Trigger Warning: This post contains examples of fundraising that address child sex trafficking.

THE SAVIOURISM PROBLEM

Imagine this. As a smart fundraiser, you’ve put together a compelling appeal. It has an emotional story. A tangible offer. And direct asks in all the key places.

Then it goes through the approvals process. The committee thoroughly edits your carefully crafted appeal. The end result sounds like it came from a corporate machine. It’s no longer a warm, personal, emotional message from one person to another.

As a fundraising copywriter, I’ve been there many times.

One of the most common edits during this process relates to the perception of white saviourism. In September 2021, I wrote an article where I defined white saviourism as follows:

The idea that charitable donors are only helping people in a self-serving way that reinforces patriarchal, colonial and white supremacist attitudes and systems.

This creates a difficulty for many fundraisers. Best-practice fundraising uses donor-centred copywriting techniques and tactics. This includes showing the need and making the donor the hero of the fundraising story. Thousands of direct mail tests over the years have proven  that this works to raise money.

But those against white saviourism believe such narratives strip power and agency from the very people we’re trying to help.

Nuances to that viewpoint exist on both sides. However, the conflict for fundraisers boils down to this.

Saviourism narratives are very effective at raising money for charities. If we don’t use these messages, we raise less. Testing shows it could be a lot less. This could mean less money going to people living in poverty. If we do use these messages then we may be propping up a patriarchal, white, colonialist system.

It’s a lose-lose situation. Although charities like MSF are challenging donors to respond to non-saviourist messages with videos like this.

At the same time, accelerated by Black Lives Matter, the non-profit sector is going through a movement to decolonise charities. This includes decolonising fundraising.

The current Pledge for Change is a concrete example of this. Several large INGOs including Oxfam, Plan and Save the Children are signatories. In particular, Pledge 2 calls for Authentic Storytelling. It commits to “using our platforms to show people’s strength and amplify their stories by putting local people at the centre of the story”.

Now, you may not be working with an international development organisation. But don’t make the mistake of thinking the issue of saviourism doesn’t apply to you.

Saviourism applies in any situation where donors are perceived to be in a position of power and privilege. The idea is that donors unfairly get to feel good about helping those who are less fortunate than them. Because donors are part of and contribute to an unfair system (even if it’s unconsciously done). It’s this unfair system that keeps people in need in their disadvantaged state. Here are a few examples.

Example 1 – Does your charity work with people left homeless or facing social or economic disadvantage?

In this case, do your fundraising stories perpetuate the idea that these people can only be helped by hardworking, wealthy people who have been successful within the capitalist system? Which ignores the discrimination and factors within the capitalist system that keep people in homelessness or poverty?

Example 2 – Does your charity work with people affected by disabilities?

In this case, do your fundraising communications perpetuate the idea that they can only be helped by being “fixed” by “able-bodied, whole” people who live within a system that advantages and preferences people without disabilities?

Example 3 – Do you work with environmental charities?

Does your work in conservation touch on the land rights of First Nations or Indigenous people? Are you asking donors to be the “saviour” of problems that came about because of the colonial system that they are now part of and have no desire to change because the personal cost would be too high?

I’m aware many fundraisers will disagree over whether appeals and communications promote these ideas. But the point of this article is not to argue the question one way or the other.

The goal is to explore potential alternative approaches to the “donor as hero” narrative. Because whether you agree or not, charities are starting to adopt fundraising language policies that will make it very difficult to solely use “donor as hero” approaches in future.

UNTESTED SOLUTIONS

I’ll be frank: As of the time of writing this article, I haven’t seen any workable or scalable ways to resolve this tension.

I’m aware of a few charities experimenting with alternatives to need-focused and saviourist language. This could be through the use of inclusive language (check out Oxfam’s new Inclusive Language Guide), rights-based language or strengths-based language.

Some fundraisers have claimed success with these approaches. But there is not yet a robust body of testing in this area across different causes and sizes of charities. Results I’ve seen to date have been a mixed bag. That’s not to say there won’t ever be breakthroughs. If we persist in working on the issue, we will likely find very good solutions.

