Writing Bequest Messaging That Converts

Lesson 8
11 minutes

Turn Interest Into a Next Action

This lesson writes the calls to action that move a donor from interest to one appropriate next step: requesting information, asking a private written question, taking details to a solicitor, preparing to make or update a will, or voluntarily disclosing an intention.

Listen to the lesson

The next action must be smaller than the final decision

Interested donors often stall because the copy gives them only two choices: make a bequest or do nothing.

That is too blunt.

A donor may be willing to read information but not ready to speak with anyone. Another may be ready to take the charity’s details to a solicitor but not ready to tell the charity. Another may have included a gift but want privacy. Another may be considering a will for the first time and need a general will-making prompt before a charitable gift feels relevant.

Lesson 1 gave the conversion stages. Lesson 6 built the asset suite. Lesson 7 set the boundary: the charity provides information and stays out of estate-planning advice. This lesson works between those pieces. It writes the call to action that fits the donor’s current readiness.

The Australian context makes this practical, not cosmetic. The Facts Pack notes that roughly half to 60% of eligible Australians may not have a valid will, and charities receive nothing under intestacy. A written bequest CTA therefore cannot assume every interested donor is already updating a will with a solicitor. Some donors need information. Some need a prompt to make or review a will. Some need the charity’s identification details. Some need a way to disclose without being pressed for value or recognition.

A good CTA does not rush the donor to the most valuable outcome for the charity. It offers the smallest useful action that can move the donor forward without taking the decision away from them.

The next-action CTA ladder

Use this ladder to choose the right written call to action. Do not use every CTA in one asset. Pick the one that matches the donor’s stage, channel, and risk.

1
Information-request CTA
When to use it: The donor has not shown bequest interest, or has only shown early curiosity through a click, event attendance, reply card, newsletter engagement, or warm relationship.
What it asks for: Permission to send basic written information.
What it must not ask for: A pledge, disclosure, gift value, percentage, or confirmation that the charity is in the will.
Strong CTA lines: “Ask for the short gifts-in-wills note.” “Receive the one-page planning information by email.” “Keep the information with your personal papers and decide later whether it is relevant.”
Where it fits: Website page, email button, brochure panel, donor survey, reply card, newsletter box.
Why it works: It makes the first step small enough for a donor who is curious but not ready to talk. It also keeps enquiry separate from intention.
2
Private-question CTA
When to use it: The donor may have a question but may not want a phone call, meeting, or public conversation. This is useful for supporters who are cautious, private, remote, or unsure whether their question is appropriate.
What it asks for: A written question that can be answered within the charity’s information boundary.
What it must not ask for: Private estate details, family details, or a decision.
Strong CTA lines: “Send a private question and we will reply with general information.” “Ask what details your adviser may need from us.” “Email a question without sharing anything about your own will.”
Where it fits: Website contact form, email footer, brochure back page, will-information page.
Why it works: It gives the donor a lower-disclosure route than “book a conversation.” It also gives the charity a chance to answer carefully in writing and redirect legal questions to a solicitor.
3
Solicitor-discussion CTA
When to use it: The donor is preparing or updating a will, has asked for identification details, or wants to know what information to take to an adviser.
What it asks for: The donor takes accurate charity details to a qualified solicitor or adviser.
What it must not ask for: The charity must not ask to approve wording, decide the gift structure, or give legal advice.
Strong CTA lines: “Take our registered details to your solicitor if you want to discuss a charitable gift.” “Share the identification note with your adviser before any wording is prepared.” “Ask your solicitor how a charitable gift could sit within your wider wishes.”
Where it fits: Will-information insert, website legal-details panel, brochure, enquiry follow-up email.
Why it works: It moves the legal decision to the right professional while still helping the donor act.
4
Will-making or review CTA
When to use it: The message is reaching supporters who may not have a current will, or who may be prompted by life changes to review one. This CTA is useful because charitable gifts cannot happen through intestacy.
What it asks for: The donor considers making or reviewing a will with qualified advice.
What it must not ask for: The copy must not imply that the charity is the reason to make a will or that a charitable gift should outrank family or dependants.
Strong CTA lines: “If your will is out of date, consider seeking advice before making any charitable decision.” “When you next review your will, you can ask whether including a cause is right for your circumstances.” “A current will lets your wishes be considered clearly, including any charitable gift you may choose.”
Where it fits: Website page, will-information card, general supporter letter, brochure, planned giving guide.
Why it works: It recognises a real barrier: many people have not made or updated a will. It connects the charitable option to proper planning, not to pressure.
5
Consideration-without-contact CTA
When to use it: The donor may be open to the idea but does not want follow-up. This is useful in surveys, reply devices, and preference centres.
What it asks for: The donor can privately consider the option without entering a cultivation process.
What it must not ask for: A meeting, phone call, pledge form, or permission to chase.
Strong CTA lines: “I am considering this privately and do not want contact about it now.” “I may think about this when I next update my will, but please do not follow up.” “Please note only that I asked for information; I am not sharing a decision.”
Where it fits: Reply cards, online forms, donor surveys, preference-centre options.
Why it works: It keeps the door open without treating every signal as permission for more contact.
6
Voluntary-disclosure CTA
When to use it: The donor has already indicated that they may have included the charity, or the asset is designed for people who choose to tell the organisation. This should never be the only CTA.
What it asks for: The donor may disclose an intention if they want the charity to know.
What it must not ask for: Estimated value, exact percentage, family situation, copy of the will, or proof of inclusion at the wrong stage.
Strong CTA lines: “If you have already included a gift and would like us to know, you can tell us in confidence.” “You may share your intention if you want us to thank you and understand your communication preferences.” “Disclosure is entirely optional; the gift remains your private decision.”
Where it fits: Reply mechanism, stewardship-entry form, website section for people who have already included a gift, follow-up email after an enquiry.
Why it works: It gives donors who want recognition or relationship a route in, while protecting those who prefer privacy.

