Stanford Social Innovation Review

Hey Jeff, I am totally with you on that point! In nonprofits, the people who raise the money and the people who spend the money are very often quite far apart. But do you actually know of any nonprofits which got rid of their marketing departments? Frank

»» Posted by: Frank on July 25, 2007 02:44 AM

Jeff,

I absolutely agree with you. I cannot tell you how much wasted internal effort I have seen with organizations in their tussles with marketing. It’s depressing. Your comments are right on target.  A key part of your comment is that “it’s everyone’s job” and that is true. Marketing expertise is valuable but is even more valuable when the marketing people can help spread their skills and leverage their impact by helping understand how to use marketing in their day to day work. That doesn’t happen when the marketing person is defending or fortifying a position.

»» Posted by: Kevin Johnson on July 25, 2007 10:57 AM

Jeff:
I will go you one further.  I say get rid of marketing entirely.  Blasphemy?  Hardly.  Marketing is a competitive venture, intended to separate an organization from the rest of the pack. 

On the other hand, Community Engagement is a cooperative, inclusive venture, that engages everyone in the mission of the organization, from the ground up.  It builds friends - not the nonprofit euphemism “friends = those who give you money,” but real friends, who will pitch in in every way imaginable, to ensure the community is a better place to live.  Those friends might be donors, but they might be other similar organizations (formerly known as the competition). 

From there, I agree with you - engagement should not be a separate committee or department, but part of every single action an organization takes.

I have written extensively on this subject - if it is of interest, the following article is a summary:
http://www.help4nonprofits.com/NP_Mktg_Marketing-vs-CommunityEngagement_Art.htm

The differences between marketing and Community Engagement may seem subtle at first, but they are powerful.  If we really want this sector to create more dramatic social change, we cannot accomplish that if we are being encouraged to compete with each other.  If we continue to teach organizations to compete (and marketing is all about competition), we cannot then complain when they do precisely what we are teaching them to do.

»» Posted by: Hildy Gottlieb on July 25, 2007 11:23 AM

To Frank:  Sadly, I have not yet heard of a nonprofit that reformed its marketing department out of existence.  I have known of a few that never had one in the first place.  In the consensus-driven nonprofit world, doing something as radical as getting rid of an entire department is a tall order.  Not likely.

»» Posted by: Jeff Brooks on July 25, 2007 10:10 PM

So, then, what does an organization do to make sure everyone’s on the same page regarding message? How are publications, website, social media, media relations executed? What is the management structure that will ensure coordination and consistency?

»» Posted by: Dana on July 26, 2007 12:10 PM

Jeff:

Couldn’t agree more - marketing has to be global throughout the organization, but I do think a truly effective marketing department will infect the whole organization with their gospel, without having to police everyone else. It’s not about mind control, but about mind share.

Thanks for making us stop and think.  -Leo

»» Posted by: Leo Muller on July 26, 2007 12:16 PM

I wish the article provided more of how the marketing department can serve the organization. Dismantling it completely without providing any information on how “everyone” becomes oriented and trained to be better spokespeople and better donor relationship managers isn’t very helpful to readers. This isn’t the Stanford Sensational Insider Review.

»» Posted by: Yvette on July 26, 2007 12:30 PM

Jeff:

Your concerns are very true, but your solution proposition seems to be simplistic and overly idealistic. Everyone thinks they know marketing… “hey, we are all consumers, no?” But there’s quite a lot of operative responsibilities on a marketing department’s hand that rarely do you ever see the required skills on say Sales, Operations, Management, IT or Financial departments.

You’re proposal of marketing as the guiding light to all the operation might seem like quite a discovery, but again, to those of us marketers who have taken the professional investment to learn about it thoroughly do know that this perspective -and ideal, has been discussed and proposed since the early stages of its founding theories.

Bottom line for readers: do without a marketing department at your own risk.

Best, Max

»» Posted by: Max Sequeira on July 26, 2007 12:41 PM

Jeff, although your opening statement is meant to be provocative, I agree that for marketing and branding to be effective, they must take a holistic approach throughout the organization. Marketing is about influencing behavior - for donors and funders to choose your organization, for members to join your association, for people to want to get involved with your mission. Having a strong brand is a magnet for community involvement.

