Many years ago, during a visit with two friends, we were discussing our respective jobs. One worked in the film industry. The second created educational curricula for schools. I was a professional fundraiser.

Oddly, we all had the same job title: Director of Development.

I was reminded of this conversation while reading George Orwell’s 1984. In this classic dystopian novel, Orwell describes the construction of newspeak: a language created, in the service of thought control, to obscure meaning.

Which made me wonder: Why does fundraising include so much imprecise or unhelpful language? What are we hiding or avoiding?

Without ascribing any Orwellian intentions (!) to my fellow fundraisers, consider the following examples.

What do we call ourselves? What do we call our work?

After 45 years in this field, I have yet to see a business card with the job title Fundraiser.

You know the alternatives: Director of Development, Advancement, Stewardship, Institutional Giving, Annual Giving, Planned Giving, etc. Development Coordinator. Membership Manager. Grant Writer. Major Gifts Officer. (What … like a police officer? An army officer?)

Yes, these different job titles presume different responsibilities. For example, writing grant proposals isn’t the same as soliciting major donors – unless, of course, you’re preparing proposals for those donors.

Let’s stipulate that fundraising is an actual profession with ethical standards and best practices … and that’s a positive thing. However, in our desire to carve fundraising responsibilities into ever more specific categories, how much jargon and confusion have we created?

Paraphrasing author Joan Flanagan, all the wisdom about fundraising can be summed up in ten words: “Ask them, thank them, ask ‘em again, thank ‘em again.”

Which makes me wonder: Have we over-complicated this? In doing so, are we making fundraising less transparent and accessible to community members, partners, and donors? As we professionalize the profession, are we making it harder for volunteers (amateurs) to participate?

I’m all for keeping things simple, including our language. We need more generalists for whom the title Fundraiser is accurate, self-evident, and comprehensive – a title one can wear with pride, as I do.

And perhaps we need fewer titles.

How we talk about fundraising

Decades ago, Kim Klein taught me the ways in which typical fundraising language is deeply inappropriate. For example,

• Hitting people up for money.
• Targeting donors.
• “Bring in the big guns – they’ll raise the money.”
• “Let’s go shake him down for a gift.”

Even the word campaign – as in fundraising and capital campaigns – comes from the military.

Unfortunately, much of our fundraising language is about force and violence. No wonder people feel uncomfortable doing it!

And don’t get me started on the idea that fundraising is a form of begging…

Clearly, we need better metaphors. Here’s a simple one: fundraising is an offer. You make the offer with an open heart and clear intention: “We’re doing excellent work. Would you consider a donation to support our efforts? With your help, we’ll be stronger and more effective.”

Asking for money

Because money is a taboo subject for many people, fundraisers have invented all sorts of ways of asking without using the word money or its cousin fundraising. For example,

• “We would love your support.” Not bad, but support could mean so many things. Substituting financial support solves this problem.
• “Please participate in our year-end campaign.” OK – by doing what?
• “Would you consider an investment in our programs?” As we all know, the typical meaning of investment implies a financial return: investing money to earn more money. When used in a charitable context, such as raising funds for a nonprofit, investment is more ambiguous or misleading than it needs to be.

Having facilitated hundreds of fundraising workshops, I’ve seen all the ways people get paralyzed by the language of asking. They want a script: Say these magic words – in the proper order, with the proper inflection – and the money will miraculously appear.

From my perspective, this search for the magic formula has nothing to do with donors and is all about the comfort of the askers. In their discomfort – and perhaps their fear of failure – they refuse to ask, plainly and directly, for what they want.

Here’s what they’re missing: successful fundraising is mostly about listening. The late, great Jerry Panas talked about “listening the gift.” When the fundraiser says to the donor, “Tell me more” – and leans in, listening deeply – that’s as close to magic as we can get.

Clear and simple

If you take anything from this post, let it be this:

Jargon sucks. Clarity succeeds. Keep your language as simple as possible.