How (Bad) Marketing and Branding can Kill Your Fundraising
WHY do you have marketing, communications and branding for your organization? 
It’s important to ask these questions:
- WHY does marketing exist?
- What is the purpose of our newsletter?
- What is the purpose of our website?
- What is our branding supposed to do for us?
Too often I see that marketing, branding and communications vehicles go down the wrong street. They take on a life of their own – in the wrong direction!
(Note from Gail: I have edited the title of this post to include the word “bad” – I did this in order to clarify what I was trying to say in this post that created such controversy.)
They forget WHAT they are supposed to be accomplishing for the organization.
They become fancy and self-indulgent priorities for the organization, and no thought goes into WHY we are doing this. And WHY are we spending so very much money – for WHAT?
Receive expert advice. Direct to your inbox. Subscribe
Marketing needs to be a function of fundraising, and not the other way around.
Marketing and all your organizational communications need to SERVE fundraising.
And what is your fundraising message about? It’s about the good work you do in the world. It’s about WHY your work is so important. It’s about the people you serve and how you are changing lives.
And this also should be the message of your newsletter – your branding – your communications and your website. Any direction away from this – is in my opinion, a wasted effort and a terribly wasted opportunity.
The Trouble with Marketing
Take a look at what fundraising guru John Lepp at the Agents for Good agency had to say about marketing in his post “The Problem with Marketing.”
He says that marketing is all about the organization’s identity: me me, me:
The problem with marketing is that it is run by marketers—people who believe that the needs of their charity come before those of the people the charity requires in order to function. (Yes, I’m talking about donors here. Surprise!)
Their logo, their impressive branding style guide created by a fancy advertising agency, their mission statement, their marketing and communications department—these all take priority over the act of talking with other loving humans.
Find out how we can help you achieve your fundraising goals with world-class consulting and custom training.
Commercial-style branding is all about itself – not about the donor.
Some marketing takes your organization the WRONG WAY.
By focusing internally on your own organization you are wasting scarce resources on blowing your own horn, and you are missing the boat.
Traditional marketing and branding often focus internally: “How great we are. What a terrific track record we have. And by the way here is a picture of our board chair and our CEO who are such cool, smart people. ” (wrong!)
Communications/marketing/branding MUST integrate and align with fundraising strategy.
If you are going to spend all that money – make sure that the investment and the effort actually serve your organization.
I see too many expensive, self-promoting newsletters from nonprofits that are focused internally – new staff, new board members, what we are up to.
Ask yourself this: Who gets the newsletter? Your donors? What do THEY want to read about?
Your newsletter can be a phenomenal fundraising tool – a profit center, even. But most nonprofits are wasting the opportunity by blathering on about themselves.
Separate silos of marketing and fundraising will hurt you.
When you have separate departments for marketing/communications and fundraising – you have two groups of people who will have sometimes opposing goals.
If marketing is to talk about how great your organization is, and fundraising is trying to talk about how great the donors and the work is, then you have a problem.
I’m going to let my friend John Lepp have the last word in this post:
Marketing has become the bubble wrap that many charities surround themselves with, all in the name of professionalism and profit.
It has very little to do with the work we, as fundraisers and charities, MUST do.
BOTTOM LINE: Do You Agree? Or Not?
Leave me a comment and let me know!
I needed this. With all these freelancers able to market these days for a fraction of the price we’d pay in America it can make you crazy. Way to bring me back down to earth Gail. Donor focus, donor love.
Little disappointed to see you jumping in on the hater train. What most of these critics hold up as the examples of why nonprofit marketing sucks, also suck as marketing! Good marketing is about the value exchange — which is entirely consistent with donor-centered communications. That said, nonprofits have LOTS of audiences to reach in order to fulfill their missions and fundraisers could stand to not be so myopic about that all the time.
Lumping all Marketing efforts as contrary to fundraising efforts is a rather broad statement. Non-profits are getting better and better at strategic communications. Non-profits have a number of audiences they need to communicate to: their donors yes, their customers and the public (those that may not know about their organization).
Effective non-profit marketing takes these three audiences into account and creates compelling and relevant content to reach and inspire each audience. It is not that all marketing kills fundraising. Effective marketing enhances fundraising while simultaneously and consistently branding the organization.
I strongly disagree! Make sure the priorities are aligned, w.r. to donors and organization’s needs so benefit is spread to success. Two parallel tracks won’t work.
