DOC

Why Planned Giving Programs Fall Short

By Ellen Moore,2014-07-11 08:42
13 views 0
Why Planned Giving Programs Fall Short ...

    Why Most Planned Giving Programs Fall Short

    By Ken Ramsay, President and Managing Partner,

    Legacy Leaders Inc.

To ask the question, „Why do most Planned Giving programs fall short?‟ is to question

    the whole approach to Planned Giving in North America. Careful analysis of available

    research has shown that there is a mismatch between market potential and characteristics

    and the tradition marketing approach taken by charitable and not-for-profit organizations.

    The market is huge and predisposed to make a Planned Gift commitment. Our approach

    has been narrow and requires individuals to self-identify. Charities leave much on the

    table.

Planned Giving has not had the kind of success one would expect, given the potential

    available. This paper proposes a new marketing model that is simple to initiate, inclusive in its targeting and proactive in nature, and one that will have dramatic results for any

    size charity. Recent advances in successful broad-based marketing techniques have demonstrated the realizable results available to all charities. A complete description of

    both the new marketing model and a successful mail/phone marketing technique are

    outlined along with actual results! There is also happening the evolution of the Planned

    Giving Campaign with many of the same characteristics of the traditional Capital/Major

    Gift Campaign.

The time is right for the Planned Giving industry to make a radical shift in the way it

    operates. All the tools are available to expand dramatically, to be much more accountable

    for our measured productivity and to work to impressive ROI standards all features historically absent from Planned Giving programs. The time is right for Planned Giving

    practitioners and senior fundraising professionals to seriously ask the question. „Why do

    Planned Giving programs fall short?‟ and be willing to take a fresh look at the marketing

    of Planned Giving.

It is timely to rethink how we do Planned Giving. This paper will challenge our long held

    assumptions on Planned Giving and present new approaches that are proving extremely

    productive in the marketplace.

     1

    Why Most Planned Giving Programs Fall Short

    By Ken Ramsay, President and Managing Partner,

    Legacy Leaders Inc.

    1A 1995 Survey of charities in Canada by the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy and the Canada West Foundation reported that 19% of non-religious charities had some

    form of Planned Giving program. The Canadian Association of Gift Planners, launched in

    1992, now has over 800 members interested in developing their careers in the Planned

    Giving industry. The basic course, Planned Giving for Canadian Fundraising

    Professionals, staged at the Banff Centre for Management, has graduated over 600

    individuals. All of these facts are impressive and yet, if one casts a critical eye at Planned

    Giving in Canada, the results are somewhat disappointing. Even more dramatic growth

    has been witnessed in the United States over the last twenty years.

     In response to the question, “How many successful Planned Giving programs are

    there in Canada?” - twenty to fifty is the typical response. Why? This paper will discuss the potential of Planned Giving for Canadian charities and the numbers are staggering!

    Why then do so many programs fall short? We must assess the Planned Giving market

    with an objective view and re-evaluate the typical Planned Giving Marketing model.

    There are also new marketing initiatives in Canada that have yielded surprising results.

    What do they tell us about the possibility of a very different Planned Giving model one

    that has considerable implications on fundraising in North America?

     There is a concerted trend in the charitable sector to provide more accountability

    for the resources expended on fund raising. Planned Giving has always been somewhat

    exempt from hard accountability. The „deferred‟ aspect of a Planned Gift makes it hard to

    measure and practitioners have not had to be as accountable as other fundraisers. This

    habit will need to change for charities to invest the resources necessary to attain their

    potential in Planned Gifts. We need to construct operational models that provide hard

    measurements and productivity standards. Ultimately, Planned Giving programs not only

    must consistently produce at higher levels but also survive the scrutiny of ROI (return on

    investment) measurements. This paper will offer a marketing model that provides

    program measurement, productivity standards and ROI calculation.

     It is timely to rethink how we do Planned Giving in Canadian charities. This

    paper will challenge our long held assumptions on Planned Giving and present new

    approaches that are proving extremely productive in the marketplace.

    What Do We Know About the Market?

     To begin the market reassessment, attention should be turned to available market

    research on Planned Giving in North America. What do we know about this market?

1 2 Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Charitable Fundraising in Canada, (Toronto, Canada, 1996).

    2 This research of 5000 adult Canadians (over age 18) posed three questions that had profound 3implications for Planned Giving in Canada. The results of these questions were:

     In 1987 there was a pivotal piece of research on philanthropy in Canada.? “Have you made a will or thought about making a will or have you not given it too

    much thought?”

