You're Brand is What They're Saying About You

Today, brands are defined by the conversations people are having about them, inside and outside of your company. The messages associated with your brand are no longer engineered from your marketing and communications departments, but rather spun from the perception of a fast-growing, digitally literate public. So once your company has moved beyond accepting this fact, how can you actually leverage it?

A few good ideas were proposed during yesterday’s JustMeans Social Media, Technology and Change conference. I’ll review the few that resonated most with me, but first I must highlight the theme apparent in (almost) all of them: Listening. This is not a new concept, and is one I’ve often talked about. But it always worth repeating, reiterating its fundamental importance to the success of all brands.

Interdisciplinary Participation

Empowering employees throughout your organization – across all departments – to build strong external relationships can be extremely impactful. It shouldn’t be just the marketing and communications departments that are entitled to speaking publicly about your brand – every employee on staff should be well versed on the company, speaking on message, and bringing their own voice to the table. When messages are coming from the “common” employee (grassroots-esque) there is a completely different – and often more credible and genuine – tone than when it comes from a PR team.

*Here I see a tremendous opportunity for building successful corporate culture: If you’re granting everyone in the company a “brand voice”, you have a vested interest in making sure they’re talking the right talk. In other words, your organization will take the appropriate time to get all employees on brand, across all their communications channels; a situation that is clearly beneficial all the way around.

Organizational Optimization

This is another employee-centric idea that promotes teaching your staff how to use social media tools effectively. If you’ve created a corporate culture that people enjoy working in, the chances are they want to share their positive feelings about it. Enable them to do so by educating them on how to use the most effective tools. If you have people in-house that are well versed in this digital arena that’s great. If not, a third party consultant is a worthwhile investment.

Thought Leadership

Most companies dream of being called a thought leader by their peers, competitors, and consumers – it’s hard to see this term negatively. But let’s consider redefining it, at least a bit. Suppose thought leadership doesn’t necessarily rely on your company coming up with the “nugget” yourself, but rather is related to connecting people with brilliant ideas and fostering a place where these ideas can grow and spread. There is something to be said about being an aggregator of content – especially in the age of co-creativity – and perhaps building the platform where revolutionary ideas are born coins you as the new thought leader.

Shared Brands

There is a rising trend in which company leadership personally talks about their brand. It’s dialogue that is conversational, engaging and seeks response – in other words, it’s clearly not being fed to you from the PR team. There is huge potential in this kind of communication – painting people like CEO’s as approachable and human can go a long way for building brand loyalty.

But there’s a significant risk here, too. There’s the chance that your brand can become too closely associated with any one individual. What happens when this person leaves or shifts careers? What does this say about your company? How big of chunk of brand equity does this person take with them when they walk out the door? These potential red flags shouldn’t put the kibosh on this practice, but they are worth considering and preemptively mitigating (like making sure your CEO uses a Twitter handle that incorporates the company’s name, too).

Online, Offline, Online

There is no distinction between online and offline worlds. It’s about content not channel. As you establish brand ambassadors – the consumers that are spreading your message as credible, third party sources – you can assume that if they’re tweeting about you they’re probably also talking about you over coffee. And this is great: Word-of-mouth messaging should not be underestimated. So what companies need to remember is that online and offline are now – and forever – intertwined. They can’t be separated. So act accordingly.

Majora Carter: Repositioning a nonprofit hero into a national, chagemaking enterprise

Rebranding Majora Carter has been amongst my projects at Empax. The most recent endeavor involved producing a video to articulate her vision, and to set the stage for her talk recent TED talk. I photographed and videographed this entire piece and was intimately involved in the editing process, and am proud that it opened her presentation at TED. I also worked directly with Majora to write her speech, and supported her speaking efforts by creating a visual presentation.

For more on Majora Carter, her evolving brand, and the role I am playing at Empax, please visit this case study.

Forecast for Social Consumerism: Big Brands, Small Brands – There’s room for all in a hybrid model

So there’s a theory that I’ve been touting around for the last few months, and I’d like to reexamine it in light of some new thinking.

The theory: It is going to take large, mainstream, consumer-facing brands with high levels of public interaction to push the needle on key social issues. These big companies have the potential to shift consumer behavior, and as such are the ones that should be held responsible for championing social progress.

The recent thinking (observation, really): There are a number of new startups in the social innovation space that are building their business models with social progress agendas baked in from square one. They’ve seen the sustainability light, and realize that starting with objectives that simultaneously address financial and social objectives is the only way forward.
What’s causing this reexamination, in large part, is the increasingly unavoidable trend of local. This idea has moved well beyond the green and foodie spaces, and is now prevalent in most industries imaginable. So, how to reconcile the idea that big, commercial companies have the power to drive social change when there is an obvious consumer desire to support things going on in their own communities?

My answer – or prediction – is that there’s room for both: A hybrid economy for social consumerism. Maybe this sort of egalitarianism is a copout. Maybe it’s naïve to think that there can be two “winners”. But to me it’s alarmingly simple – and that’s why I believe it has potential.

The big, existing brands that are able to truly restructure their models to incorporate social values at every level will survive -- alongside the nimble, new, social startups. In an inspiring paradigm shift, perhaps big business will start taking a page from the playbooks of socially innovative ventures. And maybe the small and social will lead the big and social.

