http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/index.htmlMarketing and Management for Non-profit Organizationsenbarry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comCopyright 2009 Barry McLeish2011-03-31T12:30:00-06:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:18:51 -0600barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comNone2011-03-31T12:30:00-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/9ee1ab3326ea085c005bf857ec8140b8-15.html#unique-entry-id-15http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/9ee1ab3326ea085c005bf857ec8140b8-15.html#unique-entry-id-15By Barry McLeish

I grew up in the world of direct marketing.  I love this world but as I got involved heavily in fund development, I discovered that you need to move from a world that simply measures transactions to a world that measures transactions as well as relationships.

Relationships are very important to the fund raising world and everyone talks incessantly about them.  The typically stated goal is to understand the donor so completely that you can give them what they really want.  Today some organizations have gone so far as to believe that donors are really desperate to have a relationship with them.  This seems to me to be a largely spurious notion.  Most nonprofit agencies cannot really provide all that a relationship entails – they cannot offer intimacy or much mutuality or other issues that characterize a relationship.

What can they offer?

First, we can do a good job in our service or ministry execution.  Virtually every need today is over-supplied and there are literally too many nonprofits doing the same thing.  The donor has power in the marketplace they have never had before.

Second, they can treat donors better than they do.  Virtually every donor is smarter than we give them credit for; in fact, they are far more confident that we think as they interact with us.  They are people who know they have a choice in almost everything they give to.  We must learn to respect them more than the average agency does.

Third, we cannot presume loyalty to our cause in the marketplace.  This type of trust has basically been destroyed.  An organization cannot assume the donor will buy anything.

A new agenda is required.

I think there are two things that donors are looking for today that they don’t get enough of.  The first is purpose – what an organization is really in business for.  There is so much hype tied to the promotional work of many nonprofit organizations that I think donors no longer have time to wade through it all.  Many organizations position themselves as being omni-competent and able to do so many things.  I think donors no longer buy this.  They know they have the power of choice and they often choose to move on.

The second is providing the donor with a real ability to intervene into the world and change it.  We are so beat down these days as donors with choices and value statements that often seem simply not true, that to see a real opportunity to change the condition of the world with the writing of a check creates a moment of pure creativity and happiness for the donor.

My very best to you.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Besides serving as vice president of McConkey-Johnston International, one of the leading consulting firms in the nonprofit sector, Barry McLeish is co-founder of Fundraising Success Team and Raising-Support.com.

]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comStrategy2011-01-20T18:10:48-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/fc54547341814ed40036feb4aa6d3d36-14.html#unique-entry-id-14http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/fc54547341814ed40036feb4aa6d3d36-14.html#unique-entry-id-14
I was taught that to create a successful strategy in fund development or product sales, I needed to first look at what my competitors were doing - or attempting to do – and then I needed to look at ways to outdo what they were trying to accomplish either through marketplace force, advertising strength, or fundraising persuasion.  If these tactics didn’t work I would then need to try to position the agency I was a part of in service or product areas that my competitors were not engaged in.
 
This “wisdom” often served me well.  However, I wonder if the conventional wisdom of yesterday is no longer the right approach today and in fact, may be leading me astray?  
 
Increasingly I am becoming convinced that, in organizations I am a part of, it is the honest assessment of their unique capabilities that helps me the most.  Strong capabilities can lead me as a  development director or marketer to look at an organization's current and potential donors, decide where the agency and stakeholder can grow together (or not), the way the capabilities of the organization allow this to happen, and the subsequent opportunities that might enable them both to evolve together.
 
This is a mouthful.  It simply asserts however that, even if you have a great cause, it still might not attract individuals the way you think it should.  Your agency’s capabilities must be integrated with each other and must support the overall goals and strategies of the organization.  Your organization’s capabilities should dictate what you can and cannot do strategically.  You only do what you can excel at because in doing so you deliver maximum value to those you are collaborating with.  To enable this to happen, you must be remarkably honest in your evaluation of your agency’s capabilities because they help determine who you can attract to your organization as a donor and who you will not.
 
In fact, a capabilities strategy is neither static nor complacent.  Your organization is evolving all the time through the people you hire and the programs you both abandon as well as the new ones you implement.  To achieve this tight match between strategic direction and capabilities requires a focus that few nonprofit agencies have.  However, to be able to discern your firm’s capabilities will give your agency an advantage few enjoy.

Let me encourage you to pursue an HONEST assessment of your capabilities -- and then determine just HOW those match up with your donors' values and concerns.  Seeking the perfect match with individual donors -- especially your major donors -- could be the difference between your success and failure.

