[Dalya’s Note: This blog post was written by Rik Klingle-Watt. Rik Klingle-Watt is creative director at institute B, a high performance accelerator and consultant for businesses that put profit and societal value on equal footing.]

Crush the competition. Bury the hatchet. Killing two birds with one stone. 20th century business language appears to be chock full of war and hyper-competitive sports metaphors.  Which when used to motivate team members, ironically, can cause more harm than good.

Recently, institute B, a high-performance accelerator and consultant for social impact benefit corporations was chosen to launch the first in a series of conversations around North America to delve into the everyday terms we hear and use, and what we may want to be saying if we really intend to create a sustainable society.

Initiated by B Lab, a non-profit organization dedicated to using the power of business to solve social and environmental problems, the evening saw over 30 entrepreneurs take part including several B Corps and many companies working in the sustainability space.

It began with institute B partner Manfred Vollmer interviewing Dermot Hikisch of B Lab on the changing language of business. Dermot explained how metaphors are self-fulfilling prophecies and that the words we use pre-determine the mindsets we go into business with, and the results we see as the outputs.

He went on to discuss that after personally experiencing a series of communications gone awry at B Lab, from misinterpreted email exchanges, to overly aggressive management by staff, ‘protecting their territories’, whether the roots of business language used today aren’t suitable for what we’re trying to achieve.

“Our business culture needs to move past these terms that convey conflict, and assume a predominately male sensibility. We need to develop a new lexicon that is much more inclusive and much less hostile.” From- Calling a Time Out on Sports and War Metaphors

After grounding everyone in the motivation to dive deeper into this ignored issue, attendees gathered together to share ideas on what works, what doesn’t, and whether the language we currently use everyday could be changed.

With War and Sports metaphors so engrained in our psyche, many of the entrepreneurs felt removing them outright may limit our ability to motivate and properly convey what we are trying to communicate. However, there was agreement among all participants that the spirit of business a company chose to operate under drove many of the terms then used in the workplace.

Rather surprisingly, participants brainstormed a significant number of more constructive terms than negative, even though the majority of attendees recognized that they were using 20^th Century terms more often, and for some, almost exclusively.

Overall, participants were excited by the dialogue, which heightened awareness for creating a positive impact through our words.  With so many tired terms deeply rooted in the business world, a change like this won’t happen overnight.  However, if we can make the change, having what we say turn into a self-filling prophecy will be a wonderful thing.

Examples of 20^th Century Destructive Business Language

“Crushing the competition”

“Deadline”

“Execution”

“Guerilla Marketing”

“Killing two birds with one stone”

“Pain point”

“Take no prisoners”

“Ground Zero”

“Bury the hatchet”

“Embarking on a campaign”

“Unsuspecting target”

“Headhunters”

Examples of 21^st Century Constructive Business Language

“Rowing in the same direction”
“Low hanging fruit”

“Cross Pollination”

“Enrollment”

“Engagement”

“Eco-system”

“Building”

“Harvest”

“Hosting”

“Nurture”

Changing the Language of Business dialogues will continue in the coming months at the Hub, SVN Spring Conference, Business4Better, Sustainable Brands, and online via twitter at #talkBB or visit www.talkbetterbusiness.com

Watch the highlight video here:

http://www.instituteb.com/index.php/thinkslashbe/metaphors-are-self-fulfilling-prophecies

[Dalya’s Note] This guest blog post originally appeared on Michael Rosen’s blog on April 19, 2013. (http://MichaelRosenSays.wordpress.com). Today we pick up where Michael left off in Part 1.)

9. Speak their language. The term “bequest” can be confusing or off-putting to some. It’s best to use simple, plain language when communicating with the public. While the postcard uses the word “bequest,” it also uses the phrase “…to include Federation in your Will…” Using simple language will appeal to the largest audience.

10. Include a call to action. The postcard includes a call to action. It lets readers know that the Federation staff is ready to talk with and assist them with bequest language or information about other giving options. It also invites readers to contact Federation to “establish your Jewish legacy.”

11. Offer to help. In its call to action, Federation offers to be of assistance: “Federation staff members are happy to provide bequest language to include Federation in your Will…” Be giving. Do not just let readers think you want something from them. Offer them something of value.

12. Build trust. The postcard builds trust in a variety of ways. One way that caught my attention, because I don’t often see it, is the postcard mentions that Federation staff are willing to speak with the reader and/or his financial planner.

By acknowledging that prospective donors may have advisors that they will want to consult and by offering to work with rather than behind the back of those advisors, Federation is sending out a message that can help earn the trust of both the prospect and the advisor.

13. Provide a named contact. People are far more likely to respond to an individual than a faceless institution. The postcard encourages readers to contact “Rachel A. Gross.” The card could just as easily have suggested folks contact the “Development Office” or the “Planned Giving Department.” However, by giving people the name of a specific person to contact, the postcard makes it more likely some folks will actually reach out.

14. Make it easy for people to contact you. The postcard provides readers with four ways they can contact the organization: regular mail, email (Rachel’s actual email address), phone (Rachel’s actual direct phone number), and website (URL to the appropriate landing page).

Some people prefer communicating one way over another. Providing folks with options allows them to choose what works best for them. It’s part of being donor-centered.

15. Do not mess with the Post Office. Make sure to keep the address area and the space below it completely clear. Postal scanners can be thrown off by printed messages in or near the address area. This can result in delayed or undelivered mail. Also, make sure to use the correct postage for the size of your mailing. If using a postal permit, make sure there is sufficient money in the account.

16. Do not just send one postcard. If you only have the budget to send one postcard to your prospects, you should probably spend the money on something else. To be truly effective, a postcard mailing should be part of a series of mailings. And, ideally, articles and/or ads in your organization’s publication will support the mailings. In other words, a postcard mailing should be part of a multi-faceted marketing strategy. This is the case at Federation.

After studying the postcard, I contacted Rachel A. Gross, Esq., Director of Planned Giving and Endowments at Federation, to learn more about the organization’s marketing strategy. She provided some insight into the campaign. She told me:

We wanted to show real people from our community and how their gifts continue to make a difference.”

She also told me that the postcard is part of an overall campaign that includes display advertisements every other week in The Jewish Exponent, the community’s weekly newspaper owned by Federation. The ads highlight bequests (3/4 of the time) and Charitable Gift Annuities (1/4 of the time). There will be two more postcard mailings before the end of the fiscal year on August 31.

As for the ads, some will feature younger donors who have made commitments but whose gifts will not be realized for years to come. Rachel’s strategy is to show different donors — young, old, male, female — in the hope that the ads will speak to different people.

While a consultant can be of great value when preparing a postcard mailing and/or marketing strategy, it’s possible to put together a terrific campaign in-house. That’s what Federation did. The team that put the campaign together includes Rachel, Susan Lundy (Endowment Officer), Jessica Endy (Director of Marketing and Communications), and Mark Berman (Creative Services Manager).

As a donor to Federation and as a former member of its Board of Trustees, I’m glad to see that the organization has implemented a solid marketing strategy. It’s a strategy that all nonprofit organizations can learn something from.

What are you doing to communicate effectively with your donors and prospects? If you dare, what have you learned the hard way?

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?