There’s no doubt that our current economy calls for agility and flexibility. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that just because your company has a long – and maybe tumultuous – history, it’s to late to make changes. It just might be harder.

The new startups that are constructing their business models right the first time around certainly have a leg up. They have a clean slate and an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of those before them. They have different “rules” and are able to tread far more lightly.

But we must remember that humans are creatures of habit. And that might be the only thing the established brands have on the newbies. But it’s something, and it’s not insignificant.

Let’s be sure not oversimplify: Making the transition from a sales-centered, money-driven, single-bottom-line model to one where creating shared (social) value is integral to your success is no easy feat – and many companies won’t be able to get there. (*To be crystal clear: I’m not talking about initiating a new CSR department or rolling out a spanking new cause marketing campaign. I’m talking full blown, sans silos, fully integrated business models where financial profit and social progress happen in tandem.) It will be survival of the fittest, but I believe that there are innovative minds planted all across the commercial world that will help the strongest rise to the top.

So in the spirit of integration, transparency, collaboration, and healthy competition, I look forward to this portrait of a hybrid social consumerism coming to fruition.

SHE: Further evidence that Social Progress doesn’t have to come just from those not making a profit

I don’t want to belabor this point. But I kind of do. I suppose it’s become part of my agenda to help take the word profit out of the evil, negative space that if often gets thrown to in the social sector. I want to appreciate that this is a concept that motivates people, and it’s easier to work with it than against it. So I’ll reiterate: Profit and Purpose are not mutually exclusively, but rather fundamentally intertwined.

Today I want to highlight an extraordinary example of how innovative solutions to social issues can come from organizations that don’t have a 501(c)3 status.

SHE (Sustainable Health Enterprises) has received a tremendous amount of positive attention recently – and as far I can am concerned, it’s all more than well deserved. SHE, similar to many other female-empowerment organizations, aims to alleviate some of the disparities that prevent women in developing countries from reaching their full potential. What’s unsimilar is the unique technology they’ve developed for advancing this goal: Access to sanitary products.

Not only is the actually technology (how the pads are made) innovative, but everything about the organization’s model embodies social progress. The SHE approach is all about market-based solutions. Not only do they want to collaborate on engineering product solutions, they want to build sustainable business platforms for local women to continue selling these products.

One of the primary reasons for SHE’s success to date is undoubtedly the organization’s ability to listen and work with women on the ground. I had the pleasure of hearing Elizabeth Scharpf (SHE’s Founder) speak, and she was particularly candid about her misconceptions: She revealed just how much she had relied on her local allies to help steer her in the right direction.

While I believe there is a tremendous lesson to be learned about entering new landscapes not with solutions but rather with questions, that is not the focus of this post. Instead, I want to re-center around the idea that an enterprise can pioneer social change will simultaneously building structures for long-term financial sustainability. SHE understands Creating Shared Value, and has layered this in to every facet of their operation. Social innovation and market development are working hand in hand here, and with results that should continue to inspire.

Digesting: A recap on The Feast on Good

After this year’s Feast On Good conference, I am left feeling the perfect balance of satiated and inquisitive. The overarching theme of the event – Reinventing Industries – was the perfect platform to showcase a myriad of some of the most exciting social innovator/ions going on today. Here’s my list of highlights:

• Re-examining long-standing systems: Some of society’s most deeply rooted systems (government, education) are in need of a major overall. Amendments and initiatives are just band-aids for sectors that need massive surgery. But how to do you redraft something that is both steeped in tradition and also have everyday implications? Having hypotheses is one thing, but experimenting in areas like education – with real students leading real lives – has a significantly high risk factor. Speakers Patri Friedman (Seasteading Institute) and Tony Wagner (Change Leadership Group) proposed two ideas as solutions: Floating cities -- to build new political systems from scratch -- and school labs -- actual R&D facilities for education -- respectively.
• Finding the right fit: Agility and compactness rein supreme. The shift from big to small, national to local: A trend towards keeping things smaller and more community-based was echoed throughout the day. Small start-ups = big potential.
• Identifying new models of consumption: Collaborative Consumption -- a growing movement discussed by crowd favorite Rachel Botsman -- is an exploding market concept. In large part Collaborative Consumption echoes the above sentiment about *going local* but takes it a step further -- or backwards, depending on how you see it. People are returning to systems of bartering, sharing, lending, exchanging, etc., which translates to huge potential a number of innovative companies, but perhaps more interestingly, highlights a provocative observation about consumer behavior: In Western culture we have a deep seeded fear about sharing; and this plays out into the way industries are branding themselves. There is a reason that hotels don’t call themselves “bed-sharing” businesses. Perhaps something about the thought of sharing things smells too much of communism? So it’s about perception. Misperception really. It seems that in order to fully enable this movement of Collaborative Consumption, we have to re-brand that it means to share things; taking it away from a place of intrusion and towards a place of mutual, societal benefit.
• Baking social progress in: Social innovation is permeating every industry imaginable. This is a bit of a no-brainer, I know. But it’s refreshing to see how everyone from architects to engineers to foodies are starting ventures with social progress integrated into their business models from square one. Creating Shared Value can be financial and social, and the pioneering, social entrepreneurs that fully understand this are bound for long-term success.

