The Powerful “We”

As the summer “lull” in fundraising has well and truly hit, I’ve been doing a lot of work with clients that isn’t the urgent, “get-it-done” work that spring and fall and year end require. One of the joys of that slowdown is that I can work with clients on their messaging.

Something I’ve been marinating a lot on is the use of the word “we” in our communications with donors. That “we” is really fluid, and “we” (haha) don’t tend to use it very consistently.

Sometimes “we” means the nonprofit alone. Other times, the “we” means the nonprofit and the client/beneficiary of the nonprofit. Yet other times, “we” refers to the nonprofit and the donor. And a lot of the time when I’m reading drafts of client communications, I see “we” refer to these different groups at different times.

And it’s confusing!

Or worse, we use “we” thinking we’re being “donor-centered” and bringing the donor we’re talking to into the narrative…but in fact “we” just means the nonprofit talking about itself and hoping the donor doesn’t notice.

When I pointed this out to a client recently, she said “then who CAN ‘we’ refer to here? How do I use it consistently? Do you have some rules?”

And I really appreciated the call out because I didn’t actually have an answer. I just realized it was inconsistent and confusing…and if I was confused after reading closely, how confusing would it be for her intended donor audience?

But she was right to say, “if you’re going to say it’s wrong, you have to be able to tell me what’s right.”

I’ve been marinading on that for a while. And I’m testing out an answer that—so far—my clients have been really excited about. So I’m throwing it out there for your consideration too.

I stand by my first statement that we (nonprofit professionals) need to use “we” in a consistent way. It can’t be a stand in for lots of different groups within a single or two-page document. And it needs to be defined as one group in all of our messaging.

Now, I’ve said for a while that I don’t believe we should lean into “donor-centered” communications. The insistence that the donor be the hero of any nonprofit narrative always ruffled my feathers, especially as a fundraiser in the social justice space.

I like the idea that communications should make the beneficiary/client of the nonprofit the hero…but at the same time focusing too much on that discredits the critical work of the nonprofit that aided in the journey. And making the nonprofit the hero discredits the agency and dignity of the beneficiary/client. And focusing on those two elements and leaving out the donor didn’t seem right to me for donor communications…because certainly without the money the donor provided there wouldn’t be a story to tell, right?

It struck me a while back, when I was working with a nonprofit whose donors literally saved them from going under in the early months of the COVID pandemic, that the hero isn’t any single entity. The hero of the story is the community—the coming together of the donor, the nonprofit, and the person/people the nonprofit serves—coming together to make change happen. That’s the narrative hero I preach to my clients.

So if I believe the hero is the connection, I decided talking to my client who challenged my challenging of her use of “we” in her donor communications, then the pronoun “we” should really be reserved for the true collective—the client, the nonprofit, and the donor.

Here’s how I have begun to teach my clients to write their narrative arc in donor communications: Client was facing a challenge. They found nonprofit, and nonprofit had a way to help them overcome that challenge. And nonprofit was able to be there for the client because you, the donor, were there for the nonprofit and the client. Together, WE changed a story.

Everybody has agency. Everybody has a role. Nobody is more important in the story. The magic is in the connection and in the mutual belief in something better.

So we tried it out in my client’s communications.

Irene had to flee her home due to violence. She was homeless and on the streets, struggling to survive. One of ORGANIZATION NAME’s social workers met her and got her into our emergency shelter. ORGANIZATION was able to provide her with a safe place to stay and a supportive community while she healed from trauma and decided on her next steps. This was possible because you believed in women like Irene and in ORGANIZATION.

Together, WE changed the story. Today, Irene has started a business, and is able to support herself. She volunteers her time back with ORGANIZATION because she wants to support others who were in her situation.

None of US can do this alone. When WE come together to support more women in times of violence and desperation, WE write a better story for OUR community.

(Okay, this is a really, really abbreviated version, but you get the point…)

Once my client and I tried that use of “we,” it was clear to us that there was some magic in using “we” in that way.

So much of the organization’s prior use of “we” meant the organization alone. “We met Irene when she was living on the streets. We gave her a place to stay…”

Reading that as a donor, I would think “WE” didn’t meet Irene…YOU met Irene. I had nothing to do with it.

The donor is certainly more included when “we” means the organization and the donor. “WE changed Irene’s story” — but then, where is Irene’s agency in all of that? Surely we’re not saying she didn’t have the power inside all along, she just needed to be given a helping hand? Maybe “we” there means we’re including Irene…but if that hasn’t been clear all along, the “we” becomes a little paternalistic and gross.

So when we (as nonprofit communicators/fundraisers/marketers) narrow in on the use of “we” to be very clearly defined as “all involved,” I think it’s really powerful.

There’s much of what I read in nonprofit communications that uses “we” to mean the nonprofit itself. But think about how that reads to your donor. “We fed 10 families last month. We hired a new social worker.” In our minds, the “we” is meant to make the donor feel included, but if we haven’t made it explicit, it’s about as good as saying “I fed 10 families last month. I hired a new social worker.”

Here’s a key my client and I worked up. I’ve workshopped this around with a few clients, and so far everyone has reacted with a “yes! That’s good!”

• When you’re talking about the client, use the client’s name (or alias).

• When you’re talking about the organization, use the organization’s name or a specific staff member’s name/title.

• When you’re talking about the donor, use “you.”

• When you’re talking about the whole community (org, client, donor), that’s the only the only time you use “we.”

I’ve had a few clients try it, and they love it.

Give it a little think. Give it a try. Let me know what you think about my little theory in the comments below.