Several years ago, Chip Walker, an American advertising executive from Energy/BBDO, told the National Post “we focus so hard on interrupting people and trying to be different that we’ve ceased to say anything they actually care about.” Desperate for money and scrambling to be noticed, fundraisers doggedly pursue formulaic and unmemorable events – anything, it seems, except figuring out how to stay meaningfully-connected with the people who are really interested in their work. Consequently, the public image of nonprofits is of organizations perpetually cap-in-hand; not the image you want; not the mission you are trying to advance. But there is an alternative: organizations that rely on fundraising need to work harder to inform, differentiate, and effectively build constituency.

It’s time to realize fundraising isn’t just about separating people from their cash. It should be an identity project, but this gets forgotten when snatch and run looks so appealing. I’d say if organizations want a proactive relationship development process, they should focus more on “the tell” than “the ask”: http://wp.me/pqoXT-11

So, tell first, tell them again.cheap cialis Keep them connected to your story. Ask later.

1. “We have all learned that leadership has lost the edge it once had because leaders have been required to be good managers, not great leaders.”
2. “Clients want thought leadership partners, not order takers…that are not afraid to push the envelope of creativity.”
3. “Leaders today must approach their business like a think-tank, where every member of the supply chain is an asset…and thus accountable to contribute in ways that support continuous innovation.”
4. “Organizations must invest in changing the mindset of leadership from general fighting the last war to creative enabler of opportunity, innovation and possibility.”

Couldn’t agree more – leadership is essential, and thought leadership buttresses claims to leadership – so why the hesitation? For one, many organizations don’t know where the knowledge of their organization resides.  In 2001, Hewlett-Packard CEO Lew Platt said “HP doesn’t know what HP knows; ten years later, Colliers International CIO, Veresh Sita, said “Colliers doesn’t know what Colliers knows. They’re not alone. The inability to know what you know impedes organizations wanting to fight-off the tendency to hoard knowledge and encourage collaboration.

The bigger problem, however, is that once organizations find out what they know, most don’t know what to do with those insights. The roadblock, oddly, is the process of “managing” knowledge – dumping it into repositories but otherwise doing nothing with it.  What about marketing? Why doesn’t “what you know” become the core of your branding process?

If organizations don’t understand the benefits of thought leadership it’s because they don’t think creatively about branding. They’re afraid of outreach, of advocating, of saying something substantive that might commit them to a position. In other words, this whole debate about knowledge reveals that organizations have a dysfunctional relationship with the branding process.

Organizations spend buckets of cash on conventional branding approaches because they’ve been promised a stronger, more confident – better – organization will emerge. Are they expecting too much? It’s hard for everyday tactics to live up to hyperbole. Their superficial “claims and image-based approach” is rooted in the belief that all it takes is a little chutzpah for your brand to succeed. To be different you need something different.

You won’t be heard if you aren’t saying anything worth listening to. Give them something to talk about. Persuading audiences about your organization’s value begins with providing tangible proof of unique ideas and leadership. Communicating what you know better than any other organization is the starting point for success. With a content-first communications strategy you stake a unique territory, stand for something clear and definable in the minds of audiences, have the evidence to back up your claims, and can get people talking about your work – then you’ve got a believable, well-differentiated brand.

So, by all means, figure out what you know – just don’t stop there: start building thought leadership into your brand.

“Relevant reading from the Contrabrand archive: Changing of the Guard (2005) http://wp.me/pqoXT-B”

But guilt isn’t how to build a strong nonprofit sector in this country, we need to focus on good management. The Globe’s focus on our culture of giving – making it the public’s fault – has the unintended consequence of absolving organizations from doing anything different about their own approach to marketing and fundraising. Too many nonprofits have long been satisfied to complain Canadians don’t freely open their wallets, but aren’t willing to turn the lens on their own management practices: how do they overcome their culture of expectation? Why do nonprofits continue to steadfastly believe governments, foundations, and the general public know who they are, understand how they serve, and that these groups will be ever-willing to support their work? It just ain’t so.