    Made a will ………………………………………………….44%

    Thought about it …………………………………………….28%

    Not thought about it …………………………………………28% ? If made a will, “Have you left any money to a charity or non-profit organization in

    your will?”

    Yes …………………………………………………………...15%

    No …………………………………………………………….85%

    No Opinion …………………………………………………….0% ? If “Thought about it” to first question or answered “No” to the second question,

    “Would you ever consider leaving money in your will to a charity or non-profit

    organization?”

    Yes …………………………………………………………….42%

    No ……………………………………………………………..58%

    No Opinion ……………………………………………………..0% The composite response was that 7% of all adult Canadians have included a charity in

    their wills and a further 27% would consider. Decima Research interpretators made this

    comment “… the data indicates that the area of wills is potentially a very fruitful one for

    charitable and non-profit organizations to explore.”

    4

     Furthermore, the Decima Research of the Study of Philanthropy in Canada,

    discovered that those that had included a charity in their wills tended to be slightly better

    educated but not necessarily more affluent. Also they tended to live in a larger city and

    not be residents of Quebec or Atlantic Canada. Those that would consider a bequest in

    their wills came from a wide range of social backgrounds and geographic locales.

    Younger, university educated and having given more to charities, were also factors.

     This research set the benchmark for bequest potential in Canada. 34% of all adult

    Canadians either have or would include a charity in their wills. Charities could look at

    their support base and apply this 34% bequest potential. Because the average bequest is

    $10,000 to $20,000 (from a survey of 14 charities in Canada, conducted by World

    Wildlife Fund, 1991) or because most charities have already established substantial long

    term bequest averages, the Planned Gift potential can easily be calculated. For example, a

    hospital with 30,000 supporters and a $35,000 bequest average, could calculate a bequest

    potential of (34% x 30,000 x $35,000) = $357,000,000 from current supporters. Even an

    arts group of 5000 patrons with an average bequest value of $15,000, would have a

    bequest potential of (34% x 5,000 x $15,000) = $25,500,000. Bequests tend to be 90% to

    2 Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Study of Philanthropy in Canada, (Toronto, Canada, 1988). 3 IBID, pp. 174-175. 4 IBID, p. 41.

     3

    5 and 95% of Planned Gifts in Canada and so bequest potential defines most of the Planned 61994 that investigated various aspects of Planned Giving. Each surveyed 5000 members Giving potential. and had a statistical reliability of plus or minus (+or-) 3%, 19 times out of 20. The United Church of Canada has 700,000 members across Canada and represents a good cross The United Church of Canada did two independent research studies in 1993section of English speaking Canadians. A question repeated in both research projects was

    “Would you consider a Planned Gift of …” (each was described to respondents and

    multiples were allowed). The results were:

    Bequest Charitable Gift Annuity Life Insurance Charitable Remainder

     Trust

    Survey #1 40% 16% 10% 10%

Survey #2 41% 15% 11% N/A

In Survey #2, responses were also cross-tabulated by type of member. Church leadership

    (volunteers in leadership positions and staff) responded with Planned Gift intentions of

    close to double that of the membership as a whole.

     All of the research results described above lead to some very important

    conclusions. Willingness to consider making planned gift commitments is widespread in

    the Canadian population. Furthermore, volunteers and those closest to the organization

    are even more likely to make a gift from their assets. There is tremendous potential for all

    types of Planned Gifts, for Canadian charities.

     In 1992 the National Committee on Planned Giving (NCPG) in the United States,

    randomly surveyed7 150,000 Americans and followed up with a detailed questionnaire to

    those that had made a Planned Gift. Some notable findings were:

    ? 5.71% of Americans had included a Planned Gift to a charity

    ? As many under the age of 60 had made a bequest commitment as above (Note:

    similar results were recorded in the United Church survey)

    ? 75% of bequest donors had never informed the charity of their intentions

    ? 64% of bequest intentions were less than five years old

    ? 37% of bequest donors benefited more than one charity

    ? 92% of bequest donors had never changed the bequest provision once it was in the

    will

    ? motivations for making a bequest were (multiples allowed):

    - desire to support the charity 95%

    - ultimate use by charity 75%

    - creation of a lasting memorable 28%

5 United Church of Canada, Special Gifts Study, (Toronto, Canada, 1993). 6 United Church of Canada, Department of Stewardship Services, Unitrends, (Toronto, Canada, 1994). 7 NCPG, NCPG Planned Giving Research, (Indiana, U.S.A., 1994).

