Category — sponsorships

To paraphrase Shakespeare, would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? I’d say NOT.

I have been talking a lot this past week about the value in a strong brand and what branding means to nonprofits. Typically, we have thought of a brand as our logo. There it is. Stick it on all of your materials and call it a day.

This is another area in which we NPOs tend to undervalue ourselves. Just think of some of the best known nonprofit brands out there. According to this New York Times article from last year, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/24charity.html?_r=2&ref=us the YMCA has the strongest brand – followed by the Salvation Army and the United Way of America.

What does this mean? Well, it means that their organizations have clear personalities. When people hear or see the name, they know what to expect and it rings all of the appropriate emotional bells in their minds. If someone asks you to support the YMCA, you rarely need to stop and ask “Now what do they do?” That gives them power in the marketplace with stakeholders of all kind, including potential corporate partners.

You may not have a nationally known brand. Face it, few of us do. This doesn’t let you off the proverbial hook. Whatever the size of your universe, make it count. Give your brand the power it needs to speak for you and to represent you well.

Here is a good place to start: set in front of you on a table both your mission statement and a few examples of your brand in action (your newsletter, letterhead, a funding proposal, etc.). Ask yourself this question: do these things all speak the same language and do they say what I want my audience to hear? If the answer is not a resounding yes, get to work!

I was at a meeting at the Center for Nonprofit Management in Nashville, TN a few weeks ago and the director was quoted as saying “Never Waste A Crisis.” Of course this sounds like a contradiction but it made perfect sense in the context. We were talking about nonprofits and the need to focus on our core missions and be realistic about our programs and our roles within the community.

After the meeting, I started thinking about the wider implications of this idea in the current economic climate. Almost everyone and every business I know is facing some level of “crisis” and some have been more introspective than others. Clearly, some difficulties are just plain lousy. Some, however, really can be a hidden opportunity or at least a wake-up call.

We cannot rewind the clock and make different choices before the economic downturn began. We can’t rethink a greedy growth mode or undo the program or partnership that was clearly off the mark. We CAN use these lessons and their results to build strong partnerships now – ones that will serve in tough times and will only grow in impact as things improve again. So, don’t waste the crisis… live, learn and look forward.

In this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, there was a marketing piece about “The Brand-ness of Strangers.” It focused on the examples of Ralph Lauren’s Polo Brand and Dasani brand bottled water.

Among other things, this article summarized the results of a research study that answers the question” Does seeing a brand in regular use (as opposed to the media) impact our likelihood of selecting the brand? The answer seems to be YES.

I cannot say that I am surprised by this news but it does reinforce the high value of product based sponsorships. If, as the research in the article contends, people perceive a brand more favorably that they see often, then this adds weight to corporate – NPO partnerships that add visibility to a brand.

Nonprofits have loyal and consistent communities. Generally these communities of donors, participants and volunteers trust the NPO and its information. For the company that promotes their brand to this audience in this way, they receive the transferred benefit of these beliefs. Not only does the potential consumer see the logo, it sees it in connection with something they already like, already support.

Add the compact nature of NPO target audiences and the ability to micromarket, and you have solid gold.

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here to join this nonprofit and this corporation. In sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, for better or worse… hey, wait a minute… what do you mean by WORSE?

What if my sponsorship partner is involved in a scandal? Insider trading? Sexual misconduct? Financial disaster? Then what happens?

The answer might just depend on whether you thought through these potential challenges ahead of time and created a sponsorship “pre-nuptial” agreement. Every good partnership hopes for the best but prepares for the worst.

Here is a good example: I am currently working with a NPO client whose work involves advocacy and sometimes legal action around a particular issue. If a company is in violation of the laws in this area, the NPO often assists other nonprofits or community groups in filing complaints against the violators.  Great work. Very necessary. Best of all, they are very good at what they do.

So, what happens if one of their corporate partners ends up on the wrong side of the law? The NPO has thought ahead and includes in all of its requests for sponsorship the caution that partnership does not imply endorsement of corporate policies or prevent them from future action if it becomes necessary. Not much of a warm, gushy enticement to give – but the honest truth.

In our rush for dollars, exposure and good will among men, we can forget these harsh truths and how important they are to our missions. Whether you speak for an NPO or corporation, you should know your organization’s ethics and your parameters. We hope to never need to fall back on these exclusions but no one ever gets married hoping for a divorce either.

I tend to think of myself as someone with a fairly broad vocabulary.  I can pull out the flashy big words when I need them.  However, I have heard a new word tossed around so much lately that I think it is worth taking note.  I know it is not new for everyone but it has certainly gained mainstream footing in the past year: Monetization.

Technically, the various dictionary sources that I checked define monetization as converting or establishing something as legal tender, particularly for a country.  The new, expanded definition of the word in popular vernacular means to turn something (or package something) of previously intangible value into something that can purchased and sold – something that can generate income.

I found several news stories accusing lack of monetization for the downfall of the dot-com boom.  Every podcast I hear about creating web sites and blogs encourages its listeners to monetize sites through widgets and affiliate marketing.  This change in perception of VALUE has led to information products galore and even the IRS questioning the taxability of “income” from Second Life.

Nonprofits are not immune to this craze, nor are the data junkies who collate and categorize consumer trends and habits.  People are big business and organizations of all types are profiting from their ability to deliver a cohesive, responsive, valuable consumer segment to the marketplace – smart nonprofits are building these benefits into their cause marketing programs and savvy companies are demanding donor and client access as part of their sponsorship agreements. 

