Public Relations Commentary

Crisis Communication

2008-03-31T16:04:00.002-04:00

NPOs in American already have enough difficulty in creating relationships, seeking out new clients, appeasing donors, creating fundraisers and maintaining a well organized communication plan. Now imagine taking that same NPO and sticking it in a country with not much infrastructure, a different language, different communication styles, plans, and see how much success can be emitted? Surprisingly many international NPOS are quite successful especially in crisis situations.
International NPOs, especially relief agencies, have to be able to operate transnationally, across multiple barriers such as language, borders and governments. Plus any international relief agency must be able to work with a variety of organizations. All of these variables could prevent relief being able to reach the crisis situation but relief agencies are able to get their job done even amid all these difficulties since they have an effective communication plan.
This author of this article interviewed Jason Kravitz, Direct Relief’s communications director. The mission of Direct Relief has been to provide essential material recourses to locally run health programs in areas affected by natural disasters, wars and famines. Kravitz emphasized the importance of having an effective communication plan and this allows them to handle stressful situations, just like any for profit business. Kravitz said that the “communication structure is a work in progress”, and I think that is a very true statement. Communication is a two way and many times multiple way street, with inputs and outputs coming and going constantly. The only way to keep up is to constantly change and alter your plan if you want to be successful.
I also agreed with another one of his main points. He emphasized the importance of finding local contacts in the area to facilitate most of the relief. During the Pakistani earthquake or East Asian tsunami aid was brought from the US but it was handed over to local representatives of the agency in order to facilitate smoother transitions, and organization. The locals know the area and the people and are able to make things happen much faster instead of having agency and bureaucratic headaches. I have done a lot of traveling and mission work in other countries and the success of our trip or project was usually because we had made local contacts. Once the relief is given, workers don’t have to stay around and check on things because the locals are in place to do just that. That’s why Direct Relief has long-standing relationships with partners and the donors of Direct Relief respect these relationships.
Once again NPOs were related to businesses in that they need an effective communication plan especially in order to handle crisis situations. Relationships and reputation are also an important aspect of successful relief aid.

Doing Well By Doing Right

2008-03-31T15:38:00.000-04:00

I understand that the goal is to foster trust with your stakeholders, but Rosen almost pushes it to the point that it sounds like a false trust is better than no trust. He quotes Bowden (2004), “Trust is the ultimate goal in any solicitation. Once you have the person’s trust, you will most likely have a positive response.” Take this statement away from the nonprofit arena and anyone would tell you that it sounds like appearing trustworthy is actually more important than being trustworthy.

Of course I agree with Rosen that trust is of utmost importance, but is there a point where you’ve pushed the trust issue so much people become leery of your organization? I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here, but it is something to consider. Is it really about trust, or is it really about building and maintaining an organization that holds itself to the highest of ethical standards. Because if you have a great organization, won’t the trust just follow? I mean of course you’re probably going to have to toot your own horn a little bit to get the word out about how ethical you are, but is that the same as shouting from the roof tops, “hey all you out there with money, you can trust us!” Personally, I would say no…I pretty much am never going to trust anyone who point blank says, “trust me.” They’re up to something, aren’t they?

Building Trust

2008-03-31T10:47:00.003-04:00

I wanted to say that I saw a good CRM going on here in Fayetteville on Thursday. A local restaurant here teamed up with the Arts Council and 25% of the restaurant's Thursday profits were to be donated to the Art Council. I was impressed with 25% but who knows how much that actually was or what their regular business on a Thursday is like. That could be their slowest night, which means they really aren't as charitable as they seem. But it is a new restaurant and they are probably using this CRM to build trust/branding among the community and bolster their good image.

In reading the ethics article for this week, I was struck by this particular passage,

"Unfortunately, a vast segment of nondonors, and even many donors, remain distrustful of
the nonprofit sector. To be successful, charity managers, and fundraising professionals in
particular, will need to identify ways to build trust between the organizations and donors
and potential supporters."

The article says there are a variety of ways, but fails to detail how a NPO might go about this other than saying time is on your side and people will eventually forget and give again. What do you do in the short run to regain trust? Perhaps increasing accessibility and openess about the organization is the best way. Some NPOs are reluctant to put out too much information for fear that competitors or opposition would use it against them, but when would that gamble be worth it to show key publics that you are ethically responsible (again). Maybe hooking your NPO to an influential person of moral standing would be the answer (i.e. hire some new ethical leadership). Or public apologies? And the sad part is, the damage to the public's trust may not even be of your NPO's actions, but yet it affects NPOs as a whole. Then what do you do? Step up good publicity efforts and just hope for the best?? I don't know, but the article left me wondering about how the best way to restore trust in the public would be.

Ethics and Trust

2008-03-31T09:24:00.002-04:00

I got to thinking about the scenario posed in class about the Clean Up the Coast non-profit and the dilemma on whether or not to accept the large donation when reading the article "Ethics and Fundraising" for this week.

In class I was pretty sure that I would have accepted the donation, but after thinking about it, I find myself waivering a bit. The article for this week makes a good point in its conclusion that "Maintaining and enhancing public trust is essential for organizations that want to raise money." It also explains that this trust is not just a function of ethical decision making, saying that it comes from a much broader set of circumstances that make up the organization's perception within target donor groups. In thinking about the scenario presented in class, while taking the donation might not really be unethical, it might send a few ripples through the donors that the organization relies on year in and year out to come up with money.

Because I don't work at a non-profit, its often hard for me to think about all of the considerations that these organizations have to think about to stay afloat. There is so much more transparency with NPOs than in more corporate "for-profit" entities, and they are held to an extremely high standard of decision making and organizational behavior overall.

The point this article highlights for me is that it takes a long time to build up trust within a circle of annual donors, and all it might take is one or two semi-questionable acts before these folks are backing a different or competing organization. This element of communicating trust with each action is a hard thing to do day in and day out, but is essential for survival, as we have read and discussed.

There is an old adage (at least I am told) that one of my undergrad professors at UNC told us in one of the first PR or Marketing classes I took - he said that when it comes to any decision in Public Relations, if at all possible, take the morally high road, no matter what, "Its always easier to clean up a mess if you're on top of it."

This sentiment rings especially true for crisis management as it pertains to NPOs, because if they get caught on the unfavorable side of a moral dilemma, a lot of their funding and support can go right out the window, real quick.

CRM

2008-03-24T23:26:00.002-04:00

I'm not convinced that CRM is the devil. If you can buy something you would normally buy anyway and donate some money to a good cause in the process, why not? I don't care that my dollar is going to one charity over another - that would defeat the purpose of giving, right? If giving to a specific charity is that important to me, then I'll write them a separate check.

I think it is up to the NPO to set clear boundaries going into the CRM deal to control the inflence that a company would have concerning the NPO. Do they get to say where the money goes? etc... If boundaries are clearly laid out then problems should be avoided. I agree that it is possible for NPO to be so dazzled by a potential donation that they would skip this step or agree to things that were contrary to the mission of the NPO. Strong, clear leadership within the NPO is the key to avoiding potential problems of CRM.

I wonder with what frequency there are problems with CRM deals...Is this an fairly isolated problem that bad press or bad deals corrupt CRM campaigns?

Cause Related Marketing

2008-03-24T23:05:00.002-04:00

I attended a webinar on Cause Related Marketing a year or so ago, sponsored by the local chapter of the AFP (I think it stands for Association of Fundraising Professionals?). I have a positive view of CRM, but the article(s) did not seem to agree.
I'm usually happy to participate in CRM. Just recently, I gave a $1 at K-Mart and Food Lion to buy a shamrock - sadly I don't remember exactly what I was supporting, just that it's a campaign that's been going on for years and donating a $1 doesn't really 'put me out'. When the cashier at K-Mart asked me if I'd like to donate a $1, and I quickly and cheerfully replied "yes", she seemed surprised. I have a feeling she probably got turned down various times; perhaps I was her first "yes"! She was very thankful and appreciative, while I thought "it's the least I can do" (after all, I was buying a pair of boots that rang up as even cheaper than I thought they were going to be!).
I was happy to get a Target card because they give a percentage of what you spend to the school of your choice - I chose my nephew's elementary school. However, that has not been enough incentive for me to keep using the card (I paid it off recently because the interest rate is WAY too high!).
I have recently begun saving the 'Boxtops for Education' because a friend of mine asked me to. Her older sister works for a really poor school district, and they have had money donated to the school for those little coupons. I'm not going to search for products that have these coupons on them, but I'm definitely willing to save the ones I get and send them to her.
My point is that if the connection makes sense, I think CRM is a great idea. It doesn't cost the NPO money from their fundraising budget because the partner organization pays for that. It raises awareness about the NPO, and it brings in donations (and maybe even volunteers) that they likely would not have received otherwise.

PR and Campaigning On Campus

2008-03-24T21:28:00.001-04:00

As I was walking through campus today (and last week), I was bombarded with advertisements for students running for class president. Because this is a PR class, I wanted to look at how well these campaign used PR tools to spread their messages and win over voters.

Here are some of the PR strategies I came across:

1. Cupcakes: One of the candidates (Anne Moser, maybe?) used pink signs with her name and cupcake graphics across them. One day last week she and her entourage stood by the tunnels on campus to pass out cupcakes. I thought this was a good idea because she at least got my attention..and now I associate her with cupcakes.

2. Music on the quad: Today, one of the male candidates had his truck parked near tally with country music playing, and signs with his name, etc. This was also a unique tactic.

3. Campaign fliers and simple signs: lots of the candidates used fliers to pass out. Most of which ended up in the trash. The only thing that made each stand apart from the rest were different colors. This can also be said for many of the signs. I think these people need to PR strategies

4. One interesting (and each) tactic was a guy who set up recycling boxes throughout campus with a sign attached saying something like: “Please recycle my components fliers..vote for (so and so).” I really enjoyed this idea: clever, and doing something useful/productive with his campaign

5. While some of the signs across campus were very bland, a couple with artistic or eye catching phrases did actually get my attention, which goes to show that standard PR tools, when used correctly and with a new spin, can go far. One sign was red with the outline of a wolf..but the wolf drawn on the sign was very artistic and unique. It definitely stuck out compared to the rest.

It seems, in general, most candidates relied on the same tactics as each other, not really branching out or trying to things to get more votes. While I didn’t look further into their campaigning, I wondered if they thought about blogs, websites, or facebook groups like we have talked about in class. Or, if they tried to (excuse the phrase) think outside the box.

Heres a question for the rest of the class: What strategies would you implement that would be cheap and effective if you were in charge of these students’ public relations plan?

Cause-related marketing

2008-03-24T21:20:00.002-04:00

This may be a silly question, but if for-profit businesses use cause-related marketing to promote their products or help nonprofits to raise fund, does it mean that there will be a raise for the price of the products or services? If this is the case, then how can the partners in the cause-related marketing prove to the public that the fund goes to the place where it is supposed to?

Nature Conservancy

2008-03-24T20:21:00.002-04:00

I agree that an organization must take responsibility for their actions. I think the Nature Conservancy did accept their actions that did not match their mission. The first step in accountability is admitting the situation in order to move on and improve. Nonprofits should create performance measures to conduct accountability audits of their organization. Public sector accountability cannot be applied to the nonprofit sector. Nonprofits have too many stakeholders that can hold them accountable.

Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector

2008-03-24T15:46:00.000-04:00

I mostly agree with the study on nonprofits competing in a private market and how that can jeopardize the mission and goals of the organization. However, there are some aspects that are not addressed in the article that are of particular importance for the counter argument.

Everyone has to make a living: And I don’t mean that in a “let them do whatever to makes ends meet” kind of way. But it’s the same reason we support mom and pop shops over commercial store and restaurants – everyone has to make a living and why shouldn’t the public support that? With this competing market, non-profits have to diversify funds. More nonprofits are competing for fewer grant dollars. Disasters like Hurricane Katrina and September 11 rake a lot of donations away from nonprofits that depend on recurring donors. To ensure the same level of service, why shouldn’t nonprofits be given some leverage to find other ways to keep up with the market around them?

Is the public really hurting? Eikenberry’s argument that democracy and the public interest are hurting because of nonprofit’s entrepreneurialism is a bit dramatic. I understand nonprofits exist, mostly without regulation, to provide and supplement social services either under-served or passed-by the government. So nonprofits should support the public’s interest. But who was really hurt when the prairie dog exhibit was sponsored by a businessman wanting to promote economic education . . . or something along those lines . . . at the Atlanta Zoo? I agree it was not a donation supporting the organization’s mission, but isn’t it an exaggeration to say it was a strike at democracy?

Does someone have an agenda? Eikenberry and Kluver seem to use this study as a platform to advocate nonprofit/government collaborations as an alternative to marketization. This may be slightly presumptuous, but is that not another way for executive agencies to regulate nonprofit behavior? I support collaborations; I think they are a great solution to a multi-layer problem, but they are not always reliable. If partners don’t get along or don’t have the same mission, action is difficult.

For the most part I agree that marketization can lead to problems as a solution in a competitive environment. Mission should always be priority but creativity and diversification of funds are also necessary for nonprofit longevity. If the article was written in a less political way, I would have been better to fully support its standpoint.

