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.

If Obama was to ask me how his Administration can Improve/ Assist the Non Profit Sector

Name: Katrina Stewart
Profession: Student in NonProfit Management

Location: College Station, Texas

Thank you for engaging in this project to visit with everyday Americans and with NonProfit leaders in order to ascertain where our country should be going.

As a student in NonProfit studies, I would like to speak from my little bit of knowledge therein. It seems to me that bailouts for our nations economy are a double edged sword. On the one hand, by helping businesses such as the auto industry or the banking system, your administration is helping all of our society by strengthening those industries whose failures will ripple and displace many workers in their wake. We have already begun to see it with the auto industry and how short business there has caused dealership closings, which in turn affect not only the jobs of those working in such industries, but also impact advertising, and other industries that have to lay off more and more people because of one instance. Yet, on the other hand, "throwing money" at a problem rarely solves the root problems.

A number of us in the Philanthropical sector are concerned about our ability to accomplish our missions and complete the work we need to do because of these same issues. However, this is also not the time to throw money to philanthropy without looking to ways in which mission and purpose in this sector can serve directly the communities these organizations exist in by listening to their neighbors. Of need right now in this sector is capacity building. Lessons and activities that strengthen the ability of organizations to do their job by addressing communal needs with a professional, focused approach.

To this end, taking government control of helping people out does no good if it does not involve tight partnership with third sector entities. We need you to encourage public administrators to work with us, to depend on our expertise, while addressing concerns related to the government contract process that create managerial overhead for our organizations that make long term sustainability of these programs impossible. This includes a simplified and solidified grant process that does not leave nonprofits wondering when the next check will come in, while helping us build capacity to enact the measurement standards and benchmarks that are the mark of good "people helping people" business.

I caution you against the idea of the Volunteer corps that other nonprofit leaders would encourage. From what little I have seen of discussions, I have real concerns over how such an initiative would be built by government entities that do not have first hand nonprofit knowledge of what it would take to make such an institution work. I have concerns that such a corps would take on the dimension of military readiness that may be effective, but is not trained to deal with the "squishy" people-oriented issues on the ground that work best for nonprofits. What I refer to here is the one on one relationships built in the local YMCA, the local community center, the local PTA. I also refer to the values that some institutions instill that go beyond doing a good job on behalf of an organization and touch that side of ourselves that is passionate about really helping people through their issues, beyond addressing their immediate hurts. I ask you to look at the history of Americorps in 2003 and how multiple stressors almost caused the organization to go under at a time when President Bush was advocating that people should volunteer for this opportunity. The circumstances surrounding the almost collapse of this project went to how budgets were frozen, rerouted, or constrained in Congress and includes how President Bush's words causes such a rush of volunteers on the organization that it overhwelmed the organization's capacity while demands said "Do it anyway".

Long term change takes time, it takes hard conversations, and it takes training in how to talk and how to listen. The nonprofit sector is going to be hurt during the next decade. A number of our organizations will die, and many people will go without the help they need. That cannot be remedied. always we need to be looking at the long term picture. How can we teach strategic thinking to accomplish mission in both the short and long term? How can we create an infrastructure of helping that looks at root causes of problems and begins the hard work of education, changing hearts and minds, and speaking up about topics that make us all uncomfortable but have to be said?

As an example, how do we get better health care for certain members of our society whose entry into the system that should take care of them is a barrier in and of itself? How do we convince people to go to a doctor when their experience with such doctors borders on bigotry? How do we do that without addressing the bigotry itself? How do we make a fair health care system without educating health care workers to be compassionate and professional to all people, no matter how "different" they may be. That does not take just a few short lessons or extended education classes for health care professionals and workers, it requires a curriculum going back to their training for those positions that embraces all of diversity and teaches an ethic that enables such workers to empathize rather than judge. It requires an educational system that celebrates diversity and emphasizes the will of the majority and the needs and stories of the minority.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

Key points in relation to mission and executive turnover

You are now quite familiar with the “distinctive characteristics of nonprofit organizations”. A primary distinction relates to mission orientation. Consider the issue of mission in relationship to one of the following aspects of change over time in nonprofits---executive transition or turnover. What are some of the key points from this week’s readings related to this?


As we have covered many times in this class, the chief difference between the sectors in what is considered the operational "bottom line". For the business world, this is shareholder dividends, for government it is pleasing the median voter, and for the philanthropic sector, this is the triple ideas of vision, purpose, and mission.
Although, like a planter the mission is created at the formation of the organization to nurture the plant that is the organization in (planter analogy - Dr. William Brown), how that planter changes over time is influenced by the executive director in direct and indirect ways. Through the indirect method of being the chief liason of staff with the board, the leader in terms of "eyes on the future" for the board and providing a "bread crumb trail" of goal accomplishment (Herman & Heimovics 2005), and the lead selector of perhaps the membership of that board, the ED has indirect influence over how the board perceives mission, vision, and purpose. It is within this context that the board then takes lead of these concepts in best keeping with those fiduciary responsibilities. In a more direct way, the ED interprets mission in relation to donor mandates, governmental regulation, current events, and contemporary culture to try and find balance

Juggling, Balancing, and walking the tightrope

Considering what you have read so far, as well as your own experiences in nonprofits, what organizational and operational challenges would you anticipate and why? Conversely, what organizational and operational opportunities might you anticipate, especially vis-à-vis the public and market sectors?

