Fri, January 11 2008
There were two gems in other blogs over the past week, and I want to pass them on.
1. THE 15-MINUTE MISSION STATEMENT: If you know me, you know I think nonprofits spend way too much time crafting mission statements in an exercise that too often degenerates into navel-gazing neurosis. Yet they can be useful to focusing programs if they are done right. Here’s a neat solution from Kelly Kleiman on her blog The Nonprofiteer, which was picked up on the Give and Take blog: Simplify the process by spending an hour — or even just 15 minutes — drafting a single sentence that outlines their mission” “We do [activity] so that [result will occur].” I like it.
2. THE FUTURE OF FUNDRAISING: Mark Rovner says this: “Here is the current online fundraising model: build your prospect list however you can and then bombard them relentlessly with email solicitations. If you’re clever, maybe throw in mail and phone solicitations as well. Repeat, repeat, repeat…” The problem? It works less and less effectively, it drives people away and it’s not sustainable. If you’re doing this, stop. Focus on growing a list of new prospects that want to hear from you and treat them well. There’s a lot at stake. Mark says:
EVERYTHING is going to change. In his latest book, Meatball Sundae, Seth Godin makes the point that organizations and companies are generally built around the mode of marketing available to them. If your organization began its life between 1970 and 2000, chances are it was built around cheap mail and high response rates. The first victim of expensive mail and low response rates is your fundraising efficiency. And in this era of CharityNavigator, your fundraising efficiency is no secret.
Tue, January 08 2008
Filed under: Cause-related marketing •
Photo by sadalit, flickr.
If you are a company or nonprofit teaming up to do cause-related marketing in 2008, take heed: slapping charitable branding on a product is not enough. Today’s consumers are socially conscious but they are also savvy—and skeptical. Cause-related ventures are held to high standards, and vague claims of social good are scrutinized. So, in support of Cone’s What Do You Stand For? project, here are the four things all cause-related ventures should stand for:
Does the partnership pass the sniff test for suitability? For example, even if the company donated all of its profits, Hummer would never be a good partner for Greenpeace. Sounds obvious, right? But I’ve seen some partners that seemed poorly suited this year, including Trident promoting Save the Children nutrition and literacy programs. Gum doesn’t fit with nutrition—or literacy, since it’s not even allowed in libraries or schools. Operation Smile would have made more sense as a partner. You want a fit that makes sense to the consumer - it’s stickier that way (pun intended). You also want a fit that makes sense to the partners, who should look for a deeper win-win. An ideal partnership is one where the cause and company’s objectives reinforce each other.
A close cousin of suitability, authenticity is about the company walking the talk of the cause. A nice example is the Pure Prevention campaign, which my organization helped plan and support (so I’m biased). Luna Bar walks the talk of health concerns and nutrition, so it makes sense for them to support a cause that focuses on the environmental causes of breast cancer. Check it out here.
This is HUGE. It’s not enough to say, we’re partners and a portion of proceeds benefits xyz charity. Both the company and the charity need to say what amount of money is going where to do what. Very, very clearly - on everything. Put it on price tags, marketing materials, everywhere. Err on the side of openness. The RED controversy shows there are people out there watching! (PS: RED has done a good job on reporting - check out their site.)
4. Selling Point
Lots of research, including from Cone, shows consumers will buy cause-related products over those that don’t have a charitable tie-in, PRICE AND QUALITY BEING EQUAL. So don’t think alignment with a cause is a unique value proposition, unless you have the same price and quality. If you don’t, you need other selling points. The Susan G. Komen partnerships make things pink, which believe it or not, is a selling point—people went crazy for Campbell’s cans in pink because they looked neat (and were different and unexpected). So color can actually be a selling point. What value can you add to you add to the product in question that extends and supplements the charitable merits it presents? Figure it out. You want people to buy into this!
I can’t emphasize enough how important it is to follow these principles - and don’t just take my word for it. From Cause-Related Marketing Blog, here’s a great analysis of what happens when you don’t.