Great article! Some people lose sight of the mission and get hung-up on the details. At the end of the day, what matter is what impact of good did we improved. Marketing is an enabler for non-profit to forward the mission. Being genuine eats professional packaging for breakfast.
Gail, you’ve described bad marketing. What fundraising depends on is good marketing that speaks to the hearts of donors. Tom Belford’s (The Agitator) introduced many of us this week to the amazing marketing of Possible Health’s website (http://possiblehealth.org/). It certainly fired me up about the power of marketing and branding.
Some organizations have more complex marketing issues than Lepp’s “fire your marketing team” position recognizes. Some of us actually do literally have something to sell. Symphonies and theaters must sell tickets; dance groups or visual arts organizations have classes and camps; some have shops or galleries. Zoos and museums are tourism destinations, in addition to serving conservation and education functions.
Absolutely everything must come back to the mission–you can’t sell effectively, nor can you raise support, if that doesn’t happen through integrated marketing and fundraising.
For me, our happy students are our best donor prospects, the ones most likely to want to contribute so that others can have the same life-changing experiences. Many, if not most, come here because they see our marketing.
It’s simplistic to tell me to fire marketing staff because we’re a non-profit and don’t need them. My biggest donor is a long-time student. He didn’t come to us because he wanted to give to the cause. He came to us because he wanted to take a class. Then, he became an advocate for our mission!
Early in my fundraising career, my (then) boss told me that one way to learn about what works and what doesn’t is to become a small donor to many organizations, local and national. As a result, my mailbox is filled every day with fundraising appeals and newsletters. He was so right. I can see the difference in those organizations who are grandstanding and those who are donor centered. And it continually amazes me what a poor job so many non-profit organizations do with their communications.
Lots of valid points on the comment thread.
I’m with Kivi and find this post to be an over-generalization. Good marketing (what I have always referred to as direct marketing) IS about the value exchange and is most definitely in-line with donor-focused fundraising. Margie, you were lucky to have a very smart boss. Since 2013, I have focused on BEING a donor and made hundreds of small gifts to small to mid-sized nonprofit organizations. What a wonderful lesson in desk-head-bashing that’s been.
My own mission’s entire focus is donor-love. Marketing and branding can fit right in. It’s not an either/or.
Thank you. Some non profits actually have customers…that may or may not be donors. We also have government and business partners as audiences. Good marketing is about connecting with your audience(s). What you are describing is just bad marketing, period. Not a real eye opener.
Agree, agree, agree! I’ve been on the “no more marketing and development silos” bandwagon for years. Actually, decades. They must, must, must be integrated. It’s a colossol waste of the organization’s resources to have separate departments both charged with the same mission. See my recent post for Guidestar on this topic: The Shocking Truth about Development and Marketing for Nonprofit. http://trust.guidestar.org/2015/01/14/the-shocking-truth-about-marketing-and-development-for-nonprofit/
One of the problems with simply chalking this up to “good” vs. “bad” marketing is that a lot of your definition of success depends upon how you define your constituencies. When the departments are separated, there’s a tendency to define the targets separately as well. The problem with this? Your constituencies overlap! As I wrote in the Guidestar article, effective communications — for fundraising or sales or whatever you
call it — deliver on your brand promise and always reflect your
organizational identity. Just what this organizational identify is will be the kicker. In determining it, everyone — marketing, development, program staff, volunteers, you-name-it — must be at the table. This ensures messaging is believable and
memorable, helping you to build trust among new constituents (be they
purchasers or contributors) and loyalty among constituents you already
have.
The tricky thing is in higher-education where Marketing must have two objectives: attract great students and (hat switch) help the institution raise more money. What is the optimal structure you propose for this type of organization and why?
Words like “marketing”, “branding”, “messaging” are all terms that are easy to criticize because they have been misused or misunderstood. (I prefer the term ‘communications’, personally, because it has less baggage.) Gail, you’re talking here about marketing and branding implemented out of context, or badly- not universal truths. The nonprofit sector is full of examples to the contrary- and data that proves it! Read “The Rebrand Effect” if you have doubts. And let’s celebrate the good guys who do it well rather than beat up the orgs who’ve lost sight of what all of this is really in service of.
Thanks for making us think hard about how best to do “marketing” in the upcoming year. You raised valid points, and fulfilled your promise to “take on sacred cows”. And by doing so your post also served up quick and sharp counter-points which themselves contained point/counterpoint views with details and further reading to back them up. Nice goin’.