Cause Related Marketing

2008-03-23T22:41:00.000-04:00

Cause related marketing… I was aware of the ideas and actions but not necessarily aware of the name and the consequences involved. I was intrigued to its new hold on consumers, like we don’t already have enough reasons to get sucked into the marketing and advertising campaigns as it is and now they want to connect our emotions to causes.
It was interesting to see how CRM affected all types of groups from consumers to NPOS and corporations. It affects consumers since it allows us to support social causes or allows us to feel warm and fuzzy since we see something that is of interest to us and we can urge ourselves to purchase the product. For instance I am constantly getting VISA applications; join and you’ll win 2 free round trip tickets to your favorite location. And today if you join with this credit card you’ll get an Anne Geedes calendar. Babies and credit cards, a very unique and unrelated relationship.
For corporations they can link themselves to a needy cause or NPO and can increase their positive appearance to consumers. It seems to be a win-win situation for all the players but I agree with the author of the article who criticizes CRM and says that “CRM threatens the integrity of contemporary society by absorbing charitable giving into strategic marketing exchanges.” Instead of genuine charitable giving, one is inclined to give because it’s connected to a cause or brand they are interested in and they can kill two birds with one stone by buying the product: they get the product and are able to donate on the side.
From research CRM has increased budgets and awareness for NPOs but it has also brought along a lot of ethical questions. Sometimes the corporations might false advertise and spend more time marketing than donating or will renege on their contributions, and unethical actions outside of the relationship also reflect back on the NPO. Encompassing the Kantian moral commitment, CRM benefits all, even though people might be giving out of obligation they are still giving. So does it matter what insights them to reach into their pocket?
That involves a huge step into ethics and I don’t believe corporations like to take a journey down that road but I believe that NPOs should consider the risks before entering into CRM. NPOs are supposed to stand out from corporations not just in the profit making aspect but also in their relationships and reputation department. NPOs are trying to help others and make a difference and who how can that be achieved if ethics are pushed under the table just to raise more funds… but maybe that is too ideal in nature since NPOs also need to survive and research clearly proves that CRM raises revenue.

Survey research for NPOs

2008-03-17T23:12:00.002-04:00

As a consumer, I have had the most experience with online surveys. Usually, I do them when there is an incentive involved. I signed up with a survey research company because they have a monthly drawing for prizes. Also, after I fill out a certain number of surveys (that number is unbeknownst to me), I get a $10 American Express card. Now that I think about it, that's a pretty lame incentive...but nonetheless I do it anyway. I keep hoping I'll win one of the other, bigger prizes I suppose.
It was for this reason that I was surprised at the survey research results in the "Response Rates" article. First of all, I found it pretty weird that they included a $5 bill in the mailing. I wouldn't think this is a good idea for any type of research - philanthropic or otherwise. But I thought for sure they would get a better response rate when they promised a $50 donation to the NPO upon completion of the survey. That seems like 'easy money' for the NPO to earn without having to put out much effort to get that donation.
But I think that because I work in and study higher education, I have gained an appreciation for the value of research. I don't mind participating in surveys. In fact, one of my Alternative Spring Break teammates put up a post on Facebook asking her friends to fill out a survey for her class, and even though she didn't specifically ask me to participate, I volunteered to help her out. My friends often come to me when they need to do surveys for their classes because I'm happy to help. I enjoy conducting research, but that is not really a part of my curriculum.
I really liked that the "Challenges and Their Implications" article broke down the costs to conduct each type of survey research. I would be interested to know what percentage of surveys are done via the web. I also found it interesting that it takes so long for the research results to be incorporated back into the design, format, and presentation of surveys. I feel like we have a much faster turn around in the higher ed world, but we may also produce more research than that of philanthropic studies research.

Internet Marketing

2008-03-17T19:57:00.002-04:00

When organizations create a website for marketing, do they consider their target audience and design the site around that or create a website for the general public's knowledge/ internet skills? Also, I don't understand how a website can be "interactive" unless the organization responds back.

Market Research and its Challenges

2008-03-17T16:17:00.001-04:00

Market Research

Considering the fields that we have all chosen I assume that we all view research as highly important to the welfare of the entities we are a part of. However, I think that we have probably all encountered times, or can imagine times, when our superiors did not see the value in research. I think this article does an excellent job of walking us through the basics of market research methods, but I think it needs more. Another section entitled How to Persuade Your Boss Market Research is Important should be included. Often times I feel as if the boss see market research as simply the bottom line and that’s all he or she needs to know. How do we help them understand that market research can not only help the profit margin, but also make life a little easier for everyone involved? We see and understand the importance of understanding our target audience, why can’t they?

Challenges of Survey Research

Cost is always going to be a challenge of survey research, but nonresponse problems seem to be the ones that are the most challenging of them all. The first question I think that we should ask, before ever even conducting the survey, is why wouldn’t someone respond to this survey? Answers could be: don’t care, not enough time, too long, survey didn’t work with my operating system, etc. The next question is then, how do we combat these issues? I think the answer is a pilot study and one maybe two focus groups. In a pilot study or focus groups you could find out what might make someone care enough to fill out a survey, what survey length is too, how long is too long, etc. Once you’ve modified the survey to the point where people are more willing to participate, then you can launch it on a larger scale and hopefully get a better, more positive response. I say more positive response because sometimes if people actually care enough to take the survey and it’s too long they either end up stopping all together or every answer is C, which is no help to you.

Focus Groups and Market Research

2008-03-16T12:54:00.000-04:00

When reading “Focus Groups and Market Research” I was again reminded of the difficulties that qualitative research undergoes. From past research methods classes I remember that quantitative research is usually preferred and viewed as having more validity than most qualitative research. This article proved that point but also looked at the effectiveness of qualitative research, different approaches and the need for it especially in the social sciences fields.

In class we have talked about the need to do research before newsletters, flyers, surveys are conducted but have also mentioned that lack of monetary funds that NPO have. If research is not being taken seriously since there is not a lot of time and money available in NPOs, there is also a high possibility that time won’t be given to qualitative research. I think that if NPOs were going to conduct any type of research that quantitative research would be their first choice since qualitative research is just preliminary research and a follow up has to be conducted as well as the lack of validity and the lack of forums to follow for a good study. Personally, I prefer qualitative data since I don’t like numbers and don’t like graphs and charts but I do realize its important in the academic arena, especially in its job of providing validity.

The article talks about the confusion in qualitative data since it’s hard to make generalizations and each focus group can have different outcomes depending on environment, surveyor and any other number of variables. There are 3 approaches to conducting qualitative data. The first one is the exploratory approach which is pre-scientific explanations stimulated by every day thought. Then there is the clinical approach which is quasi-scientific explanations based on clinical judgment. And lastly the phenomenological approach which seeks everyday explanations derived from personal contact. All of theses approaches try to partition scientific knowledge from everyday experiences and thought but as seen from the definitions they are quite complicated and confusing to the average person. Therefore, the author suggests that unless you know what you are doing that the phenomenological approach would be the most logical.

The future of qualitative research seems to depend on the need for more awareness since it is quite confusing and takes more time and creativity. I think its good to have a balance between qualitative and quantitative data and that they can’t stand alone. As for NPOs having the time and money to conduct substantial and effective qualitative data that doesn’t seem like a feasible approach.

Bulletproof Politicians

2008-03-14T14:26:00.002-04:00

This is a little off topic this week but why has the Wright scandal focused almost entirely on his expulsion and not on the innocent people and organization he “allegedly” (is it alleged? I’m trying to be politically correct here) cheated out of hundreds of thousands of dollars? I am referring to Rep. Thomas Wright who is being tried for laundering $340,000 in state funds, campaign contributions and non-profit donations.

I may sound like a Clinton (Bill not Hilary) but when Red Cross ED gets caught for having an inappropriate relationship with a staff member, who did he hurt? I am just upset that there aren’t criminal consequences for Wright's actions. All the punishment seems lie on whether or not Wright gets to run for reelection. This may be something that gets brought up after his March 20 trial, but for nonprofits to remain unregulated, things like this need to be minimized. And the nonprofit was cheated by a legislator! Sarbanes-Oxley will surely be a reality for non-profits if this type of scandal repeatedly occurs.

NPOs and Politicans

2008-03-12T21:16:00.000-04:00

I was intrigued to read the “Weathering the Storm” article since it looked at the relationships or difficulties that NPOs have with political organizations. (I am in the Master’s of International Studies program, so I enjoyed relating this article to what I knew about politics in the International field). The article also mentions some problems that NPOs face but it focused more on the problems that non-conventional organizations face, for instance drug problems especially sharing syringes.

One of the first problems they face is lack of state support, especially since they are organizations that reach an un-conventional group of people, usually far removed from the suits and egos of the Congressman. Most political campaigns and politicians always align themselves with a NPO, personally I don’t think this is because they are extremely magnanimous in nature but they feel that if they align themselves with a respectable NPO that their ratings will go up. But usually they align themselves with NPOs that reach and support a broad range of people and defiantly a group that is non-controversial. That explains why organizations that reach out to more difficult areas have a hard time receiving funding because politicians and Congressman are afraid to take a risk and align with these organizations. Just the other day I was listening to Delilah, don’t hold it against me = ), and even she had an NPO that she was apart of in Africa.

The US is very fortunate to have a working lobbying system that does support NPO, maybe not to the best of their ability but defiantly in comparison to other countries. China does not even have this function for the government to support NPOs, it is a growing movement and they are trying to learn from the US and how our NPOs function. The younger generation, especially on college campuses are really following the US role to get involved with NPOs. So maybe it is difficult for un-conventional NPOs to get funding but it is defiantly much more available that in most countries.

Prioritization of social welfare spending was also another political concern. If NPOs can align themselves with a politician they can have the chance to increase their funding but I also think they take the chance of risking their reputation since the funding of the NPO is determined by the success of the politician and this might ebb and flow. And only certain organizations that are well known might get funding from Congress as opposed to less know or organizations that don’t reach the mainstream of people. How many Southern Republicans are aligned with the NRA… it reaches their main population and look at the massive funding of the NRA. They both benefit from support of each other, but unfortunately then prioritization of welfare spending does take place.

Creativity and nonprofit organizations.

2008-03-12T16:35:00.002-04:00

Aside from our furry little cows and our leather peaches fiasco a few weeks ago, creativity has to play an important part of how nonprofits communicate and distinguish themselves from one another and even from for-profit and government entities. It's not just creative messaging, but also creative problem-solving and strategic planning.

So consider you're working in an organization that has been doing the same routine with its programs and/or services for years. You've got staff members who are comfortable in their jobs, and board members who are content with where things are going. But, you've been monitoring your organization's environment and see a new startup venture who is going to be competing for your clients, donors, and volunteers.

You have to make some creative changes to survive this challenge because of the competitors' innovative ideas and approaches. How are you going to convince your organization to do things differently?

Introducing a fee for your nonprofit service.

2008-03-12T16:18:00.002-04:00

So rather than having class this week, I wanted to pose a couple of questions that I'd like each of you to post your own answer to the original question and respond to others.

I think we can all easily see how strategic communications can help us advance our nonprofit interests and organizations. But one of the key distinctions between marketing and public relations involves price. For the arts and culture subsector, fees aren't viewed negatively at all. Even religious organizations "expect" tithings.

As we read this week about diversification of revenues, what happens when your social service nonprofit has to charge for its services to stay afloat? Say fundraising and government cutbacks have resulted in your organization needing to plan ahead for the future by finding new outlets for revenue. How would you decide (and convince your organization) to start charging a fee for services? How would you decide how much to charge? Would you try to spin-off a money-making entity (like the construction company from the Westside v. Eastside Community Center example from a few weeks ago)?

Note: Before you say, "Oh, we would never do that!" Just keep in mind the other option is closing and not being able to offer the services at all.

Elements of a Public Relations Plan (from Jon)

2008-03-10T20:40:00.000-04:00

I was reading the article "Elements of a Public Relations Plan," and this
particular section on explaining why media coverage is important on page 3
caught my attention. "Paid advertising increases name recognition; media
relations increases credibility. When people read a story about the
excellence of your organization in a newspaper or see a story praising
your company on television, they are much more likely to have a favorable
opinion of your organization."

The contents of this entire page reminded me of one of the first few
discussions we had in class on week 1 or 2, that centered trying to define
what exactly PR is and what it does.

The fact that this page and the previously mentioned quote basically boils
the need for PR down to a tactic promoting credibility immediately made me
disagree with the statement, but the more I thought about it, I tended to
agree with the assessment that the basic premise for all PR work is to
enhance the credibile perception of a client or an orgainization within
certain groups.

This is certainly not a new revelation, and is one which we have discussed
either prominently or in passing on several occasions, but the simplicity
with which this article stated it struck me in an odd way. As someone who
has been working in the field for a couple years, I have some mixed
emotions on agreeing with this basic nuts and bolts explanation. I hate
the idea that my job and the entire PR industry can be summed up in such a
simple way, but maybe it can.

When stated in such a way, the goal of creating or furthering credibiliity
seems like an incredibly superficial goal, and sort of plays up the image
of PR practitioners as spin-doctors of questionable legitimacy. On the
other hand, however, when I really thought about it, I found myself
agreeing with this simplistic description of PR work in general.

I would like to think that PR delves a little more into the realm of
presenting people with information that is not necessarily aimed entirely
at image enhancement, but when people hire a PR agency, increased
credibility is what they want to see in return.

I will sum this post up with this thought ... PR is an area that
encompasses a lot of work, tactics and ideas beyond the simple desire to
increase credibility and news coverage, but if you had to sum it up in one
simple thought, I suppose that the statement of PR's main purpose as work
to enhance the credibility of a particular entity is a pretty fair one to
make.