While inspired and charged by talk of a future in the making, one key thought stayed with me for most of the weekend: Accessibility. It is hard to sit in a room where the *general* demographic is under 30, highly educated, liberal-minded do-gooders, and feel that society at large is being represented. Everyone at The Feast deserved to be there – no doubt – but by the same token, I believe, we each have the responsibility of sharing what was discussed.

It’s easy to exist in a bubble where everyone around you is equally socially conscious and concerned with innovating business models that address much more than financial bottom lines. It’s harder to think about how to make this same sentiment applicable to the mainstream. So I pose this challenge: How do we synthesize all the goodness that was shared at The Feast and pay it forward to the critical, public mass in a way that is digestible?

Leading by (Wrong) Example

The White House recently launched a new initiative called The Social Innovation Fund (SIF). The aim of the Fund is to identify the highest performing, most impactful, nonprofits around the country, and provide the capital needed to facilitate the replication of their work. The model for the program relies on first selecting successful “grant-making institutions”, and then allows these organizations to chose promising nonprofits whose work should be scaled. (For a more eloquent explanation of the fund, I recommend Sean Stannard-Stockton’s description.)

On its surface, this all sounds great, right? At the very least we have to admit that the whole idea is extremely well intentioned. SIF represents a significant acknowledgement from the Obama administration about the power and potential of innovation, social entrepreneurship, and the idea that community-driven solutions can affect significant, far-reaching progress. No doubt that it’s necessary to have a government that’s on board with this kind of thinking if we really expect social progress.

But there’s something about SIF that smells of exclusivity – which isn’t very democratic.

This may seem like an odd claim. What's exclusive about promoting social innovation? Moreover, how can a $50+ million fund charged with supporting and advancing successful nonprofits, possibly be considered exclusive?

There are two reasons.

1. The kind of capital support that is being offered doesn’t address the capacity needs of nonprofit (arguably the most important piece of support they’re missing). The emphasis placed on measurable results automatically disqualifies scores of high-potential nonprofits because they don’t have the means to report in this way (yet). I will defer to Nell Edgington’s post on Change.org to explain this idea, while I dive deeper into reason 2 for the exclusivity claim.

2. The fact that SIF is designed strictly for nonprofits -- those orgs with the infamous 501(c)3 add on to their names – is exclusive in and of itself. This framework continues to uphold the idea that we need to segregate organizations that make a profit from those that can make progress. If Empax hasn't been clear enough about where we stand on this issue to date, let me polish the crystal: Profit and Progress are not mutually exclusive Ps.

Some of the brightest, most innovative, most socially-conscious minds of our time reside in the for-profit sector. And can we blame them? With all the limitations and caps placed on the nonprofit sector, it's not news that we're losing out on young talent. That said, it doesn't quite seem fair (dare I say democratic) to prevent a new social venture that provides mentorship to low income students so that they can attend 4-year colleges -- but is making a profit on their unique technology in the process -- from being a recipient of some of this Social Innovation Fund capital.

I understand how this might come across, and wouldn't be surprised if I'm starting to paint myself as a big, fat an anti-nonprofiteer. So let me explain further. I have no problem with the government setting up an initiative that supports all the amazing -- and underfunded -- work that the nonprofit sector is engaged in. On the contrary, I'm quite happy. The sector needs it -- deserves it -- and I'm glad to see some official, federal recognition going to the most innovative organizations out there. However, for the sake of equality, I would much sooner have called this new program "The Nonprofit Advancement Fund". Because if you call it "Social Innovation" and then place parameters around who is and isn't eligible based on a tax status, it seems a bit contradictory.

I know that the private sector isn't in nearly as much need as the nonprofit when it comes to securing capital. And I'm not suggesting that the government start cutting (more) breaks for commercial companies. All I'm saying is that if this country truly wants to foster social progress -- the lasting, sustainable kind -- we must accept the inevitable integration of for-profit and nonprofit minds and methodologies. You've heard the argument for the breaking down of silos, for establishing new partnerships, over and over. And you’ve seen the trends for hybrid tax statuses: B Corp, CIC, L3C -- seriously, how many new incorporations need to be established before everyone gets the memo? The two traditionally opposing sectors are – slowly but surely – finding their way to a more common, middle ground. And this spirit of collaboration is a good thing, as far as we’re concerned.

While the government hasn't always been known for spearheading revolutionary movements (thank you engaged citizenry) they can at least support and promote the right ones. So if the Obama administration really wants to do something progressive, to show its commitment to change, it will establish a fund that doesn't have a tax status prejudice. It will take the bold step and grant capital to the most innovative and promising ideas regardless of business model. It will allow nonprofits and for-profits to compete in the same contest (so long as the playing field is appropriately leveled) and trust that the innovations that hold the most promise for moving our world to a better place will rise to the top. Who knows, maybe a nonprofit could actually one-up a for-profit venture. And then what?...

Evaluation + Communications – A Relationship Worth Fostering

Empax is all about communication. This isn’t news to anyone who know us. Empax is also deeply concerned about evaluation and social impact measurement. This may be news to some of you (in which case it’s time you know how integral this dimension is becoming to our work).

The fusion of evaluation and communication is a natural one for us. And we’re glad to see that others are starting to recognize the value in this combination as well.

In an interview with Gene Cochrane of The Duke Endowment, FSG Social Impact Advisors highlight some of the emerging trends in this field. While the overarching message is that the link between social impact measurement and the communication of evaluation findings is crucial to the advancement of the nonprofit sector is clear, there are a few other key insights worth sharing.

