Creating a Bequest Strategy for an NFP

Lesson 8
9 minutes

Intermediary Channel Strategy

This lesson decides where solicitors, financial advisers, will-writers and will-making partners fit in the bequest strategy — and how the organisation governs those channels without outsourcing donor trust, legal boundaries or stewardship responsibility.

Listen to the lesson

Intermediary channels are not shortcuts

This lesson does not teach how to build referral relationships. Building Referral Relationships with Solicitors, Financial Advisors and Will-Writers owns that execution: how to approach professional advisers, what to say, how to build trust, and how to maintain the relationship.

The strategic question here comes first: should intermediary channels be part of this organisation’s bequest plan, and under what rules?

Intermediaries matter because many bequest decisions happen close to will-making. The Facts Pack notes that Include a Charity attributes much of the Australian intention-action gap to the fact that solicitors and will-writers rarely raise the charitable option when drafting wills. The UK Behavioural Insights Team trial with Remember A Charity and Co-operative Legal Services found that charitable gifts in wills increased from about 5% to about 10.8% when solicitors raised the charitable option; this is UK evidence, not an Australian experiment, but it is the strongest causal evidence available and Australian bodies apply it carefully.

That evidence supports intermediary strategy. It does not mean every partnership is good strategy.

A solicitor, adviser, online will platform or will-writing campaign can help normalise charitable gifts in wills. It can also create risks: unclear independence, poor data handling, implied legal advice, pressure on older supporters, tax-led language imported from another jurisdiction, weak handoffs, or a partner who treats the charity’s supporter base as a marketing list.

The organisation cannot outsource judgement. It remains responsible for the donor experience, the accuracy of its legal identity and DGR wording, the way supporters are invited, the records it keeps, and the stewardship that follows.

An intermediary channel should earn its place in the strategy. It should have a defined purpose, a governed audience, a clean boundary, a handoff into the bequest pathway, and a review point where the organisation can continue, change or exit.

