Creative marketing strategies

When reading this article, one particular section caught my eye. In the section entitled “Ends versus ends-in-view” McNichol brings up important points concerning the means and ends of museums. She explains that money, staff, the collection and management (means) are all very necessary for museums to achieve “the ends for which they exist.” But, what is critical is that museums have yet to pinpoint exactly what their ends are. Further, museums cannot measure those ends which they cannot pinpoint. So, doesn’t that make nonprofit marketing seem so simple in comparison? Can’t we just refer to our mission statement and know what our end should be? I think that knowing what your ends are takes away some of the guesswork for not only you, but also those people you are trying to reach out to. Knowing your end helps you reach out to specific media, donors, and other organizations, which according to the article can create somewhat of a snowball effect around your cause/organization.


On another note, McNichol cites Stephen Weil as writing, “[U]ltimately, each museum has to assess its unique community and make aesthetic decisions based on reciprocity. By inviting and authenticating the participatory involvement of its community members, it will model the worthy museum.” Just replace the word museum with the word nonprofit and I believe you have a statement that could guide your nonprofit’s efforts in all aspects. As we all know, a nonprofit is basically nothing without the community members who are a part of it, so wouldn’t it just make sense to try to reach out to as many community members as possible, even if you have to do it in a roundabout way like the Fairfield County Museum in Winnsboro, SC did?

How Companies are Marketing Online

I thought this was an interesting article that confirmed what I would have thought to be the biggest obstacles for companies trying to position themselves online, and definately for NPOs who don't have the money to pay for fancy infrastructure, etc. I agree that internet display ads function more for branding purposes than direct action functions, but I am surprised the companies acknowledge/realize that. I never click on display ads for fear of endless pop-ups, but I do occasionally go to their official website if I am really intrigued. Display ads for non-profs might have a little more credibility though.

I do think that perhaps the last page of the article about consumer habits was one of the most important pieces of the article. I am shocked that companies only project 32% (total) of their consumers to be buying services/products online. What??? That sounds like a gross underestimate of what consumers will be doing. I know from my own habits that I use phone books to prop up a leaning futon and research nearly everything online. I also purchase items from the internet regularly (provided their site is safe) because, well let's face it, Fayetteville is not the glamourous one stop shop for everything some might think it is, so I have to look elsewhere for products I want. Same could be true for NPOs...what if they don't have a local office in Fayetteville? Then my only choice is to try and find information on their website or at large online.

And I also think the companies surveyed are naieve to think that less than half of their customers are shopping their prices online, but that number could be due to selective information provided on websites in order to lure potential customers into persuasive sales reps. Overall, that last graph of projections seemed a little bit fishy to me.

Creative Marketing Strategies article

I really enjoyed reading this article. The references to post-9/11 operations were so interesting. I don't specifically remember hearing about the Camp Charley and Camp Francis efforts, but they seem like such great ideas. I have the perception that the public does not consider museums to be a non-profit in the way they think about the Red Cross for example. And yet, in the community's time of need, the museums were there to provide support and resources in ways that most city or town officials would not have expected or planned for.

This article was the first I had heard of the record number of attendees to museums in the days shortly after 9/11 - how fascinating. I had also never thought about museums as being a "brand" before. I was so impressed by the marketing success stories of the small locally-themed museums featured in this article.

I laughed to myself when they mentioned selling t-shirts with the logo...why is it that our culture feels compelled to remember an experience with a t-shirt?!? (I feel like that's a question Stacy and Clinton from What Not To Wear would ask.) I along with many of my friends and family are guilty of this. In fact, my dad just mailed me a t-shirt a couple weeks ago - just in time for me to wear on Fat Tuesday - that was from Mardi Gras 2000, "The party of the Millennium."

But back to my point, I enjoyed these stories because they demonstrate how collaboration can work so effectively. It saves money, establishes and builds relationships with other common organizations, and it serves the community. I suppose I won't look at museums the same after reading this article. Museums are not the particular type of non-profit that I am interested in working with, but I feel like I now have a new respect for them, what they do, and why they are so important to have around.

