Scope and range of marketing verses Mission

1. One aspect of the scope and range of marketing is the marketing orientation. What does this mean? How does it apply to nonprofit marketing?

Only beginning this class, it seems that the marketing orientation is one focused not on changing hearts and minds, but of changing, channeling, or influencing behaviour. In the nonprofit world, we would like it if everyone saw our particular mission as "the mission", the aspect of societal life that is very important and deserves attention. In certain cases such as with health related concerns, and in the cause of advocacy, we want others to see the way we do. We want to change their hearts and minds to align with ours. Sometimes this approach is needed so that we can get some people to be more sympathetic or nurturing of the plight of others for instance. But, what if we can get people to treat people in a nurturing way without changing their hearts and minds?

Hrmmm....I don't believe that is possible. It is possible to influence behavior...and in that regard nonprofit marketing is helpful. But, for instance, as a trans woman I may want healthcare providers to treat transgender people overall with a better sensitivity, a better sense of professionalism, and an interest in regard to the welfare of these people, their patients. Professionalism I can influence as a behavior set, and some degree of marketing might help with that. However, getting such individuals to think proactively in regard to nurturing transgender persons in their care....that requires a fundamental internal change that I cannot force on them, that marketing cannot change - as its focus is not on the internal heart and mind - and that might not happen unless that person wants to make that internal change.

My point is this. Marketing is a great tool, but it is one tool in a tool set. No amount of what we do in the nonprofit world is going to "make" someone do something that we want them to do. Marketing is powerful in nudging behaviour in the desired direction, but other factors influence more core elements of a person. Take a more concrete example talked about in the text in regard to health concerns such as smoking.

One thing that bothered me about the text was this insistence that an audience centered mindset can miraculously change smokers to stop their habit, or those of us who are obese to live more active lives with higher fiber and less fat. Health educators are taught first and foremost that no amount of teaching, no amount of imparting of good information is going to make someone change. Will marketing help in that equation? Perhaps, some...by meeting the person where they are at. However, the central tenet in health education is that the equation is so much complex than that. What is my environment? Do I tend to have bags and bags of potato chips at home, even when I do shop healthy? Do I go out to eat with friends? (some research shows that eating with friends may be linked to one eating more than they should, specifically if some members of the friend group are eating more as well). How do my genetics play into the equation? Am I on prescription meds that impact my ability to lose weight? All of those things marketing cannot effect.

2. How would you describe the importance of the mission statement of a nonprofit organization? How would that apply to nonprofit marketing?

Simply put, the mission statement of an organization is the container that the plant that is the organization is placed into. It helps define perspective, boundary, and gives nurturance, and even "soil" to the group of people who have come together. As the organization changes, sometimes the mission needs to shift (get bigger perhaps) to accomodate the changing organism that is the organization.

Applying this to marketing shows that the mission is the boundary limiting agent for marketing while also the vehicle through which it can do its work to change behavior. The organization can adapt to meet target audience needs, desires, etc. However, there is a limit to that adaptability, and that is what the board of directors through the mission have demarcated that the organization will provide for the public.

Non Profit Void Filling

We have said that nonprofit organizations fill a void. How would you describe that void?

With the founding of Hull House in 1889 as one of the first organized non profit entities (in terms of how we see non profit organizations in modern times, not that charity doesn't have very ancient roots in both Jewish, Christian, and other religious and secular soils [ie Roman and Greek] nor that associations did not exist since the early foundations of America or before), non profits have filled several well argued voids that government and private sector do not fill.

Hull House rose out of a tradition of assistance that had been taken care of by the wives of those with economic means. Let's say I am an Irish immigrant, and I arrive in Chicago? Now, I settle into the ghettoized area of Chicago and try to earn a living, but am freshly here in America and need a little assistance. I hear that just up the road in the wealthier part of town that there are also Irish immigrants, those that have made there way in the world. The wives of some of these fellow countrymen are willing to spare some food, perhaps some work...so, I go a visiting. My needs are met. However, over time, the situation gets out of hand, and the assistance provided mainly by the kind women of these families comes under criticism from their male relatives in the house.

Along comes Jane Adams, she is able to create a centralized home where I can go, get food, shelter, and maybe find out about work. Wealthier families are all to willing to patronize because it removes the "problem" from their own doorstep and centralizes distribution. Hull House provides a community need for the immigrant, and allows those with economic means to fill perhaps an embedded need for philanthropy (through culture, tradition, etc).

The Hull House example is ....ummm.....simplified to say the least. However, it points to some of the question in regard to Non Profits filling voids.

On the one hand, the Non Profit sector takes as a business model filling both needs unmet by government and the private sector, while on the other also crafting their own "ground to plow". Government policy is created through two perspectives - right...the power of the elite in tension with the voice of the plurality. The best government can do most of the time is to meet the needs of the median voter. Business may take up some of that slack, but where ventures are not profitable for it, there is not investment to go. Further, some items have a value that cannot be attached easily to a profit motive, such as arts performances for example. So, Non Profits "clean up" where government needs go unmet and where the contract motive fails.

But, does the Non Profit sector do more than fill "voids" do they have their own fertile playing field? I would think that they do. Precisely in those areas where the motive is "altruistic" on the surface and not bound in "squeezing more out of contractual arrangements that one puts in through labor and supplies". This is not to say that Non Profits are not, nor should be efficient, or try to extract as much use out of a quantity as possible. It is to say that the motives are different. In so much as the non profit is not designed to be situated to return moneys to an investor, but is to provide a service (or more generally fulfill a mission) to society, there lies its market.

But, this is theory, this is ideally what Non Profits do. In reality.....they may not look that way all the time. Some non profits are "for profits" in disguise. Other times, in an effort to bullwark against possible hard economic times ahead, or simply make ends meet, some methods may appear less mission oriented and more profit or surplus accumulation oriented. In fact, to some degree, Non profits do need to insulate themselves with certain profit, with certain surplus. At the end of the day though the idea should always be "eyes on the mission" In reality, people and the society that we create is not so cut and dry

Hope this helps understand my perspective

What might be some reasons why a person would donate $100 to the American Cancer Society?

Simple answer - because the ACS is cool and I am passionate about research in regard to ending this deadly condition. :-)

But, this is probably not the answer we are being encouraged to think about in this class, what makes a person donate to ACS instead of another charity, spending that money on a movie, or not even considering it as a budget item monthly? So, it might be the convenience or ease of donating to ACS that might influence my decision to donate. This might be backed up with some modicum of concern in regard to cancer.

Or, for me, it might be because my father died of pancreatic cancer and I want to honor his memory. Has the ACS on their website given me the opportunity to honor my father in a visibile way, not only through my donation but through a tribute page to him? Will ACS send me a card thanking me for my donation in honor of my father? Will such a card be respectful in such a way that honors his memory and causes my heart to catch that someone else recognized his impact through my giving? Will such a card have the option to be sent to my grandmother, still alive who had to bury her son, should I wish to make the donation on her behalf in his tribute?

And that is just looking at the donation mechanism and acknowledgement means for my donation. I might donate because of a special project the ACS is involved in. I might donate because of an instilled sense of civic duty. I might, if marketed to correctly, donate to seek attention and peer acceptance. The point is that I might donate for a multitude of reasons, a good marketer tries to see some of these reasons in aggregate with others and combine the best technologies to reduce the most barriers to someone of my audience segment.