The Brand IDEA

Managing Nonprofit Brands with Integrity, Democracy, and Affinity

Nathalie Laidler-Kylander, Julia Shepard Stenzel

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781118555835
• eBook ISBN: 9781118573402
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Nonprofit Organizations & Charities
• Index: Business

Offering a new framework for nonprofit brand management, this book presents the Brand IDEA (Integrity, Democracy, and Affinity). The framework eschews traditional, outdated brand tenets of control and competition largely adopted from the private sector, in favor of a strategic approach centered on the mission and based on a participatory process, shared values, and the development of key partnerships. The results are nonprofit brands that create organizational cohesion and generate trust in order to build capacity and drive social impact. The book explores in detail how nonprofit organizations worldwide are developing and implementing new ways of thinking about and managing their organizational brands.

PART 1

Context, Concepts, and Building Blocks

CHAPTER 1

What Is Driving the Paradigm Shift and Brand IDEA Framework

We believe that current trends are making brand management increasingly important for nonprofit organizations and that brand management must be understood as part of a new paradigm. This chapter describes the background and context for our research, including current forces that we believe are affecting nonprofits. We also discuss the paradigm shift we uncovered during the most recent phase in our research into how brands are being perceived and managed. The chapter includes an introduction to the brand IDEA framework and an overview of how this framework is consistent with the zeitgeist of current management thinking.

Background and Context

The world of nonprofit leaders and managers has changed substantially over the past decade. The number of nonprofits has skyrocketed (according to the Urban Institute, between 2001 and 2011, the number of nonprofits in the United States alone increased 25 percent—from 1,259,764 million to 1,574,674 million), and competition for funding has intensified. Global economic factors have dampened availability of funding, and at the same time, environmental, social, economic, and humanitarian needs have increased. New forms of nonprofit organizations, such as social enterprises, have emerged, and new technological and communication capabilities have revolutionized the way nonprofits interact with their publics. The boundaries between traditional sectors are increasingly blurred, and some people believe that a fourth sector (for-benefit hybrids) is emerging (Sabeti, 2011). Partnerships and alliances of all types, both within and across sectors, have proliferated and created new options and challenges for nonprofit organizations. We are seeing more networked coalitions and alliances that bring together multiple autonomous organizations, often from different sectors, to address complex social issues.

We believe that two major trends are of particular relevance to nonprofit brands today: changes in communications technology, including the rise in social media and networking, and the increase in partnerships and collaborative action. The impact of these two key trends on nonprofit brands and how they relate to the brand IDEA framework are captured in Figure 1.1. Let's turn to a brief discussion of these two forces and how they influence brand management in the nonprofit sector.

FIGURE 1.1. Key Trends Impacting Nonprofit Brands

Social Media and Networking

Social media and social networking sites, blogs, and other forms of virtual communities have fundamentally changed the way a nonprofit interacts with its stakeholders and brand audiences. Social media has the potential to reach large numbers of people quickly and at a low cost, but is difficult, if not impossible, to control. As Sherine Jayawickrama (2011), domain manager at the Hauser Institute for Civil Society at Harvard University, notes in her report on NGOs and social media, “Social media is a collaborative space where ideas are open sourced and the wisdom of the crowd is valued. [It] offers a platform for two-way conversations that can only be optimized if organizations are open to feedback, listen well and respond quickly” (p. 1). She describes the changes that have resulted as “traditional communications and public relations cultures of INGOs [International Nongovernmental Organizations] have had to adapt—generating compelling content quickly, speeding up approvals processes and engaging with comments and questions of all sorts—as they move from a broadcast model to a conversation model” (p. 1). She concludes that “effective social networks require some degree of self-organization which requires [nonprofits] to step back and not seek control of conversations focused on them” (p. 1).

In essence, social media has shifted communications from a one-way control of information to a number of dialogues, some of which may not even include the organization (for example, among supporters). Social media and networking have also shifted expectations for engagement and participation: participants actively share thoughts, photos, stories, and advice. People are forming images and perceptions of organizations based on what they experience, see, hear, and read. Other potential partner organizations are likewise forming perceptions about whether or not to work with each other, based on all available information, some of which comes from sources outside the organization.

