Creating a Bequest Strategy for an NFP

Lesson 6
9 minutes

Channel and Positioning Strategy

This lesson decides where bequest messaging belongs across the organisation’s donor channels, what job each channel should do, and how gifts in wills fit the wider income strategy without becoming a scattered copy exercise.

Listen to the lesson

Messaging strategy is not the same as writing the message

This lesson does not teach bequest copywriting. Writing Bequest Messaging That Converts owns the execution: web copy, email structure, print language, conversion points and worked examples.

It also does not re-teach the death-to-continuity principle. Introduction to Bequests owns that shift: do not lead with mortality; connect the gift to identity, values and the donor’s wish for something meaningful to continue.

This lesson asks the strategy question that sits above both: where should bequest messaging live, what role should each channel play, and how should it support the wider fundraising system?

Without channel strategy, bequest messaging becomes random. A sentence gets added to an appeal because there is spare space. A website page sits three clicks deep with no traffic path. A gala speech makes a sudden legacy ask to the wrong audience. A regular giving upgrade email carries three competing asks. The organisation thinks it is “mentioning bequests,” but supporters experience inconsistency.

The Australian context makes positioning more important. Bequest messaging should not lean on inheritance tax, estate tax or death-duty incentives because Australia does not have them. It should not mimic UK-style tax-led legacy campaigns. It has to earn attention through values, continuity, trust and the organisation’s future relevance.

Dr Russell James’s research also matters here. His work links charitable bequest decisions to autobiography, identity and visualising oneself. That does not mean every channel needs a sentimental legacy story. It means channel strategy should create the right conditions for a supporter to connect their life, values and future hopes with the organisation’s work.

A bequest channel strategy is therefore not “put the same message everywhere.” It is a set of choices: which channels create visibility, which invite permission, which deepen identity, which support stewardship, which trigger a handoff, and which should stay focused on another fundraising job.