Traditional approaches to fundraising have become hidebound and ineffective and so, the nonprofit managerial mindset needs changing: what responsibility do these organizations have to make themselves more engaging to potential donors? Where is the imagination to appeal to audiences other than by hosting galas or holding lotteries – tactics which organizations rely on too heavily at the exclusion of other more meaningful activities? Some of these activities, of course, generate short-term windfalls, but are they sustainable? Will people support these same activities endlessly? I’ve lost track of how many 10K runs are held in our cities every year.

And what do any of these tactics do to contribute to the perception of the organization’s leadership? Ultimately the sameness of tactics contribute to the wrong set of identity associations being communicated: namely, “we’re desperate for money and we don’t know what else to do.”

The so-called “best practices” need replacing. Nonprofits have forgotten that fundraising should be an identity project, not merely about separating people from their cash. If the Globe helped them solve this management problem instead of making us feel guilty, we’d all be better off.

For more on the topic of nonprofit management and community building, have a look at our archived Contrabrand article from 2001, “New money, new demands and the arrival of the venture philanthropist” at: http://su.pr/2knchP

If university presidents want change they don’t need better teaching, they need to build better brands. Each of them needs to focus on getting more people to believe in the positive impact of their respective school’s expertise.

How do you invest a university with meaning? Certainly not with logos and ad campaigns. To build and maintain a meaningful brand, learning organizations must refine their approach to outreach: the traditional focus on programming contributes only to the building of ramparts, making it difficult for outsiders to penetrate and understand what is going on inside. A strong identity does require excellent programming, but also an equally strong ability to project. Repositioning the university so it is understood to be the place to engage with leading ideas requires these institutions take greater responsibility for developing and promoting meaningful content.

Publishing ensures brand claims to excellence are always defensible. In its many potential forms, publishing is crucial to keeping the research and teaching missions of top schools appear relevant; about showing a university to be a trend-setter, not a trend-follower. Restoring an effective capability for scholarly publishing would firmly position these schools in the marketplace of ideas and ensure audiences know their missions are being successfully accomplished.

I’m reminded of Carleton University’s strategic planning exercise in 2008, which declared the university expected faculty members to be the “designers and custodians of the future” who will extend “the benefits of learning and knowledge to the furthest possible limits.”  But scholarly publishing wasn’t part of their strategic plan. Without the capability to tell the world about its expertise and accomplishments, Carleton’s message can’t spread beyond the classroom.

Mount Allison University’s president, Robert Campbell, told the Globe our “universities have lost their ‘foundational narrative thread.’”  The narrative they should want is one that positions them as the top place to access leading ideas – in whatever area it is they choose to be good. At a time when there seems to be great parity among colleges and universities, you would think more schools would be busy crafting a better narrative, and communicating the stories of their unique research. Publishing enables programming and projecting to work in tandem. Evidence of unique knowledge helps people understand the organization has valued assets; is a tool to help schools evolve beyond a local presence and reach targets in a fragmented marketplace; and, ultimately, helps them meet their financial plans: strong universities whose confident, individual brands collectively support our national aspiration for intellectual leadership.

Isn’t that what Canadians want?

Great! Hopefully spending doesn’t all go to statues, events and other programming that makes a one-time impact and then is just as quickly forgotten. This could be an interesting decade if the government spends its money wisely on projecting, and encourages the production of tools that make a lasting impact by fostering meaningful and ongoing connections. No doubt social media is expected to play a large role, but will they give people something substantive to talk about?  If we are to commemorate these milestones effectively, there needs to be a content-first strategy.

Rogers expects Sportsnet magazine to fill a huge gap in the Canadian market: the Canadian sports marketplace has been under-covered for years. Rogers realizes there is no shortage of Canadian sports fans wanting to get their fix and wanting alternatives to the overwhelmingly American-focus of Sports Illustrated and ESPN magazines. I doubt many Canadian sports fans are Luddites; most are plugged-in and make good use of electronic technology.  As Rogers seems to know, many of them, however, also want to hold a magazine in their hands.

The obvious model for Rogers is ESPN, the American all-sports network, which launched its own highly successful – and highly lauded – magazine in March of 1998. In recent years ESPN has expanded its model by embracing sports documentaries. The 30 for 30 series has told some fantastic sports stories, giving its community an additional – and highly substantive – way for people to connect with ESPN’s work. Hopefully Rogers follows that example, too.