     4

This important piece of research gave us insight into bequest donors. Charities should be

    attentive to younger donors and dialogue meaningfully with them. Bequest donors update

    their wills frequently but once the bequest is in the will, it likely will stay in. Charities

    should recognize that one third of all donors benefit more than one charity in their wills

    and should give extra attention to all known bequest donors. However, because most

    bequest intentions are not known to charities, they should devise strategies to uncover

    them. Finally, the case for support for Planned Gifts must be built on the strong

    motivations of desiring to support the cause and wanting something specific to happen

    with the Planned Gift.

     The NCPG research again confirmed the wider marketing audience and gave

    insight into Planned Gift motivation. Tax planning motivation - always seen as

    paramount with a Planned Gift scored relatively low as a motivational factor. Also, the bequest goal was clearly understood to be to get the bequest in the will where it will

    generally stay!

     This cursory review of known market research describes a different potential

    market than perhaps was first assumed a broad market, a diverse market, a responsive market for all those who value a particular charitable cause. Does the traditional Planned

    Giving Marketing model fit this market?

    Traditional Planned Giving Marketing Model

     We have learned and taught a particular Planned Giving marketing model. It

    requires a charitable organization to communicate to its supporters and affiliates with an

    offer, to begin a Planned Giving dialogue. This general offer can take various forms, such

    as:

    ? a response mechanism to “get more information”

    ? a response mechanism to signal “interest in making a Planned Gift”

    ? an opportunity to learn about “Estate Planning” through print or seminars in

    which Planned Giving is used as an example

    ? an opportunity to get professional advice on “tax planning”

    ? information on Planned Giving recognition, etc.

This reactive marketing communication model will typically enjoy response rates in the

    0.1% to 1.0% range. Then, these respondents move into a long range cultivation program

    that educates them on Planned Giving options, motivates them by presenting testimonials

    and recognition benefits and builds relationship with notably, the Planned Giving officer,

    and in turn, the charitable organization, through a deliberate contact program. Of this

    respondent group, 25% to 50% will eventually make a Planned Gift commitment over

    time.

     These Planned Gifts tend to be larger than those received „out of the blue‟ (almost always bequests) and sometimes, quite complex. The Planned Giving officer gets to

    display his or her knowledge of the subject by analyzing the donors circumstances and

     5

philanthropic goals and proposing the most appropriate Planned Giving option, often

    working with the donor‟s advisors. This is the typical marketing model.

     There are some exceptions to this model. Some charities successfully „product

    market‟ individual gift options especially life income gifts such as charitable gift

    annuities and charitable remainder trusts. These communication programs work best

    when the dual benefit is explained to prospective donors a gift to the organization they care about and an opportunity for tax beneficial lifetime income at the same time. The 8 by product marketing them to their communicated offer usually has the incentive to get a “quotation” on the amount of

    membership. “income” or “taxable benefit” that the donor will receive. Response and conversion rates

     are the same as the general offer above. Some religious organizations have built the

    However, the overall limitations of the traditional Planned Giving Marketing marketing of gift annuities into a thriving business

    model are obvious. It requires individuals to „self-identify‟ to the charitable organization

    in a reactive fashion. Individuals metaphorically, must raise their hands and shout “here I

    am” to engage in any Planned Giving dialogue. Consequently, overall response rates are

    in the 0.05% to 0.5% range (0.1% to 1% x 50%). These traditionally marketed programs

    tend to work well in universities and religious organizations where there are large

    members of constituents who have been cultivated through alumni programs or long term

    church membership. This traditional model has been dubbed the „University Model‟

    because it works best in that market environment and is usually taught to the industry by

    Planned Giving practitioners who have worked in universities. The model does not work

    well in broad based national charities, nor in hospitals, arts organizations (with some rare

    exceptions), social service organizations nor any smaller charity.

     This traditional model tends to overlook the key Planned Gift motivator desire

    to support the charitable cause. Whereas fundraisers work very hard at developing a Case

    for Support for a captial or major gift campaign, little effort is usually made to develop a

    persuasive, compelling Case for Support for the Planned Gift. The question “Why should

    I make this gift?” is not answered. Quite often, charities take the current Case for Support

    and apply it to the Planned Giving program, ignoring the 20, 40 or 60 year shift in time

    horizon that encompasses the Planned Gift. Making a Planned Gift commitment is an

    emotional, meaningful decision and yet practitioners tend to be practical and „corporate‟

    in their approach.

