"And English isn't the first language of all citizens of the UK,"

True. There are several native languages in this country, as well as imported ones used by particular groups.

One of the larger groups have British Sign Language as their first language, yet few organisations ever do a website in that language.

Ginster, I agree that charities need to manage their relationship with the press.
Press can make or break a campaign - good press is free advertising, bad press can cost a charity donations.

And some charities just dither and never get the press involved until its too late anyway.....

Martin

Best ignore the interesting layout and the free floating couple of lines at the end.

Don't shoot the messenger

Firstly, with regards to: "And English isn't the first language of all citizens of the UK". I know, I'd refer you back to my original post (particularly the qualifying statement in brackets).

Secondly no, primarily I'm a fundraiser although my responsibilities do extend to PR/communications. In my organisation these two functions sit together which, I believe, is the only sensible way to go. Obviously larger organisations will have seperate teams or departments, but even then there ought to be a high level of coordination between the two. 

I wouldn't argue against your assertion that papers do their own thing, but that's no surprise because they have their own agenda. You can't expect them to print a piece focussing on your charity's aims and objectives because, to put it brutally, that's not a story in itself. What's current? where's the human interest? The best way forward is to shape something that they can get excited about and then sort of "embed" the key messages that you want to get across.

I also believe that charities should take more responsibilty for managing their relationships wih the media. If you actually get to know individual journalists you can do a great deal to mitigate against what you might describe as their tabloid instincts. Not so long ago I had a phonecall from one who said, my Editor's told me that I need to check these facts with you because last time we got it wrong you gave him a real Bo*****ing.... That wasn't actually true, I just expressed my disappointment!
    

in my experience the more you try to engage with them the better chance you have of managing or moderating  

Don't shoot the messenger

And I take it you work in the press and pr team?

I am not disagreeing with you per se Ginsters, if you look at my comment you will see that I understand that different language should be used for different audiences and different asks (hint as to my profession?), but my experience of the press is that they will take the charities comments and tell the story that they feel will sell the most papers, not focus on the aims the organisation intended, using language that their audience understands (hence the use of "chugger" for the Daily Mail set).

And English isn't the first language of all citizens of the UK, so if you are trying to reach beneficiaries or potential donors (if you don't like those terms you can kiss my chuddies, you know what they mean and no flippin donors visit this site anyway), your standard press release in English won't be communicating your message to all of the "real" people out there.

catman

For "managegement" read management and for "release press releases" subsitute read press releases!

Along with the use of proper English, proof reading is also important ;-)

Don't shoot the messenger

It's usually (although admitedly not always) English Catman.

You really are missing the point about external communications. My guess is that you're a policy man or a managegement high-flier. Of course the public don't release press releases - the press do!  But if they're properly constructed and they tell a decent story they might just make it into print. This is less likely if they're stuffed full of indecipherable goobledegook.

Sometimes, however, the drivel get's through the editor's critical filter and that can be even more damaging. There's nothing worse than a charity dealing with an issue as emotive as homelessness, childhood cancer or world poverty sounding totally detached and umoved by their subject matter.

If you think that people's perception of charities isn't shaped by what they read and what they hear then I'd respecfully sugest that it's you who's not living in the real world Catman.

Don't shoot the messenger

we agree that the language used in and around charities is not always defined by the charity themselves and that different audiences respond to different terminology. Ginsters, these "real" people that you refer to, is there a "real" language that they all speak? Do they all have the same cultural roots and do none of them use slang or abbreviations in their "real" lives?

 And if you think the public actually read charity press statements, me thinks you aren't living in the "real" world.

catman

"I can assure you that no charities have a "pointless wording department"."

Maybe charities don't any more, but the press do and government does.
Words appear from all over - not everyone groks what they all mean (for any Heinlein fans out there).

The words change, the 'in' language alters, managers and consultants teach the rest of us.......
I sometimes find it amusing how many buzzwords can be on a single page of a press release. :)

Martin

But Catman, if the government insists on making funding available conditional on you using the right secret (and often meaningless) code words then of course you use them - I know that, it's my job!

But by the same token if you're talking to real people then you use proper coherent English. When writing a press release to the mainstream media you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by talking about 'capacity building' or 'cross cutting initiatives'...... And no, I don't think the 'stakholders' were responsible for dreaming up this lexicon of complete and utter drivel.

Oh yes, one other thing. Never again do I want to hear about something being 'rolled out' when the word 'implemented' or the phrase 'put in place' are both perfectly adequate alternatives.

Why do we all talk like consultants now? Are we that insecure about our jobs and our self worth?

Don't shoot the messenger

While some phrases are abhorrent: segment of one, thought showers etc, the type of language that a charity uses is often led by their key stakeholders. If like many charities you provide services on behalf of local or national government then you are somewhat forced to use the language of those that pay for the goods.

So if the government is funding outreach, it make some kind of sense to call your services outreach.

And Adam, advocacy is not lobbying, a prime example of an advocate is a barrister who speaks for a specific individual. Taking this to the charity sector, many charities supporting people with communication difficulties will provide an advocacy service, of which some funds come from government. I can assure you that no charities have a "pointless wording department".

catman

I'm totally with you on 'capacity-building', Ginsters. A travesty of me to forget that hideous phrase/word. I'd also like to single out the dreadfully named 'Capacitybuilders' as a prime proponent of charity nonsense-speak which nobody can understand and hinders its ability to get anything done. 

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Some of the language currently in vogue with charities actually confuses their message rather than making out a clear case for support. Put simply, if people don't even understand what you do then you're being pretty unreasonable expecting them to give you money for it.

I also find it disturbing that certain 'buzz words' have become so widely abused that they've lost any attachment to their original meaning. In case you think I'm exagerating just think about how many projects you've heard described as 'innovative' when they're actually nothing more than a repeat of the tried and tested formula.

Don't shoot the messenger

Wasn't it General Melchid in Blackadder IV that asks his aide to make note of the word Gobbledegook, he wants to use it more in conversation?
Seriously, many types of business has its own pet words, its own language if you like.
Translated into English can boil down to 'we want money'.

Buzzwords seem to pop up and fall away over time.
We help clients, we help service users, we help those in need, we empower customers......
Anyone head all those before?

Even the people names change - we used to help amongst others, prostitutes. Then it became ladies of the night, then it became working girls.
Or as Terry Pratchett has put it in some of his books, ladies of negotiable affection. :)
Yet it all still comes down to people, simply people.

Martin

You've missed out my particular favourites: 'Capacity building' or, as normal people would put it, 'helping people to help themselves' and 'cross cutting intitiative' which is a phrase usually used to make you feel that you should be impressed by a particular project despite having no idea what it's meant to achieve. 

If you start a campaign I'll sign up Adam!   

Don't shoot the messenger