1. It’s OK if evaluation outcomes are negative. There seems to be a pervasive fear that if you measure yourself and the results are anything less than perfection, you might as well kiss your funding goodbye. But let’s be honest: Foundations and donors are people too, and they understand the concept of trial and error. If you give them the opportunity, you might find out that they’re willing to work with you to come up with the best solutions. Finding out there are ways to improve is almost better than finding out that things are just “fine”. Sure there is risk involved in letting your funders see that a program isn’t working as well as it could, but there is also opportunity to learn from this, make it better, and enhance the situation for everyone.
2. Every nonprofit is different, which means every set of metrics will be different. The vast spectrum of qualities that define success is no doubt a reason while social impact measurement has taken such a long time to come around. But now that we can all accept the differences that exist throughout the sector, let’s vow to treat each measurement endeavor as its own, unique undertaking. Yes, this takes commitment from both parties. But if a foundation and a grantee are both truly dedicated to accurate evaluation, they’ll take the time to set up the boundaries for what defines success – on a case to case basis – from the very outset of every project.
3. Taking it one step further doesn’t have to mean double the work. If your organization is going to spend the time, energy and resources on gathering metrics and sorting out what they mean, it’s an opportunity missed (to say the least) to not communicate these findings to your stakeholders in the most effective ways possible. But this doesn’t mean it’s a 2-step project (1. Collect data, 2. Figure out how to tell the story of that data). As Cochrane points out, you can weave evaluation and communications methodologies into your organizational structure. These two practices be built in to what your organization is already doing: Creating an integrated process will streamline your overall activities.

Foundations want their grantees to become better at measuring themselves, and their willing to be part of the solution. So use them! Turn to them for additional support in creating systems or getting consulting. Knowing the successes – or challenges – of their grantees helps them operate more efficiently, too. And end beneficiaries will ultimately be served better once we all get on board with this. So it’s a win-win-win. What’s not to like

Corporations Need to Reconnect with their Mission Statements

Every company – big, small, good, bad, domestic, international – has a mission statement. And chances are, there is at least a grain of goodness in each of them. It’s hard to imagine that any corporation started from a place of wanting to be dishonest, hurt people or the environment, exploit workers or fuel social injustices.

Maybe it’s just Friday afternoon optimism kicking in, but let’s just assume that all corporations were at least born of a good intention. Let’s believe that if we asked 100 CEO’s to dig up their organization’s original mission statement – their manifesto and reason for being – they would find a deep sense of reconnection and validation in what they read. And the public would probably find a great sense relief – “Ok, at least they didn’t plan to cause so much damage.”

Now, just because we can find emotional value and some social goodness in the mission statements of even the most villain-ized corporations, doesn’t mean they’re excused from some of the carelessness they’ve exercised in recent years (I won’t name names). But we can choose to see this as an opportunity to return to the values that started it all. What if these CEO’s, in a moment of transformation, vowed to adjust their business models so that their operations were, actually, strategically aligned with what they set out to do? What if they realized that by shifting their business model to work in tandem with their mission, they could actually be more successful?

We believe that doing good and making a profit don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The ideologies that have traditionally segregated the nonprofit and commercial sectors don’t have to continue existing as concrete walls. “’Nonprofit’ shouldn’t be something that people do in their spare time” said a wise and witty man named Mike Hemmingway. And he couldn’t be more on point. What if the world’s richest people – and corporations – were also the best? Why can’t we aim for that?

We think that we can. We know that by helping corporations see the benefit in doing good while also doing well, they can shift behavior and be responsible for transforming society for the better. Large companies, who reach masses of people and offer mainstream products, have the potential to make good things accessible – to raise the standards of public consumption and to reap the benefits (financial and social) at the same time.

Let’s help one another find a way back to the well-intentioned -- even if dreamy -- place where so many of America’s best companies found their beginnings. Let’s reconnect consumers with the ideas that actually stand for something. Let’s empower the public to be engaged in finding solutions. And let’s all be part of a social progress revolution.

This post is inspired by recent conversations with Mike Hemmingway, Morra Aarons Mele, Holly Lynch (and the whole Empax team).

Be a listener

One of the greatest abilities we have as humans is observation.

And observation begins with listening.

This fundamental, but critical, idea was brought back to life for me over dinner with my two Rwandan friends -- Patrick and Emery -- last night. They are here visiting the States for the first time, and we'd just come from a Broadway musical. While I'm sure they were looking forward to some carefree conversation -- they are exhausted after an almost month-long, jam-packed itinerary -- I couldn't refrain from asking them about the nonprofit sector back at home.

I've had the privilege of working on the ground in Rwanda -- twice, now -- but was curious to ask some new questions. Patrick and Emery both work for a US-based – but Rwandan-run – nonprofit called Between Four Eyes. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that without their passion, dedication and tireless efforts there would be no successful program to speak of at all. But there is. And they are largely to thank.

And that’s exactly the point. International organizations that don’t work directly with local teams are bound to fail. Again, not news, but something that is so important to always remind ourselves of. The guys told me about how even the best-intentioned nonprofits – even those with tremendous ideas and flawless strategy – fail when they don’t first listen. You can do the most amazing work possible and fix a lot of problems, but if you’re not addressing the right problems, how much are you really helping?

