Donor. Volunteer. Activist. Supporter. Organizer. Constituent. Conscious consumer.

Given that you’re reading these words in a publication designed to help organizations like yours engage people, you’ve likely heard and probably used some or all of these words. The question is, do these generalized, transactional labels help persuade people to join your efforts? I don’t believe they do.

Most organizations try to categorize individuals by their type of engagement. Using these transaction-based labels allows for uniform communication by the organization and even the media. The labels then bleed over into fundraising and marketing language that reaches audiences―detracting from the message’s emotional impact and effectiveness.

Not everyone understands these words in the same way. For example, do marketing and fundraising have the same definition of “supporter” and “donor”? And do the words resonate with those outside your organization? Marketing and fundraising rely on internal labels to craft communications to engage audiences. In doing so, they may incorrectly include or exclude individuals in an outreach campaign based on a single behavior or transaction.

I remember vividly how, during our early work on the Millennial Impact Project research initiative, the term “activist” was polarizing among audiences. The cohorts we assessed as exhibiting “activist” behaviors didn’t view themselves that way and thought the label was too extreme. In fact, some pointed out that they were grouped with protestors simply because they signed a petition, and in their world, those two activities were far from the same.

As I wrote last month, effective marketing campaigns will generate awareness among people who have yet to fully grasp an organization’s work. Thus, since their own knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes contribute to each person’s cause-related behaviors, generalizations are tough to apply. The question remains: Do we need to put people into categorical boxes of identity by transaction because it helps us to persuade nonparticipants to engage? If not, why are we doing it?

In the same millennial research mentioned earlier, we discussed the rise of the “supporter” as someone who conceptually supports a nonprofit organization’s beliefs, values, and ideals (mission) but does not view their own behavior as key engagement. Even then, more than a decade ago, we began to see that younger populations weren’t connecting with the traditional nomenclature and identities defined by nonprofits.

Yet, today’s fundraising solicitations and marketing materials still focus heavily on transactional language. For example, in promoting September as CMT Action Month, the CMT Foundation used the following website appeal:

“Will you take action to accelerate CMT research? We call on you, the CMT community, to help raise vital funds to allow us to support cutting-edge research projects that will advance CMT treatments now.” (The rest of the web page is a donation form.)

Who is targeted as “the CMT community”? What would make someone feel enough like a part of this community to take action? Instead, anyone should do so, not just their constituency. The reality is that such messaging limits communication time, both in concept and literal space. You must touch the heart of the public’s desire to feel they can advance social progress by acting through your nonprofit.

For a good example, charity: water produced a video with this script:

"What would you do for clean water? For over 700 million people around the world, the answer is literally anything. Walk for hours, stop going to school, sacrifice sleep, health, money and time, all for water that's not even safe to drink. It doesn't have to be this way. It's a problem we can solve together.

703 million people would do anything for clean water, but so can you. You, me, your friends, anyone can do anything to raise money for clean water. You can use your voice, your talent, your appetite, your ability to not blink for an uncomfortable amount of time. Every dollar you raise will go directly to helping people get access to clean water.…”

They didn’t ask anyone to become a “donor” or “supporter.” They talked specifically about actions one could take to help people get clean water to drink, speaking to the core desire of their audience.

For many years now, our research has shown that the public is interested in the people and issues nonprofits benefit, rather than the organizations themselves. By relying on internally defined categories and transactional labels, nonprofits can slip back into messaging that focuses too much on themselves rather than on reaching the right audiences with the right messages. Let’s focus on rethinking this approach and simply ask anyone to contribute to the progress being made on our important issues—no labels needed.

Derrick Feldmann (@derrickfeldmann) is the founder of the Millennial Impact Project, lead researcher at Cause & Social Influence, and the author of The Corporate Social Mind. See Derrick’s related articles in Philanthropy News Digest, “Nurturing a community for the greatest impact” and “Creating symbiosis between marketing and advocacy.” He also is managing director, Ad Council Research Institute and the Ad Council Edge Strategic Consultancy.