As much as we might like to deny it, nonprofits exist in a market economy, which means that nonprofits, like everything else, must compete for customers and resources. Therefore it is critical that you understand where your nonprofit fits in the market.
While a business has one customer, a nonprofit has at least two distinct customer groups:
- Those who benefit from a nonprofit’s work (clients), and
- Those who fund that work (donors, government contractors, etc).
So it is absolutely critical that nonprofit leaders understand what unique value their work brings to these customers. This can be done through a Marketplace Map, which is one of the first exercises (along with a Theory of Change) that I help nonprofit leaders create during a strategic planning process.
A nonprofit organization is best positioned to create social change in a sustainable way when their core competencies (what the organization does better than anyone else) intersects with a community need (or set of social problems) apart from their competitors or collaborators, like this:
But don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that a nonprofit shouldn’t collaborate.
On the contrary, nonprofit leaders must forge strategic alliances that help move the social change they envision forward. However, when they create those alliances, they must be crystal clear about what their organization brings to the table, versus what a potential ally brings to the table. Thus, a marketplace mapping exercise is absolutely critical to charting a way forward.
In order to create their marketplace map, a nonprofit’s board and staff must answer these three key questions:
- Core Competencies: What superior assets (expertise, relationships, etc.) do we possess as an organization that are not easily replicable?
- Community Needs: What community needs/social problems are we attempting to address?
- Competitors/Collaborators: What other entities are working on some/all of those same problems?
The social change sector has become increasingly competitive in recent years. Now more than ever, nonprofits need to understand this external marketplace of competitors/collaborators against their own core competencies in order to understand the unique value that their nonprofit can contribute.
From this marketplace mapping exercise, some key strategic questions will emerge for the nonprofit, such as:
- Where do our core competencies and activities end, and where do others’ begin?
- Is our nonprofit better positioned than other entities to conduct all of the activities (from our Theory of Change) that we currently do? Should some activities be left to those who do it better?
- Are there core competencies that we must develop in order to better address the community needs we’ve identified?
- Are there collaborators/competitors that we should be more strategic about aligning with?
Creating a Marketplace Map, much like creating a Theory of Change, is an incredibly useful exercise that gets your board and staff thinking in bigger, more strategic ways about your work. And those more strategic conversations can help lead to a more effective and sustainable path forward.
If you want to learn more about how I work with clients to develop their strategic plan, download the Strategic Plan benefit sheet.
This week the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund released the second in their series of reports about fundraising. Their Fundraising Bright Spots report, by Kim Klein from Klein & Roth Consulting and Jeanne Bell from CompassPoint, joins their Beyond Fundraising report, released last month.
These two reports are part of the Haas, Jr. Fund’s larger “Resetting Development” effort “to ‘learn out loud’ about how to…help put the sector on a surer path to sustainability and long-term success.” Given my concerns about their Beyond Fundraising report, the Haas, Jr. Fund very graciously asked me to review this latest report.
This new report analyzes 16 social change organizations that have been successful at individual fundraising to determine what the sector can learn from them.
I am always a huge fan of case studies. I think there is much to be gained by looking at others who have done things well, so I applaud the Haas, Jr. Fund for moving from theory into practice to see what is working in individual fundraising.
But first, we have to understand this report for what it is. This report only looks at nonprofits that have been successful with individual donor fundraising, which is just one of several ways that nonprofits bring money in the door. And the report only looks at “progressive organizations with limited budgets and small staffs.” So I would argue that this report and the case studies contained within it will only be applicable to similar types of nonprofits that have individual fundraising as part of their financial model.
Nevertheless, the report finds four themes present in these 16 social change organizations, which are that fundraising:
- Is core to the organization’s identity
- Is distributed broadly across staff, board and volunteers
- Succeeds because of authentic relationships with donors
- Is characterized by persistence, discipline, and intentionality
Many, if not all, of these themes make up the “culture of philanthropy” that the Beyond Fundraising report described.
There were several things I liked about the Bright Spots report.
First, I love the report’s focus on making fundraising part of the job of an entire organization’s board and staff. Two case studies in particular, Jewish Voice for Peace and Mujeres Unidas y Activas, demonstrate how major donor fundraising should be shared among senior staff and board members. For example Jewish Voice for Peace “has 57 portfolio managers from across the staff, board, and volunteers who together manage 600 major donor relationships in addition to other roles they play within the organization.”
Indeed the report points out that in these 16 organizations the head fundraiser’s role is to marshal staff, board and other organization resources toward fundraising, which I love: “Time and again, we heard from the development directors at these organizations that their job is to coordinate, to teach, to coach, and to inspire. The individuals in this role are highly relational and they take deep satisfaction in enabling staff, board, volunteers, and members to be successful fundraisers.”