Hildy, I respect what you do, but I have to disagree with you. Someone needs to drive an organization’s marketing and branding efforts, and that’s why there should be a marketing thought leader on the inside and a CEO who “gets it.” This is not about news releases and annual reports, it’s much bigger.

To be successful, nonprofits should look at collaborative efforts, but unless they also see the competitive marketplace, why would anyone choose them over other similar organizations unless they stand out, have a mission worth supporting and have a strong brand? Otherwise, why not close up shop, give up the 501 status, and join the efforts of a larger organization that can accomplish more?

»» Posted by: Elaine Fogel on July 26, 2007 12:47 PM

Great idea Hildy, and since everyone will find you based solely on word of your good work- don’t stop there. Why not lose the Development Department while you are at it because raising that money is so time consuming! I mean after all, if your organization is truly making a meaningful contribution, ‘engaging the community’ or whatever you wish to call it, won’t the money just rush in?

Won’t every person who wishes to fund such worthy endeavors as yours take the time and effort to thoroughly research each available avenue, carefully weigh the varying nuisances of the organizations’ missions and then peruse 990 filings to ascertain efficiency? Won’t each donor dig and dig until they find the organization doing the work which they seek to support? So who needs Development as they only count the money that was going to flow in anyway. Yep its just like Marketing, which is only helping to create a meaningful donor experience or craft a concise and memorable campaign message that every donor who is doing all those hours of thoughtful and tedious research will discover anyway, right? So since everyone will find and fund you based solely on your good work you don’t need Marketing or Development......and look at all the overhead we just eliminated!

Hummm, now on to that pesky Board...........

»» Posted by: HopeHasAFace on July 26, 2007 12:48 PM

I appreciate the spirit of Hildy’s message, and desire to make marketing more human. The spirit of your message rings true to me deeply.

But please, marketing need not be framed from a competitive worldview. Your post about marketing versus community engagement seems to overlook the underlying meaning of “marketing” - that is, it’s a verb that means “to create a market”. Isn’t that what most social entrepreneurs, social innovators, and even the average nonprofit leader is trying to do - create an environment that is more effective, efficient, and equitable in the exchange of whatever pursuit. Just because many businesses have lost sight of this deeper meaning, doesn’t mean there is something here for nonprofits to learn.

This relates back to Jeff’s original post. Marketing is not some silo function, but rather a larger essential pursuit, that can be approached in very real, human, and integrative terms across all of an organization’s function. Marketing is about becoming more conscious of the relationships that you engage in and how to make that exchange of value more authentic, meaningful, and worthwhile for everyone involved.

»» Posted by: Michael Margolis on July 26, 2007 12:52 PM

I agree - a marketing department that is disconnected from the rest of the organization will most likely be wasteful, irrelevant and at odds with creating a remarkable organization.  However, I think having different parts of an organization each doing their own marketing efforts in isolation, by people who may have no skill, interest or experience in communications and who are already working at or beyond capacity, will (in most organizations) create strategies that are equally if not more wasteful, irrelevant and at odds with the organization. 

I don’t think that I’m going out on a limb here when I say that most effective organizations - be they nonprofit, government, or business - have someone or (gasp!) a department, which is intimately connected to the larger organization and which is responsible for creating a co-ordinated, skillfully-implemented marketing strategy that supports the organization’s mission, goals and priorities.  And the really good ones engage everyone in the organization.

»» Posted by: Andy Horsnell on July 26, 2007 01:03 PM

I’ve been with the same nonprofit (around 50 employees) for over six years, and we gradually and organically dismantled our “marketing department.” The work was distributed throughout the organization, but in my opinion, without someone whose job it was to lead the effort, many things went by the wayside and our communication has been much less effective.  Well-meaning staff members design their own organization logos, ‘break’ the web site by fiddling to try and accomplish what they want, cause more work for technically-inclined staff, organize site files to their liking so that users can’t find them, destroy the site information architecture and make it difficult to navigate, send out blanket emails to our constituents to advertise something.  And they are getting pretty frustrated, because although they are passionate about their work, they feel that they aren’t trained to do any of this and really miss having someone to go to as a resource so they can do their jobs—direct service for youth and adults.