How We Beg: The Analysis of Direct Mail Appeals

Fermida Handy's article is a masterpiece which advocates for the pursuance of Honesty which is a great virtue. In essence, Handy is stating that if an individual cannot be trusted with the little that he/she owns, how can that person/entity being an agent be trusted with much which belongs to others, the benefactors and beneficiaries. As Handy states in the article, Charities often play the role of an agent that brokers a charitable transaction between the donor and the recipient. Donors or benefactors are willing to give generously as long as brokers win their Trust and being assured that the donations will reach out to the intended project(s) and not diverted to other programs or end up in some individual pockets. Keeping tabs to avoid being ripped - off is costly and this is why Handy addresses the issue of principal - agent problem.
Focusing on the issue of principal - agent problem, Handy is emphasizing the point that accountability and transperancy is vital. There have been and still situations do exist where agents are accountable but not transparent. It has happened and it is still happenning that agents do recieve substantial sums of funds and deposit the amount in the bank for some duration ( Fixed- Deposit ) in order to cultivate the interest then pass on the initial donation to the recipients. In doing so, they are technically respecting the intentions of the donor by being accountable but they are not sincere transparent by withholding the interest accrued.
This is the explicit picture of what goes on in developing countries and especially in Africa. I must be careful not to make a sweeping statement but certainly there are agents who fail the acid test of being transparent in their mission of trying to alleviate either the conditions of the famine stricken countries or the Aids pandemic. The principal - agent problem also extends to African countries which are experiencing civil strife. For the governments which are deemed to be in power illegimately, the International Monetary Fund ( IMF) , the World Bank ( BK) , United Nations ( UN) , United States ( U.S) , European Union ( E.U) and the International Community, will always enforce economic sanctions. Though the International Community will not recognize rogue states, they still have the obligation to respond to humanitarian crisis by giving donations to the affected countries, not through the state but through the agencies/organizations which have made a good reputation, a name that is highly respected and trusted. The good name of these agents do summarize the advocacy of Handy's article, Honesty is a virtue to be cultivated.

Online & interpersonal customer service

The McKinsey article shows the importance of using digital tools for marketing in today's world. It says that 93% of respondents reported frequent use of digital tools in service management, and 76% reported frequent use of sales management. As I went on thinking about examples in real life, I find that although it seems that everything can be achieved online, there is still a tricky part in it.

For example, when my roommate and I moved into our apartment a year ago, we installed time warner basic cable and Internet services under my name. About six months later, I received a phone call from their customer service saying that there was a promotion of getting a primary channel free of charge for six months, and I accepted it. The channel was installed on the TV in the living room, where neither of us really spend anytime watching. So after six months, we decided to cancel the channel and save the additional cost. I assumed that I could just do this online, but when I went to their customer service website, I found that there was only an "add a service" option there. So the only way I could cancel the service was to make a call and talk to a sales representative, who didn't sound so happy after getting my request. I did cancel the channel successfully, but when I talked to a friend about it, she told me that when she called a few days ago to cancel everything, the sales representative spent an hour trying to talk her out of it. At last, the sales representative agreed to give her another six months of promotional price, and she apparently gave up her original request.

I don't know if any of you had the same experience, but I think time warner is the only one that I encountered as not having a "cancel your order" beside the "make an order" function on their website. This experience leads me to think about the customer loyalty discussion a few weeks ago. In this case, is customer loyalty created by our true preference of time warner or because customers are simply tired of bargaining in phone calls? From the business's standpoint, this strategy may be described as successful in keeping customers, but as a customer, I can only say it's pretty tricky. Is this going to be beneficial to the company in the long run?

How Prince decided to market online! = )

The MCkinsey Survery possed some interesting graphs and data about the upcoming role of the internet and how companies market online. We had discussed this idea in class last week that this drives Non-Profits to also use the web more since they have to keep up with competition. It creates ease and your have a 24 hr market around the world. The survey proposed that the web soon will be completely responsible for product awareness and information gathering. I believe product awareness is the second hardest part of marketing for non-profits aside from getting people to donate, therefore, if the web can be just as successful for non-profits in their quest to make the geneal public aware of their organization then they should all get on board! The survey didn't include non-profits and as we have mentioned in class, that they have a harder time creating webpages due to lack of research and funds. But I am sure that within the next few years it will be common place to see non-profts active and hopefully flourishing on the web.

I am in South Dakota for the weekend and during my flight I was inclined to open the North West Airline magazine and an article about Music caught my eye. It was looking at the increase of music on line as well and seeing how the web has allowed the sharing of music freely but has also allowed many illegal practices of downloading music to take place. It talked about how industries are having to re-organize and figure out new ways to have music legally on line. This shows how all industries are affected by the web: good and the bad.