It’s hard for us westerners to work internationally and not arrive on the ground with a pre-prescribed solution. But how can we expect to facilitate change if we don’t first know what really needs changing? Assessing the situation – talking to people who live and breath it – is the first, and crucial, step in delivering any worthwhile program.

In essence, this all circles back to the concept of partnership. Working together – truly integrated, and truly collaboratively – is not only the best option, but the only option for success. We can’t reiterate this enough.

Listening is one of Empax’s greatest strengths. It’s how we start every project we engage on. Whether we’re working with an international aid organization or a community-based arts group, the only way that we can do our job successfully is by first hearing our clients. You all have tremendous things to say — really, you do. And it’s amazing how often people — and organizations — are unable to hear themselves. So we have the tremendous pleasure of getting to feed back to our clients what we’ve heard them say — and usually it comes as a delightful surprise. You tell, we listen, we all talk, and together we find solutions.

Social Entrepreneurs + Business Entrepreneurs: The flourishing relationship is valuable to all

“5 years from now it’s going to be strategy malpractice not to realize that the two sectors (business and social) are now coming together – there are huge market opportunities that weren’t there before.” Bill Drayton, CEO, Ashoka

We are living in an increasingly integrated society. This isn’t news to anyone. Millenials and GenY-ers are demanding that corporations and nonprofits alike be more and more accountable – which means more and more transparent. If your institution – charitable or otherwise – isn’t proving its social benefit, it’s going to have a hard time surviving.

After a trip to the Bridge Conference in DC last week, I’ve been thinking ad nauseam about the traditional barriers that segregate the nonprofit and commercial sectors. While the ideological distinctions are something I won’t get into now (another Uncharitable inspired rant) the strategic and tactical applications seem to be moving closer to one another. Here are Empax we’ve been thinking about how these two traditionally opposing sectors are approaching a single, common ground (to some degree) and my thinking on this was solidified and enhanced after the conference. The survival of both commercial and nonprofit entities depends entirely on forging genuine, mutually beneficial, and honest partnerships.

This fact should be exciting (it is to me!) and we can see it as a challenge for us to all rise to. As a society, we have the opportunity (with a slight dose of obligation) to transform industries and set new standards for how companies operate. But, like so many great accomplishments, this endeavor requires collaboration in the greatest sense. Shifting markets and increasing positive social impact means that business entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs have to come together and work side by side.

Bonus: These new relationships can be profitable for everyone. This type of collaboration can open up huge, new markets that previously were untapped by corporations. Merging the lower cost structure (retail, loans) of nonprofits with wholesale, commercial models can yield a tremendous result.

Another word of wisdom from Bill Drayton: If you work for a bank – of any iteration - Micro credit is a product that you must have.

Donors Are Asking for More Engagement, So Let’s Give it to Them: Leveraging Brand Experience to Enhance Donor Identity and Involvement

If ever there were a time to invest in enhancing donor experience, now would be it. As people start to reassemble themselves after the apocalyptic economic crisis, and begin to rebuild trust in institutions (nonprofits included), there is an opportunity to create an experience that yields a refreshed, stronger, more engaged donor base.

The good news is that nonprofits have more tools at their disposal than they probably realize, and I’d like to help them identify a few. In essence, the road to successful donor engagement starts with creating a brand that is honest and comprehensive. This is a bit trickier done than said. Often the truth of your brand is hard to identify and even harder to communicate. But let’s start with the most crucial point: Transparency. This is the first step toward authenticity, and the only characteristic that eventually builds trust. And let’s face it, people only donate to (let alone associate with) organizations that they trust.

I work for a nonprofit branding and design studio called Empax , and if there is one thing I’ve heard consistently since the day I started, it’s that brand must stem from a place of truth. A brand that is not honest might as well be actively sabotaging itself, and it certainly doesn’t stand a chance of passing as genuine to your target audience (a.k.a. donors). Donor experience is a direct bi-product of brand experience, and is a potent tool that can be intentionally engineered to meet your organizations’ goals when executed properly.

Let’s take a tip from the (eek!) advertising world on how to engage audiences. Advertising as we know it today evolved in roughly three stages. Initially, companies simply listed off the features of whatever product they were trying to sell. For example, this car has a V6 engine, four doors, is painted shiny silver and costs “only” this much. After a while advertisers began promoting the benefits of their products. This car will get you from A to Z faster than any other car, and will draw looks of envy from everyone on the street. Not long after, the market is flooded with ads for shiny silver cars that go fast and create envy, and advertisers were grasping for a way to make their product stand out in the crowd. Enter identity. Instead of selling the product or its benefits, ad companies were selling us new identities we could magically adopt just by buying the products. Nike was no longer about shoes or even about speed. It was about being a winner. Marlboro was about being an independent, authentic American (cancer, what cancer?). This final, and least tangible, approach to advertising sealed the proverbial deal.

Nonprofits seem to be communicating mostly on the first two channels. You hear appeals to donate based on features: “because we have a program that serves this many people” or “because our organization can successfully change the law on this issue”. And you hear appeals that are somewhat more effective, based on benefits: “Help this child get the education she needs, so she can become a productive and empowered adult”. But you hardly ever hear appeals based on identity. That’s due to their abstract and mostly visual nature. Nike never asks you to consider their shoes “because they’ll help you win”. The Marlboro Man never asks you to buy cigarettes “because you’ll be independent like me”. In fact, he never says anything at all. There is no “because” in identity (or lifestyle) marketing. There is only “become”. Be a winner. Be independent. What do your donors want to become by helping you?

