Need A New Tagline?

July 18, 2008

I’m sure most of you aren’t sitting around planning to change your tagline. Believe me, it’s one of the most challenging and contentious processes any nonprofit can undertake … usually bringing out the worst in committee decision-making!

But if you must plow down this path, definitely read the Getting Attention Tagline Report prepared by Nancy Schwartz. If you’re not contemplating it now, save this report for that fearsome occasion.

You’ll get excellent analysis of scores of existing nonprofit taglines … which ones work and which ones don’t … and why. And clear direction as to how to approach the task and what pitfalls to avoid if you’re planning a change.

Well done, Nancy. You deserve a raise!

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under You Deserve a Raise, branding, communications, creativity | 1 Comment 

Celebrity Power

June 23, 2008

Of course not every nonprofit has access to a celebrity to help raise its profie … or fundraise.

But if you do, should you jump at the chance?

This article from the NY Times provides some excellent insights into the world of celebrity marketing. Does it work? You bet your Rihanna umbrella … your Patrick Demsey cologne … your Nicole Kidman perfume it does!

Here’s why.

First and foremost, sheer awareness … capturing attention:

“As consumers, we see over 3,156 images a day. We’re just not conscious of them,” says Marshal Cohen, from consumer research firm NPD Group. “Our subconscious records maybe 150, and only 30 or so reach our conscious behavior. If I have a celebrity as part of that message, I just accelerated the potential for my product to reach the conscious of the consumer.”

Second, emotional connecton trumps rationality:

Even savvy, skeptical consumers who understand that stars are paid to support a product may still rely on an endorsement and buy the brand anyway, says Robert Cialdini, a professor of psychology and marketing at Arizona State University.

“We’ve used our cognitive capacity to build a sophisticated informational and technological environment,” he says. But overloaded with information and stimulation, shoppers’ brains revert to a more primitive, raw association of celebrity and product, Mr. Cialdini explains.

So, should we all jump on the phone to Nicole Kidman’s agent? You wish!

Assuming you can access a celebrity, there are obvious issues of "fit" (Is there any actual compatibility between your nonprofit mission, your target audience and the celebrity, or relevance that connects the two "brands"?) and "durability" (What is the desired lifespan of this relationship and how might the affair turn sour?) that need to be assessed.

Is celebrity marketing limited to the "killer" brands of the nonprofit universe, like UNICEF and Amnesty International?

No, not at all.

Celebrities are defined by the pond in which they swim. If your nonprofit has a local or regional focus, there are still likely to be plenty of high profile personalities — outstanding athletes, media celebs, artists & performers — who just might help your nonprofit break through the clutter and help deliver your message.

And don’t forget … every star was born somewhere. It might just be your nonprofit’s hometown!

Happy celebrity hunting.

Tom

P.S. Don’t get your hopes up, Kidman was born in Australia. Rihanna in Barbados. But Patrick Dempsey … Lewiston, Maine!

 

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, branding, cause marketing, celebrities, communications, fundraising | Leave a Comment 

Where Younger Voters Get Their Information

June 17, 2008

Last week, as the primary phase of the presidential campaigns ended and the run up to the November elections began in earnest, Ad Age and Digital Hollywood held their co-produced extravaganza Advertising 2.0 in New York City.

Among the panelists was Kristi Vandenbosch head of Tequila, the global marketing services network, who put together a video reel to emphasize the dramatic change in politics. Her message and the message of the video is that social media and user-generated content have fundamentally changed the political landscape. Where once the ‘brand" (read ‘candidate’) was controlled by campaigns, control has now shifted to the "consumer" (read ‘voter’).

Ms. Vandenbosch told Ad Age, "The pieces I collected in the video were examples from an informal poll I conducted asking people under 35 where they got their election information. Rather than traditional news outlets, they provided these as samples. They were more likely to trust commentary –even satirical commentary –from their peers than either news or — especially — the candidates’ advertising." I’m not sure the reason for the shift is that clear or simple, but judge for yourself.

You can watch the Ad Age video by clicking here.

Roger

Posted by rcraver | Filed Under General Post, advocacy, branding, communications, creativity, demographic trends, new media, online video | Leave a Comment 

Vote For Best Tagline

June 11, 2008

Blogger Nancy Schwartz asks you to vote for best nonprofit taglines in a number of categories. She’s offered the best from over one thousand entries.

You can vote here.

Personally, only two or three rang my chimes. Too many failed to help establish any point of differentiation from other similarly-focused "competitive" organizations. Assuming the tagline is seen in conjunction with the nonprofit’s name (which might be at least somewhat descriptive of a group’s cause or mission), its contribution is to say something reasonably memorable that helps set the group apart — and even better, helps establish an emotional connection as well.