It also mentioned some marketing campaigns of singers to try and combat the theft of their music. It mentioned Prince, one of my favorite singers, and how he combated this difficulty. His album was being released in London and instead of selling it to the record labels to distribute to the public, he collaborated with the local newpaper and put the CD in the newspaper, for free. This is an example of "direct marketing" that Prince used to try and out smart the web. His tactic actually worked since newspaper sales increased since the public wanted a free CD. And Prince got a percentage of the sales and when the facts were calculated he actually receieved $500,000 more than if he just sold his CD in stores or online, or allowed the web to pirate his songs for free. I thought this was a unique technique, since he gave away something for free and actually ended up making a profit. It was an intersting way to see how direct marketing is affecting singers due to the illegal selling of music online.... one that I have been guilty of in the past... as well as you! = )

Repositioning Fundraising, Appendix

I am always trying to tie in what I learn in my non-profit classes to my higher education major. Our buzz word is "milennials". This term was used in one of our previously assigned articles (yay!), and refers to students born in the mid to late 1980s (as we have not begun admitting students born in the 1990's just yet, and we haven't come up with a new category of students just yet either). We actually briefly discussed this group of students in last week's class, although not specifically by name. We in higher ed also use the terms "gen x'ers" and "baby boomers" to describe the changes in student populations. In reference to the Repositioning Fundraising article - based on the Appendix - this "milennial" generation would be reflected in the "Generation Net" market, which is a term I've never heard before.
I love when these connections can be made across disciplines! In taking the various non-profit courses, I am fascinated at how much strategic marketing, advertising, and public relations efforts go in to the monumentally important and often difficult task of fundraising for non-profits. And it's also amazing to me how similarly to for-profits that non-profits must now behave, on account of competition amongst similar types of non-profits, the psychographic changes in our society from generation to generation, etc. I'm a nerd, I know ;) But I notice a bit of a contradiction, or hypocrisy if you will. The same tactics that non-profits use in their fundraising (and therefore marketing, advertising, and public relations) efforts, though borrowed from the for-profit world, are criticized when used in the for-profit world.

I think that a SWOT analysis is critical to serve as a change agent. Most people/ employees are weary about change but actually showing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunites, and threats helps stakeholders see where the organization is and can agree upon goals. Is it always necessary to involve all/ partial stakeholders? What is the easiest method to get all stakeholders in agreement with the goals, objectives, and strategies?

Special events do get people involved and the word out about the organization or cause but what if it is costing more to plan and organize an event? In my experience, I have found that donors are willing to donate to the organization, not because of that specific event.

Repositioning Fundraising

I agree that fundraising strategies have become stagnant. It is hard to argue from the article's research anything but the need for new communication and tactics.

What I was a little disappointed with was the article overall. It started strong, talking of how much things need to change for the increasingly older generation, how contributions have remained the same over the last century, how large the charitable sector has grown, etc.

I appreciated the PEST analysis and the paradigm explanation... but it stopped there. I was hoping for new and exciting tactics to back up this data. Nada. So, I know how big the problem is now... but how do we solve it? I am always up for knowledge on fundraising. I guess maybe I was expecting too much!

Nonprofit Websites and Organizational Goals

Kang and Norton’s study was insightful but maybe too generalizing. They created a scale of what should and should not be included on a website to ensure easy navigation, relevant information and relational communication. However, they were assuming that all nonprofits’ websites are used for the same purpose.

In their discussion they commended the websites for their simple web design that ensured easy navigation, but then immediately criticized them for not having a higher quality design. These “quality designs” are usually marked by their animation and graphics, which would normally take longer than the recommended 1-2 seconds to upload. I feel the easy navigation is most important for a nonprofit’s website. When my nonprofit was restructuring our website and we were down for a few days the biggest complaint we had was that our members could not access our links to government websites. The government website, mostly DHHS, is so difficult to navigate our members depend on our quick links to find what they are looking for.

They also discussed that the websites did not integrate relational communication methods into their website, but what is the incentive? As we said in class, feedback forms are a great and inexpensive way to survey a nonprofits’ publics, but interactive features are most times expensive additions to websites. How often are these features used? And after what time should these responses be analyzed?

Another element of functionality is the request to come back to the website. But that also depends on the publics being targeted. Most nonprofits websites are for information purposes. This means they should be easy to find in a search engine. However, our website is a means to sign-up for classes to earn required CEUs and industry updates from the regulating department and state legislature. If a website does not feature its events and news updates, there is no incentive to return.