Second, I really appreciate the Breast Cancer Action case study, which emphasizes creating a give/get fundraising requirement for the entire board:
At Karuna [Jaggar]’s first in-person board meeting as the new executive director, she laid out her desire to establish a board give-and-get policy to her board members, each of whom had been told explicitly upon recruitment that they did not have to participate in fundraising…After an in-depth discussion, they set a give-and-get policy of $10,000 per board member. “Maybe we lost some potential board members who felt they couldn’t do it,” said [board chair] Tracy [Weitz], “but only in the first year. Now, our veteran board members can share their fundraising stories with prospective members and say, ‘I’ve been fine, and you’re going to be fine.’” It’s important to note that BCAction does not prioritize personal wealth now more than it did before this policy change, but rather invests the time to support board members’ success, regardless of personal financial capacity, in the fundraising program.”
Yes! That’s exactly the way to get every board member involved in fundraising, of which I am a huge proponent.
Third, the Bright Spots report points out the need to fully integrate marketing and fundraising in a nonprofit: “A critical aspect of building and refining an individual donor program is tending to the intersection of communications and fundraising…development and communications are inextricably linked and staff driving these efforts work extremely collaboratively.” Agreed, fundraising can not sit on the sidelines of anything an organization does, but must be fully integrated throughout the organization.
Now, let’s get to where I think the report falls short.
First, I would have liked to understand better how these 16 organizations were selected as “bright spots.” I think in holding up organizations as exemplars it is critical to understand in what ways they are exemplars. While the beginning of the report describes what these organizations have in common: “a deep commitment to and strong track record with raising money from individuals,” and “individual support is a consistent part of their overall revenue strategy,” and the report highlights some of their individual donor fundraising successes, it is unclear why these 16 organizations in particular are held out as bright spots.
In my mind, I would select case study organizations that achieved: individual giving growth year over year, and/or higher than average donor retention rates, and/or more profitable than average fundraising activities, and/or demonstrated long-term financial viability. While some of the 16 organizations had significant individual donor growth, not all of them did, so I’m not sure what selection metrics were used. I would like to understand how the Bright Spot organizations’ fundraising metrics compare to their most fundraising-successful peers.
It is particularly important to understand what makes these organizations bright spots when the report points out that some of the 16 social change organizations are struggling with scaling or making sustainable their individual fundraising efforts:
“We heard from the Bright Spot leaders who want to grow their organizations that they are grappling with how to scale this organizational highly relational approach to fundraising. And many of them acknowledge how dependent their success is on long-time leaders, despite their distributed approach to fundraising…Many of the Bright Spots will soon have to adapt to very long-time leaders moving on.”
Second, the report does not make a clear distinction between small donor fundraising (one-to-many cultivation and solicitation of donors) versus major donor fundraising (one-to-one cultivation and solicitation). I wonder if the four themes that the report uncovers differ, and if so how, between fundraising activities targeting many small donors versus fundraising activities targeting a few large donors.
Third, the report touches briefly on the 16 organizations’ fundraising systems and use of data and metrics, but not in a robust way. I would have loved to understand better the kinds of systems these bright spot organizations use and what metrics they are tracking and trends they are seeing. While I understand the report’s overall emphasis on some of the “soft” skills of fundraising (“authentic relationships with donors,” “culture of philanthropy”) I also think that understanding the “hard” skills (systems, metrics) is key to replicating fundraising success (and overall financial sustainability).
Fourth, just as the Beyond Fundraising report did, the Bright Spots report continues to leave the problems (and in this case, the successes) with fundraising largely in the hands of individual nonprofits and their leaders. I am still hungry for case studies and research about how nonprofits (and their funders) can overcome the more systemic financial flaws inherent in our social change sector.
In the end, I would say that the Bright Spots report gives us a glimpse into a piece of what works to bring money in the door. For social movement, individual donor fundraising at small nonprofits, the Bright Spots report provides some important and useful insights. But for more broadly understanding what contributes to overall financial sustainability in the nonprofit sector, this report falls short.
But as I have said before, I don’t fault the Haas, Jr. Fund for exploring these issues. Indeed, they are one of very few funders contributing to the knowledge base about what creates a more financially sustainable nonprofit sector. We just need more of them.
Photo Credit: Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
The Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a foundation on the forefront of investing in nonprofit capacity and one of the few foundations funding nonprofit leadership development, released a new report this week Beyond Fundraising: What Does It Mean to Build a Culture of Philanthropy?.
