Philanthropy’s Dirty Word: Marketing
“I will spare no expense to look cheap.” - A former long-time client
Wise words. He worked for the largest non-profit in the world. He was "the fixer". The Winston Wolf who would go to big metro YMCA systems (NYC, Chicago, etc) and turn failing Y’s into high-growth cash machines. And he was a client for about a dozen years. He said those wise words to protect donor perception, because he recognized the value of brand development. And he knew one of the dark truths of the advertising world: donors don’t like to think their money is supporting marketing.
The strategic net was he wanted to bring Y services to more people, and ensure stability in economic downtimes because Y’s had massive fixed costs.
👉 Marketing.
He came to mind recently during a conversation with Ellen Friebert Schupper, Executive Director at ABCD: After Breast Cancer Diagnosis, a virtual emotional support network. We were discussing marketing and the nature of donors. We once again agreed to this truth we all know: Donors don’t want to fund marketing. Rather, they want to see their dollars go directly to programs, a.k.a. “restricted funds.” We’re not talking the $50 here-or-there-givers, but donors of significance and formal grants.
Ellen will be the first to admit it. “Our programs are positively first rate. They are all virtual. We have capacity. What we need is to raise awareness nationally so we can bring our services to more people and support them as they deal with various challenges after diagnosis.”
👉 Marketing.
A few years ago, Lung Cancer Alliance, another client, received a $1M unrestricted funds donation. They used the money to fund strategic planning specific to the use of $1M. Smart, heh? The primary objective from planning was to get a bill passed in Congress that was languishing for years and was about to expire. The bill would influence the allocation of federally funded research dollars to be commensurate with disease mortality. Breast and prostate cancer and HIV research, for instance, got way more money even though lung cancer exponentially killed way more people.
Lung cancer’s stigma was quietly impacting elected officials, who like many people, thought people with lung cancer deserved to die.
So should we buy more lobbyists? No. The money was used for marketing, as in calling out the stigma for the entire nation to see.
The bill passed Congress in four months. And the donor gave them another $1M because of the superior results.
“We need marketing money, in addition to program money.” Yes, Ellen, you do.
A quick ChatGPT search on why donors don’t want money to go to marketing confirmed nasty suspicions. Edited, with comments:
They want money to go to “direct benefits,” which presumes people in need are aware of services and know how to access services
They want money “accounted for” equating marketing with administration, which means marketers and anyone who manages anything spend time willy-nilly and are unaccountable
“Excessive advertising” which means they know more about advertising than anyone else, which includes professional marketers
“Passion” which means they do not include the process of awareness and call to action in their definition of passion which in turn means they must keep their passions to themselves
“Overhead” as in a lack of efficiency in delivering service, which again equates marketing to office supplies
“Personal values” which means people just hate marketing
Is all of this offensive to marketers? Yes. But we see it coming because it’s our job to know what targeted groups think.
The moral (as in morality) of this story is that assuming marketing is evil is akin to assuming physicians are evil. Or plumbers are evil. Or lawyers… wait.
Let’s just say if you’re ill, call a doctor. If your toilet is leaking into the basement, call a plumber. And if you need to thrive, persuade or in other ways bring goodness to as many people as possible, call a marketer.