We agree - it will take more than marketing to save the world. The challenges of underserved communities are more complex than simple stories. However, different types of funders gravitate to different narratives. By distinguishing the funders you seek, we believe nonprofits can attract a wider breadth of donors. Foundations in particular will be drawn to a multi-faceted approach. Individual donors, who are drawn to a simpler story can raise awareness and move the conversation beyond the social sector - a key to effecting change. Both types are needed. It’s not a matter of either/or, so much as yes/and.
The biggest problem with this oversimplification of the message: it works. It raises donations. And the people responsible for raising the funds are allowed to keep their jobs because they hit their goals. And so they go back to the same methods, because they worked in the past. And these get taught as best practices—as Tom Ahern brilliantly does.
But I have to admit that just like Louise Sparrow—this bothers me. I think fundraisers (or development professionals or directors of philanthropy or whichever title you prefer) are often looking for balance between language that is accurate vs. language that works to motivate donors.
Painting a fuller picture of people’s lives in a rapidly-changing world is becoming everyone’s job. Importantly, that complexity must also include a deep awareness of voice and agency. As nonprofit communicators, if not yet fundraisers, are starting to accept their role in framing the international development narrative, they should be asking themselves how they are enabling people to tell their own stories.
Supporting people in wealthy countries to relate and connect to issues in the Global South without pity, guilt or shame means challenging the ignorance and romanticism of poor countries. What if in your communications, ALL individuals can see themselves as part of the solutions to global poverty? What if “helping” were portrayed as directly asking, listening to & responding to what citizens want?
With my class at Georgetown last year, I released a publication that explores how international organizations can get beyond polarizing portrayals of global development and aid. It has been well-received in the sector, accessed over 10,000 times. Have a read: http://issuu.com/howmatters/docs/the_development_element
As a brand developer, I will be the first to admit that branding is a great tool, but it does come with some dangers. Whether you are a non-profit or a commercial venture, the five deadly sins of branding we should all stay clear of are vanity, authority, puffery, insincerity, and gimmickry. Developing a brand should be about distillation and clarification, not extrapolation.
I feel it is important to note that the two examples of the malaria campaign and the Tom’s one for one model are both simplified solutions that are in themselves not working. The marketing or the branding simply follow the models that they are intended to promote. We can point the finger at branding, but the fact is that a broken philanthropic model for Toms needs to be replaced by a new sustainable solution that builds value for everyone. It should not be replaced by a different way of campaigning alone.
What is very worrisome is that you observe that the simplification of messages actually means that systemic change solutions are no longer getting funded. If this is true, and I am inclined to believe you, we are in trouble indeed. It is probably my professional deformation, but I feel that the real, messy, complex situation at hand, makes for the best creative brief. How might we get funders to respect and support the complexities of the issue we are trying to address, and stand out from the crowd of solution providers? Something tells me that there is a great differentiating brand positioning for an organisation that actually dares to stand up against the simplified solutions that are proven to be ineffective and which works to tackle the underlying root causes of the issues at hand.
Of course, in an ideal world, branding and marketing should be unnecessary to get the funding for these great causes. People would give without being urged, and will not feel the need to ask for accountability, updates and interaction. Unfortunately, we do not live in this perfect world. And until that day comes, non-profits will need to compete for funding, and branding and marketing can help. If we can all make sure that both the solutions and their communication are developed with ethics and focussed on true impact, that would be a great thing indeed.
Thank you for your comment. I agree with your insights. I believe that a lot of the interventions that I mention, like malaria nets or one-for-one campaigns, do have value, but they are not the entire solution. I’m concerned with some of the marketing that makes it seem that they are.
I’m not sure which of the sins you mention best fits as the driver of the spiral that I described. If it’s insincerity, I believe it’s driven by the pressure to fundraise. This leads non-profits to willingly exaggerate their impact in order to fund projects that they believe are providing beneficial outcomes. However, the spiral could also be driven by ignorance. In this case, the marketers may not be monitoring the effectiveness of actual results.
Either way, it is harmful. This insincerity can cover up the ineffectiveness of an intervention or exaggerate its impact.
On a positive note, I have seen more organizations lately, like Ubuntu, that are trying to put out messaging that addresses the realities of the difficult and expensive nature of transforming lives.
COMMENTS
BY Louise Sparrow
ON August 13, 2015 06:40 AM
Thank you for articulating something that has been bothering me for some time.
BY Deb Brozina and Joy Stephan
ON August 13, 2015 11:16 AM
We agree - it will take more than marketing to save the world. The challenges of underserved communities are more complex than simple stories. However, different types of funders gravitate to different narratives. By distinguishing the funders you seek, we believe nonprofits can attract a wider breadth of donors. Foundations in particular will be drawn to a multi-faceted approach. Individual donors, who are drawn to a simpler story can raise awareness and move the conversation beyond the social sector - a key to effecting change. Both types are needed. It’s not a matter of either/or, so much as yes/and.