As a fundraiser who writes appeals, I’m unable to confidently recommend an approach which is backed up by decades of direct mail testing. I can’t point to a research-based approach or a track record from multiple fundraisers which says, “If you implement these tactics, your income will increase” the way I can with a “donor as hero” approach.”

So what’s the difficulty with simply incorporating inclusive or rights-based language? While they may be good in themselves, these approaches don’t take into account the needs of donors.

Some charities take the view that eliminating saviourist narratives is the right thing to do. Even if it means raising less money. If this is the case, our responsibility as fundraisers is to be properly testing new approaches. So we know what the impact on actual income will be—whether it’s up or down or neutral—just as we would with any new messaging approach.

So while I can’t offer a silver bullet to these issues, I have some ideas.

As yet, my ideas are untested although I’m in discussions with a couple of charities to implement A/B split tests. However, my thoughts are rooted in the evidence-based research of philanthropic psychology, pioneered by Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang in the UK (refer to their Relationship Fundraising 3.0 report).

FUNDRAISING CAN CONTRIBUTE TO DONOR WELLBEING

Philanthropic psychology focuses on using donor identity and wellbeing concepts. Touted as the next step in donor centricity, it’s based on the psychology of giving rather than the psychology of buying.

Donor identity is used to give donors the best experience of giving and receiving love to maximise their wellbeing. So when donors feel better about themselves, they’re more likely to continue giving and give more.

What does that mean in practice? According to research, here are some of the psychological needs that contribute to wellbeing.

• Autonomy – people need to feel like they’re independent and in control of their own lives
• Competence – people need to feel like they’re good at what they’re doing and that they’ve made a positive impact
• Connection – people need warm, loving relationships with other people, to feel part of a community.

(For more info, Google Self-Determination Theory.)

If a fundraising message can help donors to feel more autonomy, competence and connection through, that will hopefully result in more donations.

Let’s look at a typical sample of an appeal letter headline and lead written according to standard direct response principles.

_______________

SAMPLE 1a – Original

“They locked me a room until a man would come…”

Jamila had to service over 15 men a day…

Fight child sex slavery with your monthly gift.

Dear <FIRSTNAME>

Can you imagine selling your precious daughter to a brothel?

Jamila’s family could not afford to feed all of their four children. They “sold” her to a broker who said he could find a good job for her. Jamila says:

“The broker said I could earn a lot of money with a nice family. But he didn’t take me to a home where I could be a maid. It was a place with a lot of other girls. They locked me in a room and only opened the door when a man wanted me.” 

Jamila was 16 when she was sold… but some girls are as young as 5 when they become sex slaves.

As someone who loves children, I’m sure you’ll agree no girl should be forced into sex slavery and lose her childhood.

With your monthly gift of $50, you will be fighting against child sex slavery for precious children like Jamila.

_______________

I’ve written many successful appeals along similar lines. It’s need-oriented and emotional. Many would argue it portrays Jamila as helpless and without agency over her life, that it promotes saviourism. The donor is being asked to be the saviour who will save Jamila and other girls like her from their plight.

Contrast this with the sample below. It’s rewritten in a way intended to both boost donor wellbeing and use donor identity in a manner that shares agency with Jamila.

_______________

SAMPLE 1b – rewritten

“They locked me a room until a man would come…”

Could you be strong enough to survive
servicing over 15 men a day like Jamila?

Kind and caring people like you are needed!

Your compassion with a monthly gift helps Jamila to fight child sex slavery and build a new life for herself.

Dear <FIRSTNAME>

Today, you can give a girl the power to fight back.

To fight back against sex slavery.

To fight back against those who want to exploit girls as young as 5.

To fight back against the poverty that forces a family to sell their daughter into a brothel. Because can you imagine being so desperate as a parent? You don’t want to sell your child but you can’t feed all four of your children. So you feel you have no choice… especially when the broker tells you he can find a good job for your daughter. Jamila says:

“The broker said I could earn a lot of money with a nice family. But he didn’t take me to a home where I could be a maid. It was a place with a lot of other girls. They locked me in a room and only opened the door when a man wanted me.”