Measuring relationships

While I was reading the article "measuring relationships in public relations", I tried to relate the measuring standards with the nonprofit organization we are working with in our campaign class-Carolina Donor Services. CDS covers 79 counties in North Carolina and Danville, Virginia, and their current goal is to increase name recognition of the organization in these areas. What I understand is that CDS would raise residents' awareness of the organization by public campaigns and by asking volunteers to approach communities. So if people want to become organ donors, CDS would be the first thing that pops into their mind. Relationship building is definitely working during the process of persuading people to become donors. But what about after becoming registered organ donors, or can I say members of CDS? The next time CDS approaches a donor is probably when the donor passes away and it is the time to realize the promises. Is there a relationship issue involved here? It seems to me that organizations like CDS should also put emphasis on building relationships with people close to the registered donor to make sure that the donor's wish is carried out when the time comes. But I don't see them doing anything in this regard.

more on the importance of research

I know in previous blogs and in class discussions, several people did not agree with my statement about the importance of research, but as I did the readings for this week, I couldn’t help but pick up on the continued importance placed on research. In the Relationship Marketing Strategy, it is mentioned that the “cure for poor practice is to understand the customer’s view of the relationship” and “the consumer’s attitude toward the brand or firm must be known.” In an attempt to understand what kinds of interactions customers like, Ch 3 presents a study that was conducted in a questionnaire format. This study got me thinking…

I hold steady on my belief that market research is vital, but I’ve been thinking about ways to keep the costs down for non-profits with budget and time constraints. One suggestion I have is to use research that someone else has already conducted, like the study in Ch3. That way a non-profit can quickly and cheaply get a picture of the market and the customers. My office (the Study Abroad Office) has done something similar. The Assistant Director read a book about marketing to college students to get ideas about what our office could do to better reach our consumers, NC State college students. Although the book was written based on strategies used by companies such as Coke and wasn’t focused on a certain type of university, our office was able to use the data and suggestions and make minor adjustments based on our student population and our products and services. Instead of our office assuming that students will read ads in the Technician, we have information from a study that shows us the effectiveness of print ads versus word of mouth, emails, fairs, etc. Knowing how students want to receive information will help us focus what limited funds and time we have in the right area.

I think that in all of the readings, we will continue to see the importance of research in all aspects of public relations and marketing!! So I think it’s better not to avoid it, but to think creatively about ways to make it feasible for non-profits. :)

Non-profit Relationship Marketing

I hope that I am on the right track with this blog. I had an experience this weekend that I thought might apply to this topic.
I took a group of my WISE students to the food bank in Raleigh on Saturday for a 3 hour volunteer shift. This has become a "tradition" if you will for our organization in that we usually take a group of students there to volunteer about 3 times each semester. This was at least my 5th trip in this capacity.
We are usually greeted with open arms (figuratively, not literally), a smile, and "glad you to see you ladies again." This was not the case on Saturday! They have clearly been experiencing some staff changes, which is evident to me because I am on their monthly newsletter listserve. I distinctly remember 2 men who were usually there when I brought my students, but instead there was a new woman I had never met before now serving as Volunteer Coordinator.
She was not friendly, glad to see us, or even familiar with our group. Instead, she was frustrated with the size of our group and the fact that I forgot to bring in Volunteer Consent Forms for the students that were first-time volunteers from WISE (I'm usually very organized with this, but I was not anticipating this negative response. They usually have plenty of copies available, but she had to go make more, which of course increased her displeasure).
So we literally started the volunteering experience off on the wrong foot. Apparently another group that was there brought more people than they had signed up for, and she was under the impression that we had more participants than we signed up for. (Just so you know, according to my email records, we signed up for 12 and brought 15.)
Long story short, a volunteer experience that I usually enjoy was not-so enjoyable. But the thing that bothered me most was that this was the first time, and probably will be the last time, 13 of our students volunteered there. If I were these students, I would be completely turned off from volunteering there again. I would imagine they may share their bad experience with other students. As we've learned, word-of-mouth can be a pretty powerful thing! We are scheduled to go there another 2 times this semester, but I am not able to attend either of those dates.
The reason I thought of this experience was the fact that I would consider WISE to have a positive relationship with the Raleigh food bank. We have taken groups there on at least 10 different occasions and automatically think of them as somewhere we plan to volunteer on a regular basis. As I stated earlier, I am on their listserve, and I have even connected them with the Graduate Student Association for my major when we were looking at ways to volunteer within the community. When I left on Saturday, I felt like I needed to talk about my experience with my boss and decide whether or not it is appropriate for me to contact them about our negative experience. Not that I'm "threatening" to not bring our group back to volunteer, I just feel like they have a right to know about my concerns. Any thoughts???