While I applaud the Haas Fund for taking a pioneering interest in, as they put it, “understanding how to break out of the nonprofit sector’s chronic fundraising challenges,” unfortunately I don’t think that this report will move the needle on the sector’s money woes.
Their landmark 2013 report published with CompassPoint, UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising (of which the Beyond Fundraising report is a follow up) uncovered a real crisis in fundraising staffing in the nonprofit sector. And last year Haas announced a multi-year effort to “to identify gaps that may need to be filled when it comes to helping nonprofits break out of chronic fundraising challenges.”
A sector-wide conversation about money is so incredibly needed that I really appreciate the Haas Fund’s efforts to start it, especially when philanthropists are loathe to talk about the sector’s money challenges, let alone invest in solving them.
But in the hope that debate spurs greater change, and because of Haas’ expressed desire to open a conversation so that they can “learn out loud,” I offer my concerns about the Beyond Fundraising report.
As Linda Wood, Senior Director of Leadership Initiatives at the Haas Fund (and past interviewee on this blog), describes in the beginning of the Beyond Fundraising report, there must be a fundamental change in how nonprofits approach fundraising. As she writes: “Without a deeper shift in how organizations hold the work of fund development, simply adopting new tools and techniques may not be enough.”
The Beyond Fundraising report, authored by philanthropy consultant Cynthia Gibson (also a past interviewee on this blog), starts from where the 2013 UnderDeveloped report left off: that the lack of a culture of philanthropy is the most important issue holding nonprofits back from fundraising success:
By framing the issue as a talent pool problem alone, we neglect to focus more critically upon entrenched organizational factors that contribute to the inability to establish development as a shared function and nurture an organizational culture to sustain it. The right development director hire alone will never break the cycle, but the right person inside an organization that has a culture of philanthropy, can.
The Beyond Fundraising report is an attempt to understand what a culture of philanthropy is and how to encourage its growth. The report defines a “culture of philanthropy” as a situation in a nonprofit where:
Most people in the organization (across positions) act as ambassadors and engage in relationship-building. Everyone
promotes philanthropy and can articulate a case for giving. Fund development is viewed and valued as a missionaligned program of the organization. Organizational systems are established to support donors. The executive director is committed and personally involved in fundraising.
The report delineates four necessary components to a culture of philanthropy:
- Shared responsibility for development
- Integration and alignment with mission
- A focus on fundraising as engagement
- Strong donor relationships
It then provides a list of indicators for nonprofit leaders to use to assess whether or not they possess a culture of philanthropy, a list of “guiding questions” nonprofit leadership can ask in order to build a culture of philanthropy, and a list of roles that development staff and funders can play in bringing a culture of philanthropy to fruition.
While I don’t disagree with any of the indicators, questions, or roles the report describes, I don’t think that any of them, or even their sum total, will solve the lack of financial sustainability at a particular nonprofit, let alone in the nonprofit sector overall.
And this is because I think that only looking at fundraising — the pursuit of philanthropic dollars, which only make up 13% of all the money flowing to the nonprofit sector — is a fundamentally flawed approach to understanding money in the sector. My bias has always been to move the sector from a broken fundraising approach to a more strategic and holistic financing approach.
And while I agree that individual nonprofit leaders are part of the problem, they are just one part. Often their troubled approach to money is simply a reaction to a dysfunctional system. Certainly we need to move away from some ineffective money practices that nonprofit leaders embrace (being reactive rather than strategic about money, not calculating the return on investment of fundraising activities, not aligning money and mission, allowing a board to dismiss their money-raising responsibilities…).
But I worry that by scapegoating the problem to the shortcomings of individual nonprofits we are ignoring the larger financial dysfunctions of the sector. Rather than pull back the curtain on the systemic hurdles causing the nonprofit sector’s money woes, I fear that this report lays much of the blame for financial dysfunction at the feet of individual nonprofit leaders.
Because in my mind, the real problem is not the approach of individual nonprofit leaders, although that is important. I think the financial problems of the nonprofit sector run much deeper. If we truly want to address those problems we must have bigger conversations, and ask harder questions, like:
- Why is there a lack of financial acumen (how to effectively attract and employ money) throughout the sector (present among both nonprofits and their funders), and how do we solve that?
- Why is long-term organizational and financial planning not encouraged and supported throughout the sector?
- Why is there not enough investment in the financial function of nonprofit organizations (the staffing, systems, technology, planning, and marketing necessary to build sustainable financial models)?
- Why aren’t there many, many more funders like The Haas Fund discussing and investing in solutions to the sector’s money problems?