The Intermediary Channel Strategy Screen

1
Strategic role
What it is: The specific job the intermediary channel is meant to do in the bequest strategy.
What it must decide: The organisation needs to know whether the channel is for will-making access, professional normalisation, donor education, warm-base conversion, regional reach, estate-planning confidence, or stewardship support. “More bequests” is not precise enough.
Shown in use: A weak strategy says: “We should partner with solicitors because they influence wills.” A stronger strategy says: “The role of this channel is to normalise charitable gifts in wills among warm supporters who are already considering estate planning, and to provide a safe pathway to qualified advice without the organisation giving that advice.”
2
Audience fit
What it is: The decision about which supporter groups should be exposed to the intermediary channel.
What it must decide: The channel should align with the audience governance from Lesson 3. A will-writing offer to the full database may be inappropriate if the organisation cannot manage consent, sensitivity, service-user relationships or follow-up. A smaller warm-base group may produce better stewardship and lower risk.
Shown in use: A weak audience rule says: “Offer the will-writing webinar to everyone over 60.” A stronger audience rule says: “The first intermediary offer will go only to approved warm-base cultivation supporters with communication permission, no active sensitivity flag and a clear route into supporter care if they respond.”
3
Independence and trust
What it is: The rule that protects the donor’s independent decision-making.
What it must decide: The charity must not appear to control the donor’s legal advice, steer estate structure, or imply that a particular solicitor, adviser or platform is acting for the charity rather than the donor. The donor’s professional adviser must remain independent.
Shown in use: A weak partner statement says: “Our solicitor can help you leave a gift to us.” A stronger partner statement says: “We can share general gifts-in-wills information and details you may choose to take to your own qualified adviser. Any solicitor, adviser or will-writing provider advises you, not the charity.”
4
Boundary and wording governance
What it is: Control over the facts, claims and language used by both the organisation and the intermediary.
What it must decide: In Australia, bequest messaging must not imply inheritance-tax, estate-tax or death-duty benefits because those incentives do not exist here. It must use the correct legal name and ABN, state DGR status accurately, avoid personal tax advice, and make clear that suggested wording is not legal advice.
Shown in use: A weak governance rule says: “The partner can use our standard bequest paragraph.” A stronger governance rule says: “Any partner material that mentions the organisation must use the approved legal name, ABN, DGR wording, advice-boundary language and suggested wording. No partner may imply Australian inheritance-tax savings, recommend gift amount, or present the charity’s wording as legal advice.”
5
Handoff design
What it is: The pathway from intermediary activity back into the organisation’s bequest program.
What it must decide: The organisation needs to know what it will and will not receive from the intermediary, how supporter consent is captured, what is recorded, who follows up, and what happens when a donor discloses an intention.
Shown in use: A weak handoff says: “The platform will tell us who made a will.” A stronger handoff says: “The organisation will receive only supporter information that the supporter has consented to share. Every shared enquiry or disclosed intention will be recorded in the approved bequest stage, reviewed by the bequest lead, and assigned to the correct pathway outcome.”
6
Data and consent control
What it is: The rule for protecting supporter data and communication permission.
What it must decide: A charity should not hand its supporter list to a partner simply because the partner has a will-writing offer. The organisation must decide who contacts supporters, what data is shared, what consent is required, and how opt-outs are honoured.
Shown in use: A weak data rule says: “Send the partner the list so they can invite people.” A stronger data rule says: “The organisation will contact supporters directly using approved copy. No supporter data will be shared with an intermediary unless the supporter has actively requested contact or given clear consent for that specific purpose.”
7
Capacity and stewardship fit
What it is: The test of whether the organisation can handle the response the channel may create.
What it must decide: Intermediary channels can create sudden enquiries. If the bequest lead, supporter care and CRM are not ready, the channel will produce leakage and risk. The commonly cited sector ROI for gifts-in-wills fundraising is around $28 returned for every $1 invested over the long term, but that does not make intermediary activity a short-term cash tactic. It still needs capacity.
Shown in use: A weak capacity assumption says: “The partner will manage the process.” A stronger capacity rule says: “No intermediary campaign will proceed unless supporter care can respond within the service standard, the bequest lead can review new signals, and stewardship capacity exists for disclosed-intention supporters.”
8
Review and exit rule
What it is: The decision point for whether the intermediary channel continues.
What it must decide: The organisation should define success and risk indicators before launch. These should include meaningful signals, not just attendance or clicks: information requests, consented disclosures, supporter feedback, opt-outs, complaints, advice-boundary issues, quality of partner conduct and stewardship load.
Shown in use: A weak review says: “We will see how the partnership goes.” A stronger review says: “After six months, the partnership will be reviewed against consented enquiries, disclosed intentions, opt-outs, complaints, staff workload, partner compliance with approved wording, and whether the channel is strengthening or weakening donor trust.”

The will-writing offer that looks better than it is

Saltbush Community Food Relief has been approached by a national online will-writing provider. The provider offers a co-branded “free simple will” campaign for supporters and says it can launch within four weeks.

The offer is attractive. Around half to 60% of eligible Australians are estimated to have no valid will, and no will means no charitable gift. The provider also says that charities using its platform often receive more disclosed bequest intentions after the campaign.

The fundraising team reviews the proposal. The provider wants Saltbush to email all donors aged over 55. It also wants the charity to share supporter names and email addresses so the platform can send reminders. The sample landing page includes the line: “A charitable gift in your will may reduce tax for your estate.” The provider will report “expected future bequest value” based on supporter self-reporting. It is unclear whether supporters can choose what information is shared back with the charity.

At the same time, Saltbush has a small warm-base group: 740 long-term supporters with at least seven years of consistent giving, no current complaint flags, no no-solicitation preference, and a history of responding to future-focused stories. Supporter care is trained, but the bequest lead works three days a week.

