The other day I was listening to a pretty interesting call with Sarah Durham and Nancy Schwartz. Both of them are fairly well known in nonprofit marketing circles (not sure how much that is worth) and they were giving a talk on the power of brands for nonprofits and how brands are more than just a logo. While listening to them chat about it, i couldn't help but wonder one thing (well two things if you include my thoughts about how antiquated call in meetings are, I mean christ, is a webcast so hard to set up?) are nonprofits really so in the dark about their brands and how important it is to maintain? True, I'd never assert that every nonprofit leaders has some fancy business marketing degree and some rarefied understanding of "branding" but is the majority as in the dark as we'd like to believe?
I dunno, I'm a numbers guy and before I can make an assertion I like to do research, but even without research one can see why it's in people like Sarah and Nancy's interest (and frankly mine) to maintain the belief that people are in the dark, that's how we keep food in our bellies. The problem is that the big push towards branding has come and past (that was really the business zeitgiest of the late 80's and 90's), now we're in the age of design. There is the chance that everyone may understand the importance of branding already and has moved on. Every third book is now about design, the army is using design to figure out how to win wars, and apple has a permanent lock on all our dreams. Design is the new placebo, the panacea to cure every business problem, and nonprofits are still worrying about branding.
Do I think branding is important? yes. Do I think design thinking is important? yes. Will I think that the next big business concept (i.e. fad) will be important? yes. Do I think that these are new ideas that successful people haven't ever thought of before? No. Frank Perdue knew about the power of branding back in the 20's (or something like that), IDEO has been using design thinking forever and ever. Successful nonprofits have understood how important it is to stand for one thing (the mission), stay true to the mission in all communications and actions (the brand), and to think innovatively about delivering the mission (design thinking) since the dawn of time.
I'm not entirely sure of where I'm going with this but it seems like we are eternally trying to label and formulate (and capitalize) on processes in the hope of being able to sell success.
Are nonprofits as far behind the current curve as these marketers think or are they just pandering to the easiest prey because they haven't developed the skills needed to go after the nonprofits that have already mastered branding?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Mission drifting into a brick wall
Funder "So what does your organization do?"
Executive Director "Well we teach kids to cook, while using the food from a local farm, which uses seed from a coalition of restaurants, which get their power from a series of windmills, which were assembled by the kids we taught to cook, and then those kids use their windmill building and cooking skills to set up new windmill building cooking schools throughout the pacific north west and then they . . ."
Today I was thinking about the importance of strategic focus. When I look around at organizations, it seems like half of the time nonprofits are so desperate to pry dollars out of the hands of foundations and donors that they are willing to try to stretch their mission to cover everything under the sun. I mean, I can totally understand the logic behind that (go to where the fish are) but the problem is that they end up trying to be everything to everyone, and end up being nothing to everyone. Think about it, if you've got 5 seconds to pitch your nonprofit to some fancy pants grant manager or cause marketing director, you've got to have a crisp clear message about what your nonprofit does, why it does it, and why they care about that thing that you do. No one cares about (or believes) that one nonprofit is solving each and every problem in the world, but they can believe that your putting all of your energy into doing one thing very well. Further more, nothing is going to make you look worse that saying that you really care about X to one funder and that you care about Y to another funder and then for the funders to find out that you've been bullshitting them both just to get your hands in their wallets.
I believe that real power comes from doing one thing really well. Most of the famous stars and masters of industry aren't jack of all trades, they just have the ability to do one things way better than anyone else. That should be the goal of nonprofits (and forprofits for that matter). Rather than attempting to make your mission touch as many points as possible, you can really gain traction by being able to say "we do this one thing better than anyone else and if you want this one thing to happen, you gotta fund us." By doing that you can be unique, you can concentrate your efforts and you can stay true to your funders and, most importantly you can stay true to your mission (and fend out mission drift). When you look at the most successful nonprofits out there like the american red cross or Harlem children's Zone or Big Brothers Big Sisters, you'll see orgs with clear missions and a dedication to achieving that mission at all costs. If you're going to have a nonprofit that survives, you're going to have to have the courage to say that you do one thing really well and then convince others of your ability and the importance of your mission. Donors don't expect you to save the entire world by yourself, they just expect you to stay true to your mission.
