This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Scaife, Wendy A. (2010) Individuals in a mass market environment: Australian bequest donors seek better communication from charities. In Russell-Bennett, R & Rundle-Thiele, S (Eds.) Connecting Thought and Action: proceedings of the 2010 International Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference, Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, pp. 177-180. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/48748/ Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source: http://www.icebergevents.com/insmconference/

2010 INTERNATIONAL NONPROFIT & SOCIAL MARKETING CONFERENCE (INSM) 15-16 JULY 2010 QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY, BRISBANE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS Connecting thought and action Jointly hosted by gold sponsor URBANTRANS A U S T R A L I A N E W Z E A L A N D bronze sponsor www.insmconference.org

Published by: Faculty of Business Queensland University of Technology GPO Box 2434 Brisbane 4001 Telephone: +617 3864 2894 Facsimile: +61 7 3864 1811 Email: rebekah.bennett@qut.edu.au 2010 International Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference Editors: Rebekah Russell-Bennett and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele 15 July 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Copyright rests with the authors. ISBN: 978-1-74107-320-1

WELCOME LETTER Social marketing is a powerful tool for individual and social change which has been used by governments and not for profit organizations for nearly 40 years. Although most often associated with health and road safety, social marketing can be implemented across a wide spectrum of behaviours and is a credible approach to behaviour change endorsed by governments and NFPs worldwide. The Australian Preventative Health Taskforce, for example, outlines a series of recommendations that are aimed at changing the choices that Australians make through the use of effective social marketing strategies. Australia has a vision to become the healthiest country by 2020. Social marketing and the nonprofit sector are both central to achieving the vision. The Healthy Australia 2020 report places an emphasis on government, community groups and industry working together. The aim of this conference is to encourage, highlight, and promote such collaborative relationships between the social marketing academy and key stakeholder constituencies. The International Nonprofit and Social Marketing (INSM) 2010 conference jointly hosted by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and Griffith University was held in Brisbane, Australia on July 15 and. INSM 2010 received over 80 academic paper submissions from 10 countries including Canada, Australia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, US, Georgia, UK, Ireland, India, New Zealand and 25 case study submissions from social marketing practitioners in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US and Hong Kong. Papers presented at INSM 2010 have been through a rigorous review process. Academic papers were subjected to a triple blind review process and case studies were reviewed by a panel. The proceedings of this conference meet the E1 requirement of the Australian Federal Government for research publications. INSM 2010 explores specific issues including food, obesity, tobacco, alcohol, environment, travel, health management in addition to debates on social change. Interest and subsequent participation from industry was strong and has served to meet our conference theme of connections. INSM 2010 established links between industry partners such as Queensland s Department of Health, Bankstown Women s Health Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia, SA Health, and Colmar Brunton Research and University researchers. Thanks to the Organising Committee: Conference Chair: Program and Marketing Industry Liaison: Nonprofit Sector Liaison: Academic Reviews: Industry Case Studies and Best Paper Awards: Events Liaison: Promotion: Website and Social Media: Event Manager: Associate Professor Rebekah Russell-Bennett, QUT Dr Susan Dann, Independent Board Member Dr Wendy Scaife, QUT Associate Professor Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Griffith University Dr Josephine Previte, The University of Queensland Professor Judy Drennan, QUT Dr Marie-Louise Fry, Griffith University Dr Stephen Dann, Australian National University Jodie Parker, Iceberg Events The next INSM Conference will be held in 2012 and the host university will be announced later this year. Associate Professor Rebekah Russell-Bennett Conference Chair

Individuals in a mass market environment: Australian bequest donors seek better communication from charities Dr Wendy Scaife 1 FPRIA, MFIA Australian Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies Queensland University of Technology 1 Dr Wendy Scaife researches and lectures in philanthropy and fundraising. Her research includes team roles on the Giving Australia project to look at who gives to what and why, as well as work for a local authority on building a culture of philanthropy within a city. Other investigations include aspects of giving by high net worth Australians and the decision processes behind bequests. She has reviewed the training of fundraisers in Australia, co-contributed a chapter on corporate philanthropy to an international handbook and is involved in benchmarking studies of school and university fundraising. Wendy has completed projects on best practice fundraising in the arts, sport and medical research and was on the Steering Committee for Research Australia Philanthropy and the Reference Group for the National Compact consultation. Wendy was formerly a state CEO of the Leukaemia Foundation, and its national Deputy CEO.

