Are we using too much bad language in Fundraising?
Well according to an article in the Sunday Business Post yesterday we are (well the wrong language).
They report , according the the Suddes Group, that by using words like “charity”, “non-profit” and “donor”,charities are using the wrong language and are defining themselves in negative terms.
So what should words should we be using? Apparently we are “for-impact” organisations that have “investors” rather than “donors”.
The article acknowledges that this language sounds more like management terminology….is that a bad thing though, aren’t we trying to get charities to take a more business like approach?
Is this the future? Does it work? What are do donors make of this language…do they care? Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the article reports that the DSPCA has taken on the Suddes Group philosophy and they suggest that they are on track to raise an additional €500,000 to €1 million this year. Add to that the fact that the Suddes Group, founded in 1983, has since managed more than 300 campaigns and helped to raise more than $1 billion in funding.
How much of that is as a result of this new language is unclear? Maybe the Suddes Group are just in a position to help charities look at things from a different angle, strategize a bit better. I don’t know.
It’s an interesting concept though and certainly worth consideration and investigation and at the very worst, testing. We are trying to get our supporters to invest more in our organisations, so perhaps this language is the way forward?