By Sean Triner
First published by Fundraising and Philanthropy Magazine in July 2011
Lunch with the head of fundraising at a major Australian charity had to be an Indian curry. Like me, this fundraising boss is English-born and we exiles do love our curry. Fish and chips were usurped by curry as the British national dish a very long time ago.
What better way to spend a beautiful Sydney winter day than munching an eggplant madras, playing poppadom geography* and talking about … death.
This charity gets a lot of money from bequests. My friend told me that about two thirds of these bequests were unknown – people who didn’t seem to have any connection with the charity.
So, should it be spending more on marketing bequests to the ‘general public’? A good point and a good question. Initiatives like ‘Include a Charity’ and ‘Make a Will Week’ are certainly pushing that way, and it is good for the sector that they exist. But what about general marketing spend for bequests?
On a curry-spotted napkin, we ran through a little thought experiment.
Curry-fuelled fundraising conundrum
A large charity received 400 bequests last year. This was a normal year, and the bequests were worth an average of $50,000 each, meaning a bequest income of $20 million. Of these bequests, only 150 (just over a third) were ‘known’ to the charity, perhaps as donors or volunteers. So, about $12.5 million came in from unknown people.
At first glance, it would not be an unreasonable approach to divide spend – say one third – for targeting the organisation’s own database and two thirds onto the wider public.
But let’s think this through. We have a finite budget (never enough, of course) and need to spend that wisely. Wisdom in marketing manifests itself through targeting, so we need to target people more likely to write a will and, put crudely, realise that gift sooner or later.
Age is the obvious place to start. Older people are better bequest prospects. People tend to change their will just before they die.
And, of course, we should target people who are more likely to put us in their will.
Skip the next four points if your head hurts or it’s too early for maths:
1. In the example above, it seems at first glance that non-donors are more likely to leave a legacy, but let’s just think about that. The charity has 200,000 donor records on the database.
2. Around 138,000 Australians die every year, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Of those, 400 mentioned this charity in their will. That means about one in every 345 that died put this charity in their will.
3. The average Australian is 37 years old. Looking at the charity donor records, people on that database are on average 50 years old, so they are more likely to die sooner. Let’s assume that they are twice as likely to die in the next decade.
4. That means of my 200,000 donors, I can assume that 2,752 died last year. Of those, 150 put my charity in their will. That is one in 18.
In other words, someone who has donated to my charity is about 20 times more likely to put that charity in their will.
With such a difference in expected success, and easier methods to communicate to them, it makes sense to target those in your database first.
If you are in a relationship with someone, you can also work with them to make sure they put a residuary or percentage of estate in their will for you. These types of bequest can be ten times more valuable.
Do the madras math
My conclusion is that when you see something really obvious and use it to make strategic or even tactical decisions, think it through first. Look at the data and do some maths. You could be making a mistake.
By the way, I used Australian Bureau of Statistics to do most of this work, but came across a great site where you can see how long you have left. All things being equal, I should now make it to 14 April, 2051.
I am just putting in an appointment in my diary – I hope the run up to that day is interesting, but not as deadly as Roy Batty’s (Rutger Hauer) “Time to Die” in Bladerunner.
*Rules for poppadom geography: Break the poppadom into bits and see if you can spot the outline of countries and states. France is always there, and usually Argentina and Tasmania, too.