Dixon and Keyes (2013) suggest that social media has “changed the ways in which people can influence others and increased the range of meaningful calls to action available to nonprofits” (p. 29). They add that “continuous communication is now an expectation.” Although the changes wrought by social media and the demands those changes bring might seem overwhelming, we think that social media also presents nonprofit organizations with fantastic opportunities and has few barriers to entry. Supporters can be embraced and encouraged to participate in a myriad of activities that go beyond simple financial donations, and internal and external “ambassadors” can be tapped to widely communicate and drive support for the organization. The loss of control this entails concerns some organizations, but Dixon and Keyes believe that the cost-benefit ratio is still positive, particularly because “with the loss of some control comes an increase in authenticity and transparency” (p. 29). We believe that nonprofits must embrace the reality that social media has changed the way people engage with and talk about their organizations. Strict control and policing of their brands is no longer useful or possible. This loss of control and change in expectations are at the heart of brand Democracy and are one of the drivers of our new approach to brand management.

Partnerships and Collaborations

Partnerships between organizations of all kinds have proliferated over the past decade, and the division or boundaries between the three traditional sectors (nonprofit, for-profit, and government) are blurring, both as a cause and as a result of this increase. Yankey and Willen (2010) believe that this increase in partnerships is being driven by two main factors: the growing realization that many nonprofits cannot achieve their social missions alone, and the economic climate and shifts in funding and funding requirements. Institutional funders in particular are increasingly requiring a demonstration of effectiveness and collaborative approaches.

Austin (2000) defines cross-sector partnerships along a continuum, with philanthropic relationships at one end (essentially corporate donations to nonprofits), a transaction stage (with a focus on specific activities), and an integrative stage resulting in joint ventures. Pohle and Hittner (2008) take this framework one step further by including the collaboration between multiple companies and multiple nonprofits. These authors describe the issues undertaken by these collaborations or networks as “meta-problems” that are complex and that require a long-term commitment by all parties. Indeed, the nonprofit landscape is marked by the increasing convergence of multi-stakeholder collaborations and complex coalitions (between nonprofits, business, governmental entities, and multilateral institutions), which aim to collectively affect a wide range of social issues. As the boundaries between the actors from different sectors and the goals they pursue become increasingly blurred, nonprofits must adapt to this changing landscape and to the increasing role that businesses and, to a lesser extent, governments are playing. If nothing else, nonprofits have a critical role to play in shaping the way that these players effect social change (Bulloch, 2009). For-profit entities are increasingly entering what was once traditional nonprofit territory, and nonprofit organizations must decide how they want to react. They could resist this “encroachment,” or they could actively engage these for-profit players and shape the way these entities work and their joint outcomes. This partnership and collaborative imperative is another factor that argues for a new approach to brand management. It underlies the concept of brand Affinity, whereby nonprofit organizations use and leverage their brands, not only on behalf of their own organizations but also to drive shared social impact.

A Paradigm Shift and Brand Management Mindset

In line with the changes around social media and partnerships we've discussed, our research and discussions uncovered an essential paradigm shift that is starting to occur in the nonprofit sector. This shift involves a change in the perception of the role of the brand, away from a fundraising and PR tool to a critical strategic asset focused on mission implementation. Instead of thinking of the brand as a logo and tagline, the new paradigm understands brand as the embodiment of the organization's mission and values. This expanded definition of brand was described by many of our interviewees. Joan Barlow, creative services manager at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, for example, recognized that “brand is more than colors, design, and a logo.” She described the new understanding of brand as “the pride we feel in our work, our culture of commitment and passion, and our values.”

Rather than focusing on fundraising as the objective of the brand, the new paradigm places brand in service of the mission and social impact. Instead of having responsibility for the brand reside within the marketing, communications, or development department, responsibility for the brand as a key strategic asset resides with the entire executive team and the board, although as we will argue later, brand management is everyone's job.

In the new brand paradigm, brand has less to do with gaining a competitive advantage and more to do with clarifying positioning, which can help in determining the collaborations and partnerships that enable an organization to implement its mission and maximize its impact. Brand communications have less to do with the one-way projecting of a controlled image and more to do with establishing a dialogue and a process of participative and authentic engagement, in both the development and the communication of the brand. The brand audience used to be thought of as the donors (both individual and institutional), but in the new paradigm, the brand must address a whole spectrum of both internal and external audiences that are ready and willing to support the organization in different ways as brand ambassadors. We find this shift very exciting and believe that it can truly catalyze nonprofit organizations to implement their missions more effectively and efficiently.