So much of the effect of the organizational and operational challenges that could be anticipated as affecting me in a nonprofit depend upon my position within the organization. For instance, I already know that as Executive Director, I would be very dependent on the relationship of myself with the Board of Directors and staff in a team oriented relationship. I would be concerned in regard to both internal and external factors related to negotiating common hurdles such as organizational impressions, economics, etc. However, I would also be concerned that we are doing our best job in regard to using best practice methods in all that we do. The problem is that some of the best practice method is so theoretical in nature and some is in fact contradictory.

I reflect upon the readings from Frumkin, and chapter 6 in particular, and think "Yeah right, like how am I going to balance all 4 dimensions of the sector (ie instrumental verses expressive and demand verses supply) within one organization whose mission and purpose may be more in line with 1 or 2 of these dimensions, but not all 4.

In such a position, I would want to be prepped with the best tools possible, including nonprofit research, a co-director to help handle some of the aspects of the organization (for example - the dynamic duo of an Executive Director supplemented by a internal staff/administrative director - sometimes called a Deputy Director), and staff who are professional in nature but go about that professionalism in such a way that each and every client, no matter their diverse backgrounds are high priority.

Depending upon the sector my organization is in, I would be exposed to varying degrees of public and market sector opportunities. For instance, if I am running a LGBT Health Clinic in downtown Metroplex, there will be public opportunities which will be for the taking. And yet, those grant streams will come with costs that may detract from our ability to serve clients. For instance, how can we compassionately serve a transgender man (female bodied person living socially as a man) who needs an insurance negotiated hysterectomy to bring his body in alliance with soul without 1) flying in the face of any sort of arbitrary statistical grant measure that overly narrowly define sex/gender. 2) Protecting his identity 3) Preserving our mission which may be focused on the highest quality, one stop shopping of care - when that job is going to require referral to an outside agency that is going to need to be educated in and of itself.

Similarly, there may be marketing schemes such as logo merchandise sales that our patrons would like to support, but carry administrative overhead that may detract from doing the work of health care and insurance negotiation.

And, how do we negotiate care for the client when insurance code is already stacked against us in regard to providing life sustaining care to transgender people or that believes that gay men are at a higher risk for certain conditions (despite academic research which might say otherwise).

It is a daunting process to manage a nonprofit focusing on a disenfranchised population alone - and in empowering that population through advocacy and smart negotiation with "powers" such as insurance, government, etc. Add on top of that the expectations of "Best Practice Methods" that want us to strike some theoretical balance of operations while being pulled in multiple directions just to secure our funding.

It makes me wonder why I want to be in nonprofits.

Oh yeah, I am really passionate and feel a calling to work with LGBT people to make life better one person at a time. I just hope I am compensated to a degree that I can go home and "detox" from a day filled with juggling and balancing. Moreso, I hope that I would be on a team which would enable me to do that.

Why self-regulate? Standards needed, but should address plurality

This is a two part question:

Part 1. It is argued that nonprofit organizations must self-regulate. Why?

Part 2. In order to examine “how” nonprofit organizations might self-regulate, please compare, contrast, and critique the following standards for nonprofits created by three prominent self-regulation schemes. If appropriate, you might want to consider the appropriateness (e.g., adequacy, inadequacy, practicality, etc.) of such standards for nonprofit subfields in your discussion.
a. Charities Review Council of Minnesota, “Accountability Standards”: http://www.smartgivers.org/Accountability_Standards.html

b. Better Business Bureau, “Charity Standards”: http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=1bce9b1f-74e9-4c94-96e8-1ee2b519b0c4

c. Maryland Association of Nonprofits, “Standards for Excellence”: http://www.marylandnonprofits.org/html/standards/04_02.asp



Part 1. It is argued that nonprofit organizations must self-regulate. Why?

As stated by the Maryland Association of NonProfit Associations:

“Nonprofits are private corporations that operate for public purposes with public support. As such, they should provide the public with information about their mission, program activities, and finances. A nonprofit should also be accessible and responsive to members of the public who express interest in the affairs of the organization.”

In essence, nonprofits are by ideal private entities which exist to the benefit of the public. In the case of those charities identified as 501c3 orgs, the benefit accrued to the organization vis a vis donor income tax deduction indicates a certain possession of this subgroup of nonprofits by the public. As such accountability to the public and to stakeholders involved in all nonprofits is paramount to the organization.

During a recent history of corporate scandal leading to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://www.soxlaw.com/) and a general distrust by the public of government in general and its ability to take care of individual needs in particular, it is paramount that ethics be held as the cornerstone of nonprofits and that transparency be central to that ethos.

So, in a simple way, non-profits must self-regulate because of accountability to the public.