Like Jamila, I’m sure you’ll agree that no girl should be forced into sex slavery. Will you respond to her call to fight for the rights of girls to grow up free from exploitation?

Your compassion with a monthly gift of $50 means you help fight against child sex slavery for precious children like Jamila.

She was strong enough to survive sex slavery… now your generosity helps her to heal from her trauma, develop a livelihood and help stop other girls from becoming child sex slaves.

_______________

What has changed? Let’s compare the original and rewritten version.

1. Donors’ most common moral identity traits highlighted.

The red text in the rewritten sample highlights moral identity traits that donors themselves have used to describe themselves in donor surveys. Using traits such as “caring,”, “kind” and “compassionate” in appeal copy helps to boost donors’ feelings of wellbeing. This can dramatically increase charitable giving. (For more on this, view this article about the relevant research.)

Also note one key difference in the copy approach. By using moral identity in this way, we are acknowledging the donor for who they are vs. what they’ve done.

There is a difference between asking a donor for “your compassionate monthly gift” as opposed to “your compassion with a monthly gift”. The former emphasises the donor’s action of giving ie. the gift itself is compassionate. The latter emphasises the donor’s identity as a giver ie. the donor herself is compassionate.

2. Need placed in the context of donor wellbeing.

We’ve told the same story of need. But rather than only putting the need into the context of an emotional story, we’ve positioned the need in the context of helping the donor to feel more autonomy and competence (refer to blue text).

Rather than just feeling anger and outrage over Jamila’s situation, we use “fight back” language coupled with statements that donors would agree with: fighting sex slavery, fighting people who exploit girls, fighting poverty. This encourages feelings of connection with others who want the same things.

It’s also intended to help the donor to feel more autonomy and competence.

And it positions Jamila as someone who can do her part to fight back too as opposed to passively waiting for a saviour to help her.

3. Connection strengthened between donor, charity and participant. The green text in the samples replaces this standard donor-focused statement:

As someone who loves children, I’m sure you’ll agree no girl should be forced into sex slavery and lose her childhood.

With this:

Like Jamila, I’m sure you’ll agree that no girl should be forced into sex slavery.

The original focuses on a common donor identity as someone who loves children. The latter is intended to help the donor forge a stronger connection directly with Jamila. Rather than being in a “saviour” position as someone who loves children, the donor is now someone who shares a common belief with Jamila.

Does this different framing “solve” the saviourism issue?

I think it does, because it “replaces” the old framing of a person in need being rescued by the donor with known truths about human psychology. Instead of just stripping out the need story and leaving the appeal with little or nothing to prompt donors to action, it presents a different approach to motivating action.

But whether this solves the problem is for you to decide. You may feel it doesn’t do enough. Or that it has lost something essential.

The jury is still out on its actual effectiveness, but there are early indications that this works. It may even be more effective than the traditional approach.

USING DONOR IDENTITIES TO BUILD STRONGER CONNECTIONS

To date, best practice fundraising has been concerned with the “why” donors give – motivations, values and beliefs.

Philanthropic psychology is concerned with the “who” of giving – who are your donors when they give to your charity?

In traditional direct response fundraising, the primary identity we have assigned donors is “donor as hero”. With the following suggestions, based on philanthropy and psychology research, the idea I’m exploring is the use of alternatives to the “donor as hero” identity.

Every donor has many potential identities that could influence their giving.

• Personal identity – a smart or caring person
• Relational identity – such as a mother, brother, husband
• Organisational identity – relationship to an organisation eg. donor, member, volunteer, advocate, ambassador, staff member
• Group identity – relationship to multiple people eg. sports teams, churches
• Social identity – such as gender, race, political status
• Regional, national, international identities – related to geographic locations or origins
• Religious identity – related to religious beliefs, affiliations or origins eg. Christian, Muslim, Jewish

Here’s an example. The following appeal relies mainly on the “donor as hero” identity. Because the audience is made up of many older, deeply committed Christian women, it uses both relational identity (blue text) and religious identity (green text). Note the original is still very strongly “donor as hero”.