NonProfit Commercialism

2008-03-10T20:08:00.002-04:00

The Diversification of Revenue article was interesting because I always assumed that individual donors were the main source of income for nonprofits but apparently there are numerous sources for an NPO to pull from. Froelich makes a statement about how the different strategies are viewed where, “private contributions are considered a rather sacred source of nonprofit support, [while] commercial activity is often viewed as sacrilegious”. I found this comment fascinating because after reading the article it would seem to me that the commercial side of a nonprofit would be the safe way to go as compared to other revenue streams. I understand that the NPOs might be worried about their mission statement as an organization that provides goods and services for those less fortunate; however, it’s obvious that the NPOs are more likely to lose sight of their original goal when they have to depend on individual, private, corporate or government funding sources.

Froelich states that the organizations could worry about becoming businesslike in their actions but according to their section on corporate and private funding sources the NPOs are already being shaped into a business based on what said funders require of the organization to receive the revenue. She makes a statement about the fact that over time “NPOs come to resemble for-profit corporations”. I think that I would rather have my NPO rely on the clients and customers who utilize the goods and services that my organization provides than on a corporate entity who might try to take over the organization in order to create a MiniMe tax break for their company.

Also, as Froelich points out, there is no goal displacement with this form of revenue. If the commercial activity is developed correctly it would only complement the organization itself. With this form of revenue strategy the organization is in complete control of the funds earned and are able to put that money where they feel – based on their goals and objectives – it belongs. All things considered, if I had a choice of where my NPO funds would originate from I would lean towards more commercial activities.

Creative marketing strategies

2008-02-19T08:51:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-18T23:02:00.002-05:00

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

2008-02-18T22:44:00.002-05:00

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

2008-02-18T22:29:00.003-05:00

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

2008-02-18T20:04:00.009-05:00

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! = )

2008-02-15T12:40:00.003-05:00

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

2008-02-11T23:05:00.000-05:00

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.

2008-02-11T19:55:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-11T19:38:00.001-05:00

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

2008-02-11T11:21:00.001-05:00

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

2008-02-04T23:21:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-04T23:19:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-04T23:04:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-04T22:59:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-04T19:22:00.000-05:00

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

2008-02-04T14:33:00.001-05:00

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

2008-02-04T10:34:00.001-05:00

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

2008-02-03T15:58:00.000-05:00

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.

New Media article

2008-01-28T22:12:00.000-05:00

So, I can't believe that I'm already able to say this at the ripe old age of 27, but when working with my students, in the classroom, and with my co-workers, I often catch myself using the phrases "I remember when..." and "back when I was in school..."
It's amazing to me how much technology has changed in the last decade, especially when you consider "it took nearly 50 years for half of the households in the USA to have a telephone, and 90 years for half of all manufacturing industries to use electricity (pg. 348)."
I don't think I used the internet until towards the end of high school, I didn't have an email address until I was a freshman in college, I didn't get a cell phone until I was 21 and got my first car, I didn't start using AIM until I was working at my first job after undergrad, they didn't even have Facebook when I was an undergrad, and I just got a MySpace account last year. And now, I'm utterly lost without my cell phone and all that the internet has to offer me!
I thought it was important that they pointed out all of the custom cable tv channels that allow non-profits to market to their specific target market (i.e.-the ASPCA solicits donations with commercials shown on Animal Planet...brilliant!).
Also, I completely fit the example the author gave about viral marketing. I get emails asking me to email my congressman about a cause I believe in, and I do it; they ask me to pass on their emails to my friends, and I do. And I have NO problem doing this. If I can't afford to donate money, I sure enough and donate my time - even if that "time" means emailing.
I love what the ACS has done on their website for Relay for Life fundraising. I can send already composed emails to my entire email address book in the blink of an eye. No calling or mailing letters to solicit money. It makes my fundraising for them so easy!
And despite the fact that this article is more than 6 years old, it's stated implications are still completely relevant today. In fact, our technology has progressed even faster then they predicted.
I think it would be worth-while to revisit this article in light of all the technological changes in the last 6 years. For instance, how has TiVo affected marketers?

Best Advertising Idea!

2008-01-28T20:01:00.000-05:00

Hey, I was on campus today and JJs subs gave out free sandwiches. I thought this was a great idea because I have never heard of this restaurant but I will defently check them out.

example of using word of mouth marketing

2008-01-28T19:18:00.000-05:00

When reading the WOMMA article, a program that my office (NCSU Study Abroad Office) runs came to mind. We have set up a program where we train volunteer students who have recently returned from studying abroad to give presentations around campus about study abroad in general and about their experience specifically. Other than the time it takes us to train these presenters and the money we spend making photocopies of handouts, this is a free marketing tool and one that we think is most effective. Other students on campus are more likely to find their peers a credible source than a staff member. Also, the enthusiasm of a returned study abroad student is much more powerful than the broken record message they get from staff. The way I see it is these students are going to talk about their experiences anyway, but if we train some of them, we are using them as a marketing tool because even though part of their presentation is personalized, they have been guided and so we have influence over what they say. We never sit in on presentations, so this truly is an honest form word of mouth! Other universities that run a similar program do supervise the presentations, but the way I look at it, the presentations are more credible if there isn’t a rep from the office sitting in on it.

In contrast to the post below, we have the mind set that any publicity is good publicity, so that even if the students focus more on the social aspect of study abroad rather than the academics, at least our name is out there and student interest is being sparked. I agree that it is scary to think people are talking about your organization and they could easily be saying negative things. But I do believe that having your organization talked about, even if it’s negatively, promotes awareness about your product, service, or cause. Hopefully the person who hears the negative message will be curious about your organization, visit your website, take the time to education himself, and form his own opinion. I think this places more responsibility on organizations in certain areas: providing excellent customer service, researching what others are saying, providing an environment for customers to spread the word and making sure others are there to hear, etc. As with the program run in my office, word of mouth marketing can be relatively inexpensive, but it does take efforts from the organization to be successful!

WOMMA

2008-01-28T15:39:00.000-05:00

While reading Work of Mouth 101, several questions entered my mind. First and foremost, what happens when you have unhappy customers? In my experience, the only time I ever hear about any business or nonprofit for that matter is if someone has something really good or really bad to say about it. How does WOMMA account for the unhappy customers? WOMMA mentions several times that word of mouth is “a natural, genuine, honest process,” so if an unhappy customer is very actively participating in the blogosphere, for example (just because I like that word), do they engage in damage control or just let those happy customers counteract the negative?

To go in a different direction, it seems to me that word of mouth marketing has always been the primary method for nonprofits with ailing budgets. It just makes sense; however, WOMMA has done an excellent job of taking word of mouth to the next level. Yet, why would any nonprofit really need WOMMA? Couldn’t nonprofits engage in every single type of word of mouth marketing listed by WOMMA independently? Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of WOMMA…

On page 7 of Word of Mouth 101, WOMMA makes the claim that “word of mouth marketing cannot be faked.” I disagree and believe that it can easily be faked and often is, even though it is highly unethical. I agree with WOMMA that we should strongly oppose any practice that tries to fake word of mouth, but how do you know when it’s being faked and who is responsible for controlling it?

Why Bad Ads Happen to Good Causes?

2008-01-27T15:02:00.000-05:00

While reading this article, I found the scores developed to judge an ad's effectiveness a bit one sided. I think the scales that were developed were all derived from personal opinion. How can you judge or score an ad because most ads are based on creativity, and creativity is not measurable. As the cliche goes, one person's junk is another person's treasure, so maybe the ad might not score well but is received well from the general public. Or how to you explain an add that scores well but is still ineffective? Possibly the answer lies deeper than the ad, maybe its in the cause or non-profit itself.

I think that even if an ad follows all the 7 requirements that the article sets up to create an effective ad that even if the ad is not received well that the non-profit still has a chance to do well. I think the marketing is just one aspect for non-profits and if the reputation and relationships of the non-profits are still in tact that a good cause can still be successful even if the ad bombs. I don't think that every ad can trigger everyone interests equally, its a give and take game, but I think the majority of the weight should be placed on the reputation of the non-profit instead of the ad itself.

Nonprofit Marketing and Target Audiences

2008-01-25T15:40:00.000-05:00

So far what we have discussed in class and other articles is about the traditional/charitable nonprofit. Most of these nonprofits are directed at the general public, although there exist a lot of nonpublics in these groups as well. What about narrow target audiences? The NC Association for Children with Down Syndrome, for example, is only going to assist and draw in a certain group of clients and donors. How do we target those types of audiences? Technological strategies like a MySpace site does not seem to communicate to these narrowed groups.

I work for an Association that is constantly trying to get our members online. For years we have encouraged email distribution or digital newsletters but hardly a third of our membership even has an email address, let alone checks it. We are forced to rely on paper printout of invitations to our events, monthly invoices and all communication material. Even the Board of Directors is more dependent on communication by fax than by email. What creative, and cheaper, ways are there to communicate to these select groups? and who are somewhat technologically stunted?

Side note: Is the correct grammar non-profits or nonprofits? And what about fundraising or fund raising? I’ve seen both. Thanks

Comparing Marketing and Public Relations

2008-01-21T23:26:00.001-05:00

In the article, Nonprofit Marketing with a Purpose, the author makes mention of the common goal of marketing being to increase awareness. In comparing marketing and public relations this one goal is shared. In both situations they are trying to create greater awareness and knowledge of a program, organization, or cause within a community. Both PR and marketing seem to go about increasing awareness in the same ways – researching the audience and/or product, dividing said audience into subsets of potential consumers/funders, developing ways to reach the audience, gearing programs towards the audience and promoting the programs and services being offered. Both philosophies of study rely on these tactics to get people interested in their organization or product with no real variation in how it is accomplished.

It seems like even the authors of this week’s readings had a hard time differentiating between public relations and marketing – often combining the idea of promotion and publicity with researching and defining an audience for a product or service. Does this mean that there is no separation between the two? The Guide to Marketing the Arts seems to imply that they work hand in hand if not as the same arm of an organization. The “basics” that are highlighted – product, price, place, people, and promotion are all in some way important in public relations as well.

So if the two philosophies are similar then why do organizations usually separate the two and does this mean that public relations are merely a part of marketing? And if so, wouldn’t it make sense for marketing and PR to be a single department that could combine resources and ideas? After perusing this week’s readings I’m not so sure that the two departments are mutually exclusive as they appear to be attempting to do the same thing in virtually the same way.

Thoughts about non-profit hospitals

2008-01-21T22:44:00.000-05:00

As I went through this week's readings, I tried to make a connection between the marketing strategies these readings suggested and the type of non-profit organizations I am interested in - hospitals, but failed. Although strategies such as segmentation and primary and secondary marketing analysis work well for awareness campaigns or organizations delivering products or services, none of them seems to apply for hospitals. In China it is considered inappropriate for hospitals to use media for advertisement, because hospital's reputation is built upon its quality care and test of time, but not "boasting" how good it is. Therefore, it is very difficult for new hospitals to open its market, and the only way seems to be word-of-mouth. Even here I have only seen TV ads of Duke Medicine, but never seen anything about UNC Health Care or Rex Hospital. So I am wondering how these non-profit hospitals conduct their marketing and PR, anything we could learn from...

Thoughts at random

2008-01-21T20:40:00.000-05:00

First, the 110 marketing strategy tips are a great example of qualitative research that would be helpful to nearly everyone who has a business. I found the idea that most people are buying keywords, but only in English, very interesting. What a great idea to buy bano and bathroom. Duh. Why doesn't everyone do that?? Probably because most people are not bilingual, but I think it also speaks to American arrogance that many believe that everyone in the world should be expected to learn and speak English.

Also, one person mentions the value of swag in marketing. Yes, he/she is completely right that I have seen people BEG for tshirts or light up pens and even put on a can costume and line dance for lightup beads. But does swag help create a consumer? I've given my last 'priceless' blinky bead to someone who 'just had to have it,' only to see them drinking a competitive beer an hour later. BUT they are still wearing my blinky bead, thus promoting my product for me in some sense. Win or lose? I don't think the swag really makes a difference in creating a loyal consumer, unless you can deliver something that is totally out of the box...tshirts are so 1999, but create a custom tshirt for them on the laptop, send it to a router, print the iron on design, iron it on (yes I have taken irons into bars) and give it to them 5 min later? Yes, that gets some attention. And the ironing station in the bar doesn't hurt either.

In reading the segmentation article, I can see the value that the tracking and monitoring technology presents to the businesses that use it. However, I find the idea that sites and businesses are watching me online rather disturbing. Yes, I might get some coupons from the process, but altogether it really just creeps me out. And I do have to agree that getting more than one or two emails a month from anyone really annoys me. The Wall Street Journal is really annoying!! I had to have it for the media ownership class last semester and they might as well move into my guest room for all the mailings (3-4 a month) and emails (at least 3 a day) I get from them. I've unsubscribed from them twice but apparently im subscribed to different sub-lists??? Ugh...despite what some of the strategies reported, I do not like more frequent emails and it turns me off to their services.

non profits and online segmenting

2008-01-21T20:00:00.000-05:00

I thought the ‘Segmenting the Market’ article was interesting in that it showed the importance of breaking down the general public into segments and demographics in order to pinpoint who to target in marketing. For online marketing, specifically in websites, marketing must be geared toward whatever group of people will most likely be interested in the product or service. If you are trying to sell a children’s book, for example, apart from the ability to put the book in the shopping cart for purchase, you would includes eye-catching, colorful graphics or drawings, maybe online games, sounds and effects. This would attract children to the website, and hopefully to the book. But who buys the book? Parents. So, the website needs to be adult-friendly as well, maybe with a synopsis of the book, information on why kids should read it, directions on how or where to buy it, and online coupons or deals for cheaper transactions. Here it would be good to include a spot for parents to type in an email address to receive info for upcoming events or future books. For products, it seems like it would be much easier to attract people to websites or blogs because people are trying to find that specific product or something like it,

For non-profit organizations, trying to attract the target demographic to a website might be harder because people, personally affected by the organization or not, would be unlikely to visit a website simply designed to inform the public of the organization. People need to be personally affected, interested, or involved in the organization. One way to increase awareness of an organization on the website would be a blog: readers could look up archives as well as keep up-to-date on personally stories of staff, volunteers, or even those being helped within the community. A photo gallery could have the same affect, showing what the organization has done in the past. These help the public feel more personally attached to the website because they see/read stories about real people and the real situations the organization takes on. But to hold the attention of these people, marketing outside the internet is also necessary for non-profits.

