to nonprofit organizations. The more points of connection there are between an individual and a particular nonprofit organization, the more likely that individual is to give, give often, and give generously to that organization, as I point out in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing.

Volunteerism is an important point of connection. This phenomenon is explained, in part, by the Social Capital Theory popularized by Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone.

Volunteers are more likely to make planned gifts. Consider what researcher Russell James, JD, PhD, CFP reports in his book, American Charitable Bequest Demographics (1992-2012):

Among those with [estate] planning documents, those who both volunteer and give ($500+) are dramatically more likely to plan a charitable estate gift than those who only volunteer or only give ($500+). Those who only volunteer, plan charitable estate gifts at approximately the same rate as those who only give.”

Graph from American Charitable Bequest Demographics (1992-2012) by Russell James.

Graph from American Charitable Bequest Demographics (1992-2012) by Russell James.

Furthermore, those who only volunteer or only donate ($500+) are more than twice as likely to make a legacy gift than those who do neither.

For a free electronic copy of James’ book, subscribe to this blog site in the right-hand column. You’ll receive an email confirmation of your subscription that will contain a link to the book.

Clearly, the steady decline in volunteerism represents a serious problem for the nonprofit sector.

So, why is volunteerism on the decline? Unfortunately, the reasons for the decline are unclear. However, the report contains some clues.

February 23, 2014

Honoring Donor Intent: When it Works, When it Doesn’t

Donor-centered fundraising is smart fundraising. Part of being donor centric involves always honoring the donor’s intent.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals’ Code of Ethical Principles states:

[Fundraising professionals] recognize their responsibility to ensure that needed resources are vigorously and ethically sought and that the intent of the donor is honestly fulfilled.”

Honoring donor intent is essential for at least two reasons:

  1. It’s the right thing to do.
  2. It’s a fundamental way to earn and deserve trust. Without trust, fundraising would be virtually impossible.

To honor donor intent, you must first ensure that the contribution is received according to the donor’s specifications. This is particularly important for planned gifts when the donor is no longer around to make sure everything goes according to plan. The charity becomes the voice of the donor.

The next part of honoring donor intent requires that the organization use the gift for the purpose specified by the donor.

Unfortunately, honoring donor intent is not always an easy thing to do. Sometimes, it works the right way while other times it morphs into something ugly.

Let’s look at two examples.

The Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation learned of the passing of an elderly woman in the community. I first shared her story in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. A member of the all-volunteer organization’s board knew the woman and knew the Foundation was in her will.

The woman’s attorney produced a copy of the will which included a nearly $1 million bequest for the Foundation and nearly nothing for her two estranged children. However, the children produced another version of the will where the charitable provision was whited-out, literally.

The attorney for the children approached the Foundation to negotiate a settlement agreement. The Foundation, under the advice of legal counsel, held firm and asked that the matter proceed to court as soon as possible.

The attorney for the children initiated a series of delaying tactics hoping that the Foundation would eventually negotiate rather than have the matter drag out. Under the advice of legal counsel, the Foundation held firm.

About one year later, surprisingly quickly given the circumstances, the court upheld the clean version of the will, and the Foundation received the full bequest.

In the Foundation’s case, the donor’s interest was in alignment with the charity’s. The Foundation was right to defend the donor’s wishes. By defending the donor’s interest, the Foundation ultimately benefited. More importantly, young people in the community will benefit for years to come as the Foundation provides scholarships that would not otherwise be possible to award.

Sadly, there are times when protecting the interests of the donor cross a line. In those cases, the organization goes from being donor centric to being self-centered, even greedy. This might be the case with the University of Texas.

Warhol's Farrah Fawcett portrait on exhibit at the UT Blanton Museum.

Warhol’s Farrah Fawcett portrait on exhibit at the UT Blanton Museum.

The University received a bequest from Farrah Fawcett. The Seventies icon left “all” her artwork to the University where she had studied art prior to the successful launch of her acting career. The collection included at least one portrait of Fawcett by famed artist Andy Warhol.

However, the Fawcett story is complicated. Warhol actually did two, almost identical pieces. According to Ryan O’Neal, the actor and on-again-off-again boyfriend of Fawcett, Warhol gave one portrait to Fawcett and the other to him.

February 12, 2014

Special Report: Winner of Book Contest Named

[Publisher’s Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including “Special Reports,” please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

 

We have a winner!

As 2013 drew to a close, Michael Rosen Says… announced a chance for readers to win a free copy of Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. To enter the book drawing, readers needed to share the title of a favorite book they recently read about fundraising, philanthropy, or civil society.

You can read the original post and discover what books have been recommended by clicking here.

You can find other reader recommended books by visiting The Nonprofit Bookstore (powered by Amazon).

Donor-Centered Planned Gift MarketingThe winner of the contest is Pete Stroble, President of the British Transportation Museum (Ohio). Pete’s name was randomly selected by guest judge Tracy Malloy-Curtis, Director of Philanthropic Planning at the International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region. I thank Pete for his book recommendation and Tracy for selecting our winner.

For writing Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, I won the AFP/Skystone Partners Prize for Research in Fundraising and Philanthropy. The best-selling book is listed on the official CFRE International Resource Reading List. The average reader review on Amazon is 5-stars. You can find the book by clicking here.

February 10, 2014

Special Report: Mark Zuckerberg & Wife Lead List of Top Philanthropists

[Publisher’s Note: “Special Reports” are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. “Special Reports” are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including “Special Reports,” please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

 

With a gift of $992.2 million of Facebook stock to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, find themselves at the top of The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s list of largest philanthropists in 2013.