What advertisers tapped in to – and what nonprofits have the same ability to do – is the power of designing an environment, a feeling, that is enticing and inviting to your users. In other words, build a brand that your stakeholders can identify with. As the recent article Homer Simpson for Nonprofits brilliantly pointed out, peer pressure still exists. The desire to be part of a club (let’s be optimistic and call it a community) drives a lot of the decisions we make. We all acknowledge that overlap is abundant throughout the nonprofit landscape. But there is a reason that someone supports the Sierra Club, for example, over the NRDC or the Environmental Defense Fund. It’s because of what being Sierra Club members says about them. They feel that they are connected to the mission because it speaks to them in a language they understand, from a culture that they align with and in a voice that’s familiar. They know they will find like-minded people that “belong to” the Sierra Club, and also own it at the same time. It’s not just who they donate to or volunteer for, it’s who they are. And it’s also about who they are not. An NRDC supporter, for example, may care just as much about the planet, but something just won’t fit right.

I will not lie and say that creating an enticing, successful brand is just as easy as being aware that you need one. While it’s true that having a third party help your organization reevaluate its brand, there are things your organization can start examining internally. I recently wrote a post on differentiation, which discusses tactics and trends . I’ve come up with a condensed list to get you started here:

- Identify your position. A SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) can start you off, and get you thinking about your organization and what you offer. Don’t be afraid to recognize your shortcomings – they probably highlight what your strong points are and why you are different than your competition.
- Master the art of Storytelling. All organizations have an abundance of stories to tell about their work. The trick is finding a way to tell them creatively, visually and succinctly.
- Look-and-feel. This goes beyond a logo, color scheme and website design. What do you want your donors to feel when they come into contact with you? Are you trying to be the Sierra Club or the NRDC? Define your character, and own it.
- Consistency. Through a simple communications audit you can get a sense of how cohesive your organizational image is. Go ahead, pull out all the brochures, reports, mailings, annual reports, e-newsletters, etc. that you’ve produced in the last few years. Do they look like they all came from the same place? Do they tell a unified story, or are they mere anecdotes, related only by name.

If you can gather some of this information, and create a strategy for how to communicate it all, you’re off to a good start. Remember that donors decisions are heavily influenced by the emotional brain (as opposed to the rational one) so don’t hesitate to appeal to this.

When you arrive at a place where your nonprofit is presenting an honest, consistent brand, donors will notice. The authenticity of your communications won’t need explanation, and you will have created an opportunity for donors to interface with your organization in a deep and meaningful way. When they start to feel that they’re a part of your community and you are part of their identity, you will be at the top of their list when they become comfortable writing checks again. And you’ll be the first nonprofit they tell their friends about. So let’s use this opportunity, as a sector, to up the ante, deepen our commitment to donors, and strive to create the most genuine, truthful experiences for everyone involved.

Foursquare for Nonprofits? How to leverage the technology, if at all

Last night’s event, graciously hosted by 501 Tech NYC at the Planned Parenthood offices, was about the “it” app – Foursquare – and how nonprofits might potentially leverage it in all its trendy glory.

I’m not opposed to Foursquare. On the contrary, I’m probably even more sold on it than I was before last night. Listening to Naveen talk about the concept and theory behind it – examining how people interact with place, and testing the ability to shift human behavior with technology – certainly piqued my interest.

Naveen’s nonprofit counterpart, Shelly, from the Brooklyn Museum, delivered and equally interesting presentation about how her organization has been successful in using Foursquare. You must take into consideration the size, budget and capacity of the Brooklyn Museum as you examine the success they’ve had with Foursquare to date, but it is success, nonetheless. In fact, one of the core concepts of Foursquare (creating and bringing together communities) is a cornerstone of the museum’s mission. Perfect alignment. Increased chances for synergy.

The museum is very interested in the community within which they operate. They are all about raising awareness and promoting activity throughout their neighborhood. They’ve leveraged Foursquare to build a massive network (starting, of course, from an already healthy group of socially networked stakeholders) and have deepened the engagement their visitors experience. There are perks for the Mayors (like meeting the director of the museum) and even casual visitors (their very own Brooklyn Museum Badge). If the museum’s objective was creating a more networked network, and giving their visitors more sticky points of entry to experiencing the museum and surrounding neighborhood, they have succeed. And, in large part, they’ve succeeded thanks to Foursquare.

Now, we all know that not all nonprofits have the clout (and resources) that the Brooklyn Museum enjoys. So, is there a way for them to find use in Foursquare? Maybe. But “maybe” is the answer I’ve heard so many times (and to be honest, I was hoping that last night’s event would offer something a bit more definitive.)

I know about the limitations (especially for smaller nonprofits) that relate to time/energy/resources spent on social media. I know about (generally) the minimal outcomes these efforts produce (fine, you might have a lot of people “Like”-ing what you do, but is a single one of them donating?) I also understand the value of building a community, and focusing on awareness/advocacy – not necessarily being concerned about monetary outcomes. But, realistically, how many nonprofits do you know these days that aren’t concerned with increasing donations?

