I just read Michael Rosen’s newest blog post, discussing the work of Stephen Pidgeon, who is presenting at the AFP conference in Baltimore later this month.
Pidgeon not only believes that we’re talking about bequests wrong, he also makes a fascinating point about bequest marketing:
“Linking bequest marketing with planned giving is as daft as using direct mail to solicit major gifts. Most bequests will come from ordinary supporters who passionately believe in the work of the organisation. They will be comfortable, not wealthy, and they know they should write a will. They do not relate to the concept of ‘planning their estate.’”
As I wrote in a previous post, those of us in the planned giving world need to recognize that the vast majority of “planned gifts” come through bequests and that building donor loyalty, increasing donor retention, and crafting good marketing are the best ways to close bequest gifts.
It also leads me to wonder: Are we actually looking at what organizations and donors need from our development programs/staff and are we requiring the correct competencies from our fundraisers?
Do we need planned giving technicians –trained to craft complex gifts of assets - at every organization? Should we insist on more of that expertise from our major gifts staff, who are the folks working with the donors who have the most need/interest in more complex planning? I’ve known far too many major gift officers who are neither trained to nor capable of having these conversation with their donors, but does that mean we need a separate planned gift officer? Or do we demand a greater competency in complex gifts from major gifts officers? If all you do is solicit larger annual gifts, can you really consider yourself a major gifts officer? I'd venture to say the answer is "no".
It seems to me that, if our development departments are to staff up in a way that reflects the reality of how our donors are giving, many organizations should, in addition to hiring better trained major gifts staff, hire donor relations/retention specialists with bequest marketing expertise and the ability to discuss bequest giving with donors. (Of course, one of the reasons we need to have bequest marketing managed in-house is because the majority of our direct response agencies are failing us by just using the same old, totally ineffective marketing tropes, requiring costly and parallel marketing schemes with vendors who DO understand good bequest marketing. Perhaps bequest marketing competencies should be required of our direct response staff and our mail agencies as well).
I can see how this might still leave unmet needs within a development department, but my point is that we need to fundamentally rethink our fundraising silos, job titles, and required competencies.