Testing the Effectiveness of Fundraiser Job Titles in Charitable Bequest and Complex Gift Planning

This study explores the choices fundraisers make in crafting letters to acquire new donors for a human services organization, and whether the type of client served affects those choices. We use an experiment to control for organizational differences, and code the resulting letters written for elements identified in theory and practice, then perform an exploratory factor analysis to find patterns of co‐occurring variables. Writers tended to focus either on the quality of the organization or the unmet need in the community, but not both. Two of the factors, Universalism and Security, describe distinct personal value constructs that may reflect the preferences of the writer or the presumed preferences of the reader. Compared to participants writing for an older adult client base, participants writing for clients with mental illness were less likely to use a negative frame, more likely to use statistical evidence, and used lower expectations in describing successful client outcomes. Within letters, clients were described using three patterns: by describing a stranger who is worth helping because of intrinsic attributes; by describing a stranger who is worth helping because of their relationships within the social order; by describing the client group using facts and statistics, rather than an emotionally compelling story narrative.

Section: Notes For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Stories of strangers: Writing donor acquisition letters in the human services

Hansen

2020

“…Furthermore, the findings here about the use of avoiding strategies can be usefully combined with James III's () recent research testing the varying financial success of different fundraiser titles in helping fundraisers make contact with potential donors. The most common form of avoiding strategies found in the current project involved avoiding using the word “fundraiser” to describe their jobs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Despite these concerning conditions, systematic research on fundraisers is scarce, with the most comprehensive studies having been conducted over 20 years ago (Brittingham & Pezzullo, ; Kelly, , ). Recent fundraising research has focused on donors (e.g., Croson, Handy, & Shang, ) and on increasing the success of those engaged in fundraising (e.g., James III, ), rather than on understanding fundraisers' career choices and identity constructions. In the philanthropic field more broadly, Stewart () recently investigated how nonprofit executives experience turnover processes, but her research did not focus on the fundraising elements of such turnover.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing occupational identity threats and job turnover: How former and current fundraisers manage moments of stigmatized identities

Meisenbach

Rick

Brandhorst

2018

Maintaining a strong group of fundraisers amidst high turnover rates is essential to the financial health of nonprofit organizations. One issue potentially harming fundraisers' success and continued presence in the field is the negative reputation sometimes associated with fundraising work. This exploratory study uses Stigma Management Communication Theory and content analysis of in‐depth interviews with current and former university fundraisers to investigate how fundraisers communicatively manage stigmatizing messages associated with their occupation. The findings suggest that current fundraisers use a greater number and variety of stigma management strategies than former fundraisers described using. The findings also highlight the potential consequences and distinctions among ways of using humor to manage stigma messages. These findings can be translated into orientation and training programs for fundraisers, teaching them successful ways of framing their occupations and work.

“…For example, James (), in a test of alternative phrasings describing a charitable estate gift found that respondents were the least interested in making a gift when it was described using the formal term “bequest gift to charity,” but much more interested if the description used the less formal phrase “gift to charity in your will” (p. 1005). Separately, donors were much less willing to contact a fundraiser for help in making a complex charitable gift if the fundraiser's job title used industry insider language like “advancement” or “development,” than if it used simple descriptive language, like “donor advising” (James, , p. 165). Together with the current results, this suggests that, although likely requiring a determined effort for those who are technically proficient in complex charitable planning, intentionally shifting to language that is more informal will result in greater interest in such gifts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Describing complex charitable giving instruments: Experimental tests of technical finance terms and tax benefits

James

2018

Self Cite

Planned giving, including charitable remainder trusts, charitable gift annuities, remainder interest deeds, donor advised funds, and gifts of appreciated stocks and bonds, can offer substantial benefits to donors and provide needed support to charities. However, presenting complex charitable planning options creates unique challenges. Past experimental work demonstrates that social or emotional concerns motivate charitable giving decisions, but that financial or monetary reminders promote a market‐exchange mentality reducing both social concern and charitable donations. Consequently, some recommend eliminating references to tax benefits when introducing charitable planning options. Yet, tax benefits may be a motivational and socially acceptable form of donor benefit because they cost the charity nothing. A series of experiments measuring interest in pursuing various planned giving arrangements demonstrates that although using technical financial terms—including even the technically correct name of the instrument—does reduce interest, referencing tax benefits increases interest. Gratuitous technical finance references may engender a market‐exchange mindset and thereby reduce charitable interest. However, a simple description of donor tax benefits—a socially acceptable benefit also relevant for a market‐exchange mindset—can still motivate charitable giving. The experimental results suggest that when initially describing complex charitable options, practitioners should avoid technical financial terminology, but should mention, and even lead with, tax benefits.