How to Project Manage Your Nonprofit Story
The digital revolution has made it easier for each individual to beat – and march to – their own drum. This means we no longer lead the band (or, shall I say, brand). So if neither marketing nor development is wielding the baton, does it matter how they’re connected or separated? Yes! But the way it matters may be different than appears at first blush.
“If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far away. “
-Henry David Thoreau
Let us not lose pace with our constituencies.I’ve had a lot of feedback (thanks to all!) on Friday’s post, Please Stop the Madness in March (and any other time): Integrate Fundraising and Marketing. Much of it boils down to who controls the constituent experience. There’s territoriality and turf protecting going on; also a bit of fear, I sense, from fundraisers who may feel they don’t have the technology skills required in today’s marketplace. But how we feel – and what we fear – may not really matter much in 2012 and beyond. So, I thought it might be interesting to look at the issue of marketing integration from a different perspective.
The consumer perspective is at the heart of what matters today. In fact, those who are most fearful of change fall back on the notion that “fundraising is about people; not technology.” While fundamentally true, this does not belie the notion that change is afoot. Brian Solis recently reminded us who is in charge of branding in today’s digitally revolutionized world: What we’re learning now with the democratization of information is that individuals are in control of the brand and brand experience as much as the business.
The reason that everything is changing is that so many of our customers are “connected consumers”. They get (and share) their information differently than their “traditional” counterparts. They march to different drummers. They expand our opportunity to grow our base of support; at the same time, we can’t ignore our traditional base. We have to listen to different drummers in order to maximize our potential for growth.
Listening is at the heart of what we must do; we want both our right and left ears focused, together, on what there is to be heard. If they (e.g., development and marketing) hear different things, the way the brain will process the input will turn into mushy output. As it is said: “Garbage in; garbage out.” To truly engage today’s connected consumers requires understanding their values. It takes research and a dedicated, collaborative approach to effectively engage people in a meaningful brand experience.
Let’s consider a new paradigm for marketing and development in today’s world. The 4 P’s of Social Business introduces us to just such a model. In a nutshell, marketing used to look at the continuum of activity encompassing marketing and sales through the lens of the 4 P’s of product, price, promotion and place. It was a great framework. But time does not stand still, and infrastructures need rebuilding. Here’s the suggestion of how the 4 P’s might look today for a truly ‘social business’ :
People are your core asset, internal and external. They create and carry your message. You need to know them, relate to them and collaborate. Platforms are the conduit of connectedness. They are places where people will gather, whether physical, your own communities inside and outside the business or proprietary (e.g. Facebook, Twitter). Points of connection are the touch points that move people along a continuum of engagement when brands are experiences. They’re the mission moments, the shared values and the purposeful way you bond with your constituents. Protocols are the processes you put in place to get the work done.
Growing from old to new requires culture change; this takes time and leadership. People, platforms and points of connection cannot succeed without enabling infrastructure that feeds information through the pathways to the right consumer, through the right medium, in the right manner and the right time.
You must always get back to people, and how they perceive you.
“Donor Attitude” is the far too long-neglected, yet equally valuable, flip side of the fundraising coin. It is the donor’s ‘attitude’ that drives the donor’s ‘behavior’. Important, and also little understood, is the reality that donor ‘attitude’ is determined by the actions an organization itself takes……{T}hese actions – negative and positive – go far beyond appeals and frequency of mailings. For most fundraisers… the concept of donor attitude seems new and strange. But in reality it’s been the mainstay of consumer marketing in the commercial world for nearly 20 years.”
Marketing integration really means coming to an understanding of how what you do may impact the experience of your constituents. From the constituent perspective, marketing and development (and customer service and public relations) are inseparable, like Siamese twins. They function together. One heart must beat for both.
What do you think is the best model for aligning the marketing and fundraising protocols? What are your thoughts on how to create a harmonious whole? If you think this won’t work, why?
2 Comments
While some donors increasingly manage much of their own experience, I would say that for major donors, the process should be coordinated by Development, and specifically to assigned D.O. to the extent practical. Obviously the activities of Marketing/PR/Comm impact donor cultivation, and should be integrated into the Donor Cultivation Strategy.
For smaller donors, perhaps it's not as critical, so long as the messaging supports the common objectives, I would think.
Thanks for this comment Don. I agree the process is somewhat different for different segments of our target market. At the same time, it's always important to keep in mind the donor perspective (this is actually WHY the process differs from group to group).
Too often we think internally rather than externally. We think about our needs. What we want to convey. We forget about constituent needs and values. We push rather than pull. We talk rather than listen. And even if the development department gets good at listening and donor centricity, this can be undermined when other departments behave differently.
It definitely seems to require a culture shift for many organizations. This culture shift has been given many names. For years I talked with folks about instilling a 'culture of philanthropy'. That, too, is about embracing the fact that we're all in this together. We're all working to further the mission. And every single staff member is the face of the charity. Fundraisers need to consider themselves also as p.r. spokespersons. P.R. folks need to consider themselves as fundraisers. Ad infinitem.
Call it a "culture of customer service" or a "culture of relationship building" or a "culture of advancement". It's all the same thing. We do get stuck in our narrow definitions of marketing, development, fundraising, sales, you-name-it (and we all have different ones!). For an organization to be able to wrap it's arms around the big picture does require leadership from the top (although it can start anywhere as long as you have leadership willing to listen).
The bottom line, perhaps, for development professionals is that philanthropic behavior is motivated by values. This being the case, the manner in which a charity communicates these values is paramount. This is where problems arise if marketing and development aren't joined at the hip. We must organize internal systems, marketing and communications programs and community outreach to maximize the understanding of, response to, and impact of our values. Only then can organizations achieve full intersection with supporters, and engage them in a lasting and mutually satisfying relationship.