FundRaising Success

You will be automatically redirected to fundraisingsuccessmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

You’re Not Nike — Get Over It

Corporate-style branding hurts nonprofits, flattens fundraising.

August 2010 By JEFF Brooks
7
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

"Our fundraising results have dropped since we put our new brand standards in place, but that's OK because the new brand so brilliantly articulates who we are as an organization."

— Marketing director at a nonprofit

Don't laugh. This is not satire. I've heard statements like this many times. Maybe you have, too.

According to some, communication rules that hurt fundraising effectiveness but make people in the organization feel good are perfectly OK. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd say anything you do with your communication that de-motivates donors from giving should be considered a failure. Silly me.

Once the brand people start positioning their failure as success, your organization is in deep trouble. You are on the top of a very steep and slippery slope that leads to crippling budget cuts — at best.

To be fair, we can be pretty sure the brand folks didn't set out to make your fundraising less effective. They fully expected the new brand to help. They worked hard on a good-faith effort to take your organization to the Promised Land.

The fact that their efforts didn't work is a devastating blow to them. How could their hard-won insights and the brilliant principles of corporate branding not work miracles? Their claim that organizational self-expression matters more than cause-supporting revenue is just a desperate rear-guard action to salvage not only their hard work, but their very sense of reality.

Trouble is, the entire branding exercise was destined to hurt fundraising revenue from the start. And not because they mucked it up: They may or may not have done that, but either way, corporate-style branding always hurts nonprofit fundraising.

That's right: Corporate-style branding backfires for nonprofits. No matter how well you do it. It simply chases away donors. You might as well mandate that every piece you send out has a big red label that says DONORS, GO AWAY!

This problem is built in to the very structure of corporate branding, which is about making (and, one would hope, keeping) compelling promises about products and services. There are two kinds of corporate brands:

● The old kind. Its message is, "Buy our stuff because we are great." This used to work when there were few choices and people were less cynical. When you had two kinds of soup to choose from, of course you bought the one that was made by the company you thought was the better one.

 
7

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Garth Moore - Posted on September 25, 2010
I disagree with this article's premise. I recently completed my thesis on nonprofit branding in fundraising appeals and concluded that most donors experience the message through the branding elements. Only a few of the interview participants discussed perceptions of "over-commercialization." Instead, that instant recognition of the logo and imagery set the course for how nearly all of my interview participants perceived and acted on the message. It's true: a bad brand may a negative experience. But a good brand, like a Greenpeace or Nature Conservancy, pitches programs and services the same way Apple's brand pitches the iPhone. Nonprofits that cultivate their brands will reap the rewards of their brand equity in our current media-rich culture.
Richard DeVeau - Posted on August 31, 2010
Jeff,

It sounds like you've seen too much bad branding, regardless of the industry.

As a former commericial branding guy and now a nonprofit branding guy, I've always believed good branding, regardless of industry sector, is all about the promises you keep, not the ones you make.

Corporate branding efforts that forget this basic premise are going to miss the mark, just as nonprofit branding efforts will.

If a brand's promise is not organic to the company, product or nonprofit organization's mission, it will simply not resonate with the audience.

Good branding works and it works hard.

Bad branding does not, regardless of the industry sector.
john corwin - Posted on August 27, 2010
I'm incredulous that this article was even printed. The notion that branding does not work for non-profits is not only ridiculous, but patently untrue.

If it did not work, why would we know the following names so well: UNICEF, United Way, Planned Parenthood, PETA, GreenPeace, ASPCA, YMCA, NAACP, NRDC. Should I go on?

I'm truly sorry if you hired a bad agency in the past. But there is so much proof out there about the value of branding, that it is almoso ridiculous to even try to explain how all you have done is shown how little you know.

Especially when at the end of your article, you specifically discuss how valuable it is to promote a non-profits brand through public relations.

Margaret - Posted on August 26, 2010
I run a national non profit organization that does not have a budget for marketing, branding or fund raising. We do all of this in house which is one reason I read this newsletter -- to glean good advice within my limited time frame.

This article was a good reminder to keep the cause and the donor front and center in all communication. I'm always looking for quality marketing and branding ideas, and just this week I forwarded a Nike email to my graphics designer, website director, e-mail blast creator, etc. you get the picture. I love the clean simple design of the email and wanted her to have the example to glean ideas for future email blasts. So, the point of your article hit home to me.

