A few years ago, a small cartoon circulated showing donors on one side and an ATM machine on the other side, with the caption \u201cSpot the Difference.\u201d Hopefully we all know the difference, but do we really treat the people who support our work as more than just a source of money? And how does our understanding of this relationship affect our ability to carry out successful crowdfunding campaigns? \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n There\u2019s a lot to dig into, especially in light of ongoing discussions on power relationships within philanthropy. However, as it is often the case, a good place to start is with the words we use and in particular, the word \u201cdonor\u201d.\u00a0 <\/p>\r\n How can this seemingly simple choice of word affect the success of a crowdfunding campaign?<\/b><\/p>\r\n In a strict sense the term is entirely appropriate: a donor is simply a person that donates, a person that gifts resources of some kind to a charitable cause. Yet, the centrality of the term to our work in fundraising has meant that new connotations evolve, at the same time as the concept is hollowed out and loses meaning from overuse.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n Too often, nowadays, the word \u201cdonor\u201d implies a one-way relationship, a unidirectional flow of resources from the donor to the recipient. These designations are themselves problematic, the relationship between giver and beneficiary indicative of an underlying power relationship, implying \u201cI give because I can, because I have resources that you don\u2019t.\u201d From here, it\u2019s not a big leap to the 19th century philanthropists and donors who made (extracted) money in manifold ways and then glowed in moral largess when distributing it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n The problem with \u201cdonor\u201d<\/b><\/p>\r\n The problem then, is that it connotes giving as transactional and hierarchical, concepts that are in complete contrast to the type of relationship that we should have with the people that support our work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n A growing body of work, notably from GivingTuesday, shows that people who like giving, like giving in multiple ways and seek a greater involvement with the cause. Amongst younger generations, especially, we see how pro-social behaviour and philanthropic empowerment grows not from owning a credit card but through engagement with a cause, both intellectually and emotionally, online and in the real world.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n So, which word should we use?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\r\n At HIPGive, we\u2019ve had numerous discussions regarding the role of crowdfunders and how best to encourage their ongoing participation with the causes they care about. \u201cSupporter,\u201d \u201cfunder,\u201d and \u201ccontributor\u201d all have many shades of meaning, but none quite encompass the full significance of the generous act of reaching into your pocket, getting out your credit card and sharing what you have, motivated because of your sense of solidarity or intent to make this world a better place. So we\u2019ve decided to invite people to be Givers, or as we like to call it, HIPGivers<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n However, the \u201cright\u201d answer is likely to be different for each organisation or movement. That\u2019s why we encourage you and your team to talk about the words you use to describe giving and givers before embarking on your next crowdfunding campaign. These questions might help kick off the conversation:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n (This article was first published in August 2020 and has been adapted from the original blogpost by Anita Gallagher with her permission.)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n A few years ago, a small cartoon circulated showing donors on one side and an ATM machine on the other side, with the caption \u201cSpot the Difference.\u201d Hopefully we all know the difference, but do we really treat the people who support our work as more than just a source of money? And how does our understanding of this relationship affect our ability to carry out successful crowdfunding campaigns? \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n There\u2019s a lot to dig into, especially in light of ongoing discussions on power relationships within philanthropy. However, as it is often the case, a good place to start is with the words we use and in particular, the word \u201cdonor\u201d.\u00a0 <\/p>\r\n How can this seemingly simple choice of word affect the success of a crowdfunding campaign?<\/b><\/p>\r\n In a strict sense the term is entirely appropriate: a donor is simply a person that donates, a person that gifts resources of some kind to a charitable cause. Yet, the centrality of the term to our work in fundraising has meant that new connotations evolve, at the same time as the concept is hollowed out and loses meaning from overuse.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n Too often, nowadays, the word \u201cdonor\u201d implies a one-way relationship, a unidirectional flow of resources from the donor to the recipient. These designations are themselves problematic, the relationship between giver and beneficiary indicative of an underlying power relationship, implying \u201cI give because I can, because I have resources that you don\u2019t.