_______________

Sample 2a – Original

“When there was no food, I used to pray to the Lord
to help my children…”

It’s not too late to help mums like Mere,
who face hungry children each day!

Dear <SALUTATION>,

Here’s your quick reminder – it’s not too late to donate before June 30! If you’ve already donated, then a big thank you!

Otherwise… I’m asking you to answer the cry from the hearts of mums in poverty, like Mere.

Have you ever felt sick with worry over your children… where the only person you could turn to was God?

Mere has. She knows what it’s like to face hungry children each day. Where she has to decide whether her children will be hungry in the morning or evening. Because there’s only enough for one meal of maize a day… but you can help change that.

This mum knows what it’s like to watch children fall ill… when she can’t afford a doctor. But your generosity could make a difference.

This mum knows what it’s like to share the humiliation her children suffer when they were sent home from school because she hadn’t paid the fees. But you could help give them a better future.

This mum carries a terrible mental load. No matter how much she works, she can never provide her children with enough. But your support can ease that burden!

Because Mere believes God will provide. “When there was no food, I used to pray to the Lord to help my children… I believe calling on God will always help me.”

Now I believe God is calling on kind supporters like you. Will you be the vessel He uses to respond to Mere’s prayer?

_______________

When you put the relational and religious identities together, it’s very powerful. Many donors are parents who pray for their children. Even if their problems are different to Mere’s, they have this shared experience.

I tried to include experiences and fears that were common to all parents– the fear of not being able to provide, the cost of doctors, worry about their children being shamed and bullied at school. The copy also shows how Mere loves her children.

By giving, the donor helps Mere to express that love while also expressing their own love for someone in need.

The question is this: are these donor identities are strong enough to carry the appeal if we remove or soften the “donor as hero” aspects of the copy? If relational and religious identities are the primary identities influencing the giving decision then the answer should be yes.

Below is a rewritten version of this example where we strengthen the religious and relational identities within the copy.

_______________

Sample 2b – Rewritten

“When there was no food, I used to pray to the Lord
to help my children…”

It’s not too late to give!

Your compassion as part of the body of Christ
helps mums like Mere, who face hungry children each day!

Dear <SALUTATION>,

Here’s your quick reminder – it’s not too late to show your heart of compassion… like Christ showed compassion to so many!

If you’ve already donated, then a big thank you for being so caring! Otherwise… I’m asking you to answer the cry from the hearts of mums in poverty, like Mere. Like you, she fiercely loves her children and wants the best for them.

As a loving parent, you’ve most likely had times when you’ve felt sick with worry over your children… where the only person you could turn to was God.

For Mere, this is her constant state of being as a mum. Because she knows the heartbreak of facing hungry children each day. Where she has to decide whether her children will be hungry in the morning or evening.

Because there’s only enough for one meal of maize a day.

But your compassion can help this loving and hardworking mum to change that.

Today, on behalf of mums like Mere, from one parent to another, I’m asking you to help your fellow brothers and sisters in the body of Christ who struggle in poverty.

Because God calls each of us to help carry one another’s burdens (Gal 6:2). No matter how hard Mere works on her land, this dedicated mum can’t provide enough food for her children. But your generosity gives her a new livelihood… and the power to put food on the table.

And your kindness can give this mum the security of knowing she can afford a doctor… rather than watching her children fall ill without being able to give them medical care.

And your compassion can help Mere give her children the ultimate keys to fighting poverty… an education. Rather than sharing in the humiliation her children suffer from being sent home from school because she can’t pay the fees.

Mere believes God will provide. “When there was no food, I used to pray to the Lord to help my children… I believe calling on God will always help me.”

Now I believe God is calling on kind supporters like you. Because it’s through the body of Christ that God works to answer the prayers of loving mums like Mere.