Talking about financial benefits, and the opportunities that Foursquare creates, I’d like to make two points: 1. The economic incentive for companies (particularly retail operations) are quite obvious and seem to be quite fruitful. 2. Why can’t nonprofits use this app in the same way, and enjoy the same benefits? I know the answer: the nonprofit market and the for-profit market are inherently (and fatally) unaligned in all ways possible (I won’t start on my Uncharitable-inspired rant). But I’d like to put it out there to people to start thinking about, and testing, ways that nonprofits can monetize Foursquare. I’ll even heed my own advice and promise that Empax will be spending significant time thinking about the same thing over the coming weeks and months.

One example that was shared at the event last night was that of nonprofit environmental law organization in San Francisco. They rolled out a campaign of billboards that said, “Check in to this sign and we’ll donate $10 to fighting big oil companies”. (I’m paraphrasing, but it was something to this effect). There was no data or metrics on how successful this campaign was, or how many people check-in, or how much money was eventually donated. But, for the sake of optimism, let’s say it worked, and made a dent. Now, off to your idea labs to think up more applications!

Entrepreneurship + Philanthropy (+Food) = Good for All

In a perfect collision of coincidences, the stars have aligned and I’ve had the great pleasure of meeting two new, young, bright minds in the past week. As a journalist turned nonprofiteer – and forever with a healthy dose of foodie in me – it was my delight to have wandered into the space of both Emily Dubner, of Baking for Good, and Phoebe Lapine of Big Girls, Small Kitchen.

Both of these young ladies are pioneers on the “do what you love” career path – and not surprisingly are helping many others gain (metaphorically, that is) along the way. In a time when sites like Shatterbox are springing up and highlighting the success stories of young, driven entrepreneurs, and more and more attention is being paid to the potential social impact of these start-ups, I have to smile.

Adding to this rush of inspiration is my current reading list, of which the start is undoubtedly Uncharitable. (A more holistic book report on Uncharitable to come from me soon, so stay tuned.) In a nutshell, the book explains how some (most) of the fundamental ideologies that inform the nonprofit sector are in fact undermining it. It makes the case for borrowing practices from the commercial world, and argues that “profit” isn’t defined in black and white. What I see people like Emily and Phoebe doing is bridging this gap by fusing their passion, their business sense and their commitment to improving community – a triple bottom line we can all support.

What makes entrepreneurs like Emily and Phoebe so noteworthy is that they aren’t just out roaming around and talking from soapboxes; they’re applying their college-educated, entrepreneurial (and female!) minds to the job. Both girls have a thing for food (what girl doesn’t?) but they’ve each, in different ways, figured out how to monetize on this passion and turn it into something substantial.

In the case of Emily, a Harvard grad that did her first few years in the real world in the financial industry (how could she have predicted the bad timing?), baking had always held a special place for her. In a world where everything is creating its online alter-ego, Emily started to envision what an online bake sale would look like. And then she came up with Baking For Good. A genius and first-of-its kind website that sells delicious (and adorable) baked goods, for all occasions, all over the country. The kicker (and quintessential philanthropic tie-in?) 15% of every purchase made is donated directly to charity. And the shopper gets to choose which charity to give to. Talk about user engagement and a sale add-on.

Emily has successfully used her business savvy to create an innovative, scalable, and hopefully replicable model. Baking For Good is not a 501(c)3, but it shouldn’t have to be. Her social impact, her return to the community (however you want to call it) is present and growing. And her business is growing too! And that, as our friend Dan Pallota, author of Uncharitable (again, book review coming soon!) is a good thing. Now if only a few nonprofits could take note of this, and follow her lead on how to use commercial-world sense (i.e. capital investment, smart PR and advertising, etc.) we’d really be talking.

Phoebe, food blogger and soon to be book author, is also taking a passion (yes, food again) and blowing it up into something that works as a career. Together with partner Cara Eisenpress, Phoebe started the blog Big Girls, Small Kitchen, which now has over 30,000 monthly viewers! As the readership grew, so did the inquiries from agents and publicists, and the girls have now officially submitted a manuscript for their first (of many, I’m sure) cookbooks called Cara & Phoebe’s Quarter-Life Kitchen, which is being published by Harper Collins for Spring 2011. Again, passion meets brains, and a brilliant, and potentially lucrative idea is born. As Big Girls, Small Kitchens continues to grow and think about expansion, it is not off Phoebe’s radar to think about how to strategically include a philanthropic element into the recipe (sorry, I had to).

I know we’ve all had our fair dose of hearing about social entrepreneurship lately, but I couldn’t resist highlighting these two girls (I guess the culinary hook really sold me). But the trifecta was something I couldn’t resist: entrepreneurship plus social impact plus the endless and delicious world of food is too much fun to talk about. Now if only I could dream up a way to integrate some culinary goodness into Empax’s business model that goes beyond having yummy snacks for our clients…any ideas?

I Met A Girl

Her name is Gladys. She lives in Hunts Point on Manida Street, in the Bronx. She is a senior in high school, and preparing to go to college. She wants to study culinary arts: She’s not sure why, other than the fact that she’s always loved watching her mother cook, and has a curiosity about the discipline.

The kitchen that Gladys watches her mother cook in is not one that anyone should have to eat from. I don’t mean this to sound judgmental or elitist, and I’m not airing my views about personal hygiene and food choices. There is mold eating away from most parts of the ceiling, roaches living in the cesspools of water collected from the leaking sink, rust and rot deteriorating the pipes and a fly strip boasting lots of recently conquered victims. I subconsciously felt myself holding my breath.

