A plea for plain English

At a recent event a new fundraiser asked what one tip I would give her when writing bids. My answer was: to use plain English – to articulate clearly what was wanted, why, what difference it would make without using any jargon. Her response was something I hear a lot: “but I have been told that successful bids must reflect back the language that a funder uses”.

This seems to be a common message given to fundraisers and I would love to know what it is based on. This is why I don’t think it is helpful or true:

1. A human reads your bid

Until we are at the point that an algorithm does the job, it is a person that will read your application. I don’t find funders or assessors are impressed if you just repeat their language back to them. It is no different from a job application. If you say in the job description, “we are looking for resilience”, you don’t get excited when an applicant puts “I am resilient”. What you want to know is what that means for them and how they can demonstrate it.

2. The language a funder uses may not be as deliberate and considered as you think.

As with any organisation there is a lot of scope for communication to go adrift and be interpreted in different ways. So criteria like embedded or sustainable will not necessarily mean the same thing on the website as in actual practice.

3. You don’t know who will read your bid.

Even if the wording of the criteria is an accurate reflection of the funders intentions, you do not know who the final decision-maker is. They may not be the staff that wrote the copy or chose the priorities. Think of your Trustees – some are there for their cause-specific knowledge but others are there because of their skills in law or HR or finances. They won’t all know, interpret or use the same language as the ‘official’ line.

Rather than try to parrot a funder’s language, take control of your message. The best way to do this is to use clear, plain language which gives less room for misinterpretation and assumptions. For example, you may be asked to explain how you ‘deliver an effective pathway of support’. But that does not stop you from telling the funder exactly how you will link people to the right support without them needing to repeat themselves or be bounced between different agencies.

I don’t believe mirroring language is effective and I urge all fundraisers to use plain English. But does mirroring work for you?

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

The persistence of application forms

Application forms are a long-standing part of life. We apply to do a course, to join a club, to take out a loan, to get a job. They are also the commonest tool used to seek funding.

There are alternative methods:

Letters – equivalent to a CV and cover letter, some funders ask applicants to make their case for support in a letter. They may make suggestions as to length and content, but it is left up to the applicant what to include and how to structure the letter.

Pitches – these are used in live crowdfunding events like the Soup movement and The Funding Network but there are also some funding events trialing this approach. It brings storytelling and emotional engagement to the fore as you appeal directly to an audience and appeal to them for funds.

Films – like a pitch, but captured in a short film and not in person. Appeal films are more often used in social media campaigns but are sometimes requested by funders as part of the application process. It is a way to clearly demonstrate what you do, visually and in just a few minutes.

Platforms – there are several models where charities put forward their details and wishes for interested funders and donors to select. This can be just as a nominated charity for the local co-op branch or one of several hundred on Localgiving, the Big Give or the Good Exchange.

So with all these alternatives why does the application form persist?

It is easier to process – it is in date at the point of a decision (unlike platforms); it consistently gathers everything that is needed for a decision (unlike letters); everyone provides the same information which can be imported and analysed in databases; it includes a signature so can be a declaration of truth and accuracy as well as permission to store data and take up references.

It supports fairness – gathering the same information in a uniform format makes it clear what information is wanted and makes it easier to make comparisons and judgements based on evidence. Inviting applications means you are open to groups you don’t yet know about. It is not just about who can tell a good story or present well. And although they do take time to do well, they probably take less time than making a film or being present for a pitch, so are more accessible for those on limited resources.

There are still things that funders can do to improve the application process. For example, only asking for information that will definitely be used; not asking for documents that are already on the charity commission website; being very clear what information is being sought and why. And an eye also needs to be kept on whether the alternative approaches become better for user-led or smaller groups, or ease the burden on fundraisers and applicants. But in the meantime, it looks as if application forms, for good reason, are here to stay.

Emma Beeston Consultancy advises funders and philanthropists on giving strategies and processes; researching and scoping options; selecting causes and charities; assessments and impact monitoring. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; emmabeeston01