]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comMarketing2010-12-28T12:30:10-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/9a64c9a325e3a11c9bc1928c16ea46c9-13.html#unique-entry-id-13http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/9a64c9a325e3a11c9bc1928c16ea46c9-13.html#unique-entry-id-13By Barry McLeish

It is clear many non profit organizations are suffering financially. Even in the final quarter of the year when many donors tend to give - if they are going to give at all – a large number of agencies are in trouble. The empirical data suggests that cumulatively organizations are down financially about 6% but many more are down much significantly more than that.

As hard financial times threaten everyone and becomes part of the “new normal” it is not unusual for agency executives to begin to cut fund development and marketing initiatives, cutting everything from field rep slots to direct mail acquisition efforts to brand building initiatives.

While there is always pressure to cut anything and everything that is moving during hard financial times, many successful for profit organizations do just the opposite. Instead of cutting their operations across the board, they aggressively boost their marketing and advertising expenditures during economically challenged times.

Why?

When many organizations are cutting back, those that aggressively go after the attention and investment of customers – both current and new customers – often win greater market share. They stand out by their activity pattern. Couldn’t the same logic work in the nonprofit world?

I know that there is more at play in the nonprofit world here than this simple logic. When times are difficult donors evaluate their giving more stringently, saying “yes” to some nonprofit agencies and “no” to others. Priorities and values can often shift dramatically and in making these shifts, donors can create both new organizational leaders as well as new followers.

However, in spite of the tendency to want to pull back and hunker down, I think the worst thing a nonprofit agency can do during times like these is to pull back its promotional efforts and become more of a commodity, looking and sounding like everyone else.

Use this time to become very close to your donors and customers. Differentiate your organization by speaking into different niches that may be underserved in the marketplace and grab the attention of new potential donors. Most importantly, constantly remind your stakeholders of the value that their gift is giving to not only those they want to help and need the help, but the value they accrue to themselves.

During these final days of the year, I wish you my personal best and I hope that you will end the calendar year in the black.

]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comStrategyMarketing2010-11-28T21:09:24-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/d270f137358343ed3c7e075f5225c770-12.html#unique-entry-id-12http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/d270f137358343ed3c7e075f5225c770-12.html#unique-entry-id-12
I have met many donors in the last year who believe that events in their lives can no longer be controlled the way they once were. This has led some to a type of despair and others to question their values and beliefs.

I believe this general perception of a loss of control is most likely going to continue in America amongst many individuals, including some who are your organization’s donors.

As a consequence of this lack of perceived personal power, the level of complaint as well as a persistent negativism in America is also on the rise. There are obvious reasons for this type of concern. Tremendous job insecurity is omni-present; in the past three decades income for the poorest fifth of Americans has risen marginally, while income for the richest fifth has risen by substantial amounts; and housing prices have fallen almost uniformly across America.

How do we relate to our donors during this time of upheaval, personal loss, and anxiety?

Listen to your constituents more than you ever have before. Become the master of the short conversation with them and look for data points that you did not realize before. Likewise, during a time of crisis shortcomings in your organization’s strategy often become obvious. Fix these errors quickly.

A series of questions, honestly asked and answered, can help put your strategy back in focus:

1. Is your organization still on mission or have you allowed “mission creep” to influence your strategy?
2. How is societal adversity affecting your donors’ values and their desire to be involved with you?
3. Are your assumptions about your donors still right, or has societal turmoil invalidated your basic strategic premises?
4. Have you engaged your employees, key stakeholders, and board members in face-to-face debates about how best to reach your donors and influence them while collaborating with them?

Most importantly, don’t waste time if your strategy needs to be put back on track.

My personal best to you in the days ahead.

]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comMarketingStrategy2010-10-08T11:30:20-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/a1987f4aa0bd6da1b6c41c8e3e6781bf-11.html#unique-entry-id-11http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/a1987f4aa0bd6da1b6c41c8e3e6781bf-11.html#unique-entry-id-11By Barry McLeish

Do you remember how Stephen Covey in his best-selling book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People used the phrase “emotional bank account” to describe the amount of trust individuals can build up in relationships?

When nonprofit agencies – or their development or marketing officers - are in a panic for quick funds, or are hurried in their approach to fund development, they often seek to withdraw more relationally than has been built up through their urgent appeals for funds. I have learned the hard way that relationships require a regular and constant deposit in the form of relational building activities if they are ever going to survive and prosper.

The good news is that the relationships you and your organization make with individuals can have a transformative effect upon them, upon you, the attitudes you have towards each other, and the way you involve yourselves with each other.

The bad news is that it takes more time to build these relationships than most of us ever believe it will. Because most marketing and development directors inherit their strategies from previous administrations, if the previous administration did not spend much time building relationships on behalf of the organization, or simply did not budget the necessary time to accomplish this task, you and your organization are going to be hurt tactically and relationally.

