Here’s an interesting ethical fundraising question for you to mull over.
Should we use direct quotes or not in our fundraising appeals when the language is considered inappropriate or NQR?
I’m sure you’ve faced this situation before.
You interview a service user or donor for your appeal. You get lots on wonderful, colourful quotes… sometimes they’re TOO colourful! They use language that may be deemed inappropriate.
But it’s a direct quote. You’re not supposed to change a direct quote but it will never pass approvals. What do you do? How hard do you fight for it? Should you fight for it?
Here are some examples of real direct quotes from interviews we’ve conducted–
“Lepers”
This language is not as common these days, but it still occasionally creeps into a transcript.
Our approach: Not allowed to use at all but unfortunately all the substitutes are jargonish. You either don’t use the quote or reword and get approval from the interviewee.
“Dribbling idiots”
From an interview with a carer of aged parents who was hoping for a treatment or cure for dementia before the disease turned them into “dribbling idiots”.
Our approach: We did agonise over this because it was expressed as a legitimate fear that many donors would relate to. In the end, we decided no.
“Black babies from Africa”
Often an older generation… and therefore your most loyal and generous supporters! This was from a lovely donor who was explaining how she was always encouraged as a child to give generously to the “black babies in Africa”.
Our approach: Definitely a hard no from us. Can’t use.
“Outcast”
Or any undignifying language that an interviewee uses to describe themselves. For instance, an interviewee may say, “I was homeless for three years…” but most charity language guidelines today will prohibit defining a person by their deficit. However, if you change the quote, nobody is going to believe an interviewee said, “I was experiencing homelessness for three years.” Nobody talks like that in actual speech.
Our approach: This one is decided case-by-case but we’d tend to favour quotes that show not tell eg. “I had no place to go so I slept under a bridge” or “My family threw rocks and sticks at me to drive me away from the village”. That way you don’t need to say “I was homeless” or “I was an outcast”.
Distressing details involving torture, violence and/ or blood
The interviewee may have described the details and given informed consent to use them, but how do you balance their right to tell their story in their way against language guidelines that ban graphic depictions?
Our approach: You don’t have to use everything. Perhaps pick one or two key details that show how awful it was. But if even that is too hard then again we decide case-by-case.
Sensitive or triggering topics such as domestic violence
This is especially relevant where donors may have lived experience themselves.
Our approach: Trigger warnings are needed and we carefully select what quotes can be included.
Interviewees for whom English is a second language
Particularly where phrasing is broken, confusing or difficult to understand verbatim.
Our approach: Leave as is where possible but edit for clarity. It may also be that you can’t use the direct quotes. If you change them too much, you’ll have to paraphrase.
What do you think?
On the one hand, the purpose of a direct quote is to provide truth, proof and authenticity. On the other, if it’s considered problematic, should we change it to fit language guidelines or the discomfort felt by someone on your list of approvers?
Of course, you could just get rid of the problematic quote or swap it out for another… but in practice it’s rarely that simple.
If it’s included in your copy at all, then the direct quote is there for a reason. It may be the only one that can tell a key part of the story in your interviewee’s voice. If there were more suitable and effective options available, I can guarantee your copywriter would have chosen them in the first place.
So what do you think? Should direct quotes always be used as they are? How would you handle these situations?
This is an ethical conundrum that comes up again and again and again for all fundraisers. But what makes it really tricky for us as copywriters is that there is no unified approach. Every organisation – every person – draws the line somewhere different.
I’d love to know where you draw yours. Shoot me an email to let me know.
And while you’re at it…
If you’d like to work with amazing copywriters who’ll help you navigate ethical fundraising questions, you can ask Creagivity’s fearless leader, June, for your obligation-free meet and greet!