Executive Director "Well we teach kids to cook, while using the food from a local farm, which uses seed from a coalition of restaurants, which get their power from a series of windmills, which were assembled by the kids we taught to cook, and then those kids use their windmill building and cooking skills to set up new windmill building cooking schools throughout the pacific north west and then they . . ."
Today I was thinking about the importance of strategic focus. When I look around at organizations, it seems like half of the time nonprofits are so desperate to pry dollars out of the hands of foundations and donors that they are willing to try to stretch their mission to cover everything under the sun. I mean, I can totally understand the logic behind that (go to where the fish are) but the problem is that they end up trying to be everything to everyone, and end up being nothing to everyone. Think about it, if you've got 5 seconds to pitch your nonprofit to some fancy pants grant manager or cause marketing director, you've got to have a crisp clear message about what your nonprofit does, why it does it, and why they care about that thing that you do. No one cares about (or believes) that one nonprofit is solving each and every problem in the world, but they can believe that your putting all of your energy into doing one thing very well. Further more, nothing is going to make you look worse that saying that you really care about X to one funder and that you care about Y to another funder and then for the funders to find out that you've been bullshitting them both just to get your hands in their wallets.
I believe that real power comes from doing one thing really well. Most of the famous stars and masters of industry aren't jack of all trades, they just have the ability to do one things way better than anyone else. That should be the goal of nonprofits (and forprofits for that matter). Rather than attempting to make your mission touch as many points as possible, you can really gain traction by being able to say "we do this one thing better than anyone else and if you want this one thing to happen, you gotta fund us." By doing that you can be unique, you can concentrate your efforts and you can stay true to your funders and, most importantly you can stay true to your mission (and fend out mission drift). When you look at the most successful nonprofits out there like the american red cross or Harlem children's Zone or Big Brothers Big Sisters, you'll see orgs with clear missions and a dedication to achieving that mission at all costs. If you're going to have a nonprofit that survives, you're going to have to have the courage to say that you do one thing really well and then convince others of your ability and the importance of your mission. Donors don't expect you to save the entire world by yourself, they just expect you to stay true to your mission.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Why is everything such a downer?
I saw these ads the other day while wandering around Union square
I mean, they're ok ads. There is stuff that I'd change (logo is hard to make out, too much copy - am I really supposed to stop and read all that tiny stuff below the headline? Not sure what the body shop has to do with this, would like a website or something so I know what to do with the information that I've learned) but I've seen worse. The thing that struck me is that it's such a downer. In fact, I was looking back at my other posts and they too were downers. Is it just a matter of what I post or is ads and marketing for non-profits really as much of a downer as it seems? Seems like ads are either mindless fluff (look at the American Lung Association fightforair.com for an example of that) or it's all doom and gloom. I mean, is there a middle ground? Can something grab our attention without being the end of the world? Where are the empowerment messages? Where's the hope?
Next time you see a nice ad for a nonprofit that's not all doom and gloom, send it my way at Cerrone@seamnyc.com.
In the immortal words of Johnny Cash "I'd love to wear a rainbow on my back"
I mean, they're ok ads. There is stuff that I'd change (logo is hard to make out, too much copy - am I really supposed to stop and read all that tiny stuff below the headline? Not sure what the body shop has to do with this, would like a website or something so I know what to do with the information that I've learned) but I've seen worse. The thing that struck me is that it's such a downer. In fact, I was looking back at my other posts and they too were downers. Is it just a matter of what I post or is ads and marketing for non-profits really as much of a downer as it seems? Seems like ads are either mindless fluff (look at the American Lung Association fightforair.com for an example of that) or it's all doom and gloom. I mean, is there a middle ground? Can something grab our attention without being the end of the world? Where are the empowerment messages? Where's the hope?
Next time you see a nice ad for a nonprofit that's not all doom and gloom, send it my way at Cerrone@seamnyc.com.
