The art of story telling for fundraisers
Words and language have to be the most amazing thing about human development. Words have the ability to generate emotion, draw pictures, mobilise people into action, instruct, entertain and discourage.
As fundraisers, our use of language to convey our values and vision. To describe our mission and to ask for support is the lynchpin of our trade, but have we ever considered how our words are received? Is it possible we are saying something we didn’t mean to say?
Is our story telling flawed?
It’s no secret that my main day job is fundraising data, however, every so often I have to get involved in writing copy. This usually comes in the form of thank you letters and emails, text for a form or for payment confirmation screens. It’s easier for me to create the content because the client only has to edit it, which saves time.
Recently I’ve taken on a bigger fundraising role for one of my clients. It’s been immensely enjoyable, and that’s another story, for another blog.
I found myself labouring over getting the right message for a piece of stewardship – a long overdue thank you for some neglected regular givers. I was bringing in words and phrases, seeing how they looked until I felt I had crafted a letter that said what I needed; factual without being dry and snippy, emotive without being cloying, conveying thanks and the meaning of support in real terms – we help people, real people who have names and lives, loves and sadness, hopes and aspirations.
What should we leave out?
It struck me that to get to my final piece, I had discarded many more words and phrases than I eventually used. Why had I rejected them? This is where I had my big revelation. The panoply of the rejected could all be received in a way that I didn’t like. I reflected on this and realised I have an internal library of pet hate fundraising language that I avoided at all costs, but why? Even though these phrases can’t be misinterpreted, the picture they painted for the reader isn’t OK. Am I the only person who thinks like this? Is there other language lurking in fundraising communications that give the wrong impression?
This was a question that needed answering, so I posted it on a fundraising freelancers Facebook group
And then waited.
The responses started coming in and made me realise that I wasn’t alone. I’d opened my post with my dislike for “…those less fortunate that us…” which I hate with a passion. It feels patronising and divisive, moreover it oozes pity, which is a theme that Kate picked up by including ‘impoverished’ and ‘under privileged’. Both reduce situational challenges to mere financial hardship, which is rarely the source of disadvantage but comes as a symptom of much more complex situations. And let’s be honest, financial hardship isn’t an easy sell “Just go and get a better job/don’t be lazy/benefit scrounger/try harder/put some effort in”. Yeah, right, why didn’t we think of that [she says whilst slapping her head].
Rachel was quick to chip in with ‘suffering from’, which gives the impression the situations we talk about in fundraising are optional. And doesn’t optional mean that if someone is choosing to live that particular unpleasant reality, they can just as easily choose not to [I’m going to have a bruised forehead at this rate, as I slap it again, whilst realising that the poverty cycle is so easy to escape. I’m such an idiot!]
I’m not a fan of “Donor Acquisition” said Donna
Well that got me thinking – now you mention it Donna I think “donor” reduces support to a one-dimensional, blunt instrument and fails to acknowledge the time, effort and engagement someone has given before interacting with us. “Support” is an altogether more fulsome act, and the word donor reduces it to something, flat, uninspired… disposable.
Changing one word you can make your story telling work better
“People we describe as vulnerable have a lot of strength…” said Elena. Now ain’t that the truth! But we can say people are in a vulnerable situation. By adding one word, it’s possible to completely change the nuance of the sentence and totally change the dynamic of the piece; now you have an opportunity to talk about the resilience and strength of people who find themselves in a situation they have no control over.
I have learnt so much from asking this one question and I hope that there can be an ongoing dialogue about the language used in fundraising. How much is ‘stuff’ that we roll out without thinking about it? Apart from the obviously offensive (which has long disappeared from our standard lexicon) how often do we perpetuate a saviour persona without realising it? If we properly involved the people we were talking about, would they recognise themselves in our words?
We also need to think about how language is a living breathing animal. We only have to listen to a conversation between a group of young people to know this. We need to evolve our story telling fundraising language so that we can write the stories of the people we support, in a way that contemporary audiences – of all types – can connect with (although I would stop short of addressing your next cash appeal to “Dear Fam” or Dear Bruv”, or signing off with “From your bredren”).
This goes beyond story telling. We need to drop some of the tired old tropes and be bolder in the use of the beautiful language we have at our disposal to create more accurate representations of need and the support we are asking for.
My sincere thanks go to Lizzy, Sam, Kate, Rachel, Claire, Alec, Hannah, Emma, Jeremy, Clare, Elena, Donna, Reb, Aviva, Pamela for their contributions to a thoroughly enjoyable online discussion.