You and I live in a world of urgency and immediacy. This cultural fact mitigates against building long-term relationships. And yet, long-term relationships allow nonprofit agencies to not only survive in downturns and times of economic instability, they also allow organizations to thrive and grow. The “emotional bank account” you build with long-term friends allows your agency a type of latitude that short term relationships do not have. These friends stay involved longer, give more than others, tell their friends about your organization, and stay involved during times of crisis and abundance. They simply are invaluable.

Making the tactical decision to build these types of relationships alters the way you work strategically. Allowing these friendships with their intrinsic values to mature over time provides an organization with durability and a better future by allowing donors and friends to build a legacy with the organization, create an impact, and do something that is truly substantive. Frederick Reichheld author of The Loyalty Effect suggests, “The growth of any organization is simply the accumulated growth of the individual relationships that constitute it.”

Today in our lives there is a habitual tendency towards the short term. Reverse this trend in your organization and you will create a relationship reservoir that will continue in the life of your organization long after you are gone.


]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDevelopment, Marketing, Strategy2010-08-30T12:43:28-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/134d494d1ce3a3816d8cc0759da3e434-10.html#unique-entry-id-10http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/134d494d1ce3a3816d8cc0759da3e434-10.html#unique-entry-id-10

Raising money is hard. In fact, older fund raisers tell me it is as hard as it has ever been. What’s more, these conditions may be like this for years in the future. It’s not unusual for fund development officers to make 8 to 12 telephone calls trying to get to a decision maker. Tactics and strategies that worked in the past often do not work. Many donors seem to flee when fund raisers call.

For many organizations it may be time to rethink how they sell and do business.

When most organizations face economic obstacles they often concentrate on improving their causal products and organizational processes and strategies. The hope is that by concentrating on new products and reorganizing what systems and processes an organization has, these new offers to the public will capture their imagination in a way previous ones did not and turn the economic tide.

This type of response looks inward and tries to answer the questions at hand by fixing the organization first. Though not necessarily wrong, perhaps there is another side of the coin to be explored. Could not as much be gained by looking externally – outside of one’s organization and its leadership – and taking a hard view at one’s environment and the public the organization hopes to serve? What are the major shapers of the future as they relate to your organization? What visions and strategies will be required to take advantage of the environment?

Here is an interesting story - still being played out - that illustrates this:

I work with a large successful resident year-round camp. Its attendance numbers this summer slipped a fraction below what the leadership projected. This situation gave them pause and we had a series of conversations around the topic of refining some programs, improving customer service activities, and amplifying their marketing tactics.

Something else happened: the day camp the organization runs in a nearby city grew by almost 80%. We were stunned! However, the environment spoke in unmistakable ways. More families had both spouses working. Those working were also working part time jobs. There was no time to take care of the children and they had to be put somewhere. The camp was a trustworthy neighbor to the City, had a great reputation, and had a history of local support. When the situation demanded it, the Camp was there.

There’s more to this story: some of the City fathers have asked the Camp to run an after-school program for young people who are between school and waiting for their parents to come home from work.

The environment for this organization has changed in ways they could not have predicted nor expected. Consequently their way of doing business, their programs, and their marketing plans have changed. All because their environment spoke to them and they listened.

]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDevelopment, Marketing, Strategy2010-01-03T20:56:56-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/30e94f0e0893cc654729ad90d4ea50ea-9.html#unique-entry-id-9http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/30e94f0e0893cc654729ad90d4ea50ea-9.html#unique-entry-id-9
Great achievements in the nonprofit world often occur when institutions harness their own internal energy and simultaneously, that of individuals around them and deal purposefully with an aspect of our nation or of any nation that needs intervention. Collectively they create for the briefest of moments a joint and reciprocally driven, caring, trusting community. Being accountable for the common good and the welfare of those needing help is assumed by all parties in the community and is a part of their underlying ideals and beliefs.

This has been my personal experience as a donor to a variety of causes. The urgency and ego of “me” is subsumed in the “we” as, bundled together with other donors and volunteers, I have contributed to solving an impending or immediate social problem, or have helped take advantage of a new opportunity that benefits a group of individuals in need. Just recently my wife and I helped in building a needed hospital overseas for a group of individual who did not have ready access to such facilities. Thousands of men and women – as donors and volunteers - had similar experiences after the Asian tsunami, the Kashmir earthquake, and the New Orleans flooding disaster.

However, what do you do as a development director when there is not an all-consuming crisis to draw everyone together? Are potential donors and volunteers increasingly becoming too narrowly self-serving in their approach to life to care for those who cannot succeed at the same level without the benefit of an event that demands their involvement? There is reason for some concern - some data suggests that major donors are retreating from giving and being much more cautious in their outlook on nonprofit involvement. Some authors have suggested that Americans could give billions more without decreasing their self worth.

