Words that seem outdated or carry with them uncomfortable baggage might be best avoided in fund-raising efforts.

But Jeff Brooks, says in his Donor Power Blog that such loaded terms might be just the tools a charity needs to spark donors.

Early on in his fund-raising career, Mr. Brooks, who is now creative director at Merkle, a company that helps nonprofit groups raise money, worked for a charity battling Hansen’s disease. Never heard of it? Well you probably know the affliction by its other name: Leprosy.

“Leprosy is an ugly word, with an ancient and ugly history, “ Mr. Brooks writes. “Hansen,” is a harmless-sounding surname, while “leprosy” conjures up images of a disfiguring and damnable disease. But, Mr. Brooks asks, “Which one is more likely to stir donors to action?”

Alas, he doesn’t say how his Hansen/leprosy situation worked out in the long run, but he does caution charities to be wary of always seeking out safe, sanitary alternatives to problematic words.

“A lot of nonprofits struggle with this issue, seeking colorless, uncontroversial, low-impact ways of describing the issues they’re involved with,” he writes. “It’s a huge mistake. It’s so much better to be bold and clear — even if you have to apologize later for the words you used. Better that than apologize for ineffective fund raising that didn’t align enough people with the cause to make a difference.”

Can you think of other examples where charities face prickly words choices? Might some particularly tricky terms turn off donors as easily as they might prompt them to give? Please click on the comment link below this post to share your thoughts.