The reply form that jumps from curiosity to commitment

Scenario tags:

Gift size: possible mid-value estate gift unknown

Relationship: lapsed supporter returning through an enquiry

Channel: brochure reply card and email follow-up

Conflict type: timing, privacy, and rushed disclosure

Scenario template: next-action CTA repair

Fiona Alvarez works for Streetlight Arts, a youth arts organisation. The charity sends a printed brochure to past donors who have re-engaged through an anniversary campaign.

One supporter, Graham Ellison, has not given for six years but recently attended an exhibition opening and wrote on the guest card, “I’m glad this place is still here for young people who need somewhere to belong.”

The brochure includes a reply card. The draft reply card gives donors only two bequest options: “I have included Streetlight Arts in my will” or “Please call me to discuss my legacy.”

Fiona sees the problem. Graham may be interested, but those choices assume too much. He may want information. He may want to read privately. He may be updating a will. He may not want a call. He may not even have a current will.

The reply mechanism needs a next step, not a leap.

Weak reply card

“Your legacy with Streetlight Arts

□ I have included Streetlight Arts in my will.

□ I intend to include Streetlight Arts in my will.

□ Please call me to discuss the gift I am considering.

Estimated value of gift: $__________

Preferred recognition name: __________________

□ No, I do not wish to support young artists through my will.”

Why this version fails

The reply card treats curiosity as commitment.

It offers no information-only path. It assumes the donor is ready to disclose. It asks for estimated value before the donor has even chosen a next step. It asks for recognition details too early. The “no” option is emotionally loaded: it makes refusal sound like rejection of young artists rather than a private planning decision.

The form also misses several legitimate next actions. A donor might want a one-page note, an email answer, identification details for a solicitor, no follow-up, or a way to say they are considering the idea privately. None of those options exists.

A strong reply mechanism lets the donor move one honest step. It does not make the most administratively useful answer the only dignified answer.

Stronger reply card

“Gifts in wills information

Please choose any option that fits where you are now.

□ Send me the short information note.

□ Email me Streetlight Arts’ registered details for my adviser.

□ I have a question I would prefer to ask in writing.

□ I may consider this when I next make or review my will, but I do not want follow-up now.

□ I have included Streetlight Arts in my will and am comfortable telling you.

□ I do not need gifts-in-wills information at this time.

You can ask for information without sharing a decision. We will not ask for the value of any gift.”

Why this version works

The stronger card gives Graham several legitimate ways to respond.

He can ask for information. He can request identification details for an adviser. He can ask a written question. He can consider the option privately. He can disclose an existing intention if he wants to. He can decline without being framed as uncaring.

The card also protects the internal record. Each response maps to a different stage: enquiry, solicitor action, private consideration, disclosed intention, or no current interest. It does not ask for gift value, and it does not turn a lapsed supporter’s re-engagement into a false pledge.

The best next action is not always the most advanced action. It is the one the donor can take without regret, confusion, or pressure.

Write one CTA set for a live asset

Choose one current asset: website page, email, brochure, reply card, will-information insert, donor survey, or enquiry follow-up.

Build the CTA set in this order.

1. Name the donor’s current readiness.

Choose one:

– aware but not engaged;

– curious and willing to receive information;

– asking a practical question;

– preparing or updating a will;

– considering privately;

– willing to disclose an intention;

– unsuitable for a CTA because a Lesson 7 boundary risk is present.

2. Choose the smallest useful action.

Match the readiness to one action.

Use:

– information request;

– written question;

– adviser discussion;

– will review;

– private consideration;

– voluntary disclosure;

– no CTA beyond professional advice or senior review.

3. Write the CTA in one sentence.

Use a verb that matches the action.

Use:

“Request the planning note.”

“Ask a written question.”

“Give the identification sheet to your adviser.”

“Consider raising the option when you next review your will.”

“Keep this private if you prefer.”

“Tell us only if you want us to know.”

4. Add a pressure check.

Place one sentence near the CTA that protects choice.

Use:

“Reading the note does not commit you to any decision.”

Or:

“Your response can be limited to information only.”

5. Add a non-disclosure path.

Make sure the donor can act without sharing private plans.

Use:

“I would like information, but I do not want to discuss my will.”

Or:

“Please send the details only.”

6. Add a clean no.

Use neutral refusal language.

Use:

“This is not relevant for me now.”

Or:

“I do not want gifts-in-wills information.”

7. Remove premature data fields.

Delete any request for:

– estimated value;

– percentage;

– estate size;

– family status;

– copy of will;

– recognition name;

– reason for declining.

Only ask for recognition or communication preferences after the donor has voluntarily disclosed an intention and wants ongoing contact.

A strong bequest call to action moves the donor one appropriate step: information, question, adviser discussion, will review, private consideration, or voluntary disclosure. It does not turn curiosity into a demand for confirmation.

What you can now move

You can now write bequest CTAs that move interest without rushing the donor.

The action may be small: request a note, ask a private question, take registered details to a solicitor, consider the option during a will review, think privately without follow-up, or disclose an intention by choice. Small does not mean weak. It means the copy respects the decision it is asking the donor to make.

The test is simple: can the donor take the next action without revealing more than they are ready to reveal? If yes, the CTA is doing its job.