The essential point is this: Smart, effectively-branded organizations are ensuring engaging content is at the core of their outreach, and they use it to convey depth and meaning, build audience share, and amass earned revenue. The willingness of a Rogers or ESPN to go down this path is a reflection of how deeply they understand this.

They also understand how people have – in one part of their lives at least – narrow interests. This was a point that Chris Anderson made in 2006 when he introduced us to The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. He argued that people gravitate toward niches. Rogers and ESPN are feeding those narrow interests anyway they can. The magazine is one tool to break through the clutter. The problem for most organizations is that they want to communicate on the cheap: dumping content online, they believe, is adequate, and enables them to avoid paper-print-and-binding costs. Online variants are great, but are only one part of the puzzle. The key is offering multiple points of contact: websites, books, magazines, documentary films – all fully integrated. Explore every channel.

I don’t doubt Boomers are self-indulgent; that’s long been the reputation of this enormous and influential demographic. But I wonder if the problem to which Tony refers — selfish behavior versus a more magnanimous style of giving — stems more from the fact they haven’t been effectively engaged by the organizations that need their help. By not properly nurturing the interests of this “selfish” group, the boomers don’t know what they can do to help. A big part of the problem is the nonprofit culture of expectation that believes “people understand us, and will support us.” They don’t, and won’t. For me it comes down to this: nonprofits aren’t doing their job if they aren’t communicating effectively.  Effective communication should be seen as being a core part of their mission, yet it isn’t.=

I tried tackling this issue in a 2001 article about venture philanthropy written for Museum News http://wp.me/pqoXT-X. Of relevance to Tony’s question is a short section in the article about our declining sense of community in which I reference Robert Putnam’s book, Bowling Alone — an excellent study that is worth re-reading.

This is, in short, an issue that nonprofits have control over and it defeats the “we can’t do anything about it” rationalization.  All this reminds me of Jim Collins’s 2005 essay, Good to Great and the Social Sectors: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great.  In it he noted that social sector organizations obsess on system constraints: the prevailing belief is that they can’t move ahead until the system is fixed.  Collins, on the other hand, is more concerned with the notion of “what are you going to do in the meantime?”  He wants them to retain faith that they can prevail, yet retain the discipline to confront the facts of the current reality.  And he leaves his readers with a challenge: “what can you do today to create a pocket of greatness, despite the brutal facts of your environment?”

Another off-piste suggestion is Michael MacCambridge’s history of the NFL, called “America’s Game: The Epic Story of How Pro Football Captured a Nation.” Again, not officially a book on branding, but a remarkable book on branding nonetheless.

Consider the implicit message behind the publication of the magazines Smithsonian or Natural History: does their existence signify the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History respectively are forceful advocates, or that both are vital, relevant, and important organizations because they widely transmit their unique and compelling knowledge? At a minimum, these institutions stand for something because they give people something substantive to talk about on a regular basis.

What is the business of museums – or any nonprofit for that matter? Connecting people to your ideas, and keeping them connected, is your primary business. Success will elude museums for as long as they persist in believing that meaningful marketing — communicating broadly and substantively — is unnecessary. Instead of transforming what they know into mission-connecting products that develop and nurture the interests of a community of supporters, the most likely scenario is that most museums will continue down their traditional path, and continue wondering why they are increasingly irrelevant, under-visited, and underfunded.

So how do social sector organizations that may aspire to be great actually meet that goal? High aspirations, he tells us, are often undermined when people obsess on system constraints: there is a prevailing belief they can’t move ahead until the system is fixed. He recognizes that the whole purpose of the social sectors as organizations aimed at meeting social objectives, human needs, and national priorities that cannot be priced at a profit. So what? Collins challenges nonprofits to ask themselves “What are you going to do in the meantime? What can you do today to create a pocket of greatness, despite the brutal facts of your environment?” 

If you want to “develop a sustainable resource engine to deliver superior performance relative to our mission,” focus on developing content – “publishing” – so people widely understand and appreciate your expertise.

Building great organizations involves patient, substantive communication, knowledge products that establish and extend identity. With the “right” brand in-hand, you’ve given people an easy way to support your cause. Or, another way to look at it, to paraphrase Collins: anyone seeking to cut funding must contend with the brand.