Part one of this series looked at how context can make a cuss word an effective part of fundraising. This article shows how cussing can draw an emotional response—in a good way.
When we write fundraising copy we try to make our words, phrases and stories as powerful and emotional as possible. Indeed, using the most powerful language possible is backed up by the best direct mail practitioners in the field.
Mal Warwick wants to use “words that convey emotions over those that communicate thoughts.” George Smith wants us to “use vivid words” and “candour.” Hershell Gordon Lewis reminds us that “emotion out pulls intellect.”
Cuss words are powerful bursts of emotional language. They can communicate the strongest feelings of fear, greed, guilt, and anger—all important sentiments in fundraising.
What do nonprofit managers think of cuss words in fundraising and public outreach?
The NonProfit Times and Seton Hall University’s nonprofit sector resource centre put thirty nonprofit managers in a room and showed them an ad that dropped an ‘f’ bomb. The ad was shown to them twice.
The first question asked was: Can profanity be used by a nonprofit and be accepted by the general public? 14 said no, 12 said yes and four were unsure. This split is interesting considering that none of these organizations had ever used profanity in their fundraising material.
Those nonprofit managers favorable to the ad were asked about their first impressions. They called it “sad, gritty, impressive and direct.” They also said that although they were offended, they were also strongly affected. They said they would remember the ad and the organization.
For those who were offended by the ad, they said “it played to a lower common denominator, was shocking, the word overwhelmed the message, and it was sensationalism at its worst.”
On first viewing the ad, there was a 2:1 ratio of those who found the ad “positive” compared to “unfavorable.” Upon a second viewing, the ratio of those who found the ad “positive” compared to “unfavorable” improved to 4:1.
If this quick survey indicates that a good number of nonprofit managers are favorably disposed to using cuss words, then what’s stopping them?
How do different people deal with cuss words?
Studies have shown that men are less offended by vulgar speech than women. They are less responsive to dirty words. Women are more responsive. This might mean, in the proper context, dirty words have more fundraising impact on women than men. But it could also mean they work less well.
In direct-mail fundraising, there are usually more women than men on the donor base and they are generally an older age demographic. At first glance, a donor file of older women may not be the group you’d want to use a cuss word with, but studies have shown that women are more responsive to cuss words and that older individuals have as large a cuss word vocabulary as younger individuals.
Cuss words are more influenced by context than any other type of language in modern English. Regardless of how one attempts to define cuss words, the ultimate decision about the offensiveness of words relies on context.
We know there will always be a few donors who choke on their oatmeal when they see a cuss word and are likely to call and tear a strip off of a staff person. But if charities can get over that fear—and see that the selective use of cuss words can make their fundraising appeals more powerful and more profitable—then perhaps they can put up with a few irate phone calls.
Michael Johnston is the President and founder of the global fundraising consultancy, Hewitt and Johnston Consultants and the co-founder of two global fundraising products: The Global Legacy Giving Group and the sports-based Fantasy Fundraising. Mike is an expert in fundraising innovation and integrated marketing – most especially how new technologies best combine with traditional ways of giving: planned giving, events, major gifts, and annual campaigns.
