Do You Know that “Planned Giving” is Bad for #Fundraising?

That’s right. “Planned Giving” is bad for nonprofit fundraising.

For years, I’ve been writing and talking about the problems with the term “Planned Giving.” Now, new research underscores what I’ve been advising: You should stop using the term!

Sometime ago, The Stelter Company conducted a survey that I cite in my book, Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. Stelter found only 37 percent of Americans over the age of 30 have a familiarity with the term “Planned Giving.” We have no way of knowing what percentage of those claiming familiarity really, in fact, know what the term truly means.

Other terms have become increasingly popular as substitutes for “Planned Giving.” However, none has yet to gain sufficient traction to overtake the use of “Planned Giving.” Consider the results from simple Google searches I conducted for this post:

• Planned Giving — 14.8 million results
• Philanthropic Planning — 11.1 million results
• Gift Planning — 5.7 million results
• Legacy Giving — 2.1 million results

What we know is that the general public has little understanding of the term “Planned Giving” although it appears to be the best term we have. Unfortunately, popular does not mean effective.

While “Planned Giving” is a reasonable, inside-the-development-office catch-all term to describe, well, planned giving, it’s not a particularly good marketing term. That’s according to the findings of philanthropy researcher Russell James, JD, PhD, CFP.

James conducted a study to answer this vitally important marketing question: “What is the best ‘front door’ phrase to make people want to read more Planned Giving information?”

Think of it this way: Will a “Planned Giving” button at your website encourage visitors to click through to learn more or is there a more effective term?

To be a successful term, James believes two objectives must be met:

1. Individuals have to be interested in finding out more.
2. Individuals have to expect to see Planned Giving information (i.e., no “bait and switch”).

To find the strongest marketing term, James asked people to imagine they were viewing the website of a charity representing a cause that is important in their lives. In addition to a “Donate Now” button, the following buttons appear on the website:

• Gift Planning
• Planned Giving
• Giving Now & Later
• Other Ways to Give
• Other Ways to Give Smarter
• Other Ways to Give Cheaper, Easier, and Smarter

James asked participants to rate their level of interest in clicking on the button to read the corresponding information. In a follow-up, James asked study participants what kind of information they would expect to see when clicking the buttons mentioned above.

The winning term is:

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.

James 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.