Branding is important. A professional image is important. But what the donor is allowing us to accomplish through their giving should be front and center. Thanks for the reminder.
Suzanne - Posted on August 25, 2010
Did you notice that at the front of the article, he refers to the ‘branding people’, but at the very last sentence he ends with ‘marketing people’ here-in lies the problem, it’s classic in the confusion of the two functions.

Also, the case you make makes no sense at all. You point to a term called ‘Corporate-Style’ branding which you don't define except that by inferring that it has something to do with ‘SUPER-polish’ and unfulfilled promises. Again a product of an expensive MARKETING CAMPAIGN without the due diligence done internally to support the promise or advertising claim.

Then near the end you talk about a [good branding strategy]:
“When a donor gives, you just deliver the information you promised. Deliver it quickly, well and frequently. And overdeliver, while you're at it.
At that point, you're fulfilling a fulfillable, no-BS promise. There's no gap in the donor experience. Fundraising keeps working, and the revenue you need stays on target.”

That is truly what internal brand definition and implementation results in – FULFILLABLE PROMISES.

Once again, a writer touting the misunderstood functions of BRANDING VS. MARKETING.

Competent brand experts start internally with their clients and help them define their brand's core DNA and then create systems and processes that are aligned with their objectives and ultimately a desired employee and customer experience.

On the other hand, savvy marketers should understand the true strengths and weaknesses of their clients' delivery on a promise before creating super-polished campaigns resulting in unfulfilled promises; which diminishes the credibility for all parties involved.
John Brunsdon - Posted on August 25, 2010
Surely this article should be entitled "bad corporate-style branding hurts nonprofits".

If a branding company is trying to make a nonprofit organisation deliver the same brand messages as Nike, then I would say go to another brand company that understands the sector.

There is no defined "corporate" branding - it's a fairly meaningless phrase. If you mean a brand that looks professional and modern, then there is nothing wrong with that - as long as the brand (which is far, far more than the visuals) supports the messages that appeal to that organisations' donors.

People are "buying" things when they donate - they are buying the experience of helping a cause they have an emotional connection to for starters.

Part of what they expect from that is something tangible to show they have made a difference - that they have actually "bought" something.

You cover this experience well in your last section - but I can't understand why this has to be separate to "branding" (corporate or otherwise).

The brand identity - both in terms of visuals and brand messages - should support these positive messages and actions, but there is no proscribed look or feel that does that. What works for one charity might not for another.

The message I would deliver is that if you are looking to rebrand your nonprofit, make sure you talk to a company that understands you, and the sector you operate in.
Scott - Posted on August 12, 2010
Jeff, your conclusion seems contradictory. You state that "an effective nonprofit brand ... says two things: You'll have a lot of impact. You'll see that impact, clearly and dramatically."

Yet just a few paragraphs earlier you said the problem with applying corporate branding to nonprofits is that "When you hand your money over to a nonprofit, you get nothing tangible in return. You simply have no way of knowing whether the brand kept its promise."

Well, will I see an impact, clearly and dramatically, or won't I? And how can a nonprofit prove that a donor has made an impact if "the donor is going to be disappointed, or at least underwhelmed by the lack of tangible proof he gets"?

So please explain again how a nonprofit brand fulfilling a promise is any different than an iPhone brand fulfilling its promise.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Garth Moore - Posted on September 25, 2010
I disagree with this article's premise. I recently completed my thesis on nonprofit branding in fundraising appeals and concluded that most donors experience the message through the branding elements. Only a few of the interview participants discussed perceptions of "over-commercialization." Instead, that instant recognition of the logo and imagery set the course for how nearly all of my interview participants perceived and acted on the message. It's true: a bad brand may a negative experience. But a good brand, like a Greenpeace or Nature Conservancy, pitches programs and services the same way Apple's brand pitches the iPhone. Nonprofits that cultivate their brands will reap the rewards of their brand equity in our current media-rich culture.
Richard DeVeau - Posted on August 31, 2010
Jeff,

It sounds like you've seen too much bad branding, regardless of the industry.

As a former commericial branding guy and now a nonprofit branding guy, I've always believed good branding, regardless of industry sector, is all about the promises you keep, not the ones you make.

Corporate branding efforts that forget this basic premise are going to miss the mark, just as nonprofit branding efforts will.

If a brand's promise is not organic to the company, product or nonprofit organization's mission, it will simply not resonate with the audience.

Good branding works and it works hard.