\u201d From here, it\u2019s not a big leap to the 19th century philanthropists and donors who made (extracted) money in manifold ways and then glowed in moral largess when distributing it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n The problem with \u201cdonor\u201d<\/b><\/p>\r\n The problem then, is that it connotes giving as transactional and hierarchical, concepts that are in complete contrast to the type of relationship that we should have with the people that support our work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n A growing body of work, notably from GivingTuesday, shows that people who like giving, like giving in multiple ways and seek a greater involvement with the cause. Amongst younger generations, especially, we see how pro-social behaviour and philanthropic empowerment grows not from owning a credit card but through engagement with a cause, both intellectually and emotionally, online and in the real world.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n So, which word should we use?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\r\n At HIPGive, we\u2019ve had numerous discussions regarding the role of crowdfunders and how best to encourage their ongoing participation with the causes they care about. \u201cSupporter,\u201d \u201cfunder,\u201d and \u201ccontributor\u201d all have many shades of meaning, but none quite encompass the full significance of the generous act of reaching into your pocket, getting out your credit card and sharing what you have, motivated because of your sense of solidarity or intent to make this world a better place. So we\u2019ve decided to invite people to be Givers, or as we like to call it, HIPGivers<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n However, the \u201cright\u201d answer is likely to be different for each organisation or movement. That\u2019s why we encourage you and your team to talk about the words you use to describe giving and givers before embarking on your next crowdfunding campaign. These questions might help kick off the conversation:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n “Donor” connotes giving as transactional and hierarchical, concepts that are in complete contrast to the type of relationship that we should have with the people that support our work.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false,"raw":"\"Donor\" connotes giving as transactional and hierarchical, concepts that are in complete contrast to the type of relationship that we should have with the people that support our work.\u00a0"},"author":1,"featured_media":652,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_es_post_content":"\r\n (Este art\u00edculo se public\u00f3 originalmente en Agosto 2020 y ha sido adaptado con el permiso de Anita Gallagher.)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n Hace algunos a\u00f1os, encontr\u00e9 una ilustraci\u00f3n sencilla tipo \u201cEncuentra las diferencias\u201d, con un grupo de \u201cdonantes\u201d de un lado, y al otro lado un cajero autom\u00e1tico. Me queda claro que s\u00ed sabemos la diferencia, pero me pregunto, \u00bfen nuestro quehacer diario, realmente tratamos a las personas que aportan a nuestro trabajo como m\u00e1s que una fuente de fondos?<\/span><\/p>\r\n Es un tema profundo con muchas aristas, pero, como suele ser, un\u00a0 buen punto de partida es el lenguaje que usamos, en particular la palabra \u201cdonante\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n \u00bfC\u00f3mo puede una palabra afectar el \u00e9xito de una campa\u00f1a de fondeo colectivo?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\r\n En un sentido estricto, el t\u00e9rmino donante es enteramente apropiado: es simplemente una persona que dona, una persona que aporta recursos de alg\u00fan tipo a una causa ben\u00e9fica. Sin embargo, la posici\u00f3n central que ocupa la palabra en el trabajo de las organizaciones sin fines de lucro ha impulsado la evoluci\u00f3n de nuevas connotaciones, a la vez que el concepto ha perdido significado por el uso excesivo.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n Frecuentemente hoy en d\u00eda la palabra \u201cdonante\u201d implica una relaci\u00f3n de sentido \u00fanico, un flujo unidireccional de recursos de quien dona hacia quien recibe. Estas denominaciones en s\u00ed son problem\u00e1ticas, siendo que la relaci\u00f3n entre \u201cdonante\u201d y \u201cbeneficiario\u201d indica una relaci\u00f3n subyacente de poder, implicando \u201cDoy porque puedo, porque tengo los recursos que a ti te faltan.\u201d De aqu\u00ed, no es un gran salto a los fil\u00e1ntropos y donantes del siglo 19 quienes generaron (extrajeron) dinero de diversas maneras para luego disfrutar de una reputaci\u00f3n impecable al distribuirlo.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n El problema con \u201cdonante\u201d<\/b><\/p>\r\n El problema entonces es que presenta la acci\u00f3n de dar como un concepto transaccional y jer\u00e1rquico, cuando en realidad eso es la ant\u00edtesis de la relaci\u00f3n que debemos cultivar con las personas que apoyan nuestra labor.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n La literatura disponible, notablemente de GivingTuesday, indica que las personas a las que les gusta dar, prefieren dar en m\u00faltiples formas y buscan una mayor participaci\u00f3n con la causa. Entre las generaciones j\u00f3venes en particular, vemos c\u00f3mo el comportamiento pro-social y el empoderamiento filantr\u00f3pico brota, no por tener una tarjeta de cr\u00e9dito, sino por medio de interactuar con la causa, sea intelectual o emocionalmente, en l\u00ednea o en la vida real.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n En fin, \u00bfqu\u00e9 palabra deber\u00edamos emplear?