The article about marketing in the arts had many good ideas for spreading the word about arts events. While many of these would be costly like the “Restaurant, show, limo packages for patrons,” others could be very useful, and cheap, for non-profits. Some ideas that were particularly useful were: speaking at events, benefit tie ins, media co-sponsorship, and developing relationships with community stores. Because non-profits do not offer a product or service that appeals to the audience that easily yields profits, they have to work much harder within the community, not just online, to gather a larger audience that feels an obligation to the organization. This in turn should draw in more visitors to the website, more volunteers, and more donations in the long run.

Will segmentation and database marketing really make your customers feel content???

2008-01-21T17:48:00.000-05:00

In the Online Marketer’s Segmentation Guide you will find this statement, “When done well, segmentation and database marketing will make your customers feel content about having a relationship with you.” I disagree. I am at a perpetual level of ZERO “content” when I open my Gmail account on a daily basis. The ridiculous number of emails I receive from online marketers only puts me in a bad mood and I am surprised that the author of this article actually opened the email he mentions, as I know very few people enjoy the glorious junk mail they receive. Okay, so I bought something at your store one time…why are you stalking me???? To hammer my point further, aren’t the majority of people very leery of giving out their email address at all?

I understand that we are in an ever growing global village and that it is absolutely necessary for any organization to communicate with publics via the internet; however, could we possibly be a little more civil about our approach?

The article also presents the argument that segmentation benefits customers. I think the author was somewhat confused when writing this section of the article and what he or she really meant is that segmentation benefits the company. Segmentation benefits the company more than the customer because…well, here’s an example: every single day, sometimes twice or three times a day, I receive an email from 1-800-Flowers. Contrary to their apparent belief, I do not need to send flowers to someone every single day. Of course their intent is to convenience me that I should send flowers to someone and when I do send flowers go through them. They won…I sent flowers to my mom today for her birthday and I used none other than 1-800-Flowers. But, did their victory really benefit me, the customer? Do I feel content knowing that I validated their strategy? NO!

So, my point is: as a company, you can segment all you want, but all you’re really doing is getting in the customer’s head. Yes, that head might be one that fits the perfect demographic, psychographic and behavior for your company/marketing strategy, but does all that outweigh the fact that your emails are annoying?

A thought on the Practicality of all of this Research

2008-01-21T12:55:00.000-05:00

A fundamental theme found throughout the readings of the first two weeks seems to be that research, particularly a strong focus on target audience research, is the most fundamental building block to a successful marketing campaign. Whether an awareness campaign, an issue campaign or a fundraising campaign, it all seems to start at this same place. This idea is kind of a no-brainer, and is a consistent message across any textbook, marketing, PR or relevant journalism class I have ever taken. I am not doubting this idea in any way, but the question I want to consider is whether it is really practical for most organizations, particularly nonprofits, to fund all of this needed research on their target groups.

I found the "Segmenting the Market" article particulary interesting, talking about the relevance of knowing demographics and psychographics. A thought I had after thinking about this reading as well as the others, "Nonprofit Marketing with a Purpose" and "Introducing Marketing to Nonprofits," was that the majority of these materials spend a great deal of time on what info about the audiences is needed and why. From my limited experience in PR, and granted it is mostly with smaller corporate clients, is that while all of this info would be great to have, most organizations don't have either the time or the money or both to gather it.

I feel like in most of the efforts I have worked on, companies kind of think with a go-from-the-gut mentality about what their targets think about and what messages will work best, and the main reason that they operate this way is because of the time and funding issues involved with this research. I know we talked about this briefly in class when Dr. Waters was talking from his personal experiences with PR agency work, and I have found a similar sentiment to be true with some of my clients - "research would be great, but we don't really have the resources available to do it."

Again, I am not trying to undermine the points of any of these readings, because they are consistent and make a lot of sense, but I think that making the research sell to lots of nonprofits and lower budget companies is a tough one. If I was operating on a limited budget, even knowing what we know about the value of in-depth research, I would probably try to do a bare-bones audience profile and use the rest of my money for something else with a little more glitz and glamor. I guess what I am trying to say is that I would probably put more of an emphasis on the Programming part of the ROPES process than I would with the research - simply from a financial standpoint.

Who really sets the agenda?

2008-01-15T22:18:00.000-05:00

I was really intrigued by the article "The Impact of Nonprofit Organizations’ Media Relations on Donations to Crisis Relief Efforts: A Test of the Agenda Setting Theory". I think it brought alot of interesting topics to the table. I don't have a background in PR but I was drawn to this article since it had an international flare, which is my main interest.

The theme of the article focuses on the lack of empirical data that has been conducted to research the correlation between media coverage and public attention. With my first glance at the hypothesis I also made the wrong assumption that the main object of fundraising was to make money and that media coverage would increaes the public's desire to donate. But as I looked over the research I learned that the main objective of fundraising is to create relationships and maintain an honest reputation which contrasts with Horton's article about the underlying profit motive. Horton mentioned the lack of relationships and reputation in PR but fundraising's main objective is to create these two things. This creates an interesting correlation to why so many people think that fundraising is about raising money. The majority of the public thinks fundraising is about making money because of the lack of relationships and reputation in the business or PR field and this lack or substantial meaning allows the profit mindset to take root.

International crisis' happen around the world everyday, but the majority of the public doesn't care what happens in Africa or India because its doesn't affect their everyday life. What made America and the rest of the world come together and donate millions to a tsunami disaster? The agenda setting capacity of the media! The public doesn't control what is put on the evening news, its usually blood, bombs and babes or anything that will create a leading story. The media is a coorporration, and with any business, profit is seen by dollar signs so what bleeds, leads on the news. It would be interesting to see what the public would choose to call "news" if the power of agenda setting was in the hands of the public.

The artcile concluded that the best way for non-profits to gain more attention in the media is not through fundrasing but by highlighting the organization itself. I would be interested to see if non-profits actually do this and if it works? I think Horton would suggest that this would be a good idea since it would build relationships and reputation but he would question the desire of the public to respond since they might only be driven to donate if it could somehow profit themselves.

Know Your Place: Prioritizing Stakeholders

2008-01-14T23:27:00.000-05:00

In Rawlins' article, the idea of stakeholder management is discussed. He states that “sacrificing the needs of on one stakeholder for the needs of the other is a dilemma with which many organizations struggle”. In the corporate world this might be easier to manage because the stakeholders are interested solely in the profit margin. However, in the nonprofit sector often the stakeholders have become involved in an organization because of an ideal or interest that has no relation to the bottom line of the corporate world.

Most nonprofits are focused on fundraising to provide funds pertaining to operating costs so that they can accomplish their main objective – whether it be preserving the arts, helping those in need, education initiatives, etc. Yet when it comes to nonprofit organizations how is balance achieved between the differing ideas and interests of stakeholders that provide them with the capital to continue operating?

I think this idea of prioritization is interesting because it emphasizes the issue of the haves and the have-nots. I worked at a historical society as the PR Coordinator for three years and this idea of prioritization was rampant. Those who had the money and influence possessed the power; while those whose family had lived in the town for generations wanted to preserve the history had the legitimacy. There were even those stakeholders who were members of the governing board who possessed the urgency to meet deadlines to receive grants and donations.

Most of the time those with the power and the urgency overruled those stakeholders with a legitimate claim to the organization’s time and effort which caused a lot of tension within the organization. So, how can a nonprofit organization utilize the idea of stake holder management and prioritization in order to create a fair distribution of resources? Is it even possible or will there always be someone whose needs are unfulfilled? And if a balance was achieved would it benefit or be detrimental to the organization?

Public Relations & the Profit Motive: Can't We All Just Get Along

2008-01-14T22:09:00.001-05:00

Horton may be right that driven CEOs treat profit numbers as “isolated abstractions;” however, IF he was wrong about CEOs, why would we even need the PR practitioner? If all CEOs focused on reputation and relationships, instead of profit, where would we be? Well, I for one believe that the disciplines of organizational communication, public relations, etc may not even exist if it weren’t for the profit driven business school grads. As businesses grow ever larger, employees become more and more specialized. Thus, you have your CEO who specializes in achieving large profits and the PR person who specializes in reputation and relationships. There has to be a balance between specializations, doesn’t that make sense? Why does it have to be that one person is wrong and the other is right in his or her approach? Why can’t we just think of it as two separate schools of thought…aka, agree to disagree?
The dilemma really reminds me of the chicken and the egg argument…which came first, the business school view (one maintains reputation and relationships to produce revenue) or the public relations view (reputation and relationships lead to revenue)? Personally, I believe that the public relations view came first, but does that even matter in today’s society?

thoughts on the "PR and the Profit Motive" article

2008-01-14T21:54:00.000-05:00

I thought it was interesting that this article pointed out how monopolies enabled companies to focus on relationships. I certainly would have never put those two together. I think most people think quite negatively about monopolies in that when a company has complete control over an industry, they can do whatever they want. But it seemed like the article was trying to imply that competition brings out the worst in business, which I don't necessarily disagree with.

I also wouldn't have necessarily associated PR with relationship and reputation building. I took an introductory PR class as an undergrad - it was required for all advertising majors. And when I was an advertising major, I minored in marketing. These three components (advertising, marketing, and PR) seem to go hand-in-hand. I left that major and minor because I felt like they were too cut-throat, manipulative, and competitive, and that's just not me.

Since then, my definition of PR has been molded by the media. To me, PR is about covering your butt when you mess up; not as much reputation building as reputation saving. From the outside, it seems like PR is a profession that builds relationships simply to advance one's career or profit margin. Essentially, I don't really see how it is any better than business. It's also hard for me to see that ethics is a priority for PR professionals as opposed to those in the world of business.

While this article was eye-opening, it was also a little depressing. For example, the author says "deceptive techniques of marketing are and will be used as long as there are buyers and sellers." If this is what we have to look forward to with competition in business, wouldn't it seem better to be back in the time of monopolies? If it meant that companies would actually focus on what the author defines as PR - relationship and reputation building - we might live in a better time.

culture's influence on PR and business (response to "Public Relations and the Profit Motive")

2008-01-14T17:06:00.000-05:00

Since I have bachelors degree in international business, the article "Public Relations and the Profit Motive" by James Horton caught my attention right away. Horton compares business and public relations by explaining that business schools teach the importance of revenues and earnings but public relations teaches the importance of relationships and reputations. I thought I was going to get defensive about the author's jabs at business schools, but instead the article made me think about my other areas of interest and expertise- the international and cultural side of my degree and experience. While he may have valid points regarding motives of corporate and capitalist America where our culture is conditioned to believe in the importance of profit, he does not discuss business in other parts of the world where the culture emphasizes relationships. There are some countries where in order to conduct business, you must first establish a relationship with the client/customer. What is the difference between business and public relations in such countries? Is a greater importance placed on public relations in those countries than in the US? Is there a stronger link between the two or maybe they are one in the same? I am new to PR, so I do not know the answers, but I have studied international business and I know that this article can not apply throughout the world. I also wonder if the American culture will allow for a shift in beliefs as the author calls for in his conclusion.

Public Relations Crisis Looming for Nonprofits Relying on Direct Mail

2008-01-09T17:11:00.000-05:00

A new survey from the Target Analysis Group has found that nonprofit organizations using direct-mail appeals for their fundraising efforts are not raising as much as they have in the past. They're actually losing more donors and attracting fewer new donors.

With this fundraising and public relations crisis looming, organizations need to invest more time and resources into developing relationships with their donors rather than relying on cold marketing-type solicitations.

Any suggestions on what local nonprofits can do to cultivate relationships with donors who only give $20 each year?

Nonprofit Organizations Take on the Presidential Contenders

2008-01-05T14:20:00.000-05:00

Shortly before her win yesterday in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton "promised to work to allow people who don’t itemize their taxes to get deductions for charitable donations, to help nonprofit groups compete for government contracts, and to highlight the work nonprofit groups do."

In other meetings, the authors of
Nonprofit Leaders Question Political Leaders detail encounters with Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee. Obama says that nonprofit organizations will have a roll in his White House administration, and Huckabee was surprised that New Hampshire's nonprofit sector was the 2nd largest employer in the states.

Given these candidates' interest in the nonprofit sector, its a shame that more questions aren't asked to the candidates about nonprofit issues, especially in light of recent scandals and calls for increased government insight. Instead, it seems that most of the political campaigning involving nonprofits will continue to be pointless stops at different places where candidates will arrange photo opportunities to show that they are "good people" sort of like Huckabee's donation of soccer balls to children in Iraq.

"Cheap in America"

2006-11-29T00:17:00.000-05:00

FYI: Tonight (Wed.) on ABC, John Stossel has a special called "Cheap in America" where he analyzes the state of charity in the U.S. along with who gives and who doesn't. 10:00 p.m.

Here's an article about it on ABC's Web site.