However, a number of Americans choose not to follow suit. Why? One key may lie within us as development professionals. Regardless of how well those in need are served, many organizations have done a poor job in engaging donors’, customers’, and volunteers’ in a satisfactory way.

Is this the case with your organization?

While it may be true that for some donors their current involvement with causes they support is heavily in flux; it is equally true that many of these causes are changing their methods of operation to allow donors and volunteers access to their organizations mix and inner workings in a way previously not thought of as previously possible or appropriate.

Philanthropic tastes are changing and contribute to this churn, especially given the large number of individuals who no longer feel content to simply give financial gifts to charities. For many donors, being philanthropic now means not only choosing where their financial gifts to charities will go, but showing active interest, concern, and involvement with the recipient organization, with subsequent follow-up on how their gift is used.

A massive social and cultural revolution is at work, particularly in the way individuals relate to nonprofit organizations and each other, affecting what they will and will not support and what they expect from their philanthropic involvement.

Do you know what your donors expect from your organization? If not, why don’t you make a goal of talking to your ten most important donors and /or volunteers and find out why they are involved with your cause.



]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comStrategy2010-01-02T15:29:36-07:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/bdf95b6839c9ff853bfbf00fae4ee04a-8.html#unique-entry-id-8http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/bdf95b6839c9ff853bfbf00fae4ee04a-8.html#unique-entry-id-8
Our country is in trouble and the needs many of you are providing help and care for are important and of great value. Some reading this are working with international nonprofit organizations where the need is even greater.

In the face of overwhelming need, when it comes to choosing a strategy to help fund and promote the cause your organization has chosen to work in, what criteria do you use to select the strategies you will use to fund the projects your nonprofit agency has chosen to undertake?

I try to use the following five questions to help me decide what I should do, how I should execute the plan, and the means by which I should do it:

• First, I need to know if I can afford to promote the service my organization is offering in a way that will allow it to be sustainable. If the cost the cause is excessive it matters little how important the work is. Either you have to rethink your promotional strategy or you have to decide that it is simply not feasible to promote the cause. Some of the services our nonprofit organizations provide simply are so obscure and the donor base is so small, that the question of cost becomes a real issue in our planning.
• Second we need to know if this is a commodity service we are providing or is it something unique that allows us to have a sustainable advantage over other organizations not involved in the same type of service. Your competitive advantage goes right to the heart of whether your service is sustainable over time or whether at some point in the future you are simply not going to be able to afford to provide the service.
• Third, perhaps this is obvious, but you really need to know if your strategy is going to be successful or not. Is this a strategy that will be easy for competitors to imitate or not, will it potentially have a long life or will it have to be changed in 12 months, is it adaptable to marketplace changes as they occur – all of these issues go to the heart of your strategy’s success.
• Fourth, can I implement the strategy or does it only look good on paper. Many brilliant strategies are stunning on paper but they are simply not feasible. Your strategy should be within the financial and human resources of your organization if it stands a hope of being implemented.
• Finally, does the strategy fit within the portfolio of other organizational strategies that are currently operating or will the suggested strategy’s implementation put other strategies at risk by its overwhelming needs?

Given the choice, build a strategy that has the possibility of providing a significant long-term impact upon your organization. Ensure you have the competencies to make the strategy succeed over time. Challenge the organization’s thinking to make sure it is the right strategy. And don’t ever be afraid to say that the choice of strategy was wrong and you need to start over.

Good luck on the road ahead.


]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comStrategy2009-10-30T12:12:31-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/408e354863b3225f28cc276f1bb16edf-7.html#unique-entry-id-7http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/408e354863b3225f28cc276f1bb16edf-7.html#unique-entry-id-7
I love science fiction, both from the new and the old authors. One author I have followed for many years is Ray Bradbury. His story, “The Golden Kite, The Silver Wind” is one of my favorites.

At its heart, the story is about collaboration. Two neighboring towns fight for ascendancy in each others’ eyes until they finally realize that both have something that is unique to give to both their inhabitants and to each other. Though an old story by Bradbury I believe its message is timeless and one for nonprofit organizations today.

The societal problems most nonprofit organizations face – and are trying to remedy - simply will not be solved by organizations projecting an attitude of “going it alone.” Your organization needs more than the expertise it has, the systems it has developed, and the outcome measurements that are in place. It also needs a community of stakeholders acting in concert with it to solve a mutually agreed-upon societal problem jointly. Every one of your stakeholders must feel that what they do today in regards to your organization is indispensable to its survival. What’s more the same donor, volunteer, customer, or constituent must feel that what the organization does with them is also indispensable to their survival.

