Interest, Hesitation and Disclosure
This lesson teaches staff how to respond when a donor shows interest, hesitates, or discloses a gift in their will — without escalating too fast, retreating too far, or treating intention as income.
Listen to the lesson
The response after the signal matters
Once a donor has shown interest, hesitation or disclosure, the fundraiser’s job changes.
The first task is no longer to make gifts in wills visible. That has already happened. The task is to respond to the donor’s signal accurately.
Three signals need different treatment.
Interest means the donor is open to knowing more, thinking further, or talking about future support.
Hesitation means the donor is unsure, conflicted, protective of family, uncomfortable with the topic, or not ready to continue.
Disclosure means the donor says they have already included the charity in their will, intend to do so, or have given instructions to a solicitor.
These are not the same stage. Treating them as the same creates two common failures.
The first failure is escalation: the staff member turns mild interest into a pledge conversation, or a disclosure into recognition, forecasting and internal celebration.
The second failure is retreat: the staff member becomes so afraid of pressure that they say almost nothing useful, miss the donor’s meaning, and leave the supporter unsupported.
The Facts Pack warns that bequest intentions are volatile and the timeline is long. Research into the final outcome of charitable bequest intentions has found that some people who report a charitable estate plan do not have one at death, while others add charitable gifts later. The pack is explicit: a request for information, a verbal intention, even a disclosed pledge, is not confirmed income. Internal reporting must separate activity, interest, disclosed intention and realised income.
That is the discipline of this lesson: respond warmly, record carefully, and never confuse a donor’s present signal with a future estate receipt.
Three signals in one week
Three signals in one week
A youth mental health charity receives three different contacts in the same week.
First, Grace Bell emails after reading the annual report. She has donated $60 a month for six years and writes, “I’ve started thinking about longer-term ways to support organisations I care about. How do gifts in wills work for your charity?”
Second, Amir Youssef speaks to a supporter-care officer by phone. He has given to two crisis appeals and says, “I like the idea, but I’m not sure. My family would probably think it was strange.”
Third, Helen Markovic calls the CEO after a donor briefing. She says, “I wanted you to know I’ve put the charity in my will. I don’t want a fuss, but it felt important to tell someone.”
Each donor has raised bequests. But the correct response is different in each case.
Grace is showing interest. She needs a clear next step and space to think. Amir is showing hesitation. He needs respect for the concern, not persuasion. Helen is making a disclosure. She needs thanks, privacy, boundaries and careful recording.
What poor handling sounds like
Responding to the opportunity instead of the signal
Grace has asked how gifts in wills work. She has not pledged, disclosed, or invited internal categorisation. Amir has raised a family concern that deserves validation, not reassurance or a suggested compromise. Helen has disclosed a private estate decision that is not realised income; wills can change, circumstances can shift, and the donor may not want ongoing public association with the decision.
The trap
To Grace: “That’s wonderful. I’ll mark you down as a bequest prospect and send our pledge form so we know your intentions.” To Amir: “Families usually understand when they know how much the charity means to you. Even a small gift after family is looked after would make a difference.” To Helen: “That is amazing news. Can I ask what amount you’ve left, and would you be willing to be listed as one of our legacy supporters?”
Better
Answer Grace’s question without rushing her into intention. Validate Amir’s family concern without smoothing it away or suggesting estate structure. Receive Helen’s disclosure with gratitude and privacy, without harvesting the amount or pushing public recognition.
Better responses for interest, hesitation and disclosure
Grace asks how gifts in wills work. A better response answers the question without rushing Grace into intention, and distinguishes the charity’s role from the solicitor’s role.
Grace, thank you for asking so directly. The simplest answer is that some supporters choose to include the charity when they make or update their will, usually after they have considered the people closest to them and taken legal advice. From our side, we can explain the kind of future work these gifts support and provide our correct legal name and ABN. You do not need to decide anything quickly. A useful next step would be a short conversation about what you want to understand — the impact, the practical details, or how people usually approach it with their solicitor.
This works because it gives Grace three possible areas of discussion — impact, practical details, or solicitor process — so the next step follows her need rather than the fundraiser’s script.
Amir worries his family would find it strange. A better response does not argue with the hesitation. It validates the family concern and protects donor autonomy.
That is a real consideration, Amir. A will sits close to family, and you do not need to justify being careful. Some supporters decide a charitable gift fits their wishes; others decide it does not, or not now. The important thing is that any decision is yours, made with proper advice, and not because a charity has talked you into it. Would it help to talk about what feels uncomfortable, or would you rather leave the topic there?
This works because it gives Amir two safe choices: continue reflecting or stop. It also avoids the common but unsafe move of suggesting a percentage, amount or family compromise.
Helen says the charity is in her will. A better response receives the disclosure without harvesting it.
Helen, thank you for trusting us with something so personal. I’m grateful you chose to tell me. We will treat that information carefully. I do not need to know the amount, and there is no need for any public recognition unless you ever want that. With your permission, I can record that you have told us the charity is included in your will, along with any contact preferences you want us to follow. We also understand that wills and circumstances can change.
This works because it thanks the donor, protects privacy, refuses unnecessary detail, asks permission before recording, and names the uncertainty without undermining the donor’s generosity. It also prepares the organisation to steward appropriately without treating the disclosure as confirmed income.
How to read the signal before choosing words
Use three questions before you respond.
Three questions before you respond
- 1 What has the donor actually given you? Interest gives you permission to answer and explore. Hesitation gives you permission to slow down or stop. Disclosure gives you permission to thank and ask what, if anything, may be recorded. Do not upgrade the signal.
- 2 What does the donor need protected? Grace needs clarity. Amir needs autonomy and family sensitivity. Helen needs privacy and control over information. The response should protect the donor’s need before advancing the charity’s next step.
- 3 What should the record say? Grace may be recorded as “GIW enquiry” or “GIW interest,” depending on the charity’s categories. Amir may be recorded as “hesitant; family concern raised; no follow-up on GIW unless donor reopens.” Helen may be recorded as “disclosed intention” only if she gives permission and the organisation has a secure place to record it. None of these should be recorded as expected income.
The Facts Pack’s reporting distinction matters here: activity, interest, disclosed intention and realised income are separate stages. A donor’s present words may guide stewardship, but they do not create a receivable.
Match the response to the signal.
Interest needs clarity. Hesitation needs room. Disclosure needs gratitude, privacy and careful recording. The fundraiser’s discipline is to respond to the stage the donor is actually in, not the stage the charity hopes they are in.
What this changes
A bequest signal is not a single thing.
Interest is not a pledge. Hesitation is not rejection. Disclosure is not income.
Each requires a different professional response. When a donor shows interest, answer clearly and offer a proportionate next conversation. When a donor hesitates, protect their autonomy and make it easy to stop. When a donor discloses, receive the information with care, ask permission before recording, and do not seek amount, recognition or certainty unless the donor independently raises those matters.
This is how a small charity becomes trustworthy in gifts-in-wills work: not by sounding polished, but by refusing to turn every signal into an organisational win.
Coming up in Lesson 8
Lesson 7 establishes how to match a response to a donor’s actual signal — interest, hesitation or disclosure — without escalating or retreating. Lesson 8 builds on this by drawing a clear line between what staff can say about gifts in wills and what they must never advise on.