_______________

What has changed?

1. Donors’ moral identity traits reflected in donor AND participant.

In this example, the red text highlights the moral identity traits of the donor as we did in Sample 1. But in this case, we’ve also tried to make a stronger connection between the donor and Mere by using these moral traits to describe her as a “loving” and “hardworking” mum.

2. Religious identity expression also as a group identity.

With the green text, we’ve tried to significantly strengthen the expression of religious identity. One way we did this was by positioning the donor as part of the body of Christ. This is well-known language within Christian circles. Note this also helps increase donor wellbeing through connection to the body of Christ.

It also means the donor is no longer the lone “saviour” to all of Mere’s problems. In fact, here the donor and Mere are actually part of the same body of Christ. The donor is asked not to be the saviour but to help a fellow sister in Christ.

They have equality of identity within the body of Christ (although not equality of material resources).

3. Stronger relational identity and wellbeing. With the blue text, we’ve tried to strengthen the donor’s relational identity as a mum or parent. And in the section outlining common parenting experience, we’ve also coupled negative statements with positive ones to boost donor wellbeing.

This has the effect of giving the donor more feelings of autonomy and competence. We couple the emotional sadness of Mere’s plight with the ideas of “power”, “security” and being “hardworking” as well as the moral identity traits of “kindness”, “compassion” and “generosity”.

This also shifts the power dynamic in the copy of “Mere in urgent need and waiting for help” to “Mere in urgent need and determined to give her children a better future”. This makes her a more active participant in the process of fighting poverty.

Traditionally, the urgency of “waiting for help” is a strong driver for giving – but possibly undermines Mere’s human agency. But we try to offset the loss of that motivator by using donor identity and wellbeing principles. In this case, we make a stronger connection with Mere as a mother and a stronger sense of being part of a community through the body of Christ.

SHARED POWER THROUGH DONOR IDENTITIES

I don’t think it’s possible to completely remove the “donor as hero” dynamic from the fundraising narrative. Not unless we cut the donor completely out of the charitable giving picture. But I don’t think this is workable to raise funds.

However, by using alternative donor identities and wellbeing principles, it’s possible to still be donor-centred while taking steps towards overcoming the problematic saviourist power dynamic.

Over the years, I’ve been involved in many discussions over the question of whether “donor as hero” narratives strip beneficiaries of their agency. The solution presented often makes the fundraising narrative all about the participant or the charity’s workers with the donor sidelined. That is proven (in many tests) to be weak fundraising.

Instead, here are three alternatives where we can use donor identities to share power or agency. Rather than agency resting with the donor or the participant, it can be both.

1. The donor’s identity is expressed as a collective supporter of your charity.

Here, we try using a collective identity instead of “donor as hero”. We use messages incorporating the donor’s identity as part of your charity’s team. Ideally, the team has a vision that inspires them or moral identity traits they wish to emulate. That way, agency is shared between the donor, the participants and/ or the charity. Here’s one example:

_______________

Sample 3

Your commitment and compassion
as a monthly giver makes you a very special part
of Holy Charity Hospital’s caring team of doctors and nurses

_______________

In this case, the donor is not the sole “saviour” but shares agency with the hospital’s medical team. They’re also part of a team that has moral identity traits they aspire to. Most donors can’t be doctors or nurses without training – but they can still be caring like the doctors and nurses they admire.

2. The donor’s identity is expressed as part of the participant’s support network.

This is another form of collective identity. Here’s an example.

_______________

Sample 4

I know your love and commitment to people living in poverty. I know you’re passionate about helping girls like Eunice who face marginalisation or the risk of child marriage. This stops hardworking girls like her from following their dreams. For Eunice, this means her long-held desire to become a nurse may die out.

But with your care and compassion, you become a key part of Eunice’s Tertiary Care Team. Along with the field staff, her teachers and her family, you become a vital part of Eunice’s extended family. Together, you’ll all help support her, mentor her, pray for her… giving her a chance to fulfil her dreams!