The Bequest Channel Positioning Architecture

1
The strategic position
What it is: The core role gifts in wills play in the organisation’s public and donor-facing story.
What it must decide: Whether bequests are positioned as continuity, future impact, belonging, gratitude, a practical will-making option, or part of long-term organisational resilience. In Australia, they should not be positioned as a tax-saving tactic or an urgent death-led decision.
Shown in use: A weak position says: “Remember us in your will so we can keep funding our services.” A stronger position says: “For supporters who want this work to continue beyond their lifetime, a gift in a will is one way to carry their values forward.” That line is not final copy for every channel. It is the strategic centre of gravity that keeps later copy from drifting into pressure, organisational need or imported tax logic.
2
The channel job
What it is: The specific role each channel plays in the bequest pathway.
What it must decide: A channel should not carry every job at once. Some channels create awareness. Some help supporters self-identify. Some provide practical information. Some support stewardship. Some should simply route the supporter to a person or page.
Shown in use: A weak channel plan says: “Mention bequests in newsletters, appeals, events and the website.”
A stronger channel plan says: Website: accurate information and self-service pathway for people already interested. Regular donor newsletter: light continuity-led visibility once or twice a year. Relationship manager conversation: permission-based exploration where relationship depth exists. Supporter-care email: approved information and routing after an enquiry. Event remarks: values-led normalisation only, not a detailed ask. Stewardship update: continued connection for disclosed-intention supporters. The strategy is not more channels. It is clearer jobs.
3
The audience-stage fit
What it is: Matching the channel to the audience’s relationship stage and the level of attention agreed in the audience strategy.
What it must decide: Universal visibility audiences should not receive the same message as relationship-managed supporters. A new emergency donor should not receive the same bequest treatment as a long-loyal monthly donor who has attended briefings and asked for will wording.
Shown in use: A weak audience fit says: “Everyone receives the same bequest email.” A stronger audience fit says: “Broad supporters see occasional low-pressure visibility. Warm-base supporters receive continuity-led cultivation. Relationship-managed supporters may receive personal follow-up where appropriate. Disclosed-intention supporters receive stewardship that reflects their contact preference.” This keeps channel strategy aligned with the portfolio governance from Lesson 3 without re-teaching prospect identification.
4
The timing and rhythm
What it is: How often and in what moments bequest messaging appears.
What it must decide: Bequest visibility should be regular enough to normalise the option, but not so frequent that it feels like pressure or competes with every other donor action.
Shown in use: A weak rhythm says: “Add a bequest paragraph to every appeal.” A stronger rhythm says: “Use a planned annual rhythm: one values-led newsletter feature, one website refresh, one supporter-care reminder, one relationship-manager prompt for approved portfolios, and ongoing stewardship touchpoints for disclosed-intention supporters.” The rhythm should make the option visible without making supporters feel pursued.
5
The income-stream fit
What it is: How bequest messaging sits alongside appeals, regular giving, major gifts, campaigns, events and donor care.
What it must decide: Bequests should integrate with other income streams without hijacking them. A tax appeal should still do its tax appeal job. A regular giving upgrade should not become a legacy ask. A major donor conversation should not treat a bequest as a substitute for current giving unless that is genuinely the donor’s preference.
Shown in use: A weak integration rule says: “Add legacy giving wherever we talk about support.” A stronger integration rule says: “Each fundraising channel keeps its primary job. Bequest positioning may appear where it naturally supports continuity, future commitment or supporter identity, but it should not compete with the channel’s immediate purpose.” This protects both current income and long-term legacy development.
6
The handoff design
What it is: What happens when a supporter responds to bequest messaging in any channel.
What it must decide: Every channel carrying a bequest message needs a response pathway: who receives replies, who sends information, who records the signal, who reviews next steps, and who owns follow-up.
Shown in use: A weak handoff says: “Replies go to the fundraising inbox.” A stronger handoff says: “Every bequest channel has a named response owner. Website forms route to supporter care. Event replies route to the bequest lead. Relationship-manager signals are recorded in the CRM within two working days. High-sensitivity responses follow the escalation pathway from Lesson 2.” A channel without a handoff is visibility without ownership.
7
The message governance rule
What it is: The rule that keeps positioning consistent while allowing channels to sound natural.
What it must decide: Who approves the bequest positioning, what language must remain consistent, what can flex by channel, and when material is reviewed.
Shown in use: A weak governance rule says: “Use the legacy paragraph when needed.” A stronger governance rule says: “The bequest lead owns strategic positioning. Marketing owns channel adaptation. Legal identity, ABN, DGR wording, advice-boundary language and gift wording cannot be changed without approval. Channel-specific copy may vary in tone and length, but must keep the same strategic position: optional, values-led, continuity-focused and non-tax-led.” This is where the strategy hands off to Writing Bequest Messaging That Converts for execution.
8
The signal review loop
What it is: The process for interpreting what channel responses are telling the organisation.
What it must decide: Which signals matter, who reviews them, and how they change the program. Opens and impressions are weaker than replies, information requests, wording downloads, event conversations, disclosed intentions and stewardship preferences.
Shown in use: A weak review says: “The bequest email had a good open rate.” A stronger review says: “The quarterly channel review looks at meaningful signals: information requests, replies, wording downloads, supporter-care questions, event follow-ups, relationship-manager notes, disclosed intentions and opt-outs. The review updates channel rhythm, audience fit and handoff capacity.” The aim is not to prove that a message was seen. The aim is to learn which channels are creating responsible movement through the pathway.

The message is everywhere, but the strategy is nowhere

Wattle Street Legal Centre has decided to “make bequests visible this year.” The intention is sound. The execution is scattered.

Marketing adds a gift-in-will line to the tax appeal. The regular giving manager adds a legacy paragraph to an upgrade email. The CEO mentions bequests in a gala speech. The website page has suggested wording, but no route into supporter care. A board member asks whether a paid social campaign should target older followers. The donor newsletter carries a moving client story, but the bequest paragraph at the bottom shifts abruptly into organisational need: “Please leave a gift in your will so we can keep the doors open.”