In the immortal words of Johnny Cash "I'd love to wear a rainbow on my back"
Monday, May 10, 2010
In defense of Susan Komen
Right now everyone in the nonprofit marketing sphere is having a group heart attack about the KFC/Komen team up and the pink buckets. For those of you who don't know what it is, essentially Susan Komen has teamed up with KFC to make these pink buckets and everytime you buy a bucket of chicken, Komen gets 50 cents for their research into breast cancer. Now everybody with even a small sense of nonprofit marketing is going off the handle about how crazy it is for Komen to team up with KFC since KFC makes fatty fried chicken. They're saying Komen has ruined their brand and alienated their supporters. To those people, I say "go fuck yourself". Yup I said it "go fuck yourself". I'm perfectly willing to be the one nonprofit marketer to stand up and say I stand by Komen and all those people out there who think that this was a terrible idea can go suck balls - deep fried greasy chicken balls
Lets have a quick thought experiment. Lets pretend you're in a hospital, you have stage 3 or 4 cancer, your waiting to have your breast cut off, and then to have months and months of radiation therapy (which I have had and can verify sucks) in conjunction with chemo therapy (which I haven't had but seen the effects of and can say pretty confidently sucks). Now while your laying there about to go under the knife, I want you to ask yourself "should komen get 1 million dollars from KFC to make sure no one ever has to go through this again?" I think your answer is going to be a resounding yes. This is isn't some fucking game, these are lives we're talking about here. It's not like Bally's is partnering with Krispy Kreme Donuts! This is an organization that has been tasked with stomping out breast cancer! It is their duty to do whatever it takes to do that.
Lets look at the facts:
1) Chicken is delicious, fried chicken is even more so.
2) Fried chicken, eaten in huge amounts, can cause all sorts of problems, ranging from greasy fingers to high blood pressure, to great big fat asses, but (and i could be wrong) none of the things they cause is breast cancer.
3) Susan komen's mission is to stop breast cancer, not stop great big fat asses. If you want to stop great big fat asses, find another organization, not Komen.
I am not saying that Komen should team up with anyone that comes knocking on the door. Teaming up with a cigarette company is not a good idea, because cigarettes cause cancer which defeats the purpose of thier organization. Chicken does not cause cancer. Yes KFC produced the double down sandwich but the double down (which is delicious I might ad) is 1) not targeted for women but targeted at 20 something men (which I happen to be) and 2) does not kill you. I ate it and I'm still here, I know women who ate it and they're still here, in fact I don't know anyone who's died from it directly, the same way people die from cancer. What people die from is eating too much of it, which is neither KFC's or Komen's fault. People have to take responsibility for their actions, including if they decide to stick a ton of friend chicken down their colossal gullets. Furthermore, there are cures for big fat asses, there is no cure for cancer!
Also, what is KFC supposed to do? Just because they make fried food (they also make grilled food and that accounts for 20% of their sales) they can't support positive causes? They can only support guns and liquor? Give me a break. I'd be pissed off it Komen passed up this chance and missed the opportunity to put another 1 million towards cancer research.
Additionally, I've heard that people are threatening to stop supporting Komen. To those person out there who is going to stop supporting Komen I say "you're an asshole". Komen is trying its best to save lives and if you're going to stop supporting them because they're taking money from an organization that makes fried chicken, then you're an ass and that's outside of Komen's control (you need to take that up with your parents and your questionable upbringing). If you don't like KFC, don't eat at KFC, tell your friends not to eat at KFC, go protest KFC, but don't stop supporting an organization that fights breast cancer because they realize finding a cure for cancer is important enough to take money from a purveyor of deep fried bits of chicken. I don't see those people bitching and whining about Komen and KFC going around and dropping off million dollar checks to Komen.
Do I think that this was the smoothest thing to do on Komen's part? No, of course not. They could have made it more under the radar, they could have positioned it as KFC making a small step to improve the lives of women, they could have partnered the brand up with KFC's healthier (though less delicious) offerings, they could have done all sorts of things to help with the brand dissonance but they didn't and now their taking flack for it. That's fine and understandable but to claim that it's the end of the world and that they shouldn't have taken the money is the same wrongheadedness that makes nonprofits think that they can't have run business and that they should feel guilty for generating income and that they need to live hand to mouth all the time. Komen did the right thing and I can only thank the great fried chicken in the sky that the nonprofit professionals out there who say that they would have taken the money aren't in control at Komen because if they were, a worthy organization would be out of a considerable amount of money and the people whose lives depend on that research would be suffering.