BY Diana Kutlow
ON August 13, 2015 03:39 PM
A valuable and humbling reminder on a day that I’m reviewing our fundraising web page inviting donors to be our partners in peacebuilding. Thank you!
BY Mary Shirley
ON August 14, 2015 12:45 PM
The biggest problem with this oversimplification of the message: it works. It raises donations. And the people responsible for raising the funds are allowed to keep their jobs because they hit their goals. And so they go back to the same methods, because they worked in the past. And these get taught as best practices—as Tom Ahern brilliantly does.
But I have to admit that just like Louise Sparrow—this bothers me. I think fundraisers (or development professionals or directors of philanthropy or whichever title you prefer) are often looking for balance between language that is accurate vs. language that works to motivate donors.
BY manik
ON August 17, 2015 11:54 AM
A valuable article.
BY Jenifa hasel
ON August 17, 2015 12:01 PM
Hi ! Great post, online is the best for research paper and that help student research paper of xavier university louisiana for write.Thanks for your informative article.
BY Jennifer Lentfer
ON August 18, 2015 05:36 AM
Painting a fuller picture of people’s lives in a rapidly-changing world is becoming everyone’s job. Importantly, that complexity must also include a deep awareness of voice and agency. As nonprofit communicators, if not yet fundraisers, are starting to accept their role in framing the international development narrative, they should be asking themselves how they are enabling people to tell their own stories.
Supporting people in wealthy countries to relate and connect to issues in the Global South without pity, guilt or shame means challenging the ignorance and romanticism of poor countries. What if in your communications, ALL individuals can see themselves as part of the solutions to global poverty? What if “helping” were portrayed as directly asking, listening to & responding to what citizens want?
With my class at Georgetown last year, I released a publication that explores how international organizations can get beyond polarizing portrayals of global development and aid. It has been well-received in the sector, accessed over 10,000 times. Have a read: http://issuu.com/howmatters/docs/the_development_element
BY Anne Miltenburg
ON August 20, 2015 04:28 AM
As a brand developer, I will be the first to admit that branding is a great tool, but it does come with some dangers. Whether you are a non-profit or a commercial venture, the five deadly sins of branding we should all stay clear of are vanity, authority, puffery, insincerity, and gimmickry. Developing a brand should be about distillation and clarification, not extrapolation.
I feel it is important to note that the two examples of the malaria campaign and the Tom’s one for one model are both simplified solutions that are in themselves not working. The marketing or the branding simply follow the models that they are intended to promote. We can point the finger at branding, but the fact is that a broken philanthropic model for Toms needs to be replaced by a new sustainable solution that builds value for everyone. It should not be replaced by a different way of campaigning alone.
What is very worrisome is that you observe that the simplification of messages actually means that systemic change solutions are no longer getting funded. If this is true, and I am inclined to believe you, we are in trouble indeed. It is probably my professional deformation, but I feel that the real, messy, complex situation at hand, makes for the best creative brief. How might we get funders to respect and support the complexities of the issue we are trying to address, and stand out from the crowd of solution providers? Something tells me that there is a great differentiating brand positioning for an organisation that actually dares to stand up against the simplified solutions that are proven to be ineffective and which works to tackle the underlying root causes of the issues at hand.
Of course, in an ideal world, branding and marketing should be unnecessary to get the funding for these great causes. People would give without being urged, and will not feel the need to ask for accountability, updates and interaction. Unfortunately, we do not live in this perfect world. And until that day comes, non-profits will need to compete for funding, and branding and marketing can help. If we can all make sure that both the solutions and their communication are developed with ethics and focussed on true impact, that would be a great thing indeed.
BY Jordan Levy
ON August 26, 2015 09:50 AM
Anne,
Thank you for your comment. I agree with your insights. I believe that a lot of the interventions that I mention, like malaria nets or one-for-one campaigns, do have value, but they are not the entire solution. I’m concerned with some of the marketing that makes it seem that they are.
I’m not sure which of the sins you mention best fits as the driver of the spiral that I described. If it’s insincerity, I believe it’s driven by the pressure to fundraise. This leads non-profits to willingly exaggerate their impact in order to fund projects that they believe are providing beneficial outcomes. However, the spiral could also be driven by ignorance. In this case, the marketers may not be monitoring the effectiveness of actual results.
Either way, it is harmful. This insincerity can cover up the ineffectiveness of an intervention or exaggerate its impact.
On a positive note, I have seen more organizations lately, like Ubuntu, that are trying to put out messaging that addresses the realities of the difficult and expensive nature of transforming lives.
I hope it is effective.