America The Charitable: A Few Surprises

2006-11-27T23:45:00.000-05:00

I found this article online this evening and thought you guys might find it interesting.

America the charitable: A few surprises

It's well known that Americans lead the world in philanthropy. But those making $20,000 or less give away more, as a share of their income, than do higher income groups.

By The Christian Science Monitor

Everybody knows Americans are big givers. But their charitable impulses keep generating surprises.

Consider just a few conclusions from recent research:
- Charitable giving plays a bigger role in the economy than is suggested by some $260 billion in annual contributions. Each dollar of giving appears to create $19 of extra national income, according to a new book.
- Demand for nonprofit services gets proportionately bigger, not smaller, as a locality's income rises, a Federal Reserve economist finds.
- The philanthropy of the wealthy may not hinge on tax incentives to the degree many believe.
- In one new survey, a majority of wealthy givers say they would contribute the same amount if the estate tax were abolished. Ditto, they said, if they could no longer deduct the value of gifts from their taxable income.

These disparate studies are shedding light not just on who gives but also on why they give and what their actions mean to society. Often, the conclusions run counter to expectations.

"It's the first word, not the last word," says Arthur Brooks, referring to his new book on charity called "Who Really Cares." "We need more people thinking about (the study of charitable giving) in a serious way."

Brooks and other experts say that by understanding charity better, Americans can learn how to encourage more giving. The result would probably be a healthier and wealthier society.

Time and money
Of course, it's not as if American philanthropy has never been studied before. A number of institutions track the nonprofit sector fulltime in one way or another. But the data on charity-linked activities are far less complete -- and less systematically analyzed -- than for areas such as government and private industry.

One thing that's long been known: The United States leads the world in levels of charitable activity. The pattern runs from the rich, steeped in long tradition of philanthropy, to the poor. Those making $20,000 or less a year give away more, as a share of their income, than do higher income groups.

Americans donate their time as well as money -- some $150 billion worth annually (measured by using an estimated average value of $18.04 per hour).

"I see a great commitment," says Karen Rivers, who recruits helpers for the Colorado branch of Volunteers of America in Denver. "We just were inundated with people who wanted to volunteer for Thanksgiving Day."

Rivers had to turn volunteers away as the group served holiday meals to about 3,000 homeless and others in need.

Some experts see charity as a defining trait of the United States, more than consumerism or business. But those forces may be intertwined.

For one thing, many nonprofits are selling services -- from health care to classical music -- in a marketplace alongside for-profit rivals. By many measures, they are successful.

For example: As personal incomes rise in a given county, the income of nonprofits seems to rise even faster, says Rob Grunewald, an associate economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has analyzed counties in 47 states. This suggests that not-for-profit activities are what economists call a "superior good," something people want to buy more of (or donate more to) as their incomes rise.

But ties between charitable ventures and the economy hardly end there.

Giving helps the giver In his new book, Brooks points to evidence that charity is no mere peripheral activity. It pays off for society in ways that may transcend the rates of return on many traditional investments. Why?

It's not just that charity helps those on the receiving end, says Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University in New York. It also strengthens the cohesion of society at large. Moreover, it appears to make the givers themselves more successful, possibly because the activity transforms them somewhat into better or happier people. Whatever the reasons, he finds that higher income tends to push up charity -- and that greater charity tends to push up income.
Another provocative conclusion is that conservatives are better givers than liberals -- a theme that is likely to draw close scrutiny. This pattern is less about politics, Brooks says, than about charity-linked lifestyles that are most common to people who call themselves conservatives: religious commitment, marriage and children, and entrepreneurship.

Still, his main point is that more Americans, regardless of ideology, should embrace giving as a tool for progress. Brooks quotes Proverbs: "One man gives freely, yet gains even more; another withholds unduly, but comes to poverty."

Many who do charitable work can relate to that. Pier Penic works in public relations but her passion is what she does for free as the founder of Culture at Home, a support group near Washington, D.C., for mothers who are home-schooling their kids. "I'm doing more here than I would at a corporate job," she says. "I love to see results."

Her story echoes some of the common forces that motivate people to give time or money to charity: First, she identifies with challenges facing home-school moms. In her case, the feeling is amplified because she herself is one of those moms. Second, she wants to make a difference.
Third, she draws satisfaction from the effort to help.

The urge to make a difference These forces are among the core motivations that foster actions of generosity beyond the sphere of one's family circle, says Paul Schervish, who heads the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy. "There would still be a need for philanthropy, even if our economic needs were all taken care of."

The urge to make a difference, and to take satisfaction in it, outweighs monetary considerations.
For example, a survey of 945 ultrarich individuals released last month by Bank of America and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that slightly more than half would give the same amount regardless of whether the estate tax or deductions for charitable giving were repealed.

None of this means that tax policy is trivial for charitable giving. But the survey suggests that Americans' penchant for giving isn't driven primarily by tax breaks.

This article was reported and written by Mark Trumbull for The Christian Science Monitor.

"Mandatory Volunteerism"

2006-11-27T11:30:00.000-05:00

Clary and Snyder discuss the idea of “mandatory volunteerism” as a short-term solution with potential long-term consequences. “Although requiring people, particularly young people, to engage in community service may have desirable effects (e.g., increasing actual participation in the present), mandating ‘volunteerism’ may prove counterproductive in the long run,” (pg 158). The authors refer to a study in which college students were mandated to complete 40 hours of volunteer work within a semester, with special attention paid to students’ intentions to volunteer in the future. Clary and Snyder found that with increases in external pressure to ‘volunteer’ come decreases in internal motivation to volunteer. “Certainly, immediate volunteering can be induced by requiring students to serve, but it seems that future choices to volunteer will be less likely if the initial experience is accompanied by perceptions of external control,” (p. 159).

I want to open this topic of “mandatory volunteerism” to the class. I know that as a high school senior, I was required to complete 40 hours of community service per semester in order to graduate from the IB program, and I’m certain that many of you had similar experiences. Those of us in our early to late 20s were part of a broader initiative to socialize us into volunteerism (don't remember Clean the Beach field trips in elementary school?). Do you think it worked? Did this “mandatory volunteerism”, either for school requirements or competitive college applications, deter or promote private volunteerism later on?

Come On Funders, Give Rural America A Break!

2006-11-27T09:39:00.000-05:00

Come on Funders, Give Rural America a Break!

The Snavely/Tracy article on rural nonprofit collaborations was interesting and exposed a unique service population in the third sector that we often forget. If you don’t live in a rural area, it’s likely that you just don’t think much about the geographic-specific challenges that are an inherent part of that community.

Collaboration is certainly a trend being encouraged in all sectors. In the profit-making world we call it mergers and acquisitions when in actuality these ‘marriages’ are more like hostile takeovers (e.g., US Airways biting at the heels of Delta). Nonetheless, the basic justification for bringing two or more entities together is pretty much the same across the board; for the purpose of realizing synergy.

In the nonprofit sector, in particular, federal legislation now strongly encourages collaborative efforts and often will not consider an organization for funding unless they have solid evidence (i.e., Memorandums of Understanding or other friendly contract-like documents). And yet as strongly as they encourage collaborations as part of the criteria in the competitive process, their guidelines for grant recipients often make it difficult for funding recipients to live up to the collaborations originally proposed.

In rural communities like the two that were studied in this research effort, there are many, many barriers that can prohibit the successful collaboration of nonprofit organizations. Geographic size, population dispersion, lack of public or personal transportation, cultural issues, and lack of local community matching resources are very real environmental problems that can greatly curtail the sharing of information and resources that is required in collaborations.

While it was encouraging to read that there is some degree of collaboration taking place in the two communities studied (case management and referral services were the most prevalent examples of this), I was frustrated to read that the adoption of common service procedures, policies and guidelines between organizations were only practiced by about 1/3 of the responding nonprofits. Isn’t this where collaboration would be most beneficial? Wouldn’t more people in rural communities be helped in a more efficient and effective way if nonprofs adopted common service delivery procedures, guidelines and strategies?

I can just imagine the frail senior citizen, the parents of a special needs child, or the farmer in need of health care, trying to navigate a rural patchwork system of services where each nonprofit has their own specific set of rules, guidelines and procedures that requires a lot of bureaucratic paperwork and other annoying inconveniences.

In these tiny communities where trust and pride are major issues and citizens are not accustomed to asking for help, I’d like to see the government funding sources relax some of the strict service procedures that are often part of the funding and compliance agreements with the nonprofit groups. Maybe if the funding sources could remove some of the walls and barriers that are part and parcel of the grants, the rural communities could realize more meaningful collaborations.

Are There Too Many Nonprofits?

2006-11-27T09:04:00.000-05:00

Are There Too Many Nonprofits?

Dr. Alvarado’s editorial (April 2004) regarding the number of nonprofits was thoughtful, well written and provocative. I so appreciate her sharing John Gardner’s recognition/definition of the nonprofit sector as a “significant source of renewal…(that) comfortably harbors innovators, maverick movements…. and critics and dissenters of both liberal and conservative persuasion.” This is brilliant and speaks to the original intent of non-profit organizations; particularly when we realize that many (if not most) nonprofit organizations are born out of controversial ideas that are, in Gardner’s words, “unpopular or strange (with) little chance in either the commercial or the political marketplace.”

When I think about organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Organization of Women, the March of Dimes, UNICEF, the Peace Corps, the NAACP, SNCC, Head Start, National Coalition for the Homeless, and others, it remains clear to me that these organizations (and hundreds of others like them) have changed lives by restoring hope and instilling fairness and equity. It is also very clear to me that all of these organizations were considered highly controversial, unpopular and strange at their inception.

As I have indicated in previous blogs, I strongly believe that all of our lives have been made better by the good works of the third sector.

But the question here is not about the good works of nonprofits. The question is whether there are too many non-profits. And while my gut sense is that there probably are, I will temper my response by suggesting that before we can really answer this question, more file-cleaning, record updating and data gathering must be done in the nonprofit sector.

According to Alvarado, there were 909,574 public charities registered with the IRS in 2002. Stats in another reading assignment (a blog from the Stanford Social Innovation Review) reveal that there were 964,000 public charities registered with the IRS in 2003. Quite frankly, I don’t trust either of these numbers. There are, admittedly, an unknown number of 501 (c)(3) organizations that remain on the books with the IRS even though they have shut down. Until the IRS can successfully weed out the ones that aren’t functioning anymore, we don’t really know the real number of nonprofs in this country.

In Stephen McNeil’s blog, he states, “dissolution/revocation of public charities is more difficult than a divorce in Nevada.” If this is true, then this could be one critical factor as to why there are a lot of dead 501(c)(3)’s still on the IRS books.

While I wholeheartedly agree with Alvarado that nonprofits are “laboratories for creativity and new leadership,” I regret that what we are finding in the nonprofit sector is often a far cry from this noble calling. Some of my concerns are as follows:

- Service duplication and overlap

- Lack of accountability

- Lack of credible market research and analysis to justify the ongoing creation and development of new nonprofit entities in certain geographic areas and in certain areas of need

- Non-profits that are not able to meet the call to be of service; they are poorly organized, poorly run and poorly funded

- An overwhelming majority of small nonprofits operating on shoestring budgets that are less than $25,000 annually

Alvarado could not be more correct when she states that bigger is not necessarily better. However, the question here is not about size. This is a very practical, basic business question of efficiency. For example, economies of scale show us that an organization with an operating budget of only $25,000 lacks the capital and resources to provide maximum service levels in a way that is economically feasible. We also know that there is no value-added when duplicate services are provided to the same community.

Finally, Alvarado states, “For the most part, public charities are efficiently run entities.” I’m not sure how she knows this. She provides nothing in her article to support this statement. And I’m not sure whether we should believe her or not.

The RED Campaign

2006-11-26T23:43:00.000-05:00

I know that the blog for this week is about volunteerism, but I heard about this RED Campaign (www.joinred.com) and wanted to know your opinion about it. Basically,
the RED campaign is a commercial initiative designed to create awareness and a sustainable flow of money from the private sector into an organization called The Global Fund (www.theglobalfund.org/en) to fight the AIDS in Africa. The Global Fund is an innovative partnership of governments, non-profit organizations, and the private sector, working together to rid the world of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria (http://www.joinred.com/globalfund.asp)

Bono and Bobby Shriver, Chairman of DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade Africa), created the RED campaign to engage the private sector in the fight against AIDS. Some of the partners that they have include: Apple (Red iPods nano), American Express, Converse, Gap, Giorgio Armani and Motorola. The idea is that you buy products from these companies and a portion of your purchase goes to The Global Fund. If you buy the RED iPod nano that is $250, Apple will donate $10 to this organization. What do you guys think about this initiative? Have you heard about this campaign before?

900,000 Nonprofits and Growing

2006-11-22T23:41:00.000-05:00

Some of these collaboration readings raise an interesting point: We encourage competition and enforce anti-trust legislation in the nonprofit world, yet we view competition to be unnecessary and wasteful in the non profit world—we even seem to encourage, albeit unsuccessfully, a giant merger eliminating the smaller organizations. I’d never thought of that. I never really thought that the smaller nonprofits were wasteful, but it has occurred to me that they could do so much more with a single, large budget if they merged together and cut some staff. What a mistake!