We have to do better,
-Cerrone
Lets have a quick thought experiment. Lets pretend you're in a hospital, you have stage 3 or 4 cancer, your waiting to have your breast cut off, and then to have months and months of radiation therapy (which I have had and can verify sucks) in conjunction with chemo therapy (which I haven't had but seen the effects of and can say pretty confidently sucks). Now while your laying there about to go under the knife, I want you to ask yourself "should komen get 1 million dollars from KFC to make sure no one ever has to go through this again?" I think your answer is going to be a resounding yes. This is isn't some fucking game, these are lives we're talking about here. It's not like Bally's is partnering with Krispy Kreme Donuts! This is an organization that has been tasked with stomping out breast cancer! It is their duty to do whatever it takes to do that.
Lets look at the facts:
1) Chicken is delicious, fried chicken is even more so.
2) Fried chicken, eaten in huge amounts, can cause all sorts of problems, ranging from greasy fingers to high blood pressure, to great big fat asses, but (and i could be wrong) none of the things they cause is breast cancer.
3) Susan komen's mission is to stop breast cancer, not stop great big fat asses. If you want to stop great big fat asses, find another organization, not Komen.
I am not saying that Komen should team up with anyone that comes knocking on the door. Teaming up with a cigarette company is not a good idea, because cigarettes cause cancer which defeats the purpose of thier organization. Chicken does not cause cancer. Yes KFC produced the double down sandwich but the double down (which is delicious I might ad) is 1) not targeted for women but targeted at 20 something men (which I happen to be) and 2) does not kill you. I ate it and I'm still here, I know women who ate it and they're still here, in fact I don't know anyone who's died from it directly, the same way people die from cancer. What people die from is eating too much of it, which is neither KFC's or Komen's fault. People have to take responsibility for their actions, including if they decide to stick a ton of friend chicken down their colossal gullets. Furthermore, there are cures for big fat asses, there is no cure for cancer!
Also, what is KFC supposed to do? Just because they make fried food (they also make grilled food and that accounts for 20% of their sales) they can't support positive causes? They can only support guns and liquor? Give me a break. I'd be pissed off it Komen passed up this chance and missed the opportunity to put another 1 million towards cancer research.
Additionally, I've heard that people are threatening to stop supporting Komen. To those person out there who is going to stop supporting Komen I say "you're an asshole". Komen is trying its best to save lives and if you're going to stop supporting them because they're taking money from an organization that makes fried chicken, then you're an ass and that's outside of Komen's control (you need to take that up with your parents and your questionable upbringing). If you don't like KFC, don't eat at KFC, tell your friends not to eat at KFC, go protest KFC, but don't stop supporting an organization that fights breast cancer because they realize finding a cure for cancer is important enough to take money from a purveyor of deep fried bits of chicken. I don't see those people bitching and whining about Komen and KFC going around and dropping off million dollar checks to Komen.
Do I think that this was the smoothest thing to do on Komen's part? No, of course not. They could have made it more under the radar, they could have positioned it as KFC making a small step to improve the lives of women, they could have partnered the brand up with KFC's healthier (though less delicious) offerings, they could have done all sorts of things to help with the brand dissonance but they didn't and now their taking flack for it. That's fine and understandable but to claim that it's the end of the world and that they shouldn't have taken the money is the same wrongheadedness that makes nonprofits think that they can't have run business and that they should feel guilty for generating income and that they need to live hand to mouth all the time. Komen did the right thing and I can only thank the great fried chicken in the sky that the nonprofit professionals out there who say that they would have taken the money aren't in control at Komen because if they were, a worthy organization would be out of a considerable amount of money and the people whose lives depend on that research would be suffering.