Tue, January 08 2008
Filed under: Social Media •
If you’ve ever taken a dive on AstroTurf, you know it hurts - like the worst kind of carpet burn. It also hurts to AstroTurf online - which is an expression for seeding fake, faux-grassroots material that’s disingenously disguised self-promotion. For example, posing as a fan of your employer and posting comments to a blog as if you’re a third party. AstroTurfing hurts your organization. It hurts you. And it hurts the people you deceive. And the burn is the fifth-degree kind.
There was a sad case of this over the past few days. Holden Karnofsky of GiveWell, an organization that’s been pushing for greater transparency in grantmaking and results from nonprofits, was found to have been AstroTurfing for his organization. AstroTurfing is always bad, as I’ve noted on this blog in the Whole Foods case. It saddens me so much in this case, because Holden’s actions flew in the face of what he called for: namely, honesty and transparency. Here’s what the Chronicle of Philanthropy described today:
On Metafilter, an online message board, Mr. Karnofsky promoted GiveWell without identifying himself. In one message he asked for ideas on how to choose a charity to support and then “answered” as another writer by touting GiveWell’s evaluations of nonprofit groups.
A Metafilter member uncovered the self-promotion, which violated the Web site’s rules, and announced the discovery on the message board.
Mr. Karnofsky quickly apologized and said that he had a “horrible lapse of judgment” by hiding his identity. He also offered to make a contribution to Metafilter to compensate for his mistake – an offer that was derided by Metafilter contributors as a bribe.
Metafilter members found other examples of Mr. Karnofsky’s praising GiveWell as an anonymous source, including instances where he criticized other nonprofit groups.
I met Holden when he minced no words in criticizing Network for Good (my organization) on his blog, and I responded. We ended up having a productive conversation and ultimately a collegial professional relationship. I’ve followed and blogged what he’s doing. He’s committed a lot of energy to what he believes, and while we haven’t always agreed (including on this blog), I respected his energy and the end result of what he wanted—motivated donors and the most effective nonprofit sector possible. But it seems his energy has gone terribly awry, and it’s a real shame. He’s apologized, but he lost his job [clarification: he was demoted] and a lot of people are furious, particularly because Holden (often harshly) demanded such honesty and transparency of others. Bloggers and commenters have written literally hundreds of posts and comments on this turn of events—read them here.
I hope some good comes of this - for the [very worthy] work Holden wanted to do and for anyone observing the situation. I’d like to use this sad tale as a reminder to all of us that you MUST be honest and authentic online, or else. In the Web 2.0 world, no matter how good your intentions, you pay a big price for misrepresenting yourself. In your job, please never be tempted to AstroTurf. Don’t anonymously post good things about your organization or bad things about others without identifying yourself, because it’s unethical in my view. And if that’s not incentive enough, know that those tricks tend to get discovered. They will estrange and enrage the very people you set out to influence. You and your cause will get burned.
Wed, January 02 2008
I got asked by Beth Kanter to post on this topic: “What if I could start all my social media and nonprofits work over from scratch? What would I do differently? What lessons have I learned that will stick with me for 2008?”
Having Beth Kanter asking me to post on social media is a little like Yo-Yo Ma asking me to play cello for him. Beth is THE maestro on nonprofits and social media (and she could probably accompany Yo-Yo Ma on flute). So read what she says first. Then read what Britt Bravo says. Britt, in addition to having The Name I Wish I Had, is also very wise on the social media front. Then you can read my list, which is below.
Four Things I Wish I’d Known from the Start about Social Media:
1. It’s not that hard, and I should have gotten over the intimidation factor sooner. Not too long into my job here at Network for Good a few years ago, I kept hearing people reference Web 2.0. I remember, filled with fear of ridicule for my ignorance, asking people what it meant. I’m glad I did, because I realized a lot of people had trouble defining it and were grappling with its meaning just like me. Today, social media to me means the electronic manifestation of the human desire to be heard and seen and part of a community. It’s using technology as a platform for personal expression and as a means to connect to others around things we care about. It’s not hard to learn how to do that online - you don’t need any real technology expertise (I’m living proof of that) as much as social skills - and it’s a lot of fun making new friends which is the real point. No matter how much of a novice you deem yourself, you CAN explore social media and find ways to benefit from it. If you haven’t, make 2008 the year you do.