Hi Kivi, thanks. Yes there is GOOD marketing – and there is BAD marketing. It is the bad stuff that I was ranting about and – I should have made that more clear in the post.
Good marketing is totally essential for fundraising success and I’ll be blogging about that issue this week.
Also I want to credit you at nonprofitmarketingguide.com, Nancy Swartz (gettingattention.org) and Sara Durham (bigducknyc.com) all as respected colleagues for teaching and demonstrating GOOD marketing that can help bring in the money. We are all on the same page.
Hi Ellie, nice to hear from you! Yup you are right – – it is bad marketing that can kill fundraising. Bad marketing is not donor-centered – it is organization-centered – and it’s all wrong.
Good marketing can open a donor’s heart and touch her soul – that’s what we all need to learn practice.
Thanks! I’m all for genuine – as long as it is mission focused. But many nonprofits don’t understand what it means to talk about the mission rather than themselves!
Hi Sarah, thanks and yup let’s celebrate the excellent examples of great marketing that bring in the money. Fundraising is actually turning into “Fund Marketing” if you ask me. What I mean by that is — the way you communicate has everything to do with the success of your appeal. So I agree that “communications” are the right word here.
We need folks like you and your company in the sector who are leading the way with excellent branding and marketing that work beautifully.
Some good points and glad you put this out in the universe. BUT……nonprofits don’t exist to fundraise – they exist to serve and it comes down to strong mission, strong message to all audiences, then money will follow (not all of it from charitable sources either). So while it’s critical to have the appropriate type of marketing and PR, let’s keep in mind we would miss the boat if all marketing was geared only at donors. Thanks for all your great work!
Thanks Debra – You have different messages for the different audiences. A donor-focused message for fundraising; and a student-focused message for recruiting students.
Thx Dave – a lively discussion for sure!
Agreed! Good marketing is focused on achieving a specific objective targeted to a certain audience – whether donors or another group. It is always focused on the audience – not the institution or its leaders. That’s where so many nonprofits go wrong – the wrong tone, wrong look and wrong message.
Margie, love your delineation of “grandstanding” vs donor-centered. I do think it’s hard to get it right – because it’s not intuitive.
Well said, Claire! Thx!
I have to agree with Kivi on this. This brand bashing and this approach to the topic is a straw dog and frankly, insulting. No decent marketer says, “let’s do a branding campaign.” The biggest problem I see with marketing in nonprofits is the widespread ignorance about marketing and good marketing practices – even when they are in charge of it. (I’m talking about mid and small sized nonprofits here.) It’s not a coincidence that marketers in the nonprofit sector are in business of educating their prospects and clients. This rant doesn’t just go after bad marketing – it goes after marketers as well, “the problem with marketing is that it’s run by marketers…” Sadly, there is nothing constructive in that remark or approach. I usually enjoy your insights and perspectives but I take issue with this negative approach.
‘fund marketing’ is interesting! I’ll think more about that..
Hi Gail and all, last month we strategically united our “marketing” and “development” teams into a single “Relationship Development” team so we can be sure to dovetail our efforts. For years we have been separate silos and this has cost a lot of money, time and effort. The move has already paid off with great synergy and idea sharing in a collaborative donor-centered way – not in two separate silos with conflicting goals! Here is an analogy I shared with the new team that I am heading up: “Marketing casts the fishing line into the water and tries to get a “tug.” Then they reel them in. Development then determines what type of fish it is – is it the type that should be thrown back in the water (i.e. – someone who dropped a business card in the fishbowl at a community event solely for the free gift) or, if it is a keeper, development can determine the best way to care for the fish so it will remain alive … and even more important grow under our care for a really long time!
Good external communications begins with good internal communications. If an organization’s fundraising and marketing departments are regularly engaging in conversations about their experiences promoting the organization (to any and all audiences); sharing the stories they hear from prospects, donors, and other supporters regarding what resonates about the organization’s mission; and asking one another how they can support the other’s efforts and goals, chances are that both the marketing and fundraising will be more effective.
Many mission driven organizations need to better coordinate their marketing and fundraising efforts and a good marketer can help.
Thanks Jennifer – we need to promote more communication and coordination between marketing and fundraising. Then as you point out, both goals can be advanced.
Tony thanks for your comment. You are describing a situation that happens often when Marketing goes in one direction and Fundraising goes in another. So glad you are breaking down the silos to bring everyone together!