_______________

Here the donor shares agency with all the people involved in helping to fight poverty. Also, the donor is positioned not only as a member of a team but as part of Eunice’s extended family. This boosts the donor’s wellbeing through stronger feelings of connection between not only the donor and Eunice but also the donor and Eunice’s own family.

3. Developing shared identities. Here we develop specific donor supporter identities that can be shared with the participant and/ or the charity.

For example, if you know a majority of your donors see themselves as people who care about standing up against poverty, you could develop a donor identity as a Poverty Fighter or a Justice Defender.

Or if you know your donors are passionate about helping vulnerable girls, you could try a donor identity as a Girl Champion. Below is a rewritten version of our earlier sample featuring Jamila.

_______________

Sample 5

“They locked me a room until a man would come…”

Could you be strong enough to survive
servicing over 15 men a day like Jamila?

Kind and caring Girl Champions like you are needed!

Your compassion with a monthly gift helps Jamila to fight child sex slavery and build a new life for herself.

Dear <FIRSTNAME>

What does it mean for you to be a Girl Champion?

It means you can give a girl the power to fight back.

To fight back against sex slavery.

To fight back against those who want to exploit girls as young as 5.

To fight back against the poverty that forces a family to sell their daughter into a brothel.

So a girl like Jamila can become a Girl Champion herself.

Because can you imagine being so desperate as a parent? You don’t want to sell your child but you can’t feed all four of your children. So you feel you have no choice… especially when the broker tells you he can find a good job for your daughter. Jamila says:

“The broker said I could earn a lot of money with a nice family. But he didn’t take me to a home where I could be a maid. It was a place with a lot of other girls. They locked me in a room and only opened the door when a man wanted me.” 

Like Jamila, I’m sure you’ll agree that no girl should be forced into sex slavery. Will you respond to her call to fight for the rights of girls to grow up free from exploitation? Because that’s what Girl Champions do!

Your compassion with a monthly gift of $50 makes you a Girl Champion! It means you help fight against child sex slavery for precious children like Jamila.

She was strong enough to survive sex slavery… now your generosity helps girls like her to heal from trauma and develop a livelihood. Today Jamila is one of our very own Girl Champions, actively working to stop other girls from becoming child sex slaves.

_______________

Here the donor identity as a Girl Champion is one that can be shared with the participant. Jamila herself has power and agency to not only recover from sex exploitation but also be a Girl Champion herself for others going through the same trauma. For the donor, feelings of autonomy and competence should also go up at the prospect of being a Girl Champion.

PLEASE TEST & TEST AGAIN

As fundraisers, philanthropic psychology gives you a wide array of alternative donor identities to use besides “donor as hero”.

But while the general principles of philanthropic psychology have been tried and tested, as yet there have been no direct tests I know of which test a “donor as hero” primary narrative against “donor as alternative identity”. As mentioned earlier, I am in discussions with a couple of charities which are interested in running these tests. (If you would like to run such a test, please contact me!)

So I urge fundraisers to test out these principles and see whether they work for you.

But one note of caution. You can’t simply assign or make up a donor identity. This must be based on what the donor tells you about their view of who they are (actual identity) and who they want to be (ideal identity).

This means you need to know your donors well or if you don’t know them, then you need to ask them.

If you wish to start implementing donor identity and wellbeing principles in your appeals, please get in touch. If you wish to run a “donor as hero” narrative test against a “donor as alternative identity” test, again please contact me. We’d love to be part of the solution to the saviourism issue.

For more information on donor identities, see these articles:

• Donor-Centricity 3.0: The Science Behind It
• Why donor identity matters to charities and fundraisers

For easy reference, here are all the articles linked to this post:

• White Saviourism in Fundraising
• MSF challenge to donors
• Pledge for Change Authentic Storytelling
• Oxfam’s Inclusive Language Guide
• Relationship Fundraising 3.0 Report
• Jen Shang: Choose your words carefully, your income depends on it

Thanks to Jeff Brooks, who published an edited version of this article for Moceanic.