We have to do better,
-Cerrone
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Word of the year: Insruptive
I just came back from a 3 day retreat with my organization during which we heard, spoke, said, contemplated a ton of information all around the importance and power of the Nonprofit sector. During two of the key note speeches (one by Patty Stoneseifer from the Gates foundation and one from Geoff Canada of Harlem Childrens Zone) I thought of the power of something I dubbed "Insruptive Ideas". Insruptive means something that inspires by being disruptive. Now plenty of things are disruptive (and frankly, I fear that people may believe that I'm fixated with disruptive ideas) but disruption is not enough. Disruption by itself can lead you into all sorts of useless places. For example:
These ads are all over the NYC area. They're done by the city (at a total cost of $277K mind you) and ran for about 3 months. Are these ads disruptive? Hell yeah they are. They're fucking disgusting. Are they inspiring? Hell no they aren't. They're just disgusting. I'm not inspired to do shit but look away. This ad misses the mark. Marketing science tells us that the efficacy of 'shocking' ads follows an inverted 'U' shape, meaning that they are effective up until a point, after which their efficacy drops like human fat out of a soda bottle.
How about this instead?
Is it disruptive? yeah, is it inspiring. Ehh, kind of, but this is the best truth ad I could find online. Most of the truth ads are actually really good and inspire people to act. The truth campaign is a thousands times better than the crap that the NYC is putting out, and what's more. They're actually getting results.
"Studies have shown that the Truth campaign is successful in encouraging anti-tobacco attitudes and beliefs among 12-17 year olds (Farrelly et al., 2002). In addition to creating negative attitudes and beliefs, the Truth campaign is associated with “lower receptivity to pro-tobacco advertising and less progression along a continuum of smoking intentions and behavior” (Hershey et al., 2005, p. 22). This means that those who watched the Truth ads were less likely to start smoking or increase their smoking habits. In fact, these ad campaigns have been quite successful, even compared to anti-smoking campaigns in the classroom. Meta-analytic research shows very little long-term benefit to many school-based programs (Wiehe, Garrison, Christakis, Ebel, & Rivara, 2005); large-scale survey research, on the other hand, shows that the Truth campaign has a significant desired long-term effect on adolescent smoking attitudes and behaviors (e.g., increase negative attitudes toward smoking and decrease smoking behaviors) (Farrelly, Davis, Haviland, Messeri, & Healton, 2005; Farrelly et al., 2002)."
These ads disrupt the views and inspire actions. That's an Insruptive ad. Is it a fine line? Yeah. Is it hard to do? Yeah. Is that reason not to try? No. We have to try. Every dollar we spend on shitty ads or misplaced marketing or poor communications is a dollar entrusted to us to make the world better that we have pissed away. WE HAVE TO TRY HARDER. Failing is not an option. We have to do more than just disrupt, we have to inspire. We have to be insruptive.
Maybe next time I'll explain how to make inspruptive communications. . . maybe.
These ads are all over the NYC area. They're done by the city (at a total cost of $277K mind you) and ran for about 3 months. Are these ads disruptive? Hell yeah they are. They're fucking disgusting. Are they inspiring? Hell no they aren't. They're just disgusting. I'm not inspired to do shit but look away. This ad misses the mark. Marketing science tells us that the efficacy of 'shocking' ads follows an inverted 'U' shape, meaning that they are effective up until a point, after which their efficacy drops like human fat out of a soda bottle.
How about this instead?
Is it disruptive? yeah, is it inspiring. Ehh, kind of, but this is the best truth ad I could find online. Most of the truth ads are actually really good and inspire people to act. The truth campaign is a thousands times better than the crap that the NYC is putting out, and what's more. They're actually getting results.
"Studies have shown that the Truth campaign is successful in encouraging anti-tobacco attitudes and beliefs among 12-17 year olds (Farrelly et al., 2002). In addition to creating negative attitudes and beliefs, the Truth campaign is associated with “lower receptivity to pro-tobacco advertising and less progression along a continuum of smoking intentions and behavior” (Hershey et al., 2005, p. 22). This means that those who watched the Truth ads were less likely to start smoking or increase their smoking habits. In fact, these ad campaigns have been quite successful, even compared to anti-smoking campaigns in the classroom. Meta-analytic research shows very little long-term benefit to many school-based programs (Wiehe, Garrison, Christakis, Ebel, & Rivara, 2005); large-scale survey research, on the other hand, shows that the Truth campaign has a significant desired long-term effect on adolescent smoking attitudes and behaviors (e.g., increase negative attitudes toward smoking and decrease smoking behaviors) (Farrelly, Davis, Haviland, Messeri, & Healton, 2005; Farrelly et al., 2002)."