     Overall, the traditional marketing model is limited, ignoring the broad base of

    support held by over one third of all Canadians and over 40% for universities

    9. Existing

    programs yielding less than 1% overall response rate, simply leave too much on the table.

    The traditional approach is highly targeted when a widespread approach is called for by

    the market receptivity. Such programs should be proactive, more closely akin to a

    capital/major gift campaign model. We have embraced a limiting Planned Giving model.

    What other model(s) are available?

    8 Contact the Canadian Association on Charitable Gifts (CAGP) for details. 9 Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Study of Philanthropy in Canada, (Toronto, Canada, 1988). p. 42.

     6

    The Planned Gift Decision

     Before developing other models, however, let‟s look more closely at the Planned

    Gift decision cycle. Successful practitioners have discovered that individuals move

    through specific steps in making a Planned Gift commitment and the Gift Planner‟s job is

    to facilitate this movement. The steps for the donor are:

1. Buy-in to the mission of the organization,

    2. Having a clear understanding of the future needs of the organization and a willingness

    to support those needs,

    3. Being clear that a Planned Gift in its simplest form, is a gift from assets after death,

    4. Being aware of the capability of making the gift, i.e., that the necessary assets are

    available,

    5. Consulting with family/advisors, to get their support for the gift,

    6. Being clearly asked for the gift,

    7. Having objections thoroughly answered,

    8. Being thanked and recognized,

And then the cycle recommences for a second Planned Gift. Not all donors will go

    through all the steps but any marketing program must allow for and complement the

    complete cycle.

     Furthermore, the Planned Gift decision should always begin with a bequest offer

    by the charity except for special „product marketing‟ programs. The bequest is the easiest

    gift to understand and is a pure gift from assets. More importantly, it is the gift that 34%

    of the population is predisposed to make. After the bequest intention is made the

    charitable organization should make offers of age-appropriate irrevocable gifts life

    insurance for younger donors, life-income gifts for older. The bequest decision should be 10 has developed a decision considered a five to ten year time period because the goal is from the charity‟s tree for bequest intentions, ultimately facilitating inclusion in the will. From most perspective, to get the bequest in the will! Legacy Leaders Inc.developed to least developed, this bequest decision tree is:

    1. Confirmed (in writing) in the will

    2. Confirmed (verbally) in the will

    3. Going to the lawyer at a certain time

    4. Going to be put in the will in the future

    5. In or not in the will but will never confirm in writing

    6. Does not have a will but wants to make the gift

    7. Likes the idea but must check with advisors

    8. Likes the idea but needs more time

    9. Likes the idea but is not sure

    10. Changed mind

10 Legacy Leaders Inc., Toronto, Ontario Canada (est. 1995), President and Managing Partner, Ken

    Ramsay.

     7

Bequest intentions fall into one of these categories of decision. As much as charities

    would like a simple, fully confirmed bequest inclusion, in reality, individuals must move

    up this tree in a time frame of up to ten years. It is then incumbent on charitable

    organizations to support both the Planned Gift decision cycle and the long term bequest

    decision tree with sophisticated stewardship programs that take all of this into account.

    These programs must have four basic components:

    1. Contact strategy building relationship and dialogue

    2. Education strategy giving the donor the necessary information to move their

    decision along information both about the Planned Gift and about the

    organization

    3. Solicitation strategy that has a monitoring component to ascertain decision

    movement and a hard „ask‟ component that moves the donor to a higher level

    4. Re-solicitation for multiple, irrevocable and larger gifts over time

    Recognition is successfully used as a motivator to move donors to the „confirmed‟ levels of decision.

     With the knowledge of how the Planned Gift decision is made, let‟s look at a Marketing model that will be successful for all charitable and not-for-profit organizations.

    A Fresh Way to Market A Planned Giving Program

     Any fresh approach to Planned Giving marketing must build on both the research

    available and knowledge of the Decision Cycle described previously.

    ? A clear, strong Case for Support will respond to the motivational need to support the

    charitable cause.

    ? A broad-based program will speak to all supporters and affiliates to make the most of

    the potential available.