The choice is not whether online will-writing is good or bad. The choice is whether this intermediary channel fits the strategy Saltbush is ready to run.

A strong strategic response would be:

“Do not accept the partner’s default campaign. Continue discussions only if the channel is redesigned around Saltbush’s governance rules: no supporter data shared without specific consent, no tax-led claims, approved legal identity and DGR wording only, invitation limited to the warm-base cultivation segment, clear supporter control over what is shared back, no expected future value reported as income, and a six-month review against enquiries, disclosures, opt-outs, complaints and stewardship load.”

That response keeps the possible value of the partnership. It also refuses the parts that would weaken the strategy.

Saltbush is not rejecting intermediary channels. It is making the partner fit the bequest program, rather than bending the program around the partner’s product.

Write the intermediary channel strategy rule

Before entering any solicitor, adviser, will-writer or will-making partnership, write the strategy rule that determines whether the channel belongs in the plan.

Use this structure:

1. Define the channel role.

Write:

“The purpose of intermediary channels in this bequest strategy is to [normalise charitable gifts in wills / improve will-making access / provide a pathway to qualified advice / support warm-base cultivation / extend regional reach]. Intermediary channels are not a substitute for the organisation’s own stewardship, records or advice boundaries.”

2. Define eligible audiences.

Write:

“Intermediary activity may be offered only to audience groups approved under the bequest audience strategy. No intermediary offer may be targeted by age, assumed childlessness or inferred estate capacity alone.”

3. Protect independence.

Write:

“Any solicitor, adviser, will-writer or will-making provider involved in this strategy advises the supporter, not the organisation. The organisation will not recommend estate structure, gift amount, family provision decisions, personal tax outcomes or legal validity.”

4. Control wording.

Write:

“Partner materials must use the organisation’s approved legal name, ABN, DGR wording, suggested wording and advice-boundary language. Partner materials must not imply Australian inheritance-tax, estate-tax or death-duty benefits.”

5. Control data sharing.

Write:

“Supporter data will not be shared with an intermediary unless the supporter has clearly consented to that specific sharing. Supporters must be able to choose what information, if any, is shared back with the organisation.”

6. Define handoff and records.

Write:

“Every consented enquiry, information request or disclosed intention from an intermediary channel must enter the bequest pathway with a recorded source, stage, owner, next step and review date.”

7. Set capacity limits.

Write:

“No intermediary activity will launch unless supporter care, the bequest lead and the CRM process can handle expected enquiries, escalation and stewardship follow-up.”

8. Define reporting boundaries.

Write:

“Intermediary-channel reporting will separate activity, enquiries, consented disclosures, opt-outs, complaints, stewardship load and realised income. Self-reported future gift value will not be treated as confirmed income.”

9. Set the review and exit rule.

Write:

“Every intermediary relationship will be reviewed every [six/twelve] months against supporter experience, consent quality, partner compliance, advice-boundary safety, meaningful bequest signals, stewardship capacity and complaints. The organisation may pause or exit the channel if trust, compliance or capacity standards are not met.”

An intermediary channel is useful only when it strengthens the organisation’s bequest pathway, protects donor independence and returns consented signals the charity can steward.

What this lesson establishes

Intermediary channels can matter because many bequest decisions happen around will-making and professional advice. The evidence that asking can shift behaviour gives solicitors, advisers and will-writers strategic relevance.

But relevance is not enough. A bequest strategy should not adopt a partner’s campaign simply because the partner offers reach, convenience or a technology platform.

This lesson defines the strategic test: what job the intermediary channel does, which audience it reaches, how donor independence is protected, who controls wording, what data is shared, how responses return to the pathway, whether the organisation has capacity to steward the result, and when the partnership is reviewed or ended.

The execution of referral relationships belongs to Building Referral Relationships with Solicitors, Financial Advisors and Will-Writers. This lesson decides whether the channel belongs in the plan at all.