Hi – love the picture! We do agree on this point for sure: the “problem I see with marketing in nonprofits is the widespread ignorance about marketing and good marketing practices.” Let’s focus here and try to educate both sides about how to do it correctly and effectively. Didn’t mean to attack my marketing friends for sure – I am more ticked off by the nonprofit leaders themselves who insist on self-aggrandizement (if that’s a word?) in their own marketing materials – at the expense of fundraising and everything else!
I find this really interesting, because my writing firm consists of exactly two people. One, myself, has a marketing background, whereas my business partner has a grant writing and development background. We’ve found that, in most cases, the two arenas work together wonderfully.
If the marketing/branding attempts are solely focused inward, they’re doing it wrong. That is not good marketing. Marketing should leave potential donors/clients/customers with no doubt about what you do, why you do it, or the lasting impact you have. In the non-profit sphere that is primarily achieved by focusing on the very same WHY question you mention in your post.
A lot of branding efforts result in an unfortunate amount of hubris, from both marketers and the companies who pay for it (“Oh, look at my shiny new logo, aren’t we awesome?”). That self-serving approach is a problem, but it is one that stems from bad marketing, not all marketing. Good marketing simply allows a non-profit to ensure that the right stories are being told to the right people, making that WHY factor crystal clear.
What Gail wrotes makes sense to me. Especially in a large organization, it is hard enough anyway to keep various departments apprised of what colleagues in other depts. are doing in the way of programming, and competing for what are virtually always scarce marketing and communications resources in a nonprofit by having one group marketing programs and exhibits (or whatever) and another group marketing for fundraising seems foolhardy. Of course there are many markets to reach, but we all know that volunteers are often also donors, ticket purchasers and program participants are often also donors, and members are frequently giving at a donor level as well. May as well have as much crossover as possible – that helps everyone. It’s one thing to compete with outside organizations for audience and donor market; but it seems unnecessary to compete internally for these same resources.
Thx Sarah, it is the Silo Mentality that inhibits collaboration and creates two separate communications streams that often run at cross-purposes to each other.
Jackie, I’ve spent a long time with arts organizations, and they do have more audiences (literally) to talk to. But segregating the messaging – development over here, marketing over there – usually misses that those audiences overlap – a lot. So messaging that’s all about how great the organization is probably wasn’t as effective as it could be for selling. Definitely not for attracting support. Because whether the goal is ticket sales or donations, the messaging should be about the audience. Not “we’re the best!” but “you’ll have a great experience” or “your donation will make great things possible”.
Have you read Trevor O’Donnell (http://trevorodonnell.com/)? I love his take on this – and it’s from a marketers point of view.
I think we’re better off talking less about marketers vs fundraisers and more about messaging across the board that focuses on bringing people into the mission.
And yes, Gail, I’ve seen way too much of the stuff you describe. Stupid, ego-driven, expensive nonsense that hurts organizations. I have zero tolerance for that stuff.
But get marketing and fundraising on the same path, pulling together? Understand that we share many of the same skills and goals? Great stuff can happen.
Disagree. Good marketing is the FUTURE OF FUNDRAISING. With regards to cause marketing, I’ve written about the importance of marketing, content marketing and branding here:
http://www.selfishgiving.com/blog/forget-zombies-get-ready-goodpocalypse
What a great and very important discussion. Gail, thank you for clarifying the intent of this post – to warn against misguided marketing. I agree with Kivi, Pamela, Sarah and others.
To add my three cents: My counsel to nonprofits is to immediately put their house (brand) in order, before pulling the marketing trigger again. Done properly, the brand serves as the foundation for all marketing, communications, and fundraising initiatives. A strong and well-positioned brand will equip nonprofits with the necessary strategies, tools, and infrastructure to engage its diverse and generational audiences on multiple platforms to inspire participation, influence change, and achieve alignment – internally and externally – with its vision, mission, and core values. When properly conveyed, a brand’s essence is what you want donors, volunteers, program participants and other stakeholders to “feel” when they experience your brand. Put another way, it reflects the heart and soul of your
nonprofit. It’s the one thing that clearly differentiates your nonprofit from the rest. What’s more is your brand essence may be the very reason a donor chooses your nonprofit.
As an example, Tammy Zonker and I just completed our third multichannel
year-end appeal for The Children’s Center in Detroit. The year prior, we were recognized for our work on the cover of Fundraising Success Magazine
(http://digitaleditions.napco.com/publication/?i=227731&p=14).
