Resources / Ripples & Wipeouts

I have been arguing for some time now that the nonprofit sector needs a new model of branding, one that is particular to the sector’s unique position in the economic landscape.  (See my earlier post, The Branding Bandwagon.)

While it’s true that we can borrow much from the corporate sector, it’s also true that nonprofit organizations are structured differently for a reason.  Nonprofits provide services (and occasionally products) that for-profit organizations decline to provide because those services are not generally profitable.  That’s why our government has special rules and tax advantages for nonprofit organizations. We are not like for-profit corporations.  Thus, we should not assume that the corporate branding model applies to us wholesale.  It doesn’t, and here’s why:

Branding is more than a nicely designed logo or catchy name.  It’s a process that takes place over time.  Building brand recognition, reputation and loyalty requires that an organization have repeated, consistent exposure to its target audiences, often through advertising.  This costs money, usually a good deal of it.  And the initial development of a branding campaign and collateral materials costs even more.  Certainly there are nonprofits that are able to generate the money to pay for such a branding effort, but it seems reasonable to question whether it’s appropriate to use a substantial amount of donated funds in order to compete against other nonprofits working on the same problems and social issues. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I understand that great nonprofit organizations need to distinguish themselves from other groups that appear similar but are actually less effective.  But shouldn’t the proving ground be performance?  Through providing great programs that give donors a good return on their investments?  Just telling people you’re terrific in a branding campaign doesn’t make it so.  It is perfectly plausible that some nonprofit with strong branding yet mediocre results will survive during this recession, while an innovative nonprofit with great results yet no money for branding will have to close its doors.  (C’mon, admit it.  You’re thinking of some “big bucks” nonprofit right now, aren’t you?)

In a nutshell, I would say that the desire to conduct a corporate style branding initiative is understandable, but it’s not sustainable.  Of course the problem with just doing great work is that a nonprofit runs the risk of going unnoticed and unsung, and hence unfunded.  It is important to get your name out there, and it is true that media coverage, a strong Internet presence and attractive printed materials (aka branding) are often necessary to get noticed.  And the reality is that nonprofits do compete for funding.  So what’s the alternative?

I think it’s a collaborative model that focuses on branding projects rather than branding a single nonprofit organization.  Some nonprofits are already doing this, although not as in-depth as I envision.  One collaborative with which I’m especially familiar is the Elder Economic Security Initiative (EESI), a program that uses research, organizing and advocacy to build a more secure economic environment for older Americans.  Led by Wider Opportunities for Women, the EESI project is executed by a group of state-based organizations around the country and is based on research from the Gerontology Institute at UMass Boston.  All told, there are 14 different nonprofit partners involved in the initiative. 

The degree of collaboration among a group of nonprofits working on a particular project varies, and many configurations already exist.  While I don’t consider these examples to be full-fledged project branding models, they are worth examining:  the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia and SmartTransportation.org.

I think that the process of obtaining recognition and respect for a branded project lies in using the full range of media available.  This includes traditional, earned media (aka “free” news coverage), email, events and most especially social media, which generate the gold standard of endorsements, word of mouth.  Best of all, these are all low-cost, alternative ways of communicating brand value.  (I will write more about these channels in blog posts to come.)

Many of the existing collaborations are funded by grants from foundations and it seems to me that foundations are the logical catalysts for encouraging project branding among nonprofits.  Perhaps if foundations placed more focus on funding collaborations, individual nonprofit organizations would feel less pressure to spend precious resources on branding initiatives.  As long as it remains necessary to compete against one another to gain access to funding – particularly to major, institutional sources – there is little likelihood that a fully collaborative nonprofit branding model will emerge.

At this point, it’s worth noting a story that recently ran in the New York Times, As Detroit Struggles, Foundations Shift Mission.  It isn’t just Detroit nonprofits that are experiencing life-and-death funding problems. This is happening throughout the US and it’s clear that those of us who work in the sector need to come up with new, more innovative ways to manage resources and get the most out of every budget dollar.  Working more collaboratively and even merging may be what is necessary to ensure that our important work continues. 

-- Bonnie McEwan