I feel as though I should have known better because I have seen collaboration up close. I’ve spent some alternative spring break weeks working with urban hunger programs—one in New York and one in DC. On both occasions, my group was being hosted by a nonprofit group that exists for the sole purpose of sending volunteer groups out to the various soup kitchens, food banks, and homeless shelters in these cities. This nonprofit’s role is to set up volunteer groups on what amounts to a week-long tour of volunteer opportunities related to hunger. It seems extraneous, but it is also a source of collaboration among the nonprofits that accept the volunteers. Plus, as a volunteer, I had a chance to see how the organizations work together to serve the homeless constituency as a whole while at the same time, getting to know the unique populations that utilize specific services in specific areas.

As a result, I’ve come to the conclusion that the increasing quantity of active, small nonprofits are beneficial to the clients they serve. Besides, if they were truly unnecessary, I believe that they would run out of funding.

Toys for Tots deny gift

2006-11-15T16:03:00.000-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/toy.jesus.ap/index.html

Oh yeah, a company tried to give Toys for Tots 4000 Talking Jesus Dolls. And was actually "surprised and disappointed" when they were rejected. TFT said that they had no idea what religions the kids are that they are sending them to. The toy company spokesperson thought it wouldn't matter if a Jewish child got a Jesus doll because it quotes scripture from the bible and therefore it shouldn't be a problem.

Here is a situation where the Marines better tread very carefully.

Hoo Rah!

School Donor Reneges on $20M Pledge

2006-11-11T18:22:00.000-05:00

School donor reneges on $20M pledge: Man takes back offer after feeling insulted by university president

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:25 p.m. ET Nov 10, 2006

MIAMI - A $20 million gift for a university medical school evaporated with a phone call after the donor thought the university president insulted him.

Herbert Wertheim took back the gift offer after the call last week and resigned from Florida International University’s board of trustees.

“The conversation just wasn’t what it should have been. There were things said that shouldn’t have been said, and Humpty Dumpty is broken,” Wertheim said.

The loss of the businessman’s money also meant the loss of a matching $20 million grant from the state, and it means Wertheim’s name will no longer go on the medical school.

Wertheim, who made his fortune manufacturing ophthalmic equipment, had wanted to defer some payments on the gift until 2009 for tax purposes, despite agreeing to deliver a lump sum within 30 days of naming the school for him on Sept. 29.

In the phone call, he said, university President Modesto “Mitch” Maidique told him he had gotten the naming rights “on the cheap” and that the university “could now get $100 million for it.”

Maidique responded in a letter Thursday, apologizing and leaving the door open for further negotiations, but saying that receiving the $20 million in a lump sum had been “pivotal” in the naming-rights agreement because it ensured the state would match the gift.

“You have been a friend of the University’s and of mine for almost 20 years. If I was unclear during our conversation and I unintentionally hurt you, I apologize,” he wrote.

The university’s press office didn’t return calls Friday. But school board chairman David Parker said he was confident other donors would step forward. Parker said the school would likely return at least $700,000 Wertheim already had sent.

Wertheim, chairman and CEO of Brain Power Inc., joined the school’s foundation board of directors in 1988 and led its first capital campaign, raising $204 million in four years.

Class News

2006-11-10T10:25:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,

If you picked up the survey for extra credit on the blog postings that was given out in class on Nov. 8, then I need to get it back from you by Thanksgiving to receive the full extra credit. You can slide it under my door (2041-D in Weimer) or put it in my mailbox in the basement. For those of you who have to travel to campus, you can also mail it to:

Richard Waters
Dept. of Public Relations
College of Journalism and Comm.
BOX 118400
U of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400

I'll be in the office next Wednesday and available via email if you have any questions.

Good luck w/the two projects!

Follow up to Olympic Bid Activity

2006-11-09T12:05:00.000-05:00

http://www.chicago2016.org/

This is the website that Chicago has for its bid for the 2016 Olympic Games.

http://www.sccog.org/

That is Los Angeles'.

Competition Begets a Unified Voice?

2006-11-06T21:17:00.000-05:00

Initially this was a response to Sarah's posting below, however it turned out long and I thought it would be a good post, albeit late.

We have spoken about how NPOs need to have a unified voice. One thing that stops them from having a unified voice is that there are so many non-profits that are similar but not alike. Additionally, to the kudos of many npos, very few want to drift from their own specific missions. They want to stay the specific, special entity that they are, however that is not conducive towards speaking with a unified voice.

I know there is a lot of competition in the non-profit arena, but is there more in the corporate arena? And what is the alternative to being an unsuccessful company in either one? Non-existance - or on a lesser scale the fear of non-existence. In the business world this shows itself as mergers and assimilations of companies (look at the media environment after the 1996 telecommunications act): eight major companies survived.

Perhaps the reason there is so many npos that still survive is that there isn't enough competition. The only reason the world is getting smaller is because humanity is getting larger. This means that organizations are getting lost, or really assimilated. They don't cease to exist entirely, just cease to exist as they did in the past.

Competition seems to be a good thing. It yields the best of the best, or at least it is supposed to. NPOs are good at hanging on and because it is a different environment that places emphasis on adhering to the mission before the bottom line (generally), therefore the mission comes before commercial success, lending them to hold on longer and be more creative in their survival techniques. Three being marketing, IMC and public relations.

They function to grease the wheels of business and they will certainly do the same for NPOs and those that embrace and take advantage of this grease will be more competitive and have a leg up on nonprofits that fail to do so.

So I think it does create more competition, which is bad for any NPO that is unable to compete, but good for a more unified voice of nonprofits. It seems to be working for the big eight media conglomerates. The only difference in NPO is the locations of the mission and the bottom line.

Too Much Competition?

2006-11-06T16:59:00.000-05:00

Is it true that marketing is something that all organizations do, whether they recognize it or not (Kotler), and we can thereby argue that IMC does have a place in nonprofit communications? Or, does the introduction of true marketing techniques in nonprofit communications further increased competition (rather than alleviate the competitive environment) for the fiscal attention of donors, leading to a "competitive stalemate" amongst larger NPOS and “compassion fatigue” amongst donors? Is the issue that publicity and marketing have been lumped together and are now perceived as synonymous?

I don’t have an answer, but I’d like to propose a debate on whether NPOs marketing efforts make the competitive aspect of the nonprofit atmosphere better or worse.

Brand Identity or Client Accountability: Who decides?

2006-11-05T20:22:00.000-05:00

I was surprised by Brown & Dacin's finding that consumers' perception of an organization can influence -- and even outweigh -- their perception of a product. Is that an example of excellent consumer relations or uneducated consumers?

When this model is applied to nonprofit organizations, does it allow the organization to attend to image-related issues at the expense of program quality? Could this be a way of putting donor desires over client needs?

While Kim Hyojin, author of "Branding of Nonprofit Organizations," stated that "branding of an organization does not justify poor products or services," the author does not provide any data regarding the extent to which the practice of branding to avoid quality might occur. Furthermore Hoeffler and Keller affirm the link between good branding and good reputation through their discussion of brand recognition, credibility, and personality.

Do we think brand identity can overshadow accountability?

Mixed feelings on CRM

2006-11-05T17:15:00.000-05:00

I do agree that the concept behind cause-related marketing is an excellent one; companies and non-profits partnering to achieve mutual goals - the companies are trying to sell products, and the non-profits are trying to raise money and philanthropic awareness. However, I do wonder sometimes if they're not pushing the emotional envelope a little too far with some of these "branded" products (as Sara & I discussed several weeks back, pink kitchen mixers with some of the proceeds going to benefit breast cancer research? Hmm...).

Evelyn & I addressed this topic in a presentation for Management last spring, so I went back to our PowerPoint and found the pro & con list we came up with...

Pros

Allows companies to position their brands on a social responsibility platform
An appealing way for consumers to support social causes - they have an increased inclination to purchase brands exhibiting social responsibility
An avenue for the companies to donate money to non-profit organizations
Highlight the social responsibility of the brand - the display of ethics and social responsibility is an important element of organizational effectiveness
Identification with popular causes is good for employee morale and recruitment

Cons

Threatens the integrity of contemporary society by absorbing charitable giving into strategic marketing exchanges
Giving is bundled together with brand-related choice, consideration of price, packaging and other consumption-related thoughts

The pros definitely outweigh the cons in terms of quantity, but the cons bring up some serious ethical considerations.

Personally, I feel much better about supporting organizations that give a substantional portion of proceeds from designated products to a specific cause, even more so if that product has an apparent link to the organization's mission. That makes me more inclined to believe that the company has a real dedication to the chosen cause and they're not using the alliance solely for promotional purposes.

What do y'all think?

Cross-cultural branding efforts... A waste of resources?

2006-11-05T16:29:00.000-05:00

So branding like integrated marketing communication is defined very, very differently depending on who provides the definition. The most "fair" definition I found--and I welcome challenges to this one--is: "An orchestrated effort or campaign that focuses on introducing, re-introducing or enforcing the brand for a particular product or organization."

Branding faces enough problems within a single culture as far as getting people to stop and take notice of the organization, product or service. But many organizations, especially international NGOs and relief organizations, are trying to launce international branding campaigns?

Given the complexities of international communication (e.g., cultural interpretations of words, symbols, colors, etc.), are these international branding efforts worth it?

Is it worth it for donors in particular given that many cultures expect the government to support nonprofits rather than individuals?

Integrated Marketing Communication... oy vey!

2006-11-05T15:56:00.000-05:00

So this week, we're talking about marketing and branding in regards to the nonprofit sector. Marketing a nonprofit may involve challenges that the same task for a for-profit entity may not (e.g., lack of resources, explaining the benefits of marketing to donors who want $ to go to clients and programs), but for the most part they're fairly similar. So I wanted to ask your views on something else related to marketing...

IMC, MarComm, or the "C Suite"--whatever you want to call it--the merging of marketing, advertising, and public relations. Is it a good thing? Now consider in your responses from these two different perspectives: (1) the organizational view and (2) the discipline's views.

What are the implications of continued IMC growth?

"Red Cross Announces Management Overhaul"

2006-10-30T18:46:00.000-05:00

I just read an article about major changes that are set to take place at the Red Cross.
Here are some issues their plan focuses on: (The reform must receive congressional approval).

*"Explicitly delegating responsibility for day-to-day operations to the Red Cross'full-time professional management, with the board focusing mainly on longer-term strategic oversight.
*Reducing the board of governors to between 12 and 20 members by March 31, 2012. An interim goal is to have no more than 25 members by 2009.
*Creating a single category of board members. Now, most are elected by local chapters, some are elected by the board, and others, including the chairman, are appointed by the U.S. president.
*Shifting seven of the presidentially appointed governors, all but the chairman, into a newly created Cabinet Council that will be merely advisory."

Read the whole article. It's interesting.

Team in Training

2006-10-30T15:00:00.000-05:00

So I had my big week in Chicago. And the big event was the Chicago Marathon (which my boyfriend and his sister ran in). One thing I noticed, was how many non-profit organizations had people running for them in the marathon. Instead of paying the Marathon people directly for your entry fee, you could pay the organization a slightly higher fee to register for it through a non-profit. The LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon spokesperson reported that they had over 40 organizations registered for the race. Most of them were health related, like "Team in Training" who are people that run for the Lymphoma and Luekemia Association. They had the largest contingent, and they were all way too happy! The LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon even has a special website promoting "Run for Charity."
http://www.chicagomarathon.com/page_L2.aspx?subMenu=&Page_ID=5&Nav_2_ID=551&Page_Title=Official%20Charities
http://www.realbuzz.com/thelasallebankchicagomarathon/run_for_charity/
They already have 18 charities signed up for next year's race!! (and all are health realted)
Most orgs also had booths set up at the runners expo the 2 days prior to the race.

Another friend of mine ran the Marine Corps Marathon in DC this past weekend, and the regular registrations were all gone by the time he went to sign up, so he had to sign up through the Tourette's Syndrome Association. He wasn't even a supporter of the organization, but he really wanted to run in the race. So they got his extra money, as did many other organizations I'm sure. What a great way to get money even from people who aren't affiliated with your org.

I just thought this was an interesting observation that non-prof's were making money by affiliating themselves with these marathons.

The power of AARP

2006-10-29T18:23:00.000-05:00

In talking about non-profit organizations catering to a specific demographic, my mind instantly goes to AARP, one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) non-profits in the country.

Originally created in 1958 to provide private insurance for retired teachers, AARP has branched out over the years to include a wealth of services and benefits for their membership. However, their mission has not changed:

To promote independence, dignity and purpose for older persons
To enhance the quality of life for older persons
To encourage older people "To serve, not to be served

These key principles are evident in their activities today. With a constituency of over 37 million members, AARP is a lobbying force to be reckoned with, advocating for issues that affect the 50+ demographic. But they're very quick to point out that they're a nonpartisan organization that does not support or oppose candidates for office - they concentrate solely on the issues.

Other benefits that AARP provides include discounts on a huge array of products and services, driver safety courses, help with tax preparation, social networking through online message boards and employment assistance, just to name a few.

I encourage you to check out their website (linked above) to learn more about their advocacy work as well as their services for this important demographic, even more so now as the baby boomers are beginning to reach retirement age.

Non-Profits Need a PR Campaign

2006-10-29T12:08:00.000-05:00

Non-Profits Need A Serious Public Relations Campaign

So I’m reading Chapter 10 (“Infrastructure Organizations”) and I’m making my way through the material and, with each page turned, I am growing in my understanding of infrastructure organizations, how they serve the non-profit sector as a whole and how some of them serve individual non-profits and their staff.

Then I get to the section of the chapter that provides a history of the public policy challenges that IOs have faced since the 1950s and it becomes very clear to me that the third sector has been seriously attacked over the years and accused of everything from being “un-American subversive activities” to money laundering and tax evasion. The Cox Committee, the Reece Committee, Wright Patman, the one-two punch from the Reagan administration, and the Istook Amendment all represent times in American history when the non-profit world faced incredible problems.