It should cut both ways.

Unfortunately most humans and most organizations are not set up to give and receive very well. It is usually one or the other. We expect to contribute to organizations without expecting much in return because that is how business is done; organizations expect to receive and process gifts and usually don’t feel compelled to give much back because they feel there is little need to do so. Sure there is the mandatory thank you letter from the organization after each gift is made and perhaps a yearly Christmas card. On the donor’s part they might attend an event or contribute to a walk-a-thon. But there is often not much more from either side.

All of this leads to a business-as-usual attitude; donors are viewed as expendable by organizations, organizations are seen as commodities by donors and in the process, societal problems become intransigent. Generosity becomes endangered of being extinguished.

There must be a better way.

Perhaps Ray Bradbury had it right in his story. The two towns saw the benefit of contributing to each others’ well-being and in the process saw each other prosper. Collaboration not only led to more collaboration in the story but also a mutual sense of fulfillment and a feeling that something was achievable only by both parties acting together.

This is the hope organizations need as they struggle each day to make a difference; this is the belief donors need to see your organization as different from the hundreds of others doing good work.

Good luck in the days ahead.

]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDevelopment, Marketing, Strategy2009-10-05T11:09:07-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/75980b524a95a18a731ed2729fcbec0c-6.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/75980b524a95a18a731ed2729fcbec0c-6.html#unique-entry-id-6
Is listening to your donors, volunteers, customers, and clients a priority to you and your development and marketing team?

The reason it should be is pretty important. You and I are devoting a lot of dollars, time, and energy to our organization and hopefully, trying to define and manage what people think of us. Some call this “brand management.” Unfortunately, you may have the cart before the horse. Your brand is whatever your stakeholders are currently saying about you and your organization. They decide what your brand is more than you do.

Do you know what your donors, volunteers, customers, and clients think your brand is about? I only know one way to really find this information out and that is by listening.

Let me quote someone I have never met but would love to – the quote is from Ricardo Guimaraes, founder of Thymus Branding:

• The value of a brand belongs to the market and not to the company. The company in this sense is a tool to create value for the brand. Brand in this sense – it lives outside the company, not in the company. When I say that the management is not prepared for dealing with the brand, it is because in their mind-set they are managing a closed structure that is the company. The brand is an open structure – they don’t know how to manage an open structure. (Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff, Groundswell, (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008)

You and I know that there is a lot of money being spent already on market research by many organizations – for profit and nonprofit. You most likely familiar with some of the problems that come along with research; bias of surveys, limitations of focus groups, too much information, and on and on.

My concern is a little different: there are lots of ways to listen. It is obviously important for you as a marketer to know what the donor, volunteer, or customer is feeling when they deal with your cause. However, most of us do not have a plan for listening. You must clarify your objectives for listening first. Don’t just try to gather a lot of information and hope for insights – doing this means you will fail. And because of the relative ease of working online, don’t just start monitoring your community of stakeholders looking for tidbits.

First, decide what is feasible given the community of people who are your stakeholders. A constituency over 65 years of age necessitates one path; a clientele between 14 and 19 years of age necessitates another path.
Second, what are your goals for listening? Are you going to just listen looking for information, are you looking for ways to create a viral (word-of-mouth) campaign, or are you trying to energize your best donors to give more?

Third, is this a flash-in-the-pan exercise or are you going to begin a process of routinely engaging your constituents in listening exercises and ultimately creating an ongoing dialogue with them? Your strategy here matters, especially if you’re looking for relationships with your stakeholders to change in the future.

Finally, are you going to use social media, phone interviews, face-to-face – what applications are you going to use?

Decide today that your organization is going to be one that listens to its stakeholders – all of the time. Good luck in the days ahead.



]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDevelopment, Marketing, Strategy2009-09-04T11:07:18-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/09c2e7746ec182bd0c81acfa298813be-5.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/09c2e7746ec182bd0c81acfa298813be-5.html#unique-entry-id-5
Does every organization need a competitive marketing strategy? Can an organization afford not to have one? According to Michael E. Porter in his book, Competitive Strategy, you have a strategy whether you define it or not:

"Every firm competing in an industry has a competitive strategy, whether explicit or implicit. This strategy may have been developed explicitly through a planning process or it may have evolved implicitly through the activities of the various functional departments of the firm. Left to its own devices, each functional department will inevitably pursue approaches dictated by its professional orientation and the incentives of those in charge. However, the sum of these departmental approaches rarely equals the best strategy."

