Words for Real Conversations
This lesson gives staff practical, channel-specific language for raising gifts in wills, answering direct donor questions and responding to family-first objections without pressure or retreat.
Listen to the lesson
The wording has to carry the ethics
By this point in the course, the soft bequest offer is established. Staff know how to make the option visible without pressing for a decision.
Lesson 5 adds the next layer: what to say when the conversation is less neat.
A donor asks directly, “Should I leave you something in my will?”
Another says, “I’d like to help, but I need to look after my kids first.”
A supporter-care officer receives a handwritten note with a cheque.
A CEO is talking to a long-loyal donor after an event.
An email needs to mention gifts in wills without sounding like a mass-produced legacy brochure.
These moments need different constructions. Repeating the same soft offer everywhere makes staff sound scripted and can flatten the donor’s actual concern.
The standard is not clever language. It is controlled language. A good bequest line should do four things at once: answer the moment in front of you, keep the donor in control, avoid legal, tax or family advice, and make the next step proportionate.
The Australian boundaries matter here. A fundraiser may provide the charity’s correct legal name, ABN, DGR status, general descriptions of common gift types, why unrestricted gifts help, and a recommendation to speak with a qualified solicitor or adviser. A fundraiser must not advise how to structure an estate, how much to leave, whom to include or exclude, the donor’s personal tax outcome, or whether specific wording is legally valid.
That boundary does not weaken the conversation. It gives staff confidence. They do not need to become estate planners. They need to know which words are theirs to say.
Five bequest language constructions staff can actually use
-
1
The direct-question construction
When to use it: A donor asks directly, “Should I leave you something in my will?” or “Would a gift in my will help?”
What the staff member must do: Answer the value of the gift without telling the donor what they should do. The word “should” belongs to the donor, their family and their professional adviser, not to the charity.
What to say: “Only you can decide that, and it needs to sit properly alongside the people and responsibilities that matter to you. What I can say is that gifts in wills have a serious long-term impact here because they help future services beyond what annual donations can usually fund. If you are considering it, the safest next step is to talk it through with your solicitor. We can give you our correct legal name and ABN for that conversation.”
Why this works: It answers the question without grabbing the decision. It affirms family and personal responsibilities before describing organisational value. It gives one practical next step that sits inside the fundraiser’s role: correct charity details for a solicitor.
What not to say: “Yes, absolutely — it would make a huge difference, and even a small percentage would help.”
Why that fails: It turns a donor’s ethical question into a solicitation. It introduces structure and scale before the donor has had independent advice. It also risks making the donor feel that the charity has a preferred claim on the estate. -
2
The family-first objection construction
When to use it: A donor says, “I need to look after my kids first,” “My family comes first,” or “I don’t want my children to feel I’ve taken something away from them.”
What the staff member must do: Agree with the priority before saying anything about the charity. This is not an objection to overcome. It is a legitimate boundary.
What to say: “That makes complete sense. Your family responsibilities come first. Some people only think about a charitable gift after they have made provision for the people closest to them; others decide it is not right for them. Either way, we respect that. The important thing is that your will reflects your wishes and that you get proper advice.”
Why this works: It removes pressure immediately. It treats family provision as central, not as an obstacle to the charity’s goal. It also avoids telling the donor to leave a “small amount” or “percentage,” which would still be estate-structure advice.
What not to say: “You can look after your children and still leave just 1% to us.”
Why that fails: It sounds reassuring, but it crosses a line. The fundraiser does not know the estate, the family circumstances, the donor’s obligations or the risk of dispute. Family provision claims are a live risk under Australian state and territory succession law, especially where dependants may argue inadequate provision. -
3
The written mention construction
When to use it: A newsletter, appeal insert, receipt message, website paragraph or supporter email needs to mention gifts in wills without pretending the charity has a personal conversation with every reader.
What the staff member must do: Keep it plain, specific and modest. Written language has less context than a conversation, so it must not overreach.
What to write: “Some supporters choose to include [Charity Legal Name] in their will as a way of helping this work continue for future clients. A will is a personal legal document, so we always encourage supporters to speak with a qualified solicitor. The details most often needed are our full legal name: [full legal name], and ABN: [ABN].”
Why this works: It names the option clearly, gives useful details and directs the legal decision back to a solicitor. It does not rely on death-led urgency, tax claims or emotional pressure.
What not to write: “Your final gift can make sure no one is ever turned away.”
Why that fails: It over-claims permanence and impact. It also puts too much emotional weight on the donor’s estate decision. The Facts Pack warns against pressure, assumption and over-claiming because they undermine the trust the decision depends on. -
4
The in-person opening construction
When to use it: A fundraiser, CEO or board member is speaking with a long-loyal supporter at an event, visit or donor meeting, and the supporter has already raised the future of the work.
What the staff member must do: Make the transition conversationally, not as a pitch. In person, the donor can feel social pressure quickly, so the wording must make declining easy.
What to say: “You’re asking exactly the question we think about a lot: how this work stays strong beyond the next appeal. One part of that is annual giving. Another part, for some supporters, is a gift in their will. I’m not asking you to make any decision in this conversation. I’m naming it because it is one of the ways people plan for the future of a cause they have stayed close to.”
Why this works: It answers the supporter’s future concern and names gifts in wills as one legitimate planning route. It also explicitly removes the pressure to decide in the moment. It is different from the soft information-offer move because the point is not to send material; the point is to name the option honestly inside a live strategic conversation.
What not to say: “You’ve supported us for so long that I wondered whether you had thought about remembering us in your will.”
