Choose your words carefully -- but not too carefully

Way back toward the beginning of my career in fundraising, I worked with a certain health charity. The organization's leadership became very focused on referring to the disease they were fighting by its proper name: Hansen's Disease.

You might be wondering about the civil-sounding Hansen's Disease. What kind of mild Scandinavian affliction might it be?

It's Leprosy.

Leprosy is an ugly word, with an ancient and ugly history. Leper hardly even means someone who has contracted leprosy any more -- the secondary meaning of anyone who should be avoided or cast out has pretty much taken over the word. That's why the professionals would rather name the disease after the Norwegian doctor who discovered its cause. I can understand being reluctant to throw around such an ugly term as leprosy.

But let's be realistic. When hardly anyone knows what Hansen's Disease is -- and nearly everyone at least has an impression of what leprosy is -- which name communicates more clearly? Which one is more likely to stir donors to action?

Being sensitive about ugly old words with painful histories is certainly virtuous.

But communicating clearly so people will be motivated to action and actually join the fight against the disease? That's a lot more virtuous.

A lot of nonprofits struggle with this issue, seeking colorless, uncontroversial, low-impact ways of describing the issues they're involved with. It's a huge mistake. It's so much better to be bold and clear -- even if you have to apologize later for the words you used. Better that than apologize for ineffective fundraising that didn't align enough people with the cause to make a difference.

Technorati Tags: copywriting, leprosy

Comments

[Daniel]

Jeff, on a bit of a tangent -- I wondered if you've heard of a recent PBS documentary that discusses this same problem with the word leprosy. The documentary is called The Triumph at Carville: http://www.pbs.org/triumphatcarville/

[Ted Grigg]

The word Leprosy is much more powerful than Hansen's Disease. For that reason, it communicates the need for funds more forcefully and will bring in the contributions at a higher level.

The first admonition I learned in this business is to write the way people talk. Use Leprosy. That communicates and that’s the way people talk.

Thanks for a great example of great copy that gets killed off by political correctness.

The goal is to raise money. Not to educate people on proper medical terminology.

Ted

[Gary Discount]

A client of my company is constantly changing the term used to describe their constituency of individuals with mental retardation. They have used developmentally disabled and intellectualy disabled for example. I have always believed that while it is not as politically correct as other terms, mantal retardation is the most descriptve way of describing their constituents to the public.

[Tad Wimmer]

Man! What a missed opportunity this was!

The discussion about being sensitive to the word "leprosy" should have been the hook in the campaign.

"I'm writing to you today about finding a cure for a disease that is considered so awful that some of us don't want to use its common name! Some of my peers want to call this malady 'Hansen's Disease' out of a misplaced sensitivity, but lets call it what it is: Leprosy!"

Not only would this approach grab the reader's attention, but it sets the stage for educating the reader about the difference between the disease and the social stigma associated with it.

[Sam Davis]

Any marketing pro could explain this as sticking to the brand name you have. While, as you point out, "leprosy" is an ugly word, it's the word most people know. It's the "brand."

Trying to re-brand a disease that's been called "leprosy" for hundreds of years in English is silly and self-defeating. I'll bet the same direct mail appeal with "leprosy" would get several times the response "Hansen's disease" will get.