I agree with the previous comments about the utmost importance of community engagement as well as ‘infecting’ the organization with a feeling that what they’re doing is important, ingraining in them the need to proselytize the organization’s work.  But I’ve also seen a lot of people get burned out with what feels like, quite simply, more work on top of an already typical nonprofit workload, as well as a lack of consistency and effectiveness in both our internal and external communications.

Who will organize those community events?  Who will get online and make calls to community leaders?  Who will survey constituents to find out what they really want?  Who will compile, design, and disseminate the newsletter?  For larger nonprofits at least, and in my experience, it is difficult if not impossible to get all of this done without having someone lead and coordinate the effort.  Employees who provide direct service to the community often see all of these tasks as things that take them away from the work they’ve been hired to do. 

I see it as more of a redefinition of the nonprofit marketing person’s role—to lead the organization’s web 2.0 efforts, to enable two-way communication between staff and the people you serve, to develop and internally/externally promote social networks and meaningful connections and partnerships, to coordinate (rather than control) and cheerlead, as well as train others to do the same.  Today’s nonprofit marketing person should be more Communications Champion, providing resources, structure, and services to enable other members of the organization to be integrally involved in the organization’s community engagement efforts online and offline.

»» Posted by: Jen Gilomen on July 26, 2007 01:05 PM

Regarding the comments by HopeHasAFace, I would hope that we could engage in this discussion in a snark-free zone, where viewpoints like Hildy’s can be put forth without being diminished and ridiculed. 

So where are the on-the-ground examples of ways that organizations incorporate marketing into every part of their work?  How do you ensure that a coherent message gets across to the public?

»» Posted by: Carrie Avery on July 26, 2007 01:10 PM

Oh, Jeff and Hildy.  Trying to be a provocateur is one thing, but backing it up with a complete lack of logic is quite another.  Marketing your message is essential.  If you don’t believe so, then get out of the business.  Having a marketing department, if you can afford it, works.  It is as essential as the artistry, as the mission, as the development, as the operations, as the board.  In essence, marketing tells the story in ways in which the various publics can understand them and support them. 

You’re actually doing more harm than good in shooting at the messengers here—organizations that resent their marketing people create a whirpool of dysfunction that cycles into irrelevance.  Jeff, Hildy, and others who hate the marketers:  Stop creating chasms between nonprofit professionals.  It’s useless, it’s wrong, and it’s destructive.

»» Posted by: Alan on July 26, 2007 01:28 PM

If you define marketing broadly (see the definitions of marketing below) then yes, it’s everyone’s job to be involved with marketing. Of course, with such broad definition, marketing is much more than just advertising. It encompasses product strategy (including what your products/service do and who they serve), pricing strategy, distribution strategy, and promotion strategy. Community Engagement, as mentioned by Hildy above, is one of many options in the marketing mix.

One part (and not the sole part) of the marketing mix is marketing communications, and typically a team of specialists (or outside consultants/advisors) play a lead role in developing marketing communications for an organization. In the same way that you would have a finance specialist managing the accounting books, it makes sense to have a marketing specialist work on marketing communication activities such as brand strategy, web site design, or marketing collateral.

So perhaps better than “losing the marketing department” is clearly defining which Marketing (using definitions below) activities are appropriate for a team of marketing communication specialists, and which are appropriate for senior management of the organization and other staff to manage. Giving everyone in the organization free reign to create collateral or blog on behalf of the organization may not yield the result you want, assuming you want to present a coherent brand experience and messaging to your target audiences.

Note that “marketing communications” in the business world encompasses many activities that many nonprofits call “outreach” or “communications” or “development” - these terms are used because they’re more appropriate for the nonprofit audience (which is good marketing!)

MARKETING DEFINTIONS

American Marketing Association: “Marketing is a process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.”