Unless an organization defines and enacts a strategy and thereby tries to control its outcome, one operates for it that it does not control. While most nonprofit executives agree with the Porter quote and its intent that organizations have a strategy whether they participate in the process or not, the typical executive's agreement with the statement does not go much further than talk. Many nonprofit directors do not have a formally stated strategy. Ask them for it and they can't give it to you. For some, this is because they have had no training in developing such a strategy. They just don't know how to undertake such a task. For others, the problem is not getting them to agree they need some type of strategy; the problem is getting them to agree to take control of the competitive situation and all that this implies. And sadly, there is still a whole school of nonprofit thinking that says no such plan is needed; that marketing is "wrong" and therefore nonexistent. Given today's environment, this seems to be a naive assumption. In fact, this attitude often means the director doesn't care if he or she reaches the organization's corporate goals, (or more likely, they have no measurable objectives to serve as guides in reaching these goals).

Why the need for a marketing strategy? Perhaps the answer is no more difficult than a strategy helps enables an organization to go where it has decided it wants to. Without a conscious plan in place, competitive direction is ultimately the sum total of those operating decisions managers make every day:

• Someone asks for your organizational help and you help.
• Your company is asked to jointly sponsor an event and you do so.
• The nonprofit down the road has an annual report so you print one, too.

These aren't necessarily bad decisions. The organization is going somewhere. Three years from now, it will be someplace. The problem is where the organization finds itself will most likely have been dictated by the opportunities or threats the organization faced in the intervening three years. By default, these everyday occurrences will have dictated its market position.

Good luck in the days ahead.


]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDevelopment, Strategy2009-08-23T22:48:50-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/1ccd99d3bb03c89ec30939e715dd755d-4.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/1ccd99d3bb03c89ec30939e715dd755d-4.html#unique-entry-id-4
This is a time of clear opportunity – as well as peril – for nonprofit organizations.

Unless your agency is grounded in a solid identity as a result of a plan that is operating and has along with it a strategic stance that allows you the luxury of clear decision making, your institution - like many others - will get lost in a competing milieu of “look-the-same” nonprofit organizations. This is the peril.

However, the opportunity is that by developing a strong strategic stance, you set yourself away from the pack of institutions that do not have an operating strategy.

Four dimensions should define your strategy, so view this as a sort of test within which you can judge the veracity of your own organization:

1. First, you have to know where you are going to compete and which parts of your cause are going to receive the lion’s share of the dollars you are going to invest. This is a decision not only to choose what you are going to invest in, but also a choice of what you are not going to invest in. Both decisions matter greatly. All directors want instinctively to do more causally than they are able. As part of this decision you also want to think about what your work will look like in a couple of years. How will you invest in your work to grow it? Or do you expect everything in your agency eco-system to stay the same over time? Be careful if this is your attitude - today virtually nothing is staying the same. If you’re not interested in growth, are you going to stay the same? This too, is a decision. Or are you looking to get out of this part of your causal work in the future? You need to decide – your future depends on it.
   
   
2. With what you are doing causally, which parts of it have the most appeal to your key stakeholders? Not every donor for example, loves your organization equally. Everyone picks and chooses. You should know not only the most popular parts of your work (if may have little correlation with what is the most important part of your work) but you should know why people support this part of your causal mix. Is it a good value? Is the work done excellently? Do you do extensive work in a way competitors don’t? Are you innovative? Is your cause prestigious? Whatever the reason you want to know why individuals support you.
   
   
3. Have a clear understanding of what your organization can and cannot do. Though you may feel this unfair, most institutions only do a few parts of their work really well. They may do a lot of work, but only a few things that they do really capture the imagination of their supportive constituency. Have a firm grasp on those endeavors your agency is engaged in but does so in a marginal – or less than stellar - way. Know what you do well strategically and know what resources you have that allow you to perform at a high level. Strategic competencies underlie every good strategy.
   
   
4. All of the above allow you to develop those strategic programs that build on your strengths and have what the stakeholder wants in mind. Perhaps your strengths are such that you can build your brand. Or, maybe they allow you to develop a very strong donor relationship program. Your agency may be at a place where you can radically change the strength of your programs and upgrade them substantially.

Use your strategy to deliver value to your stakeholders. Good luck in the days ahead.



]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDevelopment, Philanthropy2009-08-14T12:37:47-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/6821e46fe1f6a818bb5e4c619b62ca0f-3.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/6821e46fe1f6a818bb5e4c619b62ca0f-3.html#unique-entry-id-3
Great achievements in the nonprofit world often occur when institutions harness their own internal energy and simultaneously, that of individuals around them and deal purposefully with an aspect of our nation or of any nation that needs intervention. Collectively they create for the briefest of moments a joint and reciprocally driven, caring, trusting community. Being accountable for the common good and the welfare of those needing help is assumed by all parties in the community and is a part of their underlying ideals and beliefs.