Relationship Marketing

In the Relationship Marketing Strategy article, chapter 3, there was an interesting survey. The two questions that I would like to look at are numbers one and ten.

Question one reads:
If I don’t get a live person when I phone a customer service line, I am disappointed.
54% Strongly Agree; 33% Somewhat Agree; 7% Neutral; 5% Somewhat Disagree; and 1% Strongly Disagree

Question 10 reads:
I like it when telemarketers address me by name, even if I have never done business with them before.
2%; 6%; 11%; 16%; and 65%

I just think it is interesting that when we call customer service we want to talk to a stranger; but when a stranger is calling us we want nothing to do with them or whatever organization they’re involved with. However, I also think question one is a loaded question…is it really that we want to talk to a customer service representative (who we can’t understand 99% of the time) or is it that we just want our issue to be resolved and we think that a human being can do it in the least amount of time? I believe that if consumers could resolve their issues faster, without talking to the customer service representative they would. (Although, being a customer service rep for sometime I have come to realize that more people than you would think use their friendly, human customer service representative as a therapist quite often).

Now, about question 10…Why so many strongly disagrees, is it just that it is creepy when someone you don’t know calls your house and knows your name? I guess my question is…why wouldn’t they use your name (even if they do pronounce it wrong)? They found your number, don’t you think they are going to utilize their amazing research skills by asking for you by name? Question 10 is also a loaded question because it’s not about them addressing you by name (at least I don’t think it is), it’s about telemarketers in general. And to apply this concept to nonprofits, this should really reinforce the idea that you shouldn’t cold call people because it just creeps them out and they say, “aren’t I on the national do not call registry????” Well, just a little FYI, when you ask a person who claims to be calling on behalf of a nonprofit this question, expect a fight….my fight with a nonprofit that will remain nameless actually lasted a good 15 minutes because I was trying to explain to them that…well, that’s irrelevant and only further emphasizes the discussion in that marketers should consider consumer’s communication preferences (and if they have one at all). But, wouldn’t you think that nonprofits would get the hint that people don’t like to be bothered with their calls? For goodness sake, as Americans we banded together to create the national DO NOT CALL REGISTRY for a reason and it involves not calling.

Membership Management

Finally, something I completely relate to regarding public relations. I have worked in some aspect of membership organization for 7 years and can contribute to this conversation. Member management is the ultimate public relations for a non profit.

I can definitely see a positive relationship between public relations and association management. Constant communication and relationship building are key to retaining members. It gets more difficult on a grander scale (we have 3100 members) but is essential.

I also believe that in this case, public relations and marketing are measurable. The article returns findings to retention, as the magic word. Everything you do for your members has an affect on your membership. The more positive people view your association, the more members you will retain and recruit.

But, even when working on a grand scale, how one person views your org can also damage your reputation. Think blogging, anyone?

The national professional organization affiliated with our state org, has endorsed a candidate in the presidential election. We have already had phone calls for members wishing to resign their membership based on this decision. They are FURIOUS! Although, no one ever hears from those that are supportive.

Part of the power of a professional organization is to exert influence on public policy. What power would anyone have if we all chose to sit idly by. But, who decides what exactly it is that the membership wants? After all, we are here because of them. Or are we? Would we be here without our members? Would we forge ahead without the power of numbers?

Do we cave for one person, ten people, a hundred...??? Where is the line to measure when we should listen to the collective voice? How will the disrupted members make waves with the rest of the group? Will there be blogs and chat rooms and bulletin board posts? Will the minority opinion detract from all the good we do for the profession?

Are we executing "bad" public relations or taking a stab at power and influence?