Here is an example: I blogged last month about the media battle raging between Sierra Club and its Florida chapter.  The debate was over the national organization’s decision to endorse the new “green” product line launched by Clorox.  In exchange for financial and other support of the Sierra Club, the NPO provided its endorsement and access, directly or indirectly, to its extensive base of supporters.  Sierra Club MONETIZED its supporters and its brand.

Is this a bad thing?  Possibly, but I think it is more about the evolution of our consumer culture.  Traditional advertising is not delivering the returns it once did, so corporations are looking for new ways to reach target markets.  NPOs are one of the sources and they leverage this potential into sponsorship dollars and relationships around shared goals.  Who can blame them?

This morning I was checking email and received a message from our local Girl Scouts Council about a great program called GoGirlGo! It is administered by the Women’s Sports Foundation founded by Billie Jean King in 1974.  The focus of the program is to use “sports and physical activity as an educational intervention that supports girls’ health and wellness…”

Gatorade is one of the leading sponsors of this program and, as I explored the web site, seems to me to be a great partnership fit.  However, I was disappointed as I further explored the GoGirlsGo! site and even linked over to the Gatorade web site.  Neither of these organizations are expending the effort to maximize this partnership.

Yes, I’m sure the Women’s Sports Foundation is thrilled with the generous financial support.  I’m also sure that Gatorade is happy with its featured partner status and logo placement on the GiGirlsGo! web page.  But… let’s think about this in the context of a bigger picture.

Who’s website generates greater traffic?  Gatorade must see millions more hits than the Foundation yet there is nothing on Gatorade’s site that ties back to the program.  I know I have read of other philanthropic efforts by Gatorade and its brands but their site says nothing about these efforts or does anything to distinguish itself as a caring brand leader.  What about a mention on the Gatorade site about the program whereby both the Foundation and Gatorade win?

How does this fit with the Gatorade brand message and mission?  Practically speaking, I can see the connection and it makes sense in my head.  Sports drinks, girls sports, future consumers, etc.  Is Gatorade making a conscious decision to support youth fitness?  Is this a reason for me to favor this brand or to support this cause?

It is wonderful that Gatorade is supporting such a great program and their financial commitment is honorable.  This is a prime example where a Goal Driven Philanthropy model (like the work we try to accomplish) would have built greater value for the partnership. 

I joined a friend last week in having a yard sale.  I know – what WAS I thinking?  I wanted some extra spending cash and I really needed to clear out the garage.  We had a nice time, unloaded a few gently used items and our girls hosted their own coffee and snack stand in the front yard.  This would have been a good solution with one exception – unintended consequences.

By the end of the second day, I had turned a garage-clearing allergy attack into a full blown case of bronchitis.  Between the $40 for medications and the two lost days of feeling miserable, the jury is still out on whether I netted a positive or negative outcome.  Sometimes it is all too easy to make our plans, see the short term gains, put our wheels in motion and THEN realize the potential downside. 

I know I have a predisposition for bronchitis.  You probably know that your business or non-profit has a tendency to broker deals without enough research or to take a liking to a partner without thoroughly researching all of their subsidiaries or secondary business dealings.  It is easy to see what we want to see and to ignore the rest.

The dangers in this can be far reaching.  With a wealth of information only a click away, your competitor, or even your closest ally, can complete the research that you overlooked and shatter your hard-earned reputation.  Your other partnerships can be questioned and your value as an industry leader can be undermined.

Four days after my sale, I’m still coughing but feeling better.  If only all consequences for poor planning could be better with a little rest and TLC.

ROI – return on investment.  This is often a challenge in sponsorship development and even more so in the new age of Goal Driven Philanthropy where relationships produce increasing rewards over time.  Over the years I have seen many ways to value intangibles and heard speakers talk about things like “prestige” and “awareness.”

I was recently contacted by a potential client who was looking for just such a measurement to determine the equity of a proposed partnership.  We discussed the basics of this idea and the gray area in between.  We talked about the reputations of the partners and what they can bring to the metaphorical table.  We talked about how really challenging this can be.

What’s my advice?  Well, two things come to mind.  First, think both big picture and long term.  Consumers, particularly baby-boomers, want to leave a legacy.  They want to see their involvement in a cause as something that will have a lasting impact – not just a splashy PR campaign with gimmicks that are gone in six months.

Second, think about assigning a cash equivalent to intangibles based on your knowledge of your donor or customer base.  How many purchases do your loyal customers make per year?  What is the retention rate of your donor base?  Are the demographics of your base desirable and to whom? 

At the end of the day, the REAL value is in the impact of the work on your mission and those you serve – whether they are stockholders, employees, clients or the community.

The Olympic Torch – symbol of freedom, rights and unity – has been under fire from human rights activists and the media.  It seems that every night on the news I see another image of crowds protesting the progress of the torch in its journey around the world.

Human Rights Watch is raising yet another issue as the lead up to the games progresses: What about the social responsibility of the games’ sponsors to speak out against conditions in China?  Lead sponsors, such as GE, Kodak and McDonald’s, are walking a fine line – supporting the international feel-good event without endorsing the political and socio-economic decisions of the host country.  How can they separate themselves from the very thing to which they so proudly connect themselves?

I don’t pretend to know the rationale of the Olympic Committee for selecting China as a host country.  However, I believe that I know the motivations of the lead sponsors.  I can’t help but wonder if they considered these ramifications or the depth of knowledge of their customers and clients.