Philip Kotler (who has written definitive textbooks on marketing, including for the nonprofit sector):
Here is my definition of marketing: Marketing management is the art and science of choosing target markets and getting, keeping, and growing customers through creating, communicating, and delivering superior customer value.
Or if you like a more detailed definition: “Marketing is the business function that identifies unfulfilled needs and wants, defines and measures their magnitude and potential profitability, determines which target markets the organization can best serve, decides on appropriate products, services, and programs to serve
these chosen markets, and calls upon everyone in the organization to think and serve the customer.”

Peter Drucker (In his 1954 book The Practice of Management): “Marketing is the distinguishing unique function of the business. A business is set apart from all other human organisations by its marketing activities. Any organisation that fulfills its purpose through marketing is a business, and any organisation where marketing is absent or incidental is not a business, and shouldn’t be run as such.”

Peter Drucker: “Because its purpose is to create a client, the business has two - and only two - functions… Marketing and Innovation. Marketing and Innovation produce results, all the rest are costs…”

»» Posted by: Patrick on July 26, 2007 05:14 PM

I agree it is everyone’s job to make sure that an organization’s message gets out.  Where I have found the problem to be is not with the marketing department persee but with the individuals in the jobs.  Where I use to work I did a lot of marketing stuff, newsletters, websites, direct mail, but I wasn’t trained, I didn’t take any college courses on marketing yet I was doing marketing and the official “PR” and “Marketing” individuals I think felt threatened and confused.  A marketing department I think can be great if they are open to accepting that everyone has a role in marketing.  That they can learn from all employees.  What I really hope is that individuals can stop being so defensive when other people offer suggestions or help.

Tory

»» Posted by: Tory on July 26, 2007 06:53 PM

Interesting discussion.  If I might clarify, I do not believe anything I mentioned suggested that an organization just sit back and let the world happen to them.  Community Engagement is a highly proactive, highly engaging approach that is the exact opposite of just letting the good works of an organization speak for themselves.  The reason I provided the link to more information about the topic was to share not only what Community Engagement is, but what it can accomplish that marketing (as it is most commonly done) cannot accomplish.

As for the thought that suggesting and/or exploring different approaches to the work of this sector is destructive and/or divisive, perhaps that is, in part, the nature of innovation.  If innovation requires that we see things with new eyes, and that we act on that new way of seeing, that is not always a comfortable discussion.  I would hope, though, that that is the purpose of this forum - to find those new ways of seeing, to engage that conversation, and to push the dialogue of the sector to new places, where we can find more effective ways of creating community change.

Thank you, Jeff, for bringing up a topic that clearly pushed that dialogue!

»» Posted by: Hildy Gottlieb on July 26, 2007 07:48 PM

I think this conversation is particularly interesting in light of my own experience—going into nonprofit marketing and development after 12 years in for profit marketing and I have YET to see a marketing department in any nonprofit where I’ve worked. It’s usually merged into development, and any use of the word “branding” brings winces to the faces of those who have only worked in nonprofit.

So in my sixteen years of nonprofit work, I’ve yet to see a marketing department in a nonprofit (and I’ve worked for 2 of the top 10 nonprofits nationally). All to say, Jeff Brooks is psychic or ahead of his time. Either way, we should be so lucky as to have marketing expertise, approaches and financial resources to tell the story of our agencies so well that community engagement is inspired as a result.

»» Posted by: sue on July 26, 2007 08:17 PM

Its clear Jeff, like the majority of non-profits, don’t get the essence of marketing and confuse it with customer relations, an ethos, communications etc and sure its a given that the almost ‘touchy feely’ stuff Jeff refers to needs to permeate the organization. However given the critical work NGOs and charities have to do it is recommended that they (i) steel themselves to pay market-related salaries and (ii) hire top for-profit marketing talent or agencies. Jeff’s (and others) simplistic take on marketing misses that it is about leading and co-ordinating strategic planning and implementation. It is required to address (after research to determine what is the landscape that makes the organization and its mission necessary) the organization’s need, mission and purpose, to identify constituents and stake-holders, to understand their expectations, to strategically position and differentiate organization’s value-proposition accordingly (absolutely essential given the increasingly competitive donor funding environment and organization’s requirement for continuity of funding), to strategically align program design with purpose, to articulate and measure impact, benefits and outcomes and of course to lead internal and external multiple stake-holder communication programs (generally a complex messaging process that defines the “worth” of the organzation and all it achieves) using advertising, PR marketing. direct mailings etc Note that “strategic” is used repeatedly here and while almost universally we see NGO/Charity management fumbling with their organizations’ marketing requirements (to the detriment of those organizations) the sooner they (and Jeff) realise marketing requires a specific and strategic skill set the better. Sorry to tell you real marketing cannot be done by a the organization’s rank and file. To quote former US President J F Kennedy, “it’s a case of if you always do what you always do, you always get what you always got” and NGOs/Charities realy need re-education when it comes to marketing.