Before our arrival, their year-end appeal efforts fell into the category of poorly executed and wayward marketing. Over the past three years, our year-end campaigns have yielded phenomenal results with healthy revenue increases year over year. In addition to Tammy’s brilliant fundraising strategy and leadership, we attribute a great deal of our success to the total rebrand and retooling of The Children’s Center. Included among the many deliverables that resulted from this effort were: a more powerful and relevant approach to messaging, a set of tools
to empower all supporters to consistently and accurately evangelize our brand, and the creation of a “brand manifesto.” Donors want to know: What do you do?, Why does it matter?, Why should I give to you? and How do you do it better than anyone else? Our brand manifesto answers each of these questions. It informs all of the marketing, communications and positioning of our brand. It illustrates our relevancy.
The role of brand in a nonprofit can have a significant impact on its long-term sustainability. It builds donor trust and confidence, strengthens relationships with key stakeholders, and has a direct impact on the quality of talent a nonprofit can attract to its ranks. It can be a game changer.
Hi Trent, thx for this excellent defense of branding. Yup – it is BAD rigid branding that can screw up fundraising. I am such a fan of the work that you and Tammy are doing – and am verrrry impressed with your results. My frustration comes from seeing organizations that send out awful stuff but think it is great because it looks good and is consistent with the brand. I’m all for smart branding as a guide to communications strategy as long as it is flexible, and can get personal with donors.
I agree. Striving to achieve that balance between marketing and branding
Claire, I LOVED your article for Guidestar! Way to go! You and I are on the same page! Gail
I agree with others that have commented mentioning that non-profits have multiple audiences to educate, including but not limited to donors. It’s necessary to determine what messaging resonates best with each target.
I usually like your posts, but this is ridiculous! Here’s the best response: http://www.thefundraisingresource.com/wp/marketing/why-is-marketing-a-dirty-word-to-nonprofits/
Absolutely! Nonprofits have to be taught marketing and good communications strategies. Marketing/Communications and Fund Development are two different disciplines. I think they can certainly compliment each other, but don’t necessarily have to have the same goals to be successful. Yes, some of their goals may overlap…
its not a very sophisticated article. Arguments like this often come up from unqualified grass root sales staff who are jealous of education. you should of made it more CLEAR in the post that you were talking about BAD marketing says it all really – ands who would purposely market badly – no one. So what is the point??
I don’t see this as any hater train piece. As a seasoned development professional, oftentimes I have seen first hand how the marketing person makes no effort to work with the the development person or department and is off doing their own thing. I have seen this most when marketing staff is not integrated under the Development umbrella.
Silos do create terrible breakdown’s between departments and staff. Marketing does have a purpose but it is not bigger than the mission of cultivating or stewarding donor relationships and the mission of the organization. Marketing must also be clearly aligned with the development department’s goal otherwise, it is a waste of marketing dollars and wrong messages being sent out (in reference to bad marketing).
Gail, I applaud you for speaking on a topic that is very real for many of us working hard to raise the money and cultivate good relationships with donors. Clair Axelrod is also right in her comments about the silos must go. No matter how large of an audience you think you have to reach, everyone will not jump on the bandwagon — there are too many other competing organizations who are also reaching the target audience and they certainly don’t do it by having the prettiest marketing brochure or the most expensive billboard hanging somewhere. They do it by telling their story well and regularly thanking their donors, and sharing “meaningful” communications.
Kudos to you for having the guts to speak on this topic and don’t apologize. Spending over-the-top money on marketing will certainly not bring in more donors. Donors are savvy enough people. However, a marketing plan that leaves out the development component is sure to fail. Yes, organizations exist to serve but it takes funding to keep the organization’s wheels turning and to pay overhead, etc. Fundraising is a key element in all of this and a good marketing/communications plan and collaborative spirit can make it a win-win situation. Without a spirit of collaboration, marketing staff is just wasting the organization’s money.
Simply put, Marketing must and should work closely with Development. I’ve also seen when marketing and development are housed as one team and they have done amazingly, wonderful things together and the communications being sent out work so well because there are literally open lines of communication internally among the key staff and everyone is working well together to achieve the mission.
I don’t believe that marketing is the way of fundraising. No way! I agree with the person who wrote that Development and Marketing should be one “relationship team.” When there is a genuine spirit of collaboration = fundraising and communications make sweet music together and then you have a real win-win for changing lives and making a difference to those you serve in the community.
Gail, thanks for all you do! You’re awesome!
great analogy.