- Why are we still focusing on philanthropic dollars alone when we need to understand and integrate money as a whole into social change efforts?
And that’s just a start.
My fear is that if we place the full weight of nonprofit financial dysfunction on the shoulders of an individual nonprofit’s culture, or if we look only at fundraising, we shirk our duty to dig deeper and remedy larger, structural dysfunctions in the sector.
I applaud the Haas Fund for their determination and courage to create a space, through their capacity investments and on-going research, for the incredibly important conversation about money in the nonprofit sector. But I would love to see this effort grow to become a bigger conversation about how we solve the endemic financial challenges nonprofits face.
Photo Credit: The Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund
Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge believer in strategy. I talk about it All. The. Time. I firmly believe that every nonprofit should have a long-term strategy with a corresponding financial model.
But sometimes a nonprofit is not quite ready to create that long-term strategy because they don’t know what they don’t know.
When a nonprofit suffers from a host of problems that they don’t know how to solve, I encourage them to take a big step back. Because you cannot articulate your theory of change, your goals for the future, the makeup of your staff and board, your financial model, if you are putting out fires and struggling to keep your doors open.
Let me give you an example. An animal welfare nonprofit came to me recently wanting to embark on a strategic planning process. Yet, in the course of our conversation, they revealed that they currently faced a long list of challenges, including:
- A disengaged board of directors
- A poorly structured staff
- A non-existent marketing strategy
- An over-reliance on a couple of funding streams
- An inability to articulate to outsiders what they do and why
These are huge challenges, and creating a strategic plan won’t solve them. If the leader of this nonprofit were to gather her board and staff and ask them to chart the next three years, they would only be talking in circles. Because if you don’t know what’s wrong, you have no hope of figuring out how to fix it.
You should only embark on a strategic planning process when you have the knowledge and capacity necessary to chart a clear future course.
So how do you know if you are truly ready to launch a strategic planning process? Start with these questions:
- Do you have a critical mass of key board members who are excited about and in general agreement on the future of the organization?
- Are you fairly confident of your cash flow over the next several years?
- Do board and staff have the time, capacity and commitment to devote to a rigorous and external-facing, long-term planning process?
- Can board and staff confidently articulate what the nonprofit does and why it matters?
- Does the organization have the right staff in the right places?
- Is your supporter/funder base growing?
- Is the majority of your board effectively engaged in your nonprofit?
If you can’t answer yes to these questions, you may not be ready for a strategic planning process.
But all is not lost. Instead, you may need an organizational assessment (what I call a Financial Model Assessment) to determine what is holding your nonprofit back. An assessment helps a nonprofit figure out why money isn’t flowing the way they need it to be, why the board is disengaged, how to articulate what you do and why, how to structure staff effectively, and ultimately how to build the capacity and knowledge necessary to chart a future direction.
A Financial Model Assessment provides a roadmap to help a nonprofit board and staff analyze and prioritize their immediate challenges so they can address them in preparation for a longer-term planning process.
The approach, in essence is two-fold:
- Assess: Figure out what is holding your nonprofit back (from financial sustainability, operational effectiveness, board and donor engagement, etc.) and how to remedy those challenges.
- Plan: Chart a future direction that lays out the strategy for moving the organization to that next level.
It’s a one-two punch that is sometimes necessary when nonprofit leaders are so caught up in the day-to-day that they simply aren’t prepared to make the big, long-term decisions necessary in a strategic planning process.
If you want to get more strategic as an organization, I applaud you. But make sure your nonprofit is truly ready to create a strategy, or you will just be spinning your wheels and wasting everyone’s time.
Photo Credit: Kale Taylor
From an historic blizzard that blanketed the country, to tackling poverty, to the leadership of Black Lives Matter, to technology in the new year, to using social media to stop ISIS, to advice for Charity Navigator, January was an interesting month in the world of social change.
- Winter storm Jonas dumped several feet of snow across the country, but also offered a couple of interesting lessons in social change. First, the sheer amount of snow piled up on east coast urban streets provided a glimpse into better urban design. And after the blizzard hit Washington, DC it seems only female senators were brave enough to come to work. Among them, Senator Lisa Murkowski wondered: “Perhaps it speaks to the hardiness of women…that put on your boots and put your hat on and get out and slog through the mess that’s out there.”
- Writing in the Nonprofit Quarterly, Tom Klaus took issue with those who criticize the Ferguson and Black Lives Matters movements as being “leaderless.” Instead, he argued that they demonstrate a more effective “shared leadership” model: “Shared leadership…means that multiple members of a team or group step up to the responsibility and task of leadership, often as an adaptive response to changing circumstances. Multiple members may emerge to lead at the same time, or it may be serial as multiple leaders emerge over the life of a team or group.” And The Chronicle of Philanthropy profiled three of the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement.