2. It’s about “social,” not “media.” As I said in this post, while social media seems oh-so-new, what makes it hot could not be more ancient or old-school. What’s significant about social media is how it allows us to quickly and expansively fulfill our unending human need for connection. While I myself have fallen into the trap of focusing on my organization’s need to do Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, that’s not the point—what matters whether those are places to strengthen connections with my target audience. If my target audience isn’t there, I’m not going there.
3. Social media cranks WOM up to 11. What excites me most about social media, now that I sort of get it, is its potent potential to amplify word of mouth. Good word of mouth for your good cause is invaluable. People listen to people they know, and if those people recommend something, they listen. If people make recommendations, that good word of mouth spreads faster and farther through their circles of influence. Social media enables people to evangelize in their own way, in their own words, where their peeps congregate. We’re so underfunded and overworked in our sector - how great is it other people can help us spread the word so efficiently?
4. Think before you build something new, because we already have overdevelopment in social media. You could build (yet another) new social network. You could create yet another blog. You could make a new video. But if you’re one of those underfunded and overworked people, think twice and first read my Four Laws of Social Networking. You may get further, faster by connecting to existing infrastructure than trying to create it.
Wed, December 26 2007
Filed under: Marketing essentials •
When I’m asked about whether I think a marketing campaign is good, I always ask:
Who was the audience and what action was the campaign seeking to effect?
These are good questions to ask yourself before you launch any marketing effort. Is it well targeted? Will it resonate with the audience in question? Is it consistent with your brand? Will it get people to act in the way you want?
In other words, you’d better know
you’re marketing before you jump to
to market something.
Some colleagues recently called my attention to two campaigns, and while they both have merits, I"m not sure they nailed the “who and why” before they leaped to the “how.”
Here’s the first, which was a PETA campaign that was eloquently blogged by CK. It’s a website trashing the Olsen twins for wearing fur, providing interactive, bloody dress-up games, and a faux Full house video, which unfortunately is nearly as boring and unwatchable as the show.
So does trashing these celebrities make sense as a marketing strategy? It really depends on what PETA is trying to do. If they are trying to please their base, yes. It’s a highly negative, on-the-attack, celebrity-shaming, attention-grabbing campaign that is completely aligned with PETA’s brand and followers. If it’s trying to get online media attention for PETA, it also makes sense because it’s blogworthy. If it’s trying to get the Olsens or other celebs to embrace PETA’s cause and/or get new people to support PETA by writing to the Olsens or giving money, I doubt this will work. Going that negative will just estrange the mainstream, which includes people who like Mary Kate and Ashley or, if they don’t, prefer to visit Perez than PETA for their Trollsen dose. Quite simply, the campaign encourages people to think of PETA as being “fringe,” which I think is far less scary than being influential. So if the “who” is new audiences and the “what” is eschewing fur, I don’t think it works.
On to a campaign that is the polar opposite of the Trollsens - it’s a feel-good spot sent to me by a reader from Italy. Daniele writes:
I’m working for a campaign called superegali.org for the NGO Terre des Hommes Italia. It’s a fundraising campaign for PerÃ¹, Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe to help kids of these countries. We made a viral video for this campaign where the protagonist is our mascot, a paper toy. The video is a spoof of Dove Onslaught.
(If you want to know what the Dove campaign is, I posted on there here.)
I thought the video was cute (especially if you’re familiar with the cultural reference of the Dove campaign) for an audience of potential supporters in Italy - provided they know the Dove campaign. But the “why” was unclear. What does the ad want you to do? It seems to ask you to rethink the concept of superhero, but it’s not clear what you’re supposed to do as a result, or how cutting out superheroes helps kids. I think the campaign is interesting but has a perplexing (perhaps even absent) call to action. So I asked Daniele what was the “why” of the campaign. She responded the purpose was to spread the word about their work and raise money. If that’s the “why” of the campaign, I think it could use some tweaking. Thoughts for Daniele?