This has been my personal experience as a donor to a variety of causes. The urgency and ego of “me” is subsumed in the “we” as, bundled together with other donors and volunteers, I have contributed to solving an impending or immediate social problem, or have helped take advantage of a new opportunity that benefits a group of individuals in need. Just recently my wife and I helped in building a needed hospital overseas for a group of individual who did not have ready access to such facilities. Thousands of men and women – as donors and volunteers - had similar experiences after the Asian tsunami, the Kashmir earthquake, and the New Orleans flooding disaster.

However, what do you do as a development director when there is not an all-consuming crisis to draw everyone together? Are potential donors and volunteers increasingly becoming too narrowly self-serving in their approach to life to care for those who cannot succeed at the same level without the benefit of an event that demands their involvement? There is reason for some concern - some data suggests that major donors are retreating from giving and being much more cautious in their outlook on nonprofit involvement. Some authors have suggested that Americans could give billions more without decreasing their self worth.

However, a number of Americans choose not to follow suit. Why? One key may lie within us as development professionals. Regardless of how well those in need are served, many organizations have done a poor job in engaging donors’, customers’, and volunteers’ in a satisfactory way.

Is this the case with your organization?

While it may be true that for some donors their current involvement with causes they support is heavily in flux; it is equally true that many of these causes are changing their methods of operation to allow donors and volunteers access to their organizations mix and inner workings in a way previously not thought of as previously possible or appropriate.

Philanthropic tastes are changing and contribute to this churn, especially given the large number of individuals who no longer feel content to simply give financial gifts to charities. For many donors, being philanthropic now means not only choosing where their financial gifts to charities will go, but showing active interest, concern, and involvement with the recipient organization, with subsequent follow-up on how their gift is used.

A massive social and cultural revolution is at work, particularly in the way individuals relate to nonprofit organizations and each other, affecting what they will and will not support and what they expect from their philanthropic involvement.

Do you know what your donors expect from your organization? If not, why don’t you make a goal of talking to your ten most important donors and /or volunteers and find out why they are involved with your cause.



]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comDonor Bonding2009-08-03T10:25:26-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/2844ec625273c131f241880b4b9329ff-2.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/2844ec625273c131f241880b4b9329ff-2.html#unique-entry-id-2
My sister and her daughter are cancer survivors. They partook last weekend in a relay for life for cancer research, support, and survivors. All of that is pretty normal. I am guessing hundreds of these types of events occur across the country every year.

What was interesting about this event was its magnitude. Originating in a city of about 4000 residents, there were more than 100 teams involved, each team with 3 or 4 members, each team procuring pledges for their team members, and each member taking the time to be a part of the rally, some taking time from work, all being involved in ways that were meaningful to them.

The other interesting part was the weekend the events took place. Not only were there twice as many teams as last year’s event, there were also three times as many people who pledged. The night of the 24 hour event it rained all night. Driving rain with thunder and lightening. I casually asked my sister if the event had been cancelled – her look back at me almost took my head off.

“We don’t quit just because of weather.”

She and her daughter and her husband walked from 3:00am until 6:00am. She told me there were about 200 people there walking plus those urging them on. There were also volunteers making breakfast, serving coffee, and some were simply there talking to each other.

All of this added up to a type of community that was built around a compelling reason for the hundreds that were there.

Are you a part of a cause that can command this type of involvement, volunteerism, and loyalty? If you are, then you should leverage it the way the organizers of this event did within their community?

And if you are not, then you should begin looking for the types of common emotional denominators that are within your cause that would allow you and your associates to command this type of involvement, loyalty, and commitment and to create your own type of community.



]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comCommunications2009-07-17T11:04:14-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/barry_mcleish_blog.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/barry_mcleish_blog.html#unique-entry-id-1
I spoke to an officer of a nationally known nonprofit organization today who related to me a note he had gotten from one of his donors – the contents of the somewhat abrupt and angry note said (I am paraphrasing):

Under no circumstances do we want to hear from any nonprofit organization we are interested in. We don’t want to receive proposals, calls, notes, visits, invitations, or telephone calls. We do not want to hear from you at this time in any way, shape or form. My wife and I will make our giving decisions this year in November. Until then, please respect our wishes.

What did you think of the note? Have you ever received one like this? What did you do? Could you put yourself in your donor’s situation-haven’t you ever wanted to write a note like that?

Let me make a couple of observations regarding the donor’s note and the situation I believe it represents:

First of all, I think the couple is flooded with requests for help right now and have clearly gotten tired of hearing from everyone. They may even feel overwhelmed. I would be willing to bet that they don’t actually feel angry at all of the nonprofits they have written to but have chosen at this time to lump everyone into the same bucket.