How many of these finalist taglines do that?

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under branding | 2 Comments 

Improving Your “Store Experience”

May 23, 2008

I just came across this study conducted by the IBM Institute for Business Value of customer "Advocates" in the retail setting.

For this consumer study, "Advocates" were defined as meeting three criteria:

  • they recommend their retailer to their friends and family;
  • they would increase their purchase amount if their retailer offered products found at other stores; and,
  • they would stay with their retailer even if another retailer offered a competitive product.

Now, wouldn’t we all like donors who met those critieria?!

As you would expect, customers who are Advocates (as opposed to Apathetics or Antagonists) are far and away the most valuable in profitability terms.

In the retail setting, the factors that induce customers to become Advocates are, in order of importance:

  • Store experience — the critical tangibles and intangibles that make it pleasant, enjoyable and easy to shop, triggering a variety of positive emotions along the way (this factor is by far the most important, and is also the strongest determinant of customer Antagonists!)
  • Convenience
  • Assortment
  • Quality
  • Customer service (personally, I’m surprised this didn’t rank higher)
  • Multichannel
  • Product availability

Importantly, the study notes that simply "meeting expectations" (e.g., with respect to attractive pricing) does not guarantee Advocates; it is the price of entry. 78% of all customers say their primary retailer meets their expectations, but across all retailers studied, the average percentage of customer Advocates was by comparison only 21% … and the highest was Wegmans at 53%. Other leaders by segment were Nordstrom (large-format apparel, 28%), Costco pharmacies (pharmacies, 27%), Barnesandnoble.com (online retailers, 27%), and The Children’s Place (mall-based specialty, 22%).

Can we apply the "Store Experience" concept to nonprofits and their donors?

Certainly it should apply pretty readily to "bricks & mortar" nonprofits — museums, theaters, hospitals, schools and others with a physical embodiment that donors can experience (or, in many cases, such as service agencies, observe).

It gets a lot harder for nonprofits dealing in intangibles, like policy advocacy, or remote impacts, like international disaster relief or medical research. In those cases, progress and results can be reported … and maybe even visually depicted. But the donor has little "experience" of the organization itself other than in the sense of customer experience (do they thank me for my contribution, correct my address, take me off their telemarketing list?).

This is one of the reasons I’m such a fan of online video. This medium does at least permit the donor to virtually "experience" their nonprofit’s leaders and "see" programs in action. And certainly a nonprofit’s website creates a virtual world that can communicate a personality or ambiance, and be more welcoming and enjoyable to use (or not).

Any other ideas out there as to how a nonprofit can enhance its "Store Experience?"

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, Hot Research, branding, donor retention | Leave a Comment 

Bringing A Dead Brand Back To Life

May 22, 2008

I’ll say it flat out … this, from the New York Times magazine, is one of the most fascinating marketing articles I’ve ever read.

It’s about a company that buys "dead" brands … the intellectual property left from products no longer made, like Brim coffee, SalonSelectives shampoos, Nuprin, and Underalls … and brings them back to market in new incarnations. As the founder says: “There’s no retail presence, no product, no distribution, no trucks, no plants. Nothing. All that exists is memory. We’re taking consumers’ memories and starting entire businesses.”

Often these are brands that died, not because consumers rejected them, but because they were taken over and retired by even larger brands owned by conglomerates … so Brim is replaced by the new parent’s larger Maxwell House. But the fond consumer memories of Brim survive.

The key point is that such brands are nothing more than memories … and often inaccurate ones at that. Still, their essence lingers in the mind of consumers, and can often be re-attached to more contemporary versions of the original product … or even to completely new products that the "old" brand never encompassed. So, for example, the venerable Stanley tool brand can be attached to ladders, a product Stanley itself has never actually made.

Says the author: "The brand equity has value on its own, but it can be grafted onto something newer and, perhaps, more innovative."

I’ve had a lot of fun thinking about how this might apply to "dormant" nonprofit brands.

Brands like Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the ACLU, the National Organization for Women. Which of these possesses enough remnant equity to be re-invented, resuscitated? To have a second life? How would their original essence — that so many found so compelling — be reintroduced and used to win new advocates?

As one academic cited in the article observed … with "deceased" brands that get a second life, it wasn’t their fault that they died in the first place. His point … the consumer didn’t abandon the brand; the brand abandoned or was withdrawn from its consumers.

What do you think? Can a "dormant" or "deceased" nonprofit brand be resuscitated? Or does it only get one chance?

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Uncategorized, branding | 7 Comments 

More On Trust

May 7, 2008

In a lot of things I’m reading lately, the "trust" issue keeps popping up.

Here’s a piece on trust and brands.