»» Posted by: Ged on July 27, 2007 12:38 AM

Interesting position - but actually pretty old hat now. Malcolm MacDonald was talking in the 1980s and 90s about the ‘Corporate Zit’ - which was how he referred to marketing departments that operate as you describe. They added about as much value.

What the smart organizations have since realised is that you don’t need to somehow ‘do-away’ with your marketing team, what you actually need is a team, part of who’s role is to ensure that everyone knows it’s their job to do all of the things you mention. This is just good ‘internal marketing’ practice.

Adrian Sargeant
Professor of Nonprofit Marketing

»» Posted by: Adrian Sargeant on July 27, 2007 07:15 AM

We’ve actually solved the disconnect problem by having one combined Marketing/Annual Fundraising Director. By working with the various service areas/business units to develop bi-annual marketing plans and then working on execution, we stay on top of what the organization is doing and how we are delivering on our mission. By handling communications to both prospective/current clients and prospective/current donors, we can deliver an integrated, cohesive brand message. We’re a social service agency. Any client can be a donor and via versa!

»» Posted by: Laurie Gottlieb on August 1, 2007 07:24 AM

In the technology world there are now many advocates for allocating some % of the marketing budget toward creating better designed user experiences. The argument is that a great experience sells itself and generates loyalty the Marketing Dept will never achieve on its own.

In other organizations (tech-related or not), focusing on the experience that is being delivered is a shift away from “selling” and toward “delivering real value.” Taken seriously, this simple shift of focus can be the tipping point for significant cultural change in an organization, and can produce much stronger, long-term relationships with internal and external stake holders. As I suggest to my clients: What if, in our every endeavor, we have the goal of designing and delivering the best possible experience? We could develop an experience design culture that truly pays attention to what matters most. Every person on the receiving end of that experience will be grateful.

I don’t think marketing departments aren’t inherently evil, but I do think they should play an integral part of every experience design team in an organization. If they added their wisdom to the design process, the final product / service would be stronger.

»» Posted by: Gabriel Shirley on August 2, 2007 10:10 PM

Marketing is a organization wide approach is what I see the author really saying and embracing with gusto---so sure dismantle it IF “the top person” is the head of Marketing as to me that means Executive Director?  Technically “the bottom person” if you are truly a marketing who puts the customer at the top of the org chart---see Theodore Levitts classic Marketing Myopia article authored in 1961 that you build your organization from answering the question of what business/service are you REALLY IN??  This will clearly support why dismantling marketing is not to bash the marketing department but to PUT real marketers in CHARGE!  Real meaning a competent understanding that the 4 P’s must be aligned and not in silo’s.

Define Marketing – Must recognize that it is more than Advertising & Promotional collateral...4 P’s

· Product or service – the ‘foundation” of your business

· Price – where you are placing yourself against competitors – it effects your brand perception

· Promotion – your marketing mix tactics--only 1/4th of the gig and yet most think JUST This p is marketing and thus causes 100% of the confusion!!!

· Placement – how you will reach your customers – today’s economy offers new opportunities

Few companies and few silo leaders truly understand what this means – you need to expose the lie – analyze your organization and admit what you really are---what you really are and what your people really do to advance your mission?

· Even it is embraced to be a marketing company, as soon as times get tough, the philosophy is lost and one of the silo who is most powerful or board person elevates FINANCE silo or some herky jerky swings in power and misdirection. 

What is a Marketing Company?

· A marketing company takes into account the needs of the market and its customers/donors and develops a company/non profit to “profitably” (non profit metrics that are going up NOT shrinking ....."performance relative to mission") serve those needs.