The state of affairs inside Gladys’s 2-bedroom apartment (which at one point was housing her mother, her six siblings and herself) is not uncommon amongst the units at 626 Manida St. These decrepit buildings are sadly home to a number of families in Hunts Point. As Manhattan-ers we often think that dire poverty and inhumane conditions of this proportion only exist in third world countries. So I’d like to introduce the Manida Street buildings as the newest third world country, a whopping 45 min Subway ride away. Like our dear friends at Hunts Point Alliance for Children (link) have done, we should put this place on our collective radar, for a while.

My story about Gladys is not a downer. Gladys is, without a doubt, one of the most optimistic, positive, energized individuals I have encountered in recent time. Her radiance and enthusiasm beamed throughout that apartment, creating the illusion that they actually had proper lighting. Her dedication to school and learning astounded me, and nearly made me wish I was 18 again (which doesn’t often happen). She has a brightness her that spills out of her, and I can’t figure out where amongst her caving in ceiling and broken-window bedroom she found it.

I was on a photo assignment for HPAC, charged with showing the true living conditions that so many of their residents and beneficiaries face daily. I admit, I felt a bit embarrassed by the whole situation: Going into strangers’ homes asking to not only see, but document, their personal living spaces. I felt that by just being there I was implying that there was something wrong with the way the lived. And I guess I was – there’s a lot wrong with the way they live. The distinction is that their situation is not a result of choice, which is maybe where all the uneasiness comes in. Families like Gladys’ have been neglected by their landlords and pushed to the margins by everyone that’s ever come into contact with those buildings. Their conditions seem to be a product of nothing more than luck (or lack thereof) of the draw; a concept that is painfully difficult for me to wrap my head around.

The day left me feeling simultaneously weighted down and lifted up. While the burden of seeing how some of my neighbors live is nothing compared to living it myself, it takes a toll on me. But having the opportunity to be able to show these dire conditions to individuals who can truly act to change the situation is empowering beyond belief. All and all, I was exhausted.

But then I thought about Gladys. Her radiance. Her resilience. The hug she gave me when I left. I thought about the exhilarating future she has just ahead of her, and what I can only imagine she’ll do with it. Then I was lifted again, just a bit higher.

Branding = Differentiation, and Differentiation = Funding

At its core, branding is all about differentiation. It’s about identifying what makes you unique and then showing that off to the rest of the world. At a time when funding and grant money is increasingly harder to secure, differentiation is a nonprofit’s greatest tool.

Hopefully (as an exercise in self evaluation) we’ve all asked ourselves some variation of the question: Why should a foundation or donor or volunteer give their time or money to your organization over another?

If you’ve followed any of our workshops or writings, you should know the answer to this. If not, here’s another freebie: your brand is your promise. It’s not just a logo or a flashy website or a nice color palette paired with attractive type. It represents the soul of your organization. It tells your story. It evokes an emotional (albeit sometimes subconscious) response from everyone who encounters it. It gets people involved and connected to your work.

So when someone cares about keeping oceans clean and wants to make a donation to the cause, you want to ensure that they are going to chose your organization. You’re the one that’s different, the one that connects with them. You have an added value that no one else in your field has, and your showing it to them. You’re making them feel it.

Research has shown the impact that successful branding and marketing has on a nonprofit’s fundraising, and it’s impressive. Nonprofits with the largest operating budgets are spending the greatest percentage of their budget on branding and positioning compared to others in their field. This correlation is not a coincidence. They are doing something right. They’re spending on these strategies is paying off, and they have the track records to prove it. (attach Lipman Hearne article)

When budgets are tight, it makes sense that intuition tells us to conserve, and give every last penny to our programs. Trust us, we understand the concern of not delivering to your beneficiaries. After all, that’s the bottom line, right? As it should be. But you’re not going to be able to deliver anything to them if your funding has dried up by the third quarter in 2010. Branding is an investment, but differentiation these days is priceless.

So go ahead, give yourself an edge over competitors (yes, competition exists in the nonprofit world too, and no, it’s not a dirty word). Stand out. Set yourself apart. Fly your freak (think individual) flag as high as you can. If ever there was a time to invest in branding, now is it. Your organization’s survival may depend on it.

Another resource: Branding Matters, by Social Edge

The Obama Brand

Funding: Patterns and Guideposts in the Nonprofit Sector (The Bridgespan Group)

And, finally, how important is an organization’s brand when it comes to accessing certain types of funding?
This study found that the largest organizations in youth services and environmental advocacy tend to be funded predominantly by individual donations and membership. These organizations are generally well established and very well known at a national level, which suggests that their public ‘brand value’ is important in raising money from individuals. The importance of brand could be good or bad news for small to medium-sized organizations that want to grow to a large size, depending on what is driving the brand value. If brand value is driven by the fact that these organizations are old and well established, then it will be very challenging for young organizations to make the leap to substantial individual funding. However, the experience of a few of the organizations we’ve observed, such as the National Wild Turkey Federation and the Make a Wish Foundation, suggest that it is possible to establish a national brand even if you are a relatively young organization. Other examples of non-profit and for-profit companies that have been able to build their brands quickly in a cost effective manner could also be illuminating for nonprofits.