While history also shows us that non-profits have defended themselves against these accusations, I am surprised that no one in the non-profit world has simply launched a common sense campaign that holds the figurative mirror up to the collective American ‘face’ and shows us how much our daily quality of life has been vastly improved (in major and minor) ways as a result of the work of non-profs.

In particular, on p.350 of the chapter, when the authors include the “need for a convincing rationale for the nonprofit sector” as one of the current challenges, I find this incredible. Given all that we enjoy today as a result of the work done by non-profits, how could we possibly question the need for a nonprofit sector? Domestic violence, child abuse, drunk driving, AIDS, the promotion of women in the workplace, the civil rights of minorities, the accurate representation of ingredients in foods, breast cancer, reproductive rights, the protection of our natural resources, forest fires, tobacco products and smoking, literacy, and the beautification of America are just a few of the major issues taken on by non-profits. How many of us are safer, healthier, smarter, happier and more aware today because of the work done by non-profits on these and other issues?

I think the authors present some very good solutions to this challenge; uncover the basic information about the sector and its contributions to society, make sure that nonprofit leaders gain a good grasp of the research-based information that exists, close the culture gap between researchers and practitioners, and identify the unique contributions of nonprofits and justify their special tax treatment.

To these recommendations I would add that the non-profit sector, the IOs in particular, should find a group of talented public relations professionals to plan and implement a long-term campaign that tells the story of what non-profits have accomplished.

Until the non-profit sector becomes better at showing their worth, they will continue to come under the attack of those in positions of power who just don’t understand.

Handling Non-Profit Freeloaders

2006-10-29T11:25:00.000-05:00

Handling Freeloaders

Abramson and McCarthy’s chapter on Infrastructure Organizations (IOs) takes a look at a subsector of the non-profit that, quite frankly, I had completely overlooked. When I think about the third sector, it never occurs to me to include the non-profits that serve non-profits.

Throughout this chapter the authors consistently lament the fact that IOs face two incredible hurdles to their long-term success; the subsector orientation of many nonprofits and the difficulty of getting individual nonprofits to pay for the services provided by IOs.

To the first challenge (the subsector orientation of non-profits) I would suggest that any organization providing a service or product that duplicates an existing service or product should identify their value-added. IOs that cannot demonstrate to non-profits how they can add value should seriously question their mission.

The more difficult challenge is the second one; getting individual non-profits to pay for the services provided by the IO. This problem results in non-dues-paying nonprofits enjoying the collective goods that the associations (IOs) provide to the dues-paying members. I don’t think it is possible to completely eliminate “free riders.” However, I do think that there are some things that IOs can do to help reduce the number of non-profits who won’t pay their own way:

1. The authors mention that some IOs look to the larger, very well-established and moneyed non-profits to carry a large portion of the financial load. This allows smaller non-profs to be members without struggling to cover as much of the cost. I think use of a sliding-scale method for assessing membership dues is fair. But I would perhaps take it a step further by establishing an “adoption” or “buddy” program that partners big non-profs with tiny non-profs so that more of the smaller non-profs who perhaps cannot afford to pay the association dues can be involved.

2. The authors also mention that many non-profits want to be good citizens and will pay their membership dues as a show of solidarity. Solidarity (or the desire NOT to be seen as a freeloader in the non-profit community) makes for good publicity. With this in mind, IOs could provide a public list of those non-profits who are dues paying members. This list could be included in their annual reports, fund-raising programs, advertisements, website listings, etc.

3. Association fundraisers are another way to raise money to provide membership scholarships for smaller non-profs that cannot pay the membership dues.

4. Create meaningful incentives for those non-profs that pay the membership fees. Make it worth their while to pay the dues!

Class on Weds, Nov. 1

2006-10-27T18:34:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, just a quick note about class this week...

I should be back in Gainesville from my interview at NC State, but just in case, here's what I'd like for you to do:

1) Kirsten and Sara will start off class (with or without me there) talking about infrastructure nonprofits.

IF I'm not back, then get in your research groups and write up an exact plan with all the details (dates, etc.) of when you are going to collect the data for your research group--even if I am back, I'm going to let you break out into your groups near the end of class and prepare this information for me. So go ahead and start talking it over with your group members.

I'm scheduled to be back in town by noon, so I can't imagine that I wouldn't be back in Gainesville by the time the infrastructure presentation would be completed.

I'll cover the Salamon chapter on demographic, technology, and leadership changes in nonprofit organizations--but I'm mostly going to focus on leadership and we'll do some exercises to see what type of leaders we all are and the implications of those leadership styles for nonprofit organizations.

Y'all have a great wkend, and I'll be checking my email and the blog over the course of the next few days so if you have any questions feel free to contact me!

Nature Conservancy in our backyard

2006-10-24T10:53:00.000-04:00

I came across a story about the Nature Conservancy and Silver Springs, which is in Marion County.

"4,500-acre swath of environmentally sensitive land north of Ocala that developers once planned to flatten and carve into a 14,000-home subdivision will be spared that fate ... Under the agreement, the DEP will pay about two thirds of the $76 million, the Nature Conservancy will pay about one-third of the bill and Marion County will kick in $2.5 million. Next year, the state will buy out the Nature Conservancy's share, turning the property into public land, said Keith Fountain, Nature Conservancy director of protection."

Read the whole article.

(Photo from Ocala.com)

The Nature Conservancy, the Press, Accountability and Benoit

2006-10-23T15:31:00.000-04:00

Reading over Stephenson and Chaves article “The Nature Conservancy, the Press and Accountability,” all I can think about is Benoit’s research in image repair and restoration.
Stephen and Chaves’ paper points out the change in TNC’s communications reaction to the Post’s series. Not only did real changes occur in the internal governance, but “the organization also underwent something of an attitude adjustment, moving from a publicly defensive stance to a considered posture of conciliation and cooperation,” (p. 361).

Benoit’s (1995) image repair strategies:
Denial (deny the act occurred or that the accused organization was involved)
Evasion of Responsibility (make excuses)
Minimization (justification for actions/wrong-doings)
Corrective Action (offer to repair damage and make changes to prevent reoccurance)
Mortification (apologize)

It seems to me that The Nature Conservancy began their reactive strategy with Evasion, Denial Minimization, during which Conservancy president McCormick provided a Post retort and website response; “although both the Web site critique and column acknowledged mistakes, neither offered and apology,” (p. 358). Later, real changes were made that were more in line with the Corrective Action response. Yet, I don’t believe that TNC ever crossed into the Mortification response, which would have included a public apology to all of the organization’s stakeholders.

I like Benoit’s ideas on image repair, but do you think it neatly applies to The Nature Conservancy’s issues? Would Mortification have been the next appropriate step?

Accountability should be the name of the game

2006-10-23T14:41:00.000-04:00

I think it is great that non-profits are looking into the companies for which they own stock. Everyone in America should be holding corporations accountable for their actions, and having the non-profit sector participate in this awareness is great news. I see owning stock in a company that does not support he mission of the non-profit as a conflict in interest, and now some non-profits are seeing things the same way. Of course, many articles we have read for this week prove that not all companies are behaving in economically or socially responsible ways. Maybe others of you can comment more intelligently on shareholder resolutions and proxy, two terms in the foundation investment readings that I am encountering for the first time.

Shacking Up with the Enemy?

2006-10-23T14:40:00.000-04:00

There is no question that, in its history, The Nature Conservancy has made great contributions to the environmentalist movement. Forming alliances with the opposition is an admirable way of attempting to reach mutual gains. Activist groups too often have negative experiences with corporate entities ranging from not having all of their demands met to (quite often) having corporations be unwilling to engage in dialogue or even worse, communicating for the sake of their image, yet having clear intentions to not make any modifications that will hurt profits—regardless of whatever moral implications might be involved. This dynamic too often leads activist groups to what (believe it or not) is a last resource: publicly criticizing the offending corporation(s).

If this three-part expose consists of true unveilings all around, I find it particularly shocking that The Nature Conservancy would not take an official stance on the two issues that environmental groups have devoted much effort to addressing: drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and Global Warming—especially if it had to do with its ties to corporations. In addition, having a close relationship with Exxon Mobil, a company that is notorious for its aggressive lobbying efforts against most environmental legislation, is to say the least questionable. However, as a public relations principle, the idea of an environmental group forming relationships with “the enemy,” as long as positive outcomes are being reached, is preferable to not having any dialogue at all.

Conserving Greed

2006-10-23T12:04:00.000-04:00

I was very shocked to read how the Nature Conservancy handled Mobil Oil's generous land donation. From the Washington Post article titled, "How a Bid to Save a Species Came to Grief," it seemed like saving Attwater's prairie chicken was a second thought to the possible profits made from drilling. I can't understand any argument that says drilling is in line with nature conservancy.

If that wasn't enough, the Nature Conservancy stole and sold gas that wasn't even theirs. "Soon the Conservancy was selling gas owned by all the rights holders on the south and north tracts." Perhaps one of the final blows was the Nature Conservancy's responsibility in the death of more birds in what I consider a ridiculous oversight. "I was shocked to find, for example, that one of the release pens is subject to flooding in heavy rains, and that birds have drowned in the pen." How could the Nature Conservancy overlook that?

Yet after all the lawsuits and embarrassment, they still continue to pump gas from Texas City. How can a non-profit whose sole mission is to preserve land to protect species get away with these kind of practices and continue damaging this fragile environment? What does Mobil Oil have to say about what is happening to their donation and wish to protect this endangered species?

Nonprofits, the latent public

2006-10-22T23:29:00.000-04:00

This is a re-post, since I thought we were covering this last week...

The examples of Nature Conservancy land deals provided by the Chronicle of Philanthropy seem a gross misuse of charitable funds and an abuse of the organization’s tax exempt status. According to the organization’s website, www.nature.org, “The Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” Rather than adhering to its mission, the land deals disclosed seem to focus on improving the organization’s financial return, as was the case with the foundation investing practices described in the other readings.To play devil’s advocate, there is no reason that conservancy lands must be open for public use, nor is it reprehensible that the organization tries to seek a balance between healthy industries and a protected environment, but none of these cases seem to benefit the environment. Driveways, tennis courts, and swimming pools amid a professional landscape architect’s botanical design may be greener than a tract of double-wide trailers or high rise condominiums, but it is still development that puts the desires of people above the needs of the “natural community” that would otherwise exist. If the Nature Conservancy was a for profit land developer, then their tactics might be considered admirable. However, since such an organization would not be very likely to turn a profit without a tax break, it is, in reality an opaque organization that showcases government’s lack of nonprofit regulation. The more we learn about nonprofits, the more I believe that the IRS is overlooking a profitable latent public that could result in huge increases in tax revenue at the cost of enforcing existing rules.

Hooray loopholes

2006-10-22T18:15:00.000-04:00

The Nature Conservancy has gone whacko linking itself as closely as it has with Fortune500 companies. Board members of the nonprofit that are the heads of the companies paying multi-million dollar fines for violation of environmental rules. Who are they trying to fool. This has to be some form of corporate incest. The practice of purchasing land in order to conserve it seems like a noble mission. But using your own protected land to carry out a drilling experiment that is to prove land can be drilled without harming endangered species occupying that land and then having the experiment fail isn't justifiable. Why did the federal government allow this action when there are endangered species on the land.

And why not exploit the federal government even more while you're at it. There are so many loopholes with the IRS that we should even be surprised there is a story here. Because the source happens to be one of the largest nonprofit organizations we hear about it. But what about all of the nobody individuals that take advantage of IRS loopholes. Are news stories written about them so the public can learn what these loopholes are and take a stand against them.

Yes it does seem a bit odd to purchase land in order to conserve it and then sell it and allow many things to happen to it that can damage the land, the restrictions on the land do seem like they will do a good job conserving most of the land for many years. It was mentioned that the sold land is not marked for public access, but where did the Nature Conservancy say they are buying land in order to preserve for the public to access it. The land is being sold to Nature Conservancy trustees or board members past or present and if you are that involved in the organization you should support the organization’s goals. So give the benefit of the doubt to the land buyers that will preserve the land, minus how much is being used by the home built on it.

The Nature Conservancy's incestuous relations are awkward, but without them would the organization have gained as much power in order to purchase all the land they are preserving. And you can't fault the organization for selling a piece of preserved land to a trustee, because the trustee should be wanting to conserve the land. At fault is the loophole being exploited in order to receive the tax break.

A quick regression ...

2006-10-22T13:55:00.000-04:00

I was watching the news today and heard about a church in California that is being investigated by the IRS and it's tax-exempt status is being threatened. So I did some quick Internet research because I thought you guys would be interested.

"The Internal Revenue Service began investigating whether All Saints, one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country, violated the prohibition against tax-exempt organizations intervening in election campaigns by supporting or opposing candidates."

All Saints is a church in Pasadena, Calif. The issue relates to a sermon that was given right before the 2004 election in which a preacher described a hypothetical conversation between Jesus, Bush and Kerry. Read the sermon. Read the letter the IRS sent to the church.

According to NPR, the IRS is examining about 60 churches over complaints stemming from endorsements by churches in the 2004 election. NPR also notes that it's illegal for a tax-exempt organization like a church to endorse or criticize candidates.

Here's an article in the San Francisco Chronicle for more info. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/02/CHURCH.TMP

Here's the church's Web site: http://www.allsaints-pas.org/all_saints_church.htm

The Nature Conservancy

2006-10-19T11:59:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, thanks for a great class last night! For this coming week, please make at least one post about the Nature Conservancy--solely based on the readings that are on the class CD-Rom. What do you think of the organization based on the news articles? Did they make you reconsider how you picture the Nature Conservancy?