· When evaluating decisions – it is based on what meets the needs of the customer.

· Marketing Myopia – Theordore Levitt – you must understand what business you are in to meet the needs of your customers – you are in the transportation business, not the train business.

Why is this important – How does it make a difference?

· The concept of accounting, customer service, product, A&P;, big budget stuff tied to administrative, etc. all reporting into a marketing “oriented” decision maker is somewhat of an uncomfortable and revolutionary concept----not for the best consumer products company’s like Nike it is NOT!!!! 

· The marketing person has often been regarded as too creative or “whacky” to take on this level of responsibility.  Again to most marketing is just advertising and as most said Branding---just NOT right gang.  Most of the posts are speaking to the department that does that stuff---call it the advertising and promotion team or person THEN---not marketing which is far more strategic NOT TACTICS.  Heck outsource that stuff anyway just like hmmm Nike does ironically to Wieden and Kennedy---what Nike one of the greatest marketing companies in the world outsources what most think is marketing--all their award winning advertising campaigns....all thier best print and TV and promotional tactical implementation!!

Core Values must reflect the marketing “discipline”

· In order for these principals to exist and thrive within your non profit, they must be incorporated into your non profits core values and the foundation of your non profits culture.

· Also recognize who your customers and stakeholders truly are – it is more than you think, it is your employees, your vendors, your bank, yourself, your members, donor and those who benefit by your service....

I work with over 200 non profits and everyday we must cajole and battle daily to get our customers to focus on this simple fact, but amazingly due to the confusion about this topic of what marketing really is....INVESTING in the “marketing way’ and investing in donor centered way is the just that “an INVESTMENT”.  I will finally conclude with a true story about he difference between Nike and what was once my and the nations favorite shoe company growing up in the 1970’s, Converse and their lead shoe The Chuck Taylor All Star.  How did the company Converse in 1978 lead America in Athletic Shoes with spokepeople at the time of Larry Bird--Magic Johnson and Doctor J (great “promotion department” and even great ads) lose out to Nike who was but a start up that same year?  I contend in my research that it is some of the simple truths that have come from my hear Levitt and his article “Marketing Myopia” some other pionts that I tried to lay out here.  Guess who owns Converse today---yep Nike!! 

Thanks for listening...I go enjoy when I see this debate rage on and in industries outside of non profits this is actually an old debate.....

What might help this make sense is think of what Steven Jobs has done again with Apple....and with Pixar.....he is Apples Chief Marketing Officer in practice...sure the CEO but it is all about aligning the price--the product--the placement and then “promotion” is easy.....

»» Posted by: Greg Woodman on August 3, 2007 02:14 PM

I like the notion that marketing and telling the story should be everyone’s job ... (course having a concise and consistent story helps so everyone in your organization re-inforces the same message)…

that said.. what do you think is the board’s role in telling the marketing story?  Boards are made up of donors.. they more than anyone I would think know the target profile…

what are some “best” stories of boardmembers actively marketing npo’s?

»» Posted by: Clara on August 9, 2007 11:29 PM

I totally agree with you Jeff. These departments are tradionally suffering from arrogance that they are bringing in the money. On the other hand, purchasing has been neglected as an important alternative to improve ROI.

WIthin the future knowledge industrie, the marketing department will fade away as the business developers take over their task.

»» Posted by: Bob on January 20, 2008 10:25 AM

I agree that marketing is everyone’s job in the organization. The right hand must know what the left hand is doing. It must be a coordinated effort to avoid mixed messages and wasted effort.

»» Posted by: Margie C. Sweeney on February 28, 2008 02:09 PM

Although I agree with you that marketing is absolutely everyone’s job in the organization, I completely disagree about getting rid of the marketing department. The marketing dept - even if it is just one person - plays a crucial role in supporting everyone else to market the organization. I’ve had leaders who didn’t give any resources to marketing and thought that everyone should just do it organically as part of their job. That strategy didn’t work at all. In a sector where communications and marketing have been denigrated for years and in an social atmosphere where there is an increased need for nonprofits to make themselves more accesible and understood, I think marketing departments are critical.

»» Posted by: Christine on February 28, 2008 04:45 PM