    ? The program will be proactive in engaging the Planned Giving dialogue because it is

    known that comparatively few supporters will self-identify.

    ? It must take a long term perspective (five to ten years) to obtain „hard‟ commitment

    and even longer to move to irrevocable, larger and complex gifts (bequests are of

    course, revocable).

    ? The program will be more like a capital/major gift campaign with a theme, high

    visibility and a clear start and finish time.

    ? It will be measurable with defined, periodic goals.

    ? The „new‟ Planned Giving model will be built on market segmentation similar to a

    capital/major gift campaign.

    Recent work by Legacy Leaders Inc. and use of the United Church of Canada 11 has shown that response to a Planned Giving request for commitment varies by researchthe closeness of relationship to the charity. Legacy Leaders campaigns for hospitals have

     11 United Church of Canada, Department of Stewardship Services, Unitrends, (Toronto, Canada, 1994).

     8

    resulted in the following response rates of those who have made a Planned Gift commitment :

    Segment Response Rate of the Segment

     Volunteers 11%

     One-time large donors 10.5%

     ($250 to $1,000)

     Patients (not made a financial gift) 10.3%

     Patients (having made a financial gift) 10.0%

     Consistent, small donors 9.5%

     (four years, over $25)

     Current year donors 9.2%

     Lapsed one year donors 7.5%

     Lapsed two year donors 5.0%

     The NCPG research (1993) also gave insight into the Planned Gift donor

    relationship by asking them to describe their affiliation with the charity. They responded:

     Members 39.4%

     Personally benefited them 24.1%

     Volunteer 15.8%

     Alumnus 15.6%

     Through friend/family 9.2%

     Neighbour, community resident 7.9%

     Church, religious affiliation 5.8%

     Director/Trustee 4.8%

     Like the cause 4.2%

     Employee 3.0%

     Past Contributor 0.3%

    These various studies all describe a relationship matrix moving from the centre to

    the periphery; the closer one is in relationship to a charitable cause or organization, then the more likely the individual is to making a Planned Gift commitment. This is the same model as the capital/major gift campaign but Planned Giving models do not usually operate this way. A „fresh‟ approach must do this. A corollary is that different relationship segments must be engaged in dialogues of differing quality. Also, supporting resources (brochures, mail packages, phone calls, visits), must differ for the different dialogues. The nature of the dialogue will define what resources are required.

    With this previously described research in mind, we can now formulate a Planned

    Giving marketing model applicable to all charities and not-for-profit organizations.

     9

    A New Planned Giving Marketing Model

(i) Case for Support:

    The Case for Support for a Planned Giving campaign should be:

    ? Emotional and compelling,

    ? Clear as possible as to the final use of the gift (a challenge for deferred

    Planned Gifts),

    ? Fully compatible with the mission of the organization,

    ? Logical extension of that mission into a ten to sixty year future,

    ? Work inter-generationally because most gifts will only be utilized by future

    generations,

    ? Allow individuals/families to leave a legacy, a mark towards something they

    care about.

This developed Case for Support must be the foundation of every donor dialogue it

    encompasses both the mission and future needs steps in the Decision Cycle. Supporters

    expect their charities to be bold and visionary for the future. Some examples:

    “With a gift from your assets, you can help ensure the best health care in the

    world, for your community, your children and their children.”

    “Your planned gift with many others like you, will significantly change the lives

    of future generations free from debilitating diseases like -----!”

    “Your significant gift will provide future generations in your community, with

    access to higher education, unparalleled in the world!”

     Individuals want their Planned Gift to make a difference and to reflect their deep

    felt life values. A well thought out Planned Gift gives added meaning to one‟s life and the

    Case for Support should have the same gravity and depth of meaning. Tax benefits which

    are usually the cornerstone of a Planned Giving Case for Support, are not a major

    motivational factor as shown by the NCPG research.

     Consequently, development of the Case for Support should delineate befits to the

    donor “What‟s in it for me?” A list of benefits includes:

    ? “You receive satisfaction in knowing that the vital work will ….”

    ? “Take pleasure in creating a large gift for the future.”

    ? You can inspire and influence others by making a Planned Gift

    ? “Enjoy the tax benefits now when you can use them.” (gift of life insurance)

    ? “You can be part of an important group of people who are changing the future

    of higher education.”

    ? You gain the satisfaction and excitement of seeing your Planned Gift put to

    work in the Hospital you care about.” (strip bond)

     10

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com