- One of my favorite bloggers, David Henderson, has made a new year’s resolution to write more often. Let’s hope he keeps it up because he offered us two great ones this month. First, he wrote a scathing critique of the nonprofit and philanthropy sectors for not standing up against presidential candidate Donald Trump’s hate-filled ideology. And then he took it further in a later post arguing that the philanthropic sector must get more political: “It seems a strange consensus that philanthropy and politics do not mix. Yet it is our politics, and more specifically our collective values, that creates the maladies we aim to address. Martin Luther King was a civil rights pioneer not for creating a nonprofit that provided social services to help African Americans live a little better, but by challenging the laws and social values that subjugated a significant portion of our community. Social interventions like homeless shelters, food pantries, and tutoring programs are fundamentally responses to injustice. While these programs are wrapped in apolitical blankets, they are plainly and intuitively critiques of the system we live in.”
- And speaking of critiques, columnist Tom Watson wrote a sharp commentary on American philanthropy arguing that it is going the way of American politics — moving from democracy towards plutocracy: “The disparity between democratic philanthropy and its plutocratic cousin is nowhere more apparent than in the importance placed on the Facebook co-founder’s commitment to giving away much of his vast personal fortune compared with the potential of the largest digital social network in the nation. Mr. Zuckerberg’s billions may create major causes and eventually steer public policy, but many nonprofits will struggle to find in their budgets the money required to purchase desperately needed social-media eyeballs from his advertising department. If there’s a better example of the power gulf in American philanthropy, I’m not sure what it is.”
- And other critiques of philanthropy in January went even further, with some arguing that modern American philanthropy attempting to address growing wealth inequality (illustrated by a new Oxfam infographic “An Economy for the 1%“) is a paradox because philanthropy itself emerged from the wealth excesses of capitalism. A new book by Erica Kohl-Arenas argued that philanthropic interventions to solve poverty have been flawed because they don’t address the structural issues causing the poverty in the first place. And her argument was extended when she wrote about her view of a January 7th public event at the Ford Foundation where Darren Walker (who recently announced a new foundation focus on overcoming poverty) and Rob Reich discussed these issues.
- Caroline Fiennes argued that nonprofits should not try to “prove their impact,” since proof of impact is impossible, but rather use evaluation to gain knowledge that can help “maximize our chances of making a significant impact.” Patrick Lester, writing in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, offered a similar caution about outcomes, but this time to the Obama administration: “A dose of…realism, combined with a greater reliance on evidence and a willingness to learn from the past, could transform the administration’s focus on outcomes into an important step forward. By openly acknowledging the challenges and dangers, recognizing the difference between mere outcomes and true impact, and demonstrating how this time we will do better, the administration could show that what it’s really calling for is not just an outcomes mindset, but an Outcomes Mindset 2.0.”
- Speaking of proving results, Charity Navigator’s new leader, former Microsoft exec Michael Thatcher, and the board that hired him came under attack in January for not moving quickly enough away from rating nonprofits on financials and towards rating them based on results. But Doug White, writing an opinion piece in The Chronicle of Philanthropy and who created the beginning data behind Charity Navigator many years ago, took it even further took it even further: “Charity Navigator is far worse than nothing. The best that could happen is for the group to sink into oblivion, with no charities, no news outlets, and no donors giving it any thought. Or the group could take serious steps to grow up, humbly taking the time and effort to truly try to understand the charitable world.”
- Wanting to get further into the social change game, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg announced a new effort to use Facebook “Likes” to stop ISIS recruitment efforts on social media. It will be interesting to see how effective this slacktivism effort becomes at creating real change.
- Kivi Leroux Miller released her annual Nonprofit Communication Trends Report, including lots of data about how and where nonprofits are marketing. And while she found that YouTube is currently the #3 social network for nonprofits, that may change since YouTube just announced new “donation cards” that allow donors to give while watching a video.
- And finally, in January we lost David Bowie. But Callie Oettinger urged us not to be sad, but rather, inspired: “I [am] comforted in thinking of Bowie…on Mars, mixing it up with other artists…a place where the greats go to keep an eye on the rest of us and send down jolts of inspiration from above.” Yes.