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\r\n En HIPGive hemos tenido numerosas conversaciones en torno al papel de los crowdfunders y en torno a c\u00f3mo motivar a las personas a seguir participando con las causas que les importan. \u201cAliado\u201d, \u201ccontribuyente,\u201d \u201cfinanciador\u201d \u2026 cada palabra conlleva matices diferentes, pero ninguna refleja el significado amplio de acto generoso de poner tu mano en tu bolsillo, sacar tu tarjeta de cr\u00e9dito y compartir lo que tienes, motivado por tu sentido de solidaridad y firme intenci\u00f3n de contribuir a un mundo mejor. Por el momento, entonces, te presentamos la palabra que hemos decidido usar en HIPGive y te invitamos a ser un HIPGiver<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n Sin embargo, es probable que la respuesta \"correcta\" sea diferente para cada organizaci\u00f3n o movimiento. Es por eso que te alentamos a conversarlo en equipo, para elegir las palabras que usar\u00e1n para describir las donaciones y los donantes en su pr\u00f3xima campa\u00f1a de fondeo colectivo. Estas preguntas te ayudar\u00e1n a iniciar la conversaci\u00f3n:<\/span><\/p>\r\n (This article was first published in August 2020 and has been adapted from the original blogpost by Anita Gallagher with her permission.)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\r\n A few years ago, a small cartoon circulated showing donors on one side and an ATM machine on the other side, with the caption \u201cSpot the Difference.\u201d Hopefully we all know the difference, but do we really treat the people who support our work as more than just a source of money? And how does our understanding of this relationship affect our ability to carry out successful crowdfunding campaigns? \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n There\u2019s a lot to dig into, especially in light of ongoing discussions on power relationships within philanthropy. However, as it is often the case, a good place to start is with the words we use and in particular, the word \u201cdonor\u201d.\u00a0 <\/p>\r\n How can this seemingly simple choice of word affect the success of a crowdfunding campaign?<\/b><\/p>\r\n In a strict sense the term is entirely appropriate: a donor is simply a person that donates, a person that gifts resources of some kind to a charitable cause. Yet, the centrality of the term to our work in fundraising has meant that new connotations evolve, at the same time as the concept is hollowed out and loses meaning from overuse.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n Too often, nowadays, the word \u201cdonor\u201d implies a one-way relationship, a unidirectional flow of resources from the donor to the recipient. These designations are themselves problematic, the relationship between giver and beneficiary indicative of an underlying power relationship, implying \u201cI give because I can, because I have resources that you don\u2019t.\u201d From here, it\u2019s not a big leap to the 19th century philanthropists and donors who made (extracted) money in manifold ways and then glowed in moral largess when distributing it.<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n The problem with \u201cdonor\u201d<\/b><\/p>\r\n The problem then, is that it connotes giving as transactional and hierarchical, concepts that are in complete contrast to the type of relationship that we should have with the people that support our work.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n A growing body of work, notably from GivingTuesday, shows that people who like giving, like giving in multiple ways and seek a greater involvement with the cause. Amongst younger generations, especially, we see how pro-social behaviour and philanthropic empowerment grows not from owning a credit card but through engagement with a cause, both intellectually and emotionally, online and in the real world.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n So, which word should we use?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\r\n At HIPGive, we\u2019ve had numerous discussions regarding the role of crowdfunders and how best to encourage their ongoing participation with the causes they care about. \u201cSupporter,\u201d \u201cfunder,\u201d and \u201ccontributor\u201d all have many shades of meaning, but none quite encompass the full significance of the generous act of reaching into your pocket, getting out your credit card and sharing what you have, motivated because of your sense of solidarity or intent to make this world a better place. So we\u2019ve decided to invite people to be Givers, or as we like to call it, HIPGivers<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n However, the \u201cright\u201d answer is likely to be different for each organisation or movement. That\u2019s why we encourage you and your team to talk about the words you use to describe giving and givers before embarking on your next crowdfunding campaign. These questions might help kick off the conversation:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/learning.hipgive.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Donors-v-ATM-300x300.jpg\")
<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n
How updating our language may be vital to increasing our crowdfunding success.<\/h5>\r\n
<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n
Refrescar nuestro vocabulario podr\u00eda ser la clave para aumentar nuestro \u00e9xito en campa\u00f1as de crowdfunding.<\/h5>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n\r\n
How updating our language may be vital to increasing our crowdfunding success.<\/h5>\r\n
<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n