Bad branding does not, regardless of the industry sector.
john corwin - Posted on August 27, 2010
I'm incredulous that this article was even printed. The notion that branding does not work for non-profits is not only ridiculous, but patently untrue.

If it did not work, why would we know the following names so well: UNICEF, United Way, Planned Parenthood, PETA, GreenPeace, ASPCA, YMCA, NAACP, NRDC. Should I go on?

I'm truly sorry if you hired a bad agency in the past. But there is so much proof out there about the value of branding, that it is almoso ridiculous to even try to explain how all you have done is shown how little you know.

Especially when at the end of your article, you specifically discuss how valuable it is to promote a non-profits brand through public relations.

Margaret - Posted on August 26, 2010
I run a national non profit organization that does not have a budget for marketing, branding or fund raising. We do all of this in house which is one reason I read this newsletter -- to glean good advice within my limited time frame.

This article was a good reminder to keep the cause and the donor front and center in all communication. I'm always looking for quality marketing and branding ideas, and just this week I forwarded a Nike email to my graphics designer, website director, e-mail blast creator, etc. you get the picture. I love the clean simple design of the email and wanted her to have the example to glean ideas for future email blasts. So, the point of your article hit home to me.

Branding is important. A professional image is important. But what the donor is allowing us to accomplish through their giving should be front and center. Thanks for the reminder.
Suzanne - Posted on August 25, 2010
Did you notice that at the front of the article, he refers to the ‘branding people’, but at the very last sentence he ends with ‘marketing people’ here-in lies the problem, it’s classic in the confusion of the two functions.

Also, the case you make makes no sense at all. You point to a term called ‘Corporate-Style’ branding which you don't define except that by inferring that it has something to do with ‘SUPER-polish’ and unfulfilled promises. Again a product of an expensive MARKETING CAMPAIGN without the due diligence done internally to support the promise or advertising claim.

Then near the end you talk about a [good branding strategy]:
“When a donor gives, you just deliver the information you promised. Deliver it quickly, well and frequently. And overdeliver, while you're at it.
At that point, you're fulfilling a fulfillable, no-BS promise. There's no gap in the donor experience. Fundraising keeps working, and the revenue you need stays on target.”

That is truly what internal brand definition and implementation results in – FULFILLABLE PROMISES.

Once again, a writer touting the misunderstood functions of BRANDING VS. MARKETING.

Competent brand experts start internally with their clients and help them define their brand's core DNA and then create systems and processes that are aligned with their objectives and ultimately a desired employee and customer experience.

On the other hand, savvy marketers should understand the true strengths and weaknesses of their clients' delivery on a promise before creating super-polished campaigns resulting in unfulfilled promises; which diminishes the credibility for all parties involved.
John Brunsdon - Posted on August 25, 2010
Surely this article should be entitled "bad corporate-style branding hurts nonprofits".

If a branding company is trying to make a nonprofit organisation deliver the same brand messages as Nike, then I would say go to another brand company that understands the sector.

There is no defined "corporate" branding - it's a fairly meaningless phrase. If you mean a brand that looks professional and modern, then there is nothing wrong with that - as long as the brand (which is far, far more than the visuals) supports the messages that appeal to that organisations' donors.

People are "buying" things when they donate - they are buying the experience of helping a cause they have an emotional connection to for starters.

Part of what they expect from that is something tangible to show they have made a difference - that they have actually "bought" something.

You cover this experience well in your last section - but I can't understand why this has to be separate to "branding" (corporate or otherwise).

The brand identity - both in terms of visuals and brand messages - should support these positive messages and actions, but there is no proscribed look or feel that does that. What works for one charity might not for another.

The message I would deliver is that if you are looking to rebrand your nonprofit, make sure you talk to a company that understands you, and the sector you operate in.
Scott - Posted on August 12, 2010
Jeff, your conclusion seems contradictory. You state that "an effective nonprofit brand ... says two things: You'll have a lot of impact. You'll see that impact, clearly and dramatically."

Yet just a few paragraphs earlier you said the problem with applying corporate branding to nonprofits is that "When you hand your money over to a nonprofit, you get nothing tangible in return. You simply have no way of knowing whether the brand kept its promise."

Well, will I see an impact, clearly and dramatically, or won't I? And how can a nonprofit prove that a donor has made an impact if "the donor is going to be disappointed, or at least underwhelmed by the lack of tangible proof he gets"?

So please explain again how a nonprofit brand fulfilling a promise is any different than an iPhone brand fulfilling its promise.