Why cannot some other sector regulate them? For each sector to properly succeed in its own right and not begin to reflect elements of another sector, regulation by another sector must be minimized. For there to be the best appropriate mix of caring for individual and public interests, each sector must do what it does best. For profit must pursue the dollar, government must serve the media voter, and the nonprofit sector must be grounded in serving public goods that address the plurality of communities. If government were to overly regulate nonprofits, then the philanthropic sector would become a mere puppet of government. Everything must be balanced wherein each sector has influence and calls attention to weaknesses and accountabilities in the other sectors, but does not dictate to another sector how it must act at all times. So, for reasons of sector independence and proper sectoral mission fulfillment, non-profits must self-regulate.

Finally though I think that all kinds of organizations must be allowed to change and grow, and perhaps the sectors that make up groups of these organizations must change and grow as well. To be instrumental with the best possible accuracy any sort of organization must have the power to transform itself. Perhaps this is true of the nonprofit sector as a whole. Sarbanes-Oxley recently has begun to teach nonprofits by extension that government, in holding the will of the media voter, will demand transparency – that scandal will be prosecuted. Nonprofits are not subject to Sarbanes-Oxley directly, and yet nonprofit management classes discuss the ramifications extensively. Associations look to its implications to make sure that member organizations are in-line with its provisions. The mistake by a few in one sector has caused each sector to self-evaluate. Why then must nonprofits self-regulate? So that change and transformation itself not only lends to a better serving sector, but gives a space in which that magical change can occur.

Part 2. In order to examine “how” nonprofit organizations might self-regulate, please compare, contrast, and critique the following standards for nonprofits created by three prominent self-regulation schemes. If appropriate, you might want to consider the appropriateness (e.g., adequacy, inadequacy, practicality, etc.) of such standards for nonprofit subfields in your discussion.

All three resources provided for “how” nonprofits self-regulate are good starting places. Best practice methods are put forward in theoretical and practical terms that give benchmarks by which philanthropic organizations may be motivated to adhere. However, they also are inadequate in some specific dimensions.

All three call for no board compensation other than reimbursement of expenses. I am still wrapping my head around this one. As a member of a board, it is a standard I have agreed to. However, I question its practicality in changing times and across a very diverse set of organizations. As I took this position, it was difficult for me to explain to relatives, etc that no – this is a volunteer position, and I , in fact, am honor bound to either contribute and/or seek donations for the organization. In a practical sense, they took the equation of time=money which we were all raised with and looked at me as though I was crazy.

Perhaps they are correct.! ;-)

But, those involved in our sector understand that there is other currency that is not green – that is more ephemeral and based in a passion for others, a desire to give to something bigger than ourselves.

OK, fine. But, I don’t believe this equation is as simplistic either. I look to city councils where council members are unpaid and I look to city councils where they are compensated. I see better performance wherein they are paid, because serving the city full-time in that capacity and getting compensated meets needs that they would have to have another job for. I wonder if, depending on the organization, there are instances that for that organization alone – compensation of directors is a more motivating approach.

There is also the rule that board and staff must be separate. Again, my argument falls to one of allowing organizational diversity within the sector. There will be situations wherein this will not work.

Most pointedly for me are standards in regard to reserve limits. Any standard which is arbitrary and does not allow the organization to match what is best for them in terms of strategic forecasting of the terrain in the next 3, 5 or 10 years inclusive of economic conditions, growth, or building/land acquisition is not realistic. For me, an approximate liquidity target that takes into account how convertible holdings are in addition to how many of those holdings you have and what you are going to do with them is more honest, transparent, and the best standard (Zeitlow 2007). Basic to this approach is the idea of how fast and efficiently can a manager move the funds from one form to another to cover basic organizational expenses.

I am impressed with the Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations fundraising ratio of 3:1 (3 times as much revenue as fundraising costs) and the approach that allows explanation for why an organization doesn’t meet this standard - that it is a goal to be eventually reached. However, I again do not think that it works in all cases and that for an organization to be considered “good” it has to meet this standard.

All three sets of standards also contain ethics on solicitation and truth in marketing. This is admirable in my opinion, but laughable in my deep dark heart. I have seen too much fighting on both sides of an issue to believe that all propaganda is “truthful marketing” Will funds be used as they say they are, yes…they should be. Is it really in an effort to defeat our enemies because they are the demons we make them out to be – NO. Marketing and propaganda is how organizations move masses of people – these methods are not brutally honest by nature.

All this being said, I do believe in standards. Almost everything in life needs protocols in order to allow for proper management, communication and easy exchange of elements. And, those protocols must be adhered to even as people call for exceptions (as a general rule) because everyone is going to try and “buck the system”. But, by having most people follow a general set of rules, one can then look specifically to the exceptions and spend the time where needed to address the real root causes and approaches to those idiosyncrasies.

What I appreciate most in these standards (and found notably in the BBB standards) are where the standards call for a policy to be internally created in the organization (ex: Conflict of interests policies) wherein definition is left up to the will of that organization alone. Also useful are templates to base these policies upon for practical management application wherein a board flushes out what problems and strategic vulnerabilities it may see in a certain templated approach.