Introduction Swelling social need and competing calls on government funds have heightened the philanthropic dollar s value. Yet, Australia is not regarded as having a robust giving culture: while 86% of adults give, a mere 16% plan their giving with those who do donating four times as much as spontaneous givers (Giving Australia, 2005). Traditionally, the prime planned giving example is a charitable bequest, a revenue stream not prevalent here (Baker, 2007). In fact, Baker s Victorian probate data shows under 5% of estates provide a charitable bequest and just over 1% of estate assets is bequeathed. The UK, in contrast, sources 30% and the US 10% of charitable income through bequests (NCVO, 2004; Sargeant, Wymer and Hilton, 2006). Australian charities could boost bequest giving. Understanding the donor market, which has or may remember them in their will is critical. This paper reports donor perceptions of Australian charities bequest communication/ marketing. The data forms part of a wider study of Australian donors bequest attitudes and behaviour. Charities spend heavily on bequest promotion, from advertising to personal selling to public relations and promotion. Infrastructure funds are scarce so guidance on what works for donors is important. Guy and Patton (1988) made their classic call for a nonprofit marketing perspective and identify the need for charities to better understand the motivations and behaviour of their supporters. In similar vein, this study aims to improve the way nonprofits and givers interact; and ultimately, enhance the giving experience and thus multiply planned giving participation. Academically, it offers insights to Australian bequest motivations and attitudes not studied empirically before. Method A survey instrument applied in the US and UK marketplaces (Sargeant and Hilton, 2005; Sargeant, Wymer and Hilton, 2006) was refined following a literature review and three focus groups. Two groups were with bequest officers from various causes to draw upon their understanding and language. A third canvassed people who had included a charitable bequest in their will, for their terminology and attitudes. An advisory panel comprising bequest specialists also provided feedback on the final 30-question survey. The bequest communication/marketing was probed through closed and open-ended questioning. The open-ended mechanism captured particular respondent experiences and suggestions. The piloted survey was circulated through six partner charities to a random donor selection, covering both bequestors and non-bequestors for comparison. Surveys were returned in a reply paid envelope to the university. Some 3184 invitations were sent and 1030 responses generated, a 32% response rate, which does flag the caution of a possible non-response bias. SPSS obtained descriptive statistics and qualitative research tool NVivo7 was applied to distil themes from the open-ended responses. The advisory group helped with discussion of the data and its implications. Results and Discussion Respondents believe Australian charities should better communicate with them about bequesting. More survey participants perceived charities could lift their practice (44%) than were satisfied (32%). Almost half of all bequestors (49%) wanted a better bequest ask compared to 37% of non-bequestors. In keeping with overseas findings (Sargeant and Hilton, 2005) bequest pledgers were particularly alert to the charity s communication with them, perhaps as decision reassurance. Like their UK counterparts, Australian Page 178

respondents were comfortable with mail and bequest mentions in the organisation s publications (Sargeant and Jay 2002). Nine key suggestions emerged, listed below in priority order with illustrative quotes from the open-ended response device beside. Donor recommendations Charities should not be too persistent or pushy when seeking bequests Community awareness is low and needs to be carefully lifted. Suggestions for media outlets: bus stops, government campaign, workplace presentations. Demonstrate how bequest funds are/will be spent. A better understanding of, and process help is needed. This choice is deeply personal and individual. Approaches by charities need always to be sensitive. Emphasise the cause and value to their organisation Highlight the many donor benefits. Illustrative comments Do not be too aggressive about it; lately there is an unwelcome insistence (some might say bullying) that makes no appeal to me and which I resist More promotional campaigns to educate people and to ask them directly to leave a bequest. Advertising would be a good way but unfortunately that costs money that could be used for [name of cause] I really dislike all the advertising material sent. I feel it is a waste of money. Communicate the ways bequests might have a different value/purpose to donations made now Make it easy, put instructions on websites, provide free legal assistance etc. I think that if a person wants to leave something they know within their own heart long before they pass....always a delicate matter. sometimes a charity asking for bequests can make one feel guilty.... any earning a bequest will need to be persuasive as to the worth and significance of its cause. My bequest is made because [charity] have offered me something in return, which is important to me. These results suggest bequest marketing is keenly sensitive and ideally calls for individual outreach. Yet numbers, geography, resources and the fact that any donor may bequest make some mass marketing inevitable. The need for a broader climate that reshapes Australian bequest norms is identified, and given the very gradual success of similar overseas initiatives (Dauncey, 2005) may be worthy. So too is the role for some pragmatic process help. A key missing message from charities appears to be how bequest funds will be applied differently to a standard donation. A greater trigger to give in this special, potentially large way is being sought by donors but not often proffered by charities. Conclusions and implications This research points to half of existing bequestors being critical of bequest marketing prompting concern for how charities are currently allocating their marketing spend and key messages. Various tensions emerge: mass versus individual, needing to highlight but never pressure, the imperative to find benefits that appeal to the donor while still retaining the essential altruism of giving behaviour point to bequest marketing being a sophisticated practice that would do well to be informed by as much individual donor research as possible. Given the advantages of new technology, nonprofit marketers may be able to better resolve these tensions and garner the input of this planned form of giving in larger numbers. Meantime, the imperative is to promote bequests, using sensitive language and approaches, building a case for special ongoing future need, and helping people through what is perceived as a cumbersome and offputting process for this largely unheard market. Page 179

References Baker, C., 2007. How Victorians leave their money - patterns of transmission and giving, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. Dauncey, T., 2005. The UK's Legacy Promotion Campaign: a review after nearly two years of public.influence. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 10, 1, 54-58. Giving Australia, 2005. Giving Australia: Research on philanthropy in Australia (No. FaCS2086.0510). Department of Family & Community Services, Australian Government, Canberra. Guy, B. S., Patton, W. E., 1988. The Marketing Of Altruistic Causes: Understanding why people help. The Journal of Services Marketing 2, 1, 5-16. NCVO Almanac, 2004. National Council of Voluntary Organizations, London. Pharoah, C., Street, S., 2001. An update on CAF's 500 top fundraising charities, Charities Aid Foundation, West Malling, UK. Sargeant, A., Hilton, T., 2005. The final gift: targeting the potential charity legator. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10, 1, 3-16. Sargeant, A., Wymer, W., Hilton, T., 2006. Marketing bequest club membership: an exploratory study of bequest club pledgers, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 384-404. Sargeant, A., Jay, E., 2004. Determinants of U.S Donor Behaviour: The Case of Bequests, www.charityfundraising.org Page 180