Photo Credit: Northside777
In today’s Social Velocity interview, I’m talking with Michael Crawford, Director of Digital and Creative at Freedom to Marry, one of the organizations instrumental in the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. Michael Crawford led Freedom to Marry’s in-house creative team and directed its award-winning digital program. He led the Freedom to Marry’s shift to a storytelling-centered content strategy and worked with a team of content creators and digital organizers to build an online supporter base of 1.5 million people, produce award-winning video content, and revolutionize the national conversation about gay people and marriage.
With the Supreme Court’s recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage, Freedom to Marry’s work is now done. However, they have turned their website into a repository of tools, case studies and examples from which other movements seeking social change can learn.
You can read past interviews in the Social Velocity social changemaker interview series here.
Nell: The June Supreme court decision legalizing gay marriage was a huge victory to organizations like Freedom to Marry that had been working on this issue for decades. How did multiple organizations and entities collaborate to make this victory a reality? Who were some of your collaborators and what did you learn about forging effective collaborations to create social change?
Michael: Freedom to Marry was one of many organizations who worked to win marriage nationwide for same-sex couples. Our organizational partners included national, state and local groups, and we advised groups working in other countries on marriage campaigns.
Our national partners included organizations like Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Lambda Legal, ACLU, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Human Rights Campaign. At the state level, we worked with dozens of groups in states across every region of the country.
Our work was especially intensive at the state level. In dozens of states, we worked with national and state partners to create coalition campaigns to advance marriage in the respective state. Depending on the state and its anticipated path to marriage — legislative, ballot or legal — that work included creating effective public education campaigns, growing grassroots support, engaging elected officials, getting out the vote for ballot campaigns, earned media, and digital work.
Our Digital Action Center, which became the central hub for digital organizing in the marriage movement, is one example of how Freedom to Marry worked with state campaigns to win marriage. Through the Digital Action Center, Freedom to Marry established a full-service digital shop that built winning campaigns from the ground up, led digital strategy day in and day out, and delivered concrete results to help secure game-changing victories at the ballot box and state legislatures nationwide.
What made our coalition work successful was that throughout we were not hands-off or operating at arms-length. Freedom to Marry was deeply involved as a partner in the work and campaigns, apart from our role as fiscal sponsor or funding engine. We actively looked for opportunities where we could add value without duplicating existing efforts.
Nell: How big a role did technology play in this victory? Obviously it was a multi-pronged approach (legal, political, public awareness, etc.) but how did technology contribute and what do you think other social movements can learn from what you did?
Michael: Freedom to Marry’s use of digital played a critical role in the organization’s work and the implementation of its national strategy, the Roadmap to Victory. The digital team supported the campaign’s focus on rapidly accelerating the growth in public support for marriage, mobilizing supporters into an effective movement, and making the case for marriage in the court of public opinion.
Telling emotionally powerful, authentic stories in compelling ways was a key tactic in achieving a crucial element of our strategy, building a critical mass of public support for the freedom to marry (ultimately, we grew support from 27% in 1996 to 63% in 2015).
Much of Freedom to Marry’s storytelling work was concentrated, or originated, online. Through written online profiles, videos and advertisements, placements in traditional media outlets, and social media, Freedom to Marry consistently and authentically showcased the faces of people from all across the country who needed to be able to say “I do,” marry in any state they chose, and be sure their marriages would be respected by the all states and the federal government. Our central goal was to spark and frame the millions of conversations needed to change hearts and minds and build momentum and a critical mass of support.
The focus on storytelling was at the core of our digital program. We made extensive use of online video, social media and email.
The digital team was its own department within the organization, and we collaborated with all of the programming areas to achieve our joint goals and to amplify the work of the respective programming areas. For example, we partnered closely with our communications team to find and elevate the best stories of couples, supporters and unlikely messengers. The digital team built a database of couples and other potential messengers with compelling stories that we widely shared on our website, through social media and in videos. We worked with the communications team to pitch the best of these stories to news outlets, and then we used social media to push out those earned media stories.
Here are a few takeaways for other movements:
- Integrate digital into the fabric of the organization’s work: Your digital staff should be included when all critical decisions are being made for the organization regarding messaging, strategy and campaigning.
- Place storytelling at the center of your digital work: People are hard-wired to connect to stories and stories can help others to better understand the how and why of your work.
- Prepare content in advance for big decisions: This will enable you to move quickly once the decisions like court rulings or legislative outcomes are announced giving you the best possible chance to shape the narrative around those decisions.
- Leverage social media to scale your outreach and advance your narrative: People are increasingly getting their news via platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Developing and executing smart strategies for disseminating your perspective on the news helps you to be seen as a trusted news source, and it gets your message out more widely.