Second, I don’t know the financial situation this couple is facing. They may have lost everything through the financial downturn; on the other hand, they may be doing just fine.

Third, I’ve observed something that is occurring in hundreds of nonprofit organizations right now. Most that I have observed are crying “Emergency” through their solicitations, their field representatives, and through their online communication vehicles.

I have no doubt that many agencies are indeed feeling a financial pinch right now. Services may have been cut, personnel laid off, and operating funds trimmed. Almost every nonprofit institution that I know of is engaged right now in some variation of these measures. Almost all of them need more money and they need it immediately. Consequently, many are crying “emergency.”

Unfortunately, I think this is the wrong tactic right now for the very simple reason that most donors in America feel that they are undergoing some sort of personal, financial emergency themselves. Whether it is true or not is beside the point. The media and subsequent headlines – spoken and read – have told us repeatedly that as a country we are in trouble . . .individuals are in trouble. . . institutions are in trouble. . .all that we know is in trouble.

When I feel I am in trouble I often become oblivious to others who might also be facing catastrophic circumstances. I can’t get beyond my own problems. Perhaps I am selfish. Perhaps it is a weakness. Whatever it is, it is true in my life.

Emergencies are defined by organizations as well as donors. Today many donors are facing what is for them a real emergency. In their hearts, their crisis may be more important than yours. Be careful how you communicate your crisis.


]]>barry_mcleish@mcconkey-johnston.comMarketing2009-07-10T10:49:02-06:00http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/f618ebe890020fa465208c301bb5eefe-0.html#unique-entry-id-0http://www.mcconkey-johnston.com/Blogs/BM/files/f618ebe890020fa465208c301bb5eefe-0.html#unique-entry-id-0
Every organization wants to be noticed in some new way, hoping to break out communicatively from the pack. However it’s not as easy as it sounds. Here’s a recent nonprofit story that should inspire us all to think more creatively:

A longstanding cause that had sponsored a walk-a-thon on a yearly basis for the last twelve years was increasingly seeing its centerpiece fundraising event slipping in both popularity and dollars pledged per walker. I don’t know about you but in my part of the world, these type of events are a dime a dozen. While almost all of the “thons” represent a worthy cause, they are typically not differentiated very well from each other. Another way of saying this would be to suggest that these causes have become commoditized in their presentation. To the stakeholder they often appear the same. One walk-a-thon seems like another.

When this happens to a cause, you know the cause and its fundraising machinery are in trouble.

So, finding their organization and themselves in this predicament, what did the cause’s leadership decide to do? Did they give up? Abandon the idea of a walk-a-thon?

No, in fact they did something far more creative and satisfying.

First they re-branded their walk-a-thon by renaming it and changing its appearance. Then, rater than abandoning the walk–a–thon concept they redefined it. Where in the past the event had required the participant to walk one, two, or five miles, the event was now going to be a uniform three city block walk right through the center of town. This move was surprising to me. That meant the walk was now not very far and certainly did not require much athletic prowess - in fact, anyone could now do the walk.

The second change the organizers introduced was the element of real fun. Where you would normally expect a longer walk-a-thon or a run to have water stations or refreshment stations along the route offering water, Gatorade, or fresh fruit, the organizers hilariously put refreshment stations every 100 feet or so, offering donuts, bratwurst, pizza, and everything that a serious walker or runner would never want during an event. There were grills smoking, smells wafting and ketchup flying.

The third change the organizers delivered was in the number of volunteers. They almost tripled the number of volunteers, each wearing a bright, branded t-shirt on the day of the event, each individual highly noticeable and remarkably energetic. It seemed they were everywhere.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, the organizers allowed many more to enter the event than a typical walk might have. On the day of the event, you had those decked out in sportswear, you had men and women walking having just left their office, you had shopkeepers wearing their store’s logo wear – everyone was welcome. And remarkably, most of the walkers had sponsors.

The event warranted front page in the “City” section of the local newspaper. What’s more, a sidebar column was devoted to talked about the disease whose eradication was the real reason for the event,

More money came in for the cause than had come for each of the previous eight walk-a-thons. There was tremendous publicity for the cause in the town and wonderful good will. My guess is that they will not have a problem in redoing this event next year.

It is a great story isn’t it? And, it has a couple of lessons for me:

• Don’t be afraid to change a tradition if the situation warrants it. Get rid of golden cows if they have stopped providing gold for your organization.
• Be collaborative and inclusive – let as many individuals as possible be a part of your causal events.
• Create celebration and have lots of fun.
• And perhaps most importantly, when you find your cause along with others in a commodity situation “act” and change the circumstances.

Good luck in the days ahead.

]]>