After you've read them and posted the blog, skim through the journal article on the Nature Conservancy--and we'll discuss that in class on Wednesday.

Also, if you picked up a copy of the blogging survey--remember you can use it to replace an extra blog for this wk, any previous wk, or any future wk. I just need them turned in next Wednesday night.

Have a good wkend--and the email with the link to the annual report project will be coming up shortly!

Put on your thinking caps!

2006-10-16T17:40:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I am burning up this blog today ... I'll try not to make a habit of it. This has nothing to do with this week's topics, but I thought it was interesting. (Which means ya'll will too, right?)

UF donor resigns in stock scandal
THE CEO OF A HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY HAS UF BUILDINGS BEARING HIS NAME.

This article is in today's Alligator, BUT it's an AP article! If the AP picked it up ....

If you were in charge of public relations for the university, what would you do following the release of this news?

**Note: The museum students will probably know of this person.**

Are all non-profits protected equally? (Posting for Oaklianna)

2006-10-16T14:40:00.000-04:00

According to the NY Times article, no. From licensing requirements, pension protection, unemployment benefits, to local property taxes, religious organizations are exempt from important legal requirements in which other non-profits are held accountable. I was most amazed that when it comes to the social service of child care, religious organizations are exempt from many federal, state, and local laws. Non-profits are given tax breaks because social needs are being met, but at what cost? When it comes to providing child care all organizations should be treated equal. The Alabama example states that a non-profit child day care center must pay licensing fees, have the building up to code, and even satisfies requirements on age appropriate toys, the religious organization providing the same service need not worry about any of these things (in legal terms only). If that wasn’t unfair to enough, when it comes to government aid to child care centers, both licensed and unlicensed can receive money. Now you have one segment of the population carrying a proportionately heavier percent of the burden, ie nonprofit day care centers v. religious day care centers.

Since the article mentioned Florida as a state that has exempted religious child care programs, I decided to look it up online. Here is some basic info:

A child care facility may claim Religious Exemption from
licensure if:
1) It is an integral part of a church or parochial schools conducting
regularly scheduled classes, courses of study or educational programs.
2) It is accredited by, or by a member of, an organization that publishes
and requires compliance with its standards for health, safety and
sanitation.
3) It meets background screening requirements in ss. 402.305, 402.3055,
and 435.04, Florida Statutes.

A list of accrediting organizations is maintained by the Department of Children
and Families and may be found on www.myflorida.com/childcare.

Religious exempt child care facilities must submit an affidavit annually to the Department of Children and Families stating all child care personnel have worked at the facility on a continuing basis since initial screening or have complied with screening requirements. This form is the Religious Exemption Statement (CFFSP 5215) and may be obtained on www.myflorida.com/childcare.

Section 402.316(1), F.S., provides religious exemption from the provisions of ss. 402.301-402.319, F.S., except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel.

A child care program may not operate and care for children until these
requirements have been met. Please contact the licensing office in your area for further information on religious exemption.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/childcare/index.shtml

It seems that in the state of Florida there are at least two important safeguards in place. One is that the religious day care center must be accredited even if it is not licensed. And the second is that, when it comes to hiring staff, background checks are mandatory. Religious day care centers might not be the legal free for all the New York Times article makes them out to be. My only concern is keeping legalities for all non-profits equal and fair.

Holy Land exempt from property tax??

2006-10-16T12:53:00.000-04:00

After reading Lisa's NYT article titled "Secular Laws Cede to Religious Exemptions," I came across an interesting passage that prompted me to do a little searching.

"In recent years, a church-run fitness center with a tanning bed and video arcade in Minnesota, a biblical theme park in Florida, a ministry's 1,800-acre training retreat, etc... have all been granted tax breaks by local officials, or when they balked, by the courts or state legislators."

And I'm thinking --- wait a minute! Shane and I just drove by said biblical theme park last weekend - I know that place... The Holy Land Experience. Ah yes, I've always wondered what delights a child could find in this mini Jerusalem right next to Disney and Universal Studios. Have you always wanted to see a musical version of the crucifixtion? If you answered - YES! - than you can start planning your next trip to Orlando.

Well apparently, The Holy Land Experience has gone through a very long and nasty legal battle to obtain some of these religious tax exemptions that Lisa's NYT article discussed. A BBC News article from July 2005 states:
"Despite its emphasis on entertainment, the Holy Land Experience has argued that it should be classed along with churches and museums and be exempt from property taxes. In her ruling, the judge said that it had not been proved that the Holy Land Experience was using its profits for anything other than "evangelising and worshipping". The Holy Land Experience was facing a demand for unpaid property taxes dating from 2001 that almost totalled $1m, a sum its lawyers argued would have forced the park to close down."

In addition to this report, further searching found an update to the situation in a recent Miami Herald article:
"The park scored a major victory this summer when Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill granting a property-tax exemption to nonprofit organizations that display biblical manuscripts or that stage scenes from the Bible. Holy Land paid a team of lobbyists between $10,000 and $30,000 to push the legislation through, according to lobbyists' records."

Wow! The Holy Land Experience isn't messing around is it? I'd love to hear some opinions on this one.

Pass the Plate

2006-10-16T11:39:00.000-04:00

After reading the chapter on religious congregations, the part that was most interesting to me was that of "securing adequate financial resources." I already knew that most money that churches receive comes from individual donations. I just was surprised that "three-quarters of congregations receive at least 90 percent of their income from individual donations" (p. 283). I'm Catholic, and I cane think of many times at mass when the collection plate went around several times. Once for the parish, another time for a fund for some other party, and maybe on occassion a third time for something else.

I was SHOCKED that "the median congregation has only about $1,000 in a savings account" (p. 284). Maybe I'm really naive but that is amazing. How can these religious organizations reach out to the community and participate in various actitivies for the good of the less fortunate when they barely have enough money for the upkeep of facilities and paying the salaries of clergy members?

I was surprised by this quote: "...we might expect congregations to respond to the financial pressures exerted by demographic changes by seeking to reduce their dependence on individual donations" (p.285). But how is this possible? If 90 percent of their income is coming from individuals, how can they reduce this dependency?

I was looking at the Web site for the church I go to in Gainesville (ok, when I go..) and I thought this might be of interest.. parishoners can now donate online to the parish, and here is a breakdown of all of the things you can donate to (on that page, click on "click here to donate online") : http://holyfaithchurch.org/default.aspx

Also of interest is that during the weekend of Oct. 8, the parish raised $20,078.56. That amount is from 410 parishoners/families. Here is a break down of what people gave money to (see page 4 of this bulletin):
http://holyfaithchurch.org/bulletin/_upload/20061015_B_Bulletin%2010-15-06.pdf

What are your thoughts/reactions?

Disaster Relief exercise

2006-10-16T06:23:00.000-04:00

Last week during the in-class exercise about the Red Cross disaster relief program I was surprised to discover that many of you did not choose to tackle the misunderstanding about the voucher program head-on. I was even more surprised as I began to realize that not explaining the voucher program right away was the correct answer. Most of you quickly recognized that you had an image problem and, due to the short time window, went after the image problem.

My inclination was that to address the image problem by direct mailing materials showing how successful the relief effort had been was dishonest and disrespectful to the donors, because it didn’t confront the actual problem. It has always been my approach to view donors as my peers, people who are capable of the same level of understanding that I am. If they do not understand the voucher program it is because it has not been described to them. If that lack of understanding of a program leads them to distrust the organization it is because the media has exploited their gut-level emotional response to the disaster for its own purposes.

The problem with taking the voucher program and grappling with it right away is, of course the outside chance that the American public is too slow to grasp it, and that it puts the organization in a confrontational position with the media. Saying, “the media exploited your emotional reaction to the disaster just to get you to sit through another eight commercials, whereas we exploited your emotional response to the disaster for the sake of hungry families” may not be a compelling enough reason to make people donate.

Interestingly, some of you knew that right away. What things came to mind that led you directly to the correct conclusion, whereas it has taken me almost a week?

The Catholic Church and Christian charity in Latin America

2006-10-16T00:55:00.000-04:00

Since this week’s topic is religion, I thought it will be interesting to share some of the perspectives given in a book that I am reading about philanthropy in Latin America. In case if you are interested the name of the book is “philanthropy and social change in Latin America”.

I like to compare the cases/situations that we see in the U.S. with other cases from the Latin American region. At one point in our class I thought, do we (Latin Americans) really do philanthropy? The answer was some kind yes… We may not call the practices volunteerism or fundraising because we are more disorganized and perhaps forget to name the activities or practices, but philanthropy definitely exists. So, I started thinking when I was in a kid in Costa Rica about the number of times that my family and I visited the children’s hospital just to chat with ill orphans (volunteerism), the in kind donations that the community made to the retirement home in my town (donations) and the “x” number of hours that my grand father donated to the events organized by Catholic Church (volunteerism). These are just a couple of examples of philanthropic practices in my country that are strongly related with religion especially the Catholic.

I want to point out some facts that this book mentioned. In Latin America, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church has played a central role in the history of philanthropy, given that 80-95 % considered themselves of the Catholic faith. During the Colonial period, the Church was the principal provider of education, health and social welfare services. During the 20th century, social movements were inspired by the new ideals and a number of Catholic activists were founders and members of grassroots organizations, NGOs and human rights groups. At the end of the 20th century almost all doctrinal within the Church were reflected in hands-on initiatives with preferential concern for the poor.

Presently, things have changed for the Catholic Church. The Church continues to play an important role in all forms of philanthropy, even though its historical influence appears to have diminished in comparison with past eras. It is also interesting to highlight the diversity of religious faiths and organizations operating in the region today, including various strands of Judaism, Protestant, evangelical groups and even Muslim communities. Some examples of their work are: human rights movement in Peru, the campaign against the hunger in Brazil, and the mobilization of humanitarian responses to the Argentine crisis in 2000. The book also mentions an organization named Catholic Relief Services http://www.crs.org/ an organization that focus on development, human rights and social justice for low-income communities. It is the first time that I hear about this organization but I noticed that has projects in 99 countries.

It will be interesting to share the philanthropic practices from other religions in the U.S. or other countries, what do you think?

Experiences with special events....

2006-10-15T17:11:00.000-04:00

So I figured I would share this story with you all in an effort to show that special events aren't the greatest tactic to pursue, but they do have their places in nonprofits.

When I was coordinating the national Toys for Tots campaign, we were doing nationwide "first toy donation" days where city mayors were making the first official donations of toys to the campaign to kick it off in late October. Well, everything was going quite well until the mayor of an unnamed Michigan town (think the Tigers) said that he would be glad to participate. Then, shortly thereafter, his press secretary calls us to ask if he needed to buy his own toy to donate or if we would be providing one. Okay, that's a legitimate question. So we say that it would be preferrable if the mayor would make a genuine charitable contribution during the event just in case the media found out we provided the toy. She agreed. Then, two hours later, we got another phone call "should the toy be for a boy or for a girl?" We discussed beanie babies and all sorts of new, fun toys that were either "too expensive" or "not flashy enough." What took 30 minutes to set up with other cities wound up taking 4 days to finally get things approved with this administration. And, to top it all off, the mayor was late---but at least the toy wasn't forgotten. So I guess it could've been worse.

Anyone else have any special event stories--positive or negative--that they'd like to share? Run-in's with volunteers, carefree caterers?

Reminder for the Week!

2006-10-15T15:22:00.000-04:00

Just wanted to give you a reminder that if you have any special requests for pizza (am planning on ordering at least one cheese/veggie one) to let me know. You'll probably want to bring your own drinks as I have no way of keeping them cold while I'm completing my oral defense.

Also, remember this week we'll be covering religious nonprofits (Lisa's presentation)--remember to read the NY Times article that was handed out in class--and special event management.

Then, nxt week, we'll get into the really fun ethics and crises topic.

Nonprofits, the latent public

2006-10-14T22:23:00.000-04:00

The examples of Nature Conservancy land deals provided by the Chronicle of Philanthropy seem a gross misuse of charitable funds and an abuse of the organization’s tax exempt status. According to the organization’s website, www.nature.org, “The Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” Rather than adhering to its mission, the land deals disclosed seem to focus on improving the organization’s financial return, as was the case with the foundation investing practices described in the other readings.

To play devil’s advocate, there is no reason that conservancy lands must be open for public use, nor is it reprehensible that the organization tries to seek a balance between healthy industries and a protected environment, but none of these cases seem to benefit the environment. Driveways, tennis courts, and swimming pools amid a professional landscape architect’s botanical design may be greener than a tract of double-wide trailers or high rise condominiums, but it is still development that puts the desires of people above the needs of the “natural community” that would otherwise exist.

If the Nature Conservancy was a for profit land developer, then their tactics might be considered admirable. However, since such an organization would not be very likely to turn a profit without a tax break, it is, in reality an opaque organization that showcases government’s lack of nonprofit regulation.

The more we learn about nonprofits, the more I believe that the IRS is overlooking a profitable latent public that could result in huge increases in tax revenue at the cost of enforcing existing rules.

"Nonprofits may be ensnared in lobbyist scandal"

2006-10-13T12:42:00.000-04:00

Thought this CNN article might be of interest ...

"Five nonprofit groups, including one of President Bush's biggest supporters, may have broken tax laws and put their tax-exempt status at risk by helping convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a Senate Finance Committee report concludes."

Read entire article.

Go Gators!