Nell: One of the reasons this victory happened was because it was a state-by-state strategy, instead of a nationwide strategy. How and why was the decision to go state-by-state made and what can other social change efforts learn from that approach? Why does it work and why now?
Michael: Our Roadmap to Victory was the national strategy to win the freedom to marry. The three tracks of the Roadmap included winning marriage in more states, growing public support and ending federal marriage discrimination all with an eye towards creating the climate for a Supreme Court decision. The state-by-state tactic was in service to the national strategy of winning at the Supreme Court.
The idea was not to focus just on one court case or one legislative battle or lurch from crisis to crisis. Rather, like every other successful civil rights movement, the marriage movement needed to see itself as a long-term campaign with a focused, affirmative goal and a sustained strategy, and needed to build momentum, foster collaboration, enlist new allies, identify new resources, fill in the gaps, and stay the course to victory.
It’s crucial to first identify the overarching goal, then develop a strategy or roadmap to achieve that, then develop the right programs or tactics to implement the strategy and then to provide supporters clear and effective ways that they can help implement the strategy to achieve the goal.
Nell: What’s next for Freedom to Marry and other organizations that won this victory? Where do your efforts go now? Is there other social change you all would like to see?
Michael: Freedom to Marry is in the process of winding down. Most of our staff has moved on to other causes, and we will soon be shutting our doors. The next big fight for the LGBT community is advancing effective legislation to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. One of the organizations leading that effort is Freedom For All Americans.
Over the last year especially, we have been talking with leaders in other movements sharing what we have learned working on the freedom to marry. We hope that our experiences will benefit others seeking to make the world a better place.
October brought some great discussions in the blogosphere, including a forum on whether regulations around donor advised funds should change, concerns that we are working too hard, the need to better retain donors, and a debate about whether social media is (or can be) an effective fundraising tool. Round that out with examples of successful crowdfunding and volunteer skill crowdsourcing, and it was a good month.
Below are my picks of the 10 best reads in the world of social change in October. But, as always, let me know what I missed. And if you want a longer list, follow me on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook or Google+.
And if you want to see past 10 Great Reads lists go here.
- Donor advised funds (DAFs) have come under fire in recent years. There was an interesting discussion in October at the Boston College Law School Forum on Philanthropy and the Public Good about whether regulations on donor advised funds should be changed. In advance of that forum, history professor Lila Corwin Berman provided an historic perspective (on the HistPhil blog) including the fact that “donor advised funds fundamentally changed the balance of public and private power in the United States starting in the 1970s.”
- John Hopkins University professor Lester M. Salamon released a new book in October, The Resilient Sector Revisited: The New Challenge to Nonprofit America in which he lays out a framework for understanding America’s nonprofit sector. An excerpt from the book in the Nonprofit Quarterly examines “The 4 Impulses of Nonprofits“, as he describes it: “The nonprofit sector has long been the hidden subcontinent on the social landscape of American life, regularly revered but rarely seriously scrutinized or understood.” His book is an attempt to do just that.
- The Association of Fundraising Professionals and the Urban Institute released their annual Fundraising Effectiveness Survey Report with some startling data, like: nonprofits retained only 43% of their donors in 2014, and for every $100 a nonprofit brought in they lost $95 to lapsed and reduced gifts. So the challenge for nonprofits, says AFP president Andrew Watt, is to get better at retaining donors: “Donors do not simply choose a few charities to support and stick with them every year. Donors are remarkably inconsistent in their giving, whether it’s because they lost interest in a cause, were giving because a friend or family member asked them, or did not like how the charity was treating them. The charitable sector’s challenge is to figure out how to better inspire and retain donors from year to year.”
- And speaking of fundraising, Nonprofit Tech for Good donated $800 to 32 nonprofit organizations via the nonprofit websites and shared some important lessons for other nonprofits trying to fundraising effectively online. But Derrick Feldmann cautions that social media fundraising is not the panacea many board members might think. The new “Social Good Team” at Facebook might disagree because they have big plans for social media and the nonprofit sector.
- Kickstarter, the crowdfunding website, re-incorporated as a public benefit corporation in order to put their social good mission above profit, and then partnered with the United Nations to raise money for Syrian refugees.
- While we’re on the power of the crowd, in his ongoing Fixes blog, David Bornstein profiles Movement.org, a crowdsourcing site that connects human right activists and skilled volunteers. As David Keyes, one of the leaders, describes the platform: “Amazon says that you don’t need to be a bookstore to sell a book and Uber says that you don’t need to be a taxi service to drive a taxi. I realized that you don’t need to be an N.G.O. to fight a dictator, or a political leader to help a human-rights activist. Millions of people around the globe have the skills to help, and they’re currently not being utilized. If we could build a bridge between these communities, more people could be helped than we ever thought possible.”