Why that fails: It may be common fundraising language, but it can sound as though loyalty has earned the charity the right to ask for an estate gift. The better version connects the issue to the future of the work, not to a claim on the donor’s loyalty. -
5
The phone or supporter-care construction
When to use it: A supporter-care staff member is handling an inbound call, receipt query, change of details, or a donor comment that touches on future support.
What the staff member must do: Keep the call bounded. Supporter-care staff should not improvise estate conversations, but they can respond professionally and route the donor to the right next step.
What to say when the donor raises it: “Yes, we can help with the charity details people usually need for their solicitor. I can confirm our full legal name and ABN, and I can note that you asked about gifts in wills so the right person follows up with you. We cannot advise on the wording of your will, but we can make sure you have our details correct.”
Why this works: It gives the donor practical help without pretending to be legal support. It also creates a clean internal record: the donor asked about gifts in wills; the charity provided factual details; a trained person may follow up.
What not to say: “I can tell you the wording to use.”
Why that fails: Wording in a will is legal territory. The charity can provide its full legal name and ABN, but it should not tell the donor what wording is legally valid.
The direct question after an event
Nadia Okeke and Peter Lang
Nadia Okeke is the CEO of a small migrant women’s health charity.
After a community briefing, she is approached by Peter Lang, a 68-year-old former volunteer. Peter helped with transport in the charity’s early years and now gives $500 each June. He tells Nadia, “I’ve been updating things since my sister died. Should I leave something to you in my will?”
This is a high-trust moment. It is also risky. Peter has mentioned a recent death, a legal document and a possible gift in one sentence. Nadia needs to answer without taking control.
A weak response would be: “That would be wonderful, Peter. A lot of people leave 5% or 10%, but anything would help. I can get our bequest brochure for you.”
That response sounds grateful, but it fails professionally. It suggests amounts or structures without knowing Peter’s family, estate or obligations. It moves too quickly from his sister’s death to the charity’s benefit. It also risks making the donor feel that a positive answer is expected.
A better response would be: “Peter, I’m sorry about your sister. Updating things after a death can be a lot to carry. On your question: a gift in your will could make a lasting difference here, but it is not something I should tell you to do. The right decision needs to fit your family, your responsibilities and your own wishes. Your solicitor is the person to help with that. What we can provide is our correct legal name and ABN, and I’m very happy to talk about the kind of future work such gifts help make possible.”
Judgement note: This response slows the moment down. It acknowledges bereavement before the gift. It answers the donor’s question without saying yes or no on his behalf. It directs legal decision-making to the solicitor and keeps the charity’s contribution to two appropriate areas: correct identity details and the future work a gift could support.
Build a small language bank before staff need it
Create a one-page internal bequest language bank for anyone who speaks with supporters. Do not make staff invent wording under pressure.
Five entries for the language bank
- Direct donor question. Approved line: “Only you can decide that, and it should sit properly alongside the people and responsibilities that matter to you. We can explain the kind of future work gifts in wills support, and your solicitor can help you decide what is right.” Use when a donor asks whether they should leave a gift. Do not use when the donor is distressed, confused, asking for legal wording, or asking whom to include or exclude.
- Family-first concern. Approved line: “Your family responsibilities come first. We respect that completely. Some people consider a charitable gift only after they have made provision for those closest to them; others decide it is not right for them.” Use when a donor raises children, dependants, partner, family fairness or concern about family reaction. Do not use when the donor wants advice about how much is “fair” or whether a family member can challenge the will — refer to a qualified solicitor.
- Written mention. Approved line: “Some supporters choose to include [Charity Legal Name] in their will as a way of helping this work continue. Please seek qualified legal advice when preparing or updating a will. Our full legal name is [name] and our ABN is [ABN].” Use in newsletters, receipt inserts, websites, emails or will-making resources. Do not use when you cannot verify the legal name, ABN or DGR status.
- In-person future conversation. Approved line: “One part of keeping this work strong is support for today. Another part, for some supporters, is planning for the future through their will. I’m not asking you to decide anything here; I’m naming it because it is one recognised way people continue support for a cause.” Use when a long-loyal supporter is already discussing the future of the organisation. Do not use when the donor is trying to leave, has not shown interest, or is in a vulnerable or distressed state.
- Supporter-care handoff. Approved line: “I can confirm our legal details and note your enquiry for the right person to follow up. We cannot advise on your will, but we can make sure you have accurate charity information.” Use when a donor calls or emails asking for bequest details. Do not use when the donor asks for legal, tax or family advice — escalate internally and recommend independent professional advice.
Note: A language bank only works if staff trust it enough to use it word for word under pressure, rather than improvising in the moment.
Answer the donor’s moment, not your script.
Bequest language works when it matches the situation: direct questions need boundaries, family concerns need affirmation, written mentions need precision, in-person openings need pressure control, and supporter-care calls need clean handoff. Repeating one soft offer everywhere is not professional fluency.
What this changes
Staff do not need perfect bequest language. They need safe, specific constructions for the moments they are likely to face.
A donor who asks “Should I leave you something?” does not need enthusiasm first. They need autonomy, boundaries and a proper referral to their solicitor.
A donor who says “My kids come first” does not need reassurance that the charity can still fit in. They need the charity to agree that family responsibilities matter.
A written mention needs correct legal details and restraint. An in-person conversation needs pressure control. A supporter-care call needs factual help and a clean handoff.
The common thread is control. The donor controls the decision. The solicitor advises on the will. The charity explains its work, provides accurate details and keeps the relationship respectful.
Knowing when not to speak at all
Lesson 5 gave staff the words for real conversations. Lesson 6 sets the other boundary: the moments where the right move is to pause or stop the conversation altogether, because the donor’s situation cannot safely carry it.