It is not about what you can leave behind, it is about what the future can mean to you, now.

When deciding how to communicate about legacies, fundraisers should be conscious that supporters thinking about bequest giving are thinking in terms of a much longer timescale than those who are thinking about making a gift in the present. The language that we use has to be consistent with that future mindset. 

In 2008 we found that the language of lifetime and legacy giving was different, paralleling findings from the field of temporal decision making, and the wider field of construal level theory. We share these findings below, together with our more recent thinking on how to add genuinely more value for the donor and enhance the wellbeing that can accrue from the legacy decision making process. 

Our original findings are as detailed below:  

Abstract versus concrete  

When making decisions about the present, individuals prefer to think in terms of concrete information. Asking for a one-time donation by indicating what a donation at specific levels will buy is therefore a good strategy to adopt. Telling a donor that £20 will provide a tent or immunize a child would be an example of a concrete appeal. When making decisions about the future though, individuals prefer to think in the abstract and will thus pay more attention to the general approach that would be taken to providing aid. This general approach should play to the abstract values of the organization—for example, compassion in the context of international relief, human respect and dignity in context of healthcare, and so on. All of these themes work better in soliciting legacies than talking about specific and immediate needs.  

Superordinate versus subordinate 

In focusing on the present, informing people about the mechanics of how an organization is achieving its goals would be the optimal strategy. For a university, talking to donors about library provision, lecture rooms, computing facilities and faculty would all be appropriate. These are the nuts and bolts that allow a university to pursue its mission. In persuading individuals to leave a bequest, however, research suggests that stressing the superordinate, or what the successful achievement of the mission will deliver for society, would be a better approach. In the educational context we might thus talk to donors about the economic impact and growth for their community and/or the enhanced life chances that greater equality of access can offer disadvantaged communities in the city or State.  Why is more important for the future focus than how.  

Decontextualized versus contextualized 

Giving in the present can be bolstered by focusing on the organization and the help it is providing now to beneficiaries. The rationale offered for support is very much set within the context of the organization. We 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, in the annual fund context a hospice might talk to the quality and nature of the service that it provides to patients and families. For legacies though they might do better to focus on what that service delivers for society, e.g. “Our loved ones might one day benefit from palliative care,” “No one should be allowed to suffer unnecessarily as they approach the end of life,” and so on. Rather than talk about the immediate benefits of patient care per se, the benefit to the local community and the wider society should be emphasized. 

But our thinking on these issues has moved on. 

The mistake that many organizations make when thinking about legacy giving is to focus on values indiscriminately and in doing so, lose track of the difference that making such a decision in the here and now can make to the legacy decision maker. As an example, blanket statements are made about what people’s legacy will be e.g. your legacy to end illiteracy, your legacy to end child abuse, your legacy to end cancer, etc. 

But if we want to stimulate greater wellbeing for supporters, rather than articulate what the organization can achieve with the donors’ gifts we focus on why that is a statement about the donors’ lives and who they are. 

Put another way, instead of “you can become a part of our mission”, we say, “we can become part of your legacy.” 

Thus, Human Rights Watch might raise bequests by talking about the values implicit in the work that they do. OR they could focus on celebrating the values of the donor “your legacy gift can be one of the easiest and most thoughtful ways to leave a lasting tribute to your belief in human freedom and dignity.” 

That statement is made in the here and now – and so instead of delaying the gratification for what a future gift can accomplish, we can deliver the significance that donors should experience as they make that decision. The significance of the gift does not lie in what is eventually accomplished, but rather in the value implicit in the decision that they make today.  

And instead of portraying our respect for the donor as something donors earn by leaving a gift, we give them our respect before they leave the gift.  

If you’re interested in finding our more about how philanthropic psychology can enhance legacy giving – our online Certificate in Legacy/Bequest Fundraising is for you. The next class starts on 13 March 2023 and is available to book now.  

Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang

August 2021