- And in more solutions news, South Los Angeles, once an urban food wasteland, is becoming a hub of food activism with a focus on startup, affordable eateries that are committed to building a strong, healthy community.
- Companies are already getting ready for the holiday season mix of commercialism and philanthropy and Amy Schiller worries that Bloomingdale’s “Icons w/ Impact” marketing campaign highlighting celebrities, fashion and philanthropy is a worrisome shift in philanthropy. But I’m hoping that the HistPhil blog will chime in with a reasoned, historical perspective.
- Poor strategy will get you in the end. The breast cancer nonprofit, the Susan G. Komen Foundation came under fire a few years ago for some poor strategic decisions (like aligning with Kentucky Fried Chicken and pulling funding from Planned Parenthood), and it looks like those decisions have dramatically affected their fundraising.
- Phil Buchanan from the Center for Effective Philanthropy has a problem with our workaholic culture. He and his organization have learned from the Millennial generation’s more balanced (than Gen X’s or the Boomer’s) approach to work and life, and he suggests we do the same: “The millennials don’t care that this is what we might have done at that stage of our careers. In fact, they look at us and are quite clear they don’t want to be us — they don’t want to make the same mistakes!” Amen!
Photo Credit: Museum of History and Industry, Seattle
In the nonprofit world marketing is fairly misunderstood. “Marketing” is the act of segmenting the potential market for your products or services and then targeting the right segment(s) in order to convince them to “buy.” While in the for-profit world there is typically just one customer, in the nonprofit world there are (at least) two distinct customer groups:
- Those benefitting from your products or services (“Clients”) and
- Those buying your products or services (“Funders”)
Often, marketing to Clients is less tricky because demand is so high for a nonprofit’s services. So the real challenge is to create an effective marketing strategy to attract Funders. But even within that category there can be many different types, depending on a particular nonprofit’s business model. Marketing to foundations vs. individuals vs. earned income customers vs. government contractors — it can get quite complex.
Which is why it is so important for nonprofit leaders to understand some basics about how marketing works.
You Must Know Who You Are Marketing To
Market segmentation is thinking strategically about which specific people you are trying to reach within the vast universe. Anyone who has money should NOT be the target of your nonprofit’s fundraising efforts. Instead, you have to think about what distinguishes people who have an affinity for your work from the rest of the world. Clearly define their particular demographic (age, gender, income, job) and psychographic (lifestyle, interests, attitudes) characteristics. Create some “target personas” (HubSpot has a great tool for this) that define your target group(s) along different dimensions and then tailor your marketing efforts to where they are and what specific messages will compel them to act.
There’s No Such Thing as “Raising Awareness”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a nonprofit leader say that they are holding an event, or trying to generate media coverage, or sending out a mailer in order to “raise awareness.” Let me be blunt — that phrase is meaningless. Whose attention (specifically) are you trying to capture (see #1 above)? And are you trying to get their attention in the places they already are? And are you talking with them in a way that is meaningful and will encourage them to act? When you attempt to “raise awareness” without a specific and targeted strategy you are just shouting in the wind.
The Market Is Increasingly Crowded
And now more than ever you are shouting in the wind because of the rapidly changing digital environment in which we all live. We are bombarded with an exponentially increasing amount of messages every day. It is completely overwhelming. So unless you get really specific about who exactly you are trying to reach and how exactly you are going to compel them to act (again, see #1 above), you are hopelessly lost.
Push Marketing is Dead
And because of this rapidly changing digital environment, push marketing — the traditional approach of sending out a press release, putting an ad in the paper, sending a direct mail piece, or any other way you PUSH out a message and hope people will act — has become completely ineffective. Instead you want to use PULL activities where you create and participate in communities where your target personas are already present. You connect with them, empower them to get involved and then let them tap into their own networks to help your jointly held cause.
You Must Embrace The Network
In the end you must create a completely different philosophy about marketing. Stop creating your mission in a vacuum and then begging for any and all support to make it happen. Instead, you must break down the walls of your organization and tap into networks outside that have similar social change goals and who can work with you to make that change happen. Rather than investing in an advertising campaign, use those resources to create a network strategy to identify key influencers who can help move your goals forward and connect with them to figure out how you can work together. We live in an increasingly networked world and only those who connect with it will thrive.
You must reinvent your marketing approach. Instead of shouting a message and hoping someone will listen, get strategic about identifying people who can become partners in making a joint social change vision happen.
Photo Credit: pexels.com