These ads disrupt the views and inspire actions. That's an Insruptive ad. Is it a fine line? Yeah. Is it hard to do? Yeah. Is that reason not to try? No. We have to try. Every dollar we spend on shitty ads or misplaced marketing or poor communications is a dollar entrusted to us to make the world better that we have pissed away. WE HAVE TO TRY HARDER. Failing is not an option. We have to do more than just disrupt, we have to inspire. We have to be insruptive.
Maybe next time I'll explain how to make inspruptive communications. . . maybe.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The key to good cause marketing: 5 R's
Although I've branched out from my heritage of advertising into the broader world of marketing and communications strategy, I still have a soft spot in my heart for good advertising. I came across this great campaign the other day done by DAE and a consortium of organizations in San Francisco with the mission to fight Hep B.
1) Relevance: Why would your audience care about you or your message? Make sure your message is something that you audience cares about
I think that these are really interesting pieces because 1) they're targeted towards asian americans, a community known for generally being conservative and 2) they're for a cause related campaign, which as I always lament, tend to be ultra conservative and frankly tends to suck. Of course there are some changes I'd like to make (copy is too small, a little color in the headline would be nice, etc) but overall I think it's a strong campaign that draws attention to a serious issue.
Right now the zeitgeist is all about going from push marketing to pull marketing. Everyone and their mother believes that the Internet has destroyed the ability for marketers to grab peoples attention, but clearly there is. Ads and messaging like this commands attention and this technique shouldn't be tossed out like a baby with the bath water. At the end of the day, even though media may change the basics still remain the same:
Cerrone's 5 R's
1) Relevance: Why would your audience care about you or your message? Make sure your message is something that you audience cares about
2) Resonance: How would your audience know that you're talking to them? Make sure your message is in the right language/media/tone.
3) Retention: How will your message stick with the audience until the moment that they can do the thing that you want them to do (i.e. sign the petition, go to the doctors office)? Make sure your message can be kept in the viewers mind long enough to reach a point where some can be done (i.e. long enough for them to make it to the store or the medical center - think about a memorable catchline or slogan or jingle)
4) Reaction at the moment of truth: What will the viewer do at the moment of truth? Will they walk out of the doctors office or will they stay and get tested? Make sure the thing that they are supposed to do at the moment of truth is easy and pleasant (none of this will work if they medical center sucks or is hard to navigate)
5) Result: What will they do after the moment of truth? Will they tell their friends about how great the experience was? Make sure you've planned for what they can do after (turn a user into an evangelist)
It doesn't change and it's not rocket science. It's just using common sense and communication techniques to make the world slightly better place than we found it.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Amazing Cause Marketing
I love rebel shit. Something harsh and amazing to wake people up out of there stupors, I think is great. Maybe not all the time but sometime, I think it's important that someone goes totally over the deep end. With that in mind, I've posted the video for M.I.A.'s latest single below. Before you watch it let me warn you: it is NOT safe for work (violence, language, some brief nudity). I'm not a huge fan of the song, but this video . . .this video is going to fuck up your chackra for the rest of the day. But it is worth watching because it speaks to a number of causes through the use of analogy and thanks to M.I.A.s brand you can tell the causes she is referencing. This is something that any reputable organization would never directly sponsor but the power of this video is undeniable, even if it goes too far at times, and after watching it, you want to do something. I felt like I wanted to go into the street and start a protest to end inequality. It drives you on a deep gut level to want to take action, and at the end of the day, isn't that our goal as marketers for a mission?
M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS on Vimeo.
Something else that this video makes me think about is the human need to be consistent and how that is rarely utilized in marketing for missions. Essentially, even if you don't agree with M.I.A.s stance on the Tamil Tigers, after seeing this video, you can at least agree that people shouldn't be abused for how they were born or who they are. Once you've gotten someone to believe that, they would be far more likely to support equal rights for LGBT people, or abolishing racism, or ending the inequalities that plague our world, because those issues have the same ideological foundation (i.e. that people should not be abused for who they are). I feel that we often get so caught up in the differences of our causes that we ignore the similarities and, as such, miss out on opportunities to partner with unlikely allies that essentially believe the same things we believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