Loyalty

I couldn't help but think about the differences in the way my husband and I shop when I was reading the "Relationship marketing strategy" article, so that makes me wonder if there are gender differences when it comes to certain product loyalty. When I go to the grocery store I have a method - I buy most things brand name, or after much deliberation (sometimes it's debilitating how much time I take to make decisions) regardless of price (cereal and soda) which makes me a deliberative loyalist. Other times I could care less about certain items and will go with the one that saves me $0.50 such as box pasta or sandwich bags, or go with coupons which makes me inertial at times. (That could be a whole other post - do coupons turn consumers into inertial loyalists?) My husband will go with the name brands regardless everytime because he just wants to get in and go home, leading to his trips being more expensive and making him a definiate loyalist, although I'm not sure it's deliberative or just out of watching me buy stuff. But I am certain his consumer habits would have clear deliberative characteristics outside the grocery store on items that I really couldn't care less about (motor oil, fishing line, golf balls etc). So I guess my question is what influence does gender have on product loyalty?

Reflection of Effective Advertisements

In the spirit of post-super bowl reflection, I thought it was appropriate to use the streategies we learned last week to judge the effectiveness of the Super Bowl ads from last night. Granted, beer and GoDaddy ads are not quite a correlation to non-profit ads but all ads follow the same guidelines of effectiveness.

The Coke Side of Life: I think Coke did great this year. The Politics ad was the best example of the "Coke brings people together" feel-good image they have been trying to do for the past several years e.g. last year's mock video game imitation. But you take a current issue like politics, two arch-enemies and coke brings them together. Awesome.

Budweiser Clydesdale: Budweiser is best-known for their gender stereotypes, but the Clydesdale commercial was a healthy change in their advertising. The Clydesdales are probably best remembered at the 2002 Super Bowl and their tribute to the 9/11 tragedy. So going off that flair and of course adding the Dalmatian trainer, who we remember abandoning the Budweiser wagon for a Miller truck, was a perfect combination of humor, competition and feel-good effectiveness.

They should have gotten a second opinion: The only good thing I can say about the Career Builder commercials is that I will not forget them. Probably what they were going for but seriously the spider? and the walking heart? The heart looked like her implant flew out of her boob. I do agree these ads were very good at the "buzz" of marketing but as far as credibility . . . it was too creepy to be effective.

Babies don't always work: ETrade had a good idea but I'm not sure of the execution. Babies making trades would suggest the ease of the ETrade design. But the baby wasn’t cute! I’m still not getting the simplicity of ETrade when they are using a genius kid to sell the idea.

Okay that was my quick take on the ads and their use of marketing strategies. I wish there were a few nonprofit ads I can reflect on but $2 million for a 30 second spot, probably not a lot of public service availability.

NGO's and relationships

While reading these articles on relationship managment the familiar cliche, "Its not about what you have, it's about who you know" came to mind. Most organizations are carried by the reatlionships that they create and maintain and most business deals or transactions take place because someone in the office know's the Vice Presidents's dog-walker and he can get them a meeting with the VP. From the initial meeting of this class we came to the agreement that Public Relations was about relationships and reputation, so it makes sense that a majority of Public Relations should be dedicated to managing and mainting realtionships with different actors and avenues. But as discussed with some of our other unmeasureable objects how do you go about measuring a good/bad reatlionship? Is it just about money raised, or deals closed or projects created? Hopefully it is measured by some sort of personal connection since reatlionships do usually involve human contact.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) , just like most non-profits also have issues with relationships. I think that NGOs have a harder time creating relationships, one because they have the word "governemnt" in their name and who likes to make relationships with governemnts, too bureaucratic!!! And second because NGOs are usually a reflection of their governments even though they are private organizations that have no representation to a government. Maintaing relationsips with NGOs can be quite tricky since not only are you dealing with the community, possible donors and businesses you are also informally dealing with the bureaucratic goverenmtne behind the NGO. The government is the pink elephant in the room, that no one likes to mention, but NGOs are usually associated with their host government and as we all know goverenemnts have a long list of good/bad relationships. Internationally, NGOs have played a major role especially since they have been legitimized by the UN and since recent conflicts have sometimes been too controversial for a nation to engage in, an NGO can seem less threatening than a nation. For instance some countries may not allow US soldiers on the ground but they will allow UN troops, the Red Cross or other NGOs since their presence facilitates better relationship managment during the crisis.

There might be alot of criticism for NGOs since sometimes they take charge and don't allow for local trends and ideas to take place or allowing for local authorities to sustain control after the NGO withdraws. And some NGOs are still linked to their government, for instance the World Bank is usually linked to capitalist America and this idea or stereotype can be bad for creating relationships in some countries. But NGOs have had succesess where other governements would not even be allowed to step foot; therefore I believe their continued emphasis on relationship mangagment is quite critical, especially in our globalized world.