Despite increased giving in 2019, competition for donations among nonprofits remains high, especially when a charitable organization’s niche overlaps with that of others’. Consequently, nonprofit charitable organizations must tell stories that persuade donors to support their mission and contribute. This study uses positioning theory to examine how websites of the charitable organizations that appeared in Forbes Magazine’s 2019 top 100 charities use storytelling to facilitate their ethos such that they gain support and thus increase their donor base. The results revealed that nonprofits use positioning to establish two types of partnerships: invited and assumed. Furthermore, the coding revealed three primary types of positioning within these partnerships: savior-follower, business partners, and teacher-student. These positions organize and set the parameters for each organization’s story and will not only influence and potentially dictate the speech acts that follow, but also the responsibilities and rights of all those involved.
AugerG. A. (2014). Rhetorical framing: Examining the message structure of nonprofit organizations on Twitter. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 19, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1499
ChoyE. (2017). Let the story do the work: The art of storytelling for business success. AMACom.
6.
ConnorU.GladkovK. (2004). Rhetorical appeals in fundraising direct mail letters. In ConnorU.UptonT. A. (Eds.), Discourse in the professions (pp. 257–286). John Benjamins.
7.
CrismoreA. (2004). Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters: A corpus linguistic analysis. In ConnorU.UptonT. A. (Eds.), Discourse in the professions (pp. 307–330). John Benjamins.
8.
CruzR. E.LeonhardtJ. M.PezzutiT. (2017). Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.05.001
9.
DasE.KerkhofP.KuiperJ. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880801922854
FahnestockJ. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford University Press.
12.
GetchellK. M.BeitelspacherL. S. (2020). Better marketing for female marketers: Gendered language in the Forbes CMO list. Business Horizons, 63(5), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.04.004
13.
GillR.WellsC. C. (2014). Welcome to the ‘Hunger Games’: An exploration of the rhetorical construction of legitimacy for one U.S.-based nonprofit organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933|89|35|3434
14.
HarréR. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In ValsinerJ. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 191–206). Oxford University.
15.
HarréR.GillettG. (1994). The discursive mind. SAGE.
HarréR.Van LangenhoveL. (2010). Varieties of positioning, people and societies: Rom harré and designing the social sciences. Routledge.
18.
HungI. W.WyerR. S. (2009). Differences in perspective and the influence of charitable appeals: When imagining oneself as the victim is not beneficial. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.421
19.
Íñigo-MoraI. (2004). On the use of the personal pronoun “we” in communities. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
20.
KacherskyL.PalermoN. (2013). How personal pronouns influence brand name preference. Journal of Brand Management, 20(7), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.61
21.
KlassO. S.BihamO.LevyM.MalcaiO.SolomonS. (2006). The Forbes 400 and the Pareto wealth distribution. Economics Letters, 90(2), 290–095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.08.020
McKeeverB. W. (2013). From awareness to advocacy: Understanding nonprofit communication, participation, and support. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25, 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.806868
24.
MerchantA.FordJ. B.SargeantA. (2010). Charitable organizations’ storytelling influence on donors’ emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63, 754–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.013
25.
MitchellS.ClarkM. (2021). Telling a different story: How nonprofit organizations reveal strategic purpose through storytelling. Psychology and Marketing, 38(1), 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21429
26.
MoghaddamF.HarréR. (2010). Words, conflicts and political processes. In MoghaddamF.HarréR. (Eds.), Words of war: How the language we use in political processes sparks fighting (pp. 1–28). Praeger.
27.
MoghaddamF. M.HarréR.LeeN. (Eds.). (2008). Conclusion and glossary. In Global conflict resolution through positioning analysis. Springer Science + Business Media.
28.
MühlhäuslerP.HarréR. (1990). Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Blackwell.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
31.
PaarlbergL. E.HwangH. (2017). The heterogeneity of competitive forces: The impact of competition for resources on United Way fundraising. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 897–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017713874
32.
PackardG.MooreS. G.McFerranB. (2018). (I’m) happy to help (you): The impact of personal pronoun use in customer–firm interactions. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 55(4), 541–555.
33.
PangN.LawP. W. (2017). Retweeting #WorldEnvironmentDay: A study of content features and visual rhetoric in an environmental movement. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.003
34.
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press.
35.
SaundersB.SimJ.KingstoneT.BakerS.WaterfieldJ.BartlamB.BurroughsH.JinksC. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
36.
SelaA.WheelerS. C.Sarial-AbiG. (2012). WeAre not the same asYou and I: Causal effects of minor language variations on consumers’ attitudes toward brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3), 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1086/664972
37.
ShierM. L.HandyF. (2012). Understanding online donor behavior: The role of donor characteristics, perceptions of the internet, website and program, and influence from social networks. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1425