Mark Zuckerberg by Andrew Feinberg via FlickrZuckerberg, at age 29, is the youngest philanthropist ever to top The Chronicle’s annual list of largest donors.

George Mitchell, with a bequest gift of approximately $750 million to the Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, ranked second on the 2013 list.

In total, the top donors of 2013 contributed $7.7 billion plus $2.9 billion in pledges. The numbers and ranking are based on publicly available information.

February 7, 2014

Humor to Raise Money? Learn a Lesson from the Super Bowl

I enjoyed Super Bowl XLVIII. For starters, my Philadelphia Eagles did not lose! Ok, they weren’t in the game, but still…

The game itself was fun in its own bizarre, lopsided way as the Seattle Seahawks crushed the Denver Broncos by a score of 43 to 8. The Bruno Mars part of the Half-Time Show was entertaining, though the Red Hot Chili Peppers portion was inappropriate for a family audience.

I also enjoyed the amusing Super Bowl commercials. Debuting funny, quirky, sometimes sentimental ads during the Super Bowl has become an advertising tradition. My wife actually enjoys the commercials more than the game, a lot more.

Clearly, the advertising profession believes in the effectiveness of using humor in television commercials.

So, I took notice several days ago when John Ladd, Development and Planned Giving Coordinator at Carolina Friends School, started a discussion in the Smart Planned Giving Marketing Group on LinkedIn:

Humor in planned giving marketing? Have you seen a good example or used humor, or at least a light touch, in marketing planned giving?”

While the fundraising profession is not well known for having a raucous sense of humor, it’s not a profession that’s devoid of humor. Just as humor can help the for-profit sector sell goods and services, nonprofit organizations can leverage humor to inspire support. Indeed, some charities use humor to great effect, for general fundraising as well as planned giving.

You Can Use Your Stock to Make More Than Soup!

You Can Use Your Stock to Make More Than Soup!

In my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing, I share a story from Rebecca Rothey, CFRE, when she was Director of Planned and Principal Gifts at Catholic Charities of Baltimore (she’s now Director of Major and Planned Giving at the Baltimore Community Foundation). Rebecca used humor quite successfully when branding her planned giving program.

Rebecca wanted to use humor to cut through the clutter and grab attention. She also wanted to ease the stress that people feel when considering their own death, stress that often keeps them from considering planned gifts. She came up with an idea she thought would work for her target market: older, traditional women.

The idea was “Rebecca’s Recipes for Planned Gifts.” In ads and postcards, Rebecca dressed as a 1950s homemaker engaged in various cooking/baking activities. The headlines included:

• You don’t have to be upper crust to have a trust.

• You don’t have to be rolling in dough to make a gift that will last forever.

• You can have your cake and eat it too—you can make a gift and receive payments for life.

• You can count your chickens before they hatch—you can make a gift and count on receiving payments for life.

• Don’t let taxes knock the stuffing out of your IRA.

• You can use your stock to make more than soup, you can use it to make a charitable gift.

• Too much on your plate to plan your estate?

While Rebecca thought she had a good idea, she first tested it before rolling out with it. Rebecca carefully tracked the statistical results as well as the feedback she received. Her methodical, appropriate use of humor worked, and she closed gifts as a result.

Rebecca’s use of humor also had an unexpected benefit. It engaged senior management. It got them joking about and more comfortable with the planned giving program. The use of humor also made Rebecca more approachable by staff.

While she certainly believes in the creative use of humor in the fundraising process, Rebecca still respects the serious side of planned giving:

January 31, 2014

Avoid Making Faulty Assumptions about Donor Loyalty

Loyal supporters are valuable assets for every nonprofit organization.

Unfortunately, there is an alarming lack of understanding about the definition of “loyal supporter.” Before we address that issue, however, let’s look briefly at why loyal donors are so important.

Because it’s more cost-efficient to retain donors than acquire new ones, loyal donors allow charity fundraising programs to operate more efficiently. The lifetime value of such donors is greater. More money, more cost-effectively raised means more funds for mission fulfillment.

Interestingly, loyal donors also exhibit greater engagement tendencies as researchers Adrian Sargeant, PhD and Elaine Jay, PhD observed in their book Building Donor Loyalty:

Donors who remain loyal are also much more likely to engage with the organization in other ways. Long-term donors are significantly more likely than single-gift donors to offer additional gifts in response to emergency appeals, to volunteer, to upgrade their gift levels, to lobby for the organization, to actively seek out other donors on the organization’s behalf, to buy from a gift catalogue, and to promote the organization to friends and acquaintances.”

Sargeant and Jay even quantify the value of this additional activity. In their experience, they have seen that such activities can increase donor lifetime value by 150 to 200 percent.

Increasingly, charities are coming to appreciate the benefits of having loyal donors. For example, progressively more development professionals understand that loyal supporters make the best planned giving prospects.

This raises the question: Who is a “loyal supporter?”

In the context of planned gift marketing, one development professional recently defined loyalty as a combination of giving frequency, giving recency, and cumulative giving amount. I agree, but only to a point.

Cover- Building Donor Loyalty -- click to see book at AmazonFirst, as Sargeant and Jay describe in their book, loyalty can be either passive or active. Passively loyal donors might give because their friends give, because they want to do something while they continue to search for the charity that is just right, or even because of inertia. By contrast, actively loyal donors care passionately about the organization and its mission. They identify with the values of the organization and regard donations to it as an essential, rather than discretionary, part of their personal budgets.

When it comes to fundraising, actively loyal donors are the only truly loyal donors. In other words, not all regular donors rise to the level of being loyal supporters.

Second, people can be loyal supporters without being donors. They even can be so intensely loyal that they make a generous legacy commitment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 751 other followers

%d bloggers like this: