The case of the forbidden synonyms, or how to make fundraising even harder to do

A number of years ago, I had two different clients that were both engaged in fighting poverty. Both quality, well-run organizations. One organization banned the word "poor" from their vocabulary. They felt it unfairly stereotyped the people they served, undermined their dignity, and created in donors an insidious sense of superiority. The preferred word for describing poverty-stricken people was "needy." The other organization banned the word "needy" from their vocabulary. They felt it unfairly stereotyped the people they served, undermined their dignity, and created in donors an insidious sense of superiority. The preferred word for describing poverty-stricken people was "poor." I never managed to get the two organizations in the same room at the same time. Which is probably just as well. Poor and needy are both useful words. Each has its own connotations and baggage. A good writer will use the right word at the right time. And possibly use both. When you ban a word because you feel it's harmful in some way, you're probably wrong about that. Context is everything, and banning words does nothing to protect you from saying regrettable things. The only protection is wide-awake writing. We can get awfully wrapped up in the words we can and can't use. But here's a hint: If you have a list of forbidden words that contains anything other than profanity, you're just being clueless. And probably hurting your fundraising and communications.

from Future Fundraising Now http://ift.tt/2u6nhqp