Some people tell us, “We are a small organization with limited resources, and we don't have the time or money to do branding.” Others say, “I think it would be a good idea for us to manage our brand more effectively, but I wouldn't even know where to start.” Our response to both of these concerns is that brand management does not necessarily require a significant financial investment or specific expertise. What it does require is a willingness to adopt a new brand management mindset and allocate the time, effort, and energy to widely discussing brand internally. As Ingrid Srinath, executive director of Childline India, said, “You have a brand whether you like it or not. Really the only choice you have is how actively you want to shape and manage that brand.” Embracing this new nonprofit brand paradigm is the first step for organizations that want to actively shape and manage their brands. Table 1.1 summarizes the key elements of this paradigm shift.

TABLE 1.1. The Nonprofit Brand Paradigm Shift

Brand Element	Old Paradigm	New Paradigm
Definition	A logo	Strategic asset that embodies the mission and values
Goal	Fundraising and PR	Mission impact
Positioning	Competitive advantage	Clarity and effective partnerships
Communications	One-way projection of a specific image	Participative engagement
Audiences	Donors	Internal and external stakeholders
Organizational home	Marketing and communications	Executive team, board, and all brand ambassadors
Requirements	Money and expertise	A brand management mindset

We believe that organizations need to leverage the opportunities that are emerging with the rise in social media and the increased emphasis on partnerships. The brand IDEA framework, to which we now turn, is intended to help organizations leverage these recent trends and integrate the elements of the new paradigm. The framework allows organizations to manage their brands in a way that recognizes the strategic nature and mission impact of a brand, encourages participative engagement with internal and external stakeholders, and addresses the important role the brand plays in promoting partnerships.

Introduction to the Brand IDEA

The brand IDEA encompasses three principles: brand Integrity, brand Democracy, and brand Affinity. A brief description of these three principles and the outcomes they produce are summarized in Table 1.2. As we will see in Chapter Five, brand Integrity places the mission and values at the center of the brand and is the result of the alignment between mission, values, and brand identity on the one hand and brand identity and image on the other. To be clear, the word integrity here is used in the sense of structural integrity or alignment, and not just moral integrity. When the organization's values and mission are con­sistently aligned with its brand identity, and when this identity is consistently aligned with the external image, the nonprofit brand is able to establish a clear, distinct, consistent, and credible position in the minds of both internal and external stakeholders. Internally, a brand with high structural integrity connects the mission to the identity of the organization, giving board members, staff, volunteers, and other internal stakeholders a common sense of who the organization is, what it does, and why it matters in the world. Externally, a brand with high structural integrity firmly aligns brand identity and brand image, so that there is no disconnect between the internal and external perceptions of the brand. When the brand image truly reflects the brand identity and the brand identity reflects the mission, the brand is authentic, consistent, and powerfully positioned to create organizational cohesion and trust among all the organization's stakeholders.

TABLE 1.2. Principles of the Brand IDEA Framework

Principle	Description	Outcome
Brand Integrity	Structural alignment between brand identity and mission, strategy, and values Structural alignment between internal brand identity and external brand image	Results in organizational cohesion and trust
Brand Democracy	Participative process of internal and external stakeholder engagement to both define and communicate the brand	Creates brand ambassadors and reduces the need for control
Brand Affinity	Approach that leverages brand in support of partnerships and collaboration Use of the brand and brand assets to focus on shared social objectives	Drives greater mission implementation and social impact

Having a clear brand identity gives one the ability to succinctly describe who the organization is, what it stands for, and why it is important. It's about knowing how and why your organization is making a difference and how it differs from other players, and letting that knowledge guide your decisions and actions. “Isn't that just my mission?” we have been asked. In a way, it is. Both the organization's mission and its values should be embedded in the brand identity. However, we believe that it is also how that brand identity is developed and communicated, as well as how the brand is managed to maximize mission impact, that are important in the brand IDEA framework.

Brand image comprises the feelings and perceptions that exist in the hearts and minds of external stakeholders when they think about your organization. The alignment between who you are (identity) and how people perceive you (image) is what creates powerful, trusted ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Praise for The Brand IDEA
• Title page
• Copyright page
• List of Figures, Tables, and Exhibits
• Foreword by Christopher Stone, president, Open Society Foundations
• Introduction
• PART 1: Context, Concepts, and Building Blocks
• PART 2: Getting the Brand IDEA
• PART 3: Putting the Brand IDEA into Action
• References
• Individuals Interviewed and Organizations Cited
• The Authors
• Acknowledgments
• Index
• End User License Agreement