This is where campaign theory meets the phone call
Three donor conversations that test whether you can apply bequest marketing principles when the response is uncertain, emotional or awkward.
A loyal donor asks whether the campaign was aimed at her.
It is Tuesday morning, just after the weekly fundraising team meeting. The gifts-in-wills campaign landed with supporters late last week, and the team has been talking through early responses. A few people have requested the information pack. One supporter emailed to say the letter was thoughtful. Another asked to be removed from future mailings on the topic.
The message from the bequest manager was clear: this campaign is not about pushing people. If someone wants information, help them. If someone feels unsure, slow down. If someone sounds uncomfortable, protect the relationship first.
You are back at your desk with a coffee going cold beside you. The donor care line rings. Lynette’s name appears on the screen. You recognise the name, not because she is a major donor or a known bequest prospect, but because she has been around for years. She has supported the homelessness service for nine years. Her gifts are steady but modest: $75 at Christmas, $50 to the winter appeal, and occasional extra gifts when emergency accommodation is in the news.
You open her record while the phone rings. There is no previous bequest conversation. No vulnerability note. No complaint history. No family details. Just years of quiet, reliable support.
You answer the call. Lynette is polite, but her voice is tight. She does not sound angry exactly. She sounds like someone trying to work out whether the relationship has changed without her realising it. She says: “I got your letter about wills. Are you expecting me to put the charity in my will now because I’ve donated for a long time?”
You know the campaign was appropriate. You know the letter was carefully written. You also know that none of that matters much if Lynette feels as though her loyalty has been turned into a target. If you apologise too strongly, you may make the campaign sound shameful or inappropriate. If you explain the campaign too quickly, you may confirm her fear that she has been identified and moved into a bequest pipeline. Your task is not to defend the campaign. It is not to turn the call into a bequest conversation. It is to answer the question underneath Lynette’s question: “Am I still just a valued supporter, or are you now expecting something more from me?”
Why B is right: This is the strongest response because it answers the fear before it manages the campaign process. Lynette is asking whether her loyalty has created an expectation. B gives a direct no, separates past giving from estate planning, protects her privacy, and avoids turning the call into a bequest conversation. It still gives her control over future contact, but only after reassurance has been established.
Why A is not as strong: A reduces pressure quickly, which is good. The problem is that it over-corrects. By immediately apologising and removing Lynette from future messages, the officer may accidentally make the campaign feel inappropriate or shameful. Lynette has not yet asked to be removed. She has asked whether the charity expects something from her. The first job is to answer that question clearly, not rush to close the topic down.
Why C is not as strong: C is warm and sounds donor-centred, but it moves too quickly into the campaign pathway. The phrase “people like you” also risks confirming Lynette’s concern that her giving history has put her in a category. Offering the information pack in this moment may feel polite to the fundraiser, but to Lynette it could feel like the original letter has simply continued inside the phone call.
Why D is not as strong: D tries to be transparent, but it gives Lynette the very signal she is worried about: that she was included because of her loyalty. Even with “no pressure” added at the end, the response still makes the supporter feel profiled. In a bequest conversation, reassurance is weakened when the donor hears that their history has been used to judge relevance.
Takeaway: When a donor asks whether you expect a gift in their will, do not treat the question as a bequest enquiry. Treat it first as a trust moment. The strongest response restores control, protects privacy and lets the donor decide whether the conversation goes any further.