No one has written a channel strategy. Each team is making a reasonable local decision. Together, they have created noise.

A long-loyal donor, Graham Ives, replies to the regular giving upgrade email:

“I already give monthly and was actually interested in the will information, but I was not sure whether this email was asking me to upgrade, leave a gift in my will, or both.”

The problem is not the sentence Graham read. It is the absence of channel architecture.

A stronger strategic response would be:

“Stop adding bequest lines opportunistically. Assign each channel a job. The tax appeal remains focused on current giving. The regular giving journey may carry light continuity-led visibility twice a year, but not inside an upgrade ask. The website becomes the accurate information hub. The donor newsletter carries values-led normalisation. Relationship managers use approved prompts only for supporters in the appropriate audience tier. All responses route to supporter care and the bequest lead through the pathway map.”

That response does not write the copy. It makes the copy governable.

Wattle Street does not need more bequest mentions. It needs a positioning decision, a channel map and a handoff rule.

Build the bequest channel map

Before approving bequest copy, create a one-page channel strategy.

Use this structure:

1. State the strategic position.

Write:

“Bequests will be positioned as an optional, values-led way for supporters to continue the work beyond their lifetime. Messaging will not be tax-led, death-led, urgent or framed as a substitute for current giving.”

2. Assign each channel a job.

Write:

“Each channel carrying bequest messaging must have one primary job: visibility, information, permission, relationship deepening, stewardship, or handoff. No channel should carry more than one primary bequest job without approval.”

3. Define the channel map.

Write:

“Website: [JOB]. Donor newsletter: [JOB]. Regular giving journey: [JOB]. Appeals: [JOB OR EXCLUSION]. Events: [JOB]. Relationship fundraising: [JOB]. Supporter care: [JOB]. Stewardship communications: [JOB].”

4. Protect other income streams.

Write:

“Bequest messaging must not weaken the primary purpose of an appeal, upgrade, campaign, event or major gift conversation. Where the channel’s immediate job is current income, bequest positioning may appear only if it supports the donor’s long-term identity without confusing the ask.”

5. Define timing and rhythm.

Write:

“Bequest visibility will follow an annual rhythm approved by [ROLE]. Frequency will be reviewed against supporter response, opt-outs, enquiry volume, staff capacity and stewardship capacity.”

6. Define the handoff rule.

Write:

“Every bequest channel must have a response pathway before publication: response owner, CRM stage, service standard, escalation rule and next-step owner.”

7. Define governance.

Write:

“[ROLE] owns bequest positioning. [ROLE] owns channel adaptation. Legal identity, ABN, DGR status, suggested wording and advice-boundary language must not be changed outside the approved source.”

8. Define the review loop.

Write:

“Channel performance will be reviewed every [QUARTER/SIX MONTHS] using meaningful signals: information requests, wording downloads, replies, supporter-care questions, relationship-manager notes, disclosed intentions, opt-outs and stewardship capacity.”

Bequest messaging becomes strategic when each channel has a defined job, audience, rhythm and handoff — not when the same legacy paragraph appears everywhere.

What this lesson establishes

This lesson sits above copy execution. Writing Bequest Messaging That Converts teaches how to write the materials. Introduction to Bequests teaches the death-to-continuity shift. This lesson decides where those messages belong in the fundraising system.

A bequest channel strategy should answer four questions before copy is approved: what position are we taking, which channels carry which job, how does the message fit the audience stage, and what happens when a supporter responds?

That discipline protects the donor experience. It also protects the wider income strategy. Bequest messaging should not hijack tax appeals, confuse regular giving upgrades, appear suddenly in event speeches, or sit passively on a web page with no handoff.

The strategic task is placement. Once placement is clear, copy can do its job.