Name your issues wisely

In an eye-opening post, Seth Godin looks at The problem with "global warming". He asks why global warming, "what might be the greatest threat ever to the future of mankind," gets so little attention or action.

His answer? The problem's name:

Global is good. Warm is good. . . . How can "global warming" be bad? I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

How many of the causes we care about have this problem? How often do we let a neutral or even inappropriately positive terms color our causes?

Think of the problem that's usually called "third world poverty." Doesn't sound like much, does it? Something sociologists might study. Yet it's probably the greatest cause of human suffering that's ever been. It directly kills millions every year and keeps billions trapped in suffering and hopelessnes. It creates a clear and constant danger to us all.

And yet most of the time third world poverty gets little notice, and it only captures the hearts of a small group of people.

Then, every once in a while, one piece of the third world poverty problem rises up and gets renamed -- usually as a "disaster" of some kind. Awareness skyrockets. Donations go through the roof. Suddenly, huge numbers of Americans become compassionate and involved.

The death-toll from everyday dull-sounding "third world poverty" dwarfs that of disasters like the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster.

What are you going to do about that?

Let the dispassionate nomenclature you've inherited from boring people frame your issue? Or try to change it so the problems you want to solve actually sound like problems?

Your donors want to make a difference. But they have to know there's a problem before they'll be motivated to help solve it.

Technorati Tags: Seth Godin, global warming, fundraising

Comments

[roulette strategy]

To deal with global warming, the government needs to immediately plant more trees, and stop cutting them down. It is a major problem they need to deal with. The importance of trees has been understated by "scientists" that truly dont understand the relevance of trees. Dont criticize the importance of the concept until you know all the facts. On top of deforestation, we are polluting the environment. Another contributing factor is modern day energy systems rely on explosion rather than implosion, and this generates heat. Every systems need to be more efficient and work on implosion, so they stay cool. The non-profit energy research organization at http://www.universalsymbiosis.org is active in these areas which will help reverse effects of global warming. I suggest everyone also read "Living Energies" by Callum Coats which explains the work of Victor Schauberger and the importance of trees to our planet. Dont rely on information from the authorities as their advisors dont fully understand the life cycle of the planet. We need to push the authorities to develop forest management and sustainability plans, and this will solve at least part of the problem.

[Joe]

Beautiful post. I work for a hospital that's in the midst of a visbility effort and I shared your post with our advertising agency. It confirms what I've said all along: we need to use defining, powerful, meaningful language and stop being so damn PC. As Emerson said, "'Guts' is a stronger word than 'intestines'" Thanks, Jeff.