Your nonprofit is a brand. If you’re fortunate, it’s a brand your target audience has heard of. The Agitator’s DonorTrends survey recently asked donors for their perceptions of 100+ national nonprofit brands. The results underscore how invisible most nonprofit brands are.

But while awareness is great, and hard to come by, it of course is just a foot in the door. A chance to attach a bit of meaning and affect. In fact, one could argue that awareness doesn’t really exist without some attached value connotation … however well- or ill-founded. And that brand meaning can be negative or positive.

What any brand must strive toward is earning the trust of its audience. Nothing is more precious. And nothing can be more fatal than losing that trust, once gained. Just consider the travails of the ACLU over the past few years.

How is your nonprofit going about earning trust? And what clumsy mistake might you make to lose it?

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, DonorTrends, accountability, branding, nonprofit management | Leave a Comment 

Does Nonprofit Branding Matter?

April 24, 2008

Only if your nonprofit wants to survive in the online era, when there is absolutely NO barrier to entry. Anyone who can build a website can attract a constituency to support precisely what your organization is already doing.

Your protection? Your brand … clearly recognized, sharply defined, and positively regarded.

In The Agitator’s recent DonorTrends survey, we probed a bit the "established & familiar" versus "new kid on the block" issue. Which isn’t to say a newcomer can’t quickly establish a strong, recognized brand … indeed that’s part of the "problem" … or better, challenge, for established groups.

In our survey, 40% agreed with the statement: "I prefer to support well-established organizations rather than new ones." 23% disagreed and 38% were sitting in the middle … on the fence. Not comforting to existing brands.

Similarly, 40% also agreed with this statement: "If I haven’t already heard about a charity or cause in the media or by word of mouth, I won’t contribute." 27% disagreed and 33% sat on the fence. The message here … you’ve got to get into the "consideration set" … and that’s what a strong brand helps you do.

Our DonorTrends survey measured for the first time donors’ awareness of and regard for over 100 "leading" nonprofits. More on those results in the coming weeks.

Meantime, we urge you to read Nancy Schwartz’s tutorial on nonprofit branding. Excellent insights and practical advice. For this contribution, Nancy, you deserve a raise!

Tom

Posted by tbelford | Filed Under DonorTrends, You Deserve a Raise, branding, communications | 3 Comments 

The Spam Museum

February 12, 2008

Sometimes you just have to ask yourself … “How could I possibly gotten so far in life without knowing about this?!”

That's what hit me when I visited the SPAM Museum, at the suggestion of Agitator reader Charles Langley, of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego.

Age-old questions are answered on this site, such as:

  • What is SPAM made of?
  • What's the difference between ham and pork?
  • What is sodium nitrate?

What, you thought I was talking about email spam?!

Seriously, this is a marvelous illustration of how to give a brand personality, while answering basic consumer questions, moving the product, and inspiring evangelists.

You must visit the SPAM store and the SPAM Fan Club. And if you're really hard core, attend the annual SPAMARAMA, complete with SPAMALYMPICS, in Austin, Minnesota.

I wish we were all so inspired when it came to thinking about how to communicate our nonprofit's brand.

Tom

P.S. I owe you Charles!

Posted by admin | Filed Under Pushing the Creative Envelope, branding, communications | Leave a Comment 

UNCF Gets C+

February 4, 2008

Awhile back the NYT ran this piece on the re-branding campaign of the United Negro College Fund.

When I saw that the Fund actually acted on the advice they received from a prominent “branding” consultancy to change their name (for non-legal communications purposes) to UNCF, I thought to myself, “what a dumb move.”

[OK, I'll concede a prejudice … I've never encountered a branding consultancy that wasn't full of hot air, including the agency involved here.]

Acronym names are totally useless unless backed by years of MEGA-marketing and advertising budgets. Even then, no one but the employees ever recognizes them. I'll bet, ten years from now, no higher percentage of non-UNCF donors will recognize the name that would recognize it today. Anyone want to take the bet?

I filed away the article till I could collect my thoughts. But then Nancy Schwartz, writing in her January 30 edition of Getting Attention wrote a superb review of this branding exercise. She found a few things that seemed praiseworthy, and a bunch of things to criticize. Her piece convinced me to award the “UNCF” a C+ instead of an F.

Thank god the “UNCF” had the good sense to keep its outstanding tagline … A mind is a terrible thing to waste! That tagline, backed by 36 years of valuable public service advertising, says everything about the organization that needs to be said … and, in fact, that's where the organization's true brand equity lies.

Unfortunately, “UNCF” didn't see the course through and come up with a name that is evocative of the organization's history and mission, and suggestive of its future.

Just my opinion!

Tom

Posted by admin | Filed Under Don't Miss these Posts, branding, nonprofit management | Leave a Comment 

Next Page »