Who gets to use words like “for the cure?” All breast cancer organizations? Just Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation? How much effort and cost should charities undertake to protect their brand assets? Do we expect them to defend these assets like a corporation would? Or do we have different standards for charities?
A recent NBC News report on a breast cancer brand by Brian Williams raises these questions.
Several years ago, I was hired as the first marketing and communications director for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. My job was to manage the brand. And what a task it was! Unlike the United States, the pink ribbon in Canada is an official mark, meaning it carries greater weight than a trademark. No entity can use the ribbon without consent of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation (CBCF). With so many American products bearing the pink ribbon symbol, managing the intellectual property and symbol became a full-time job when products crossed the border onto Canadian store shelves.
So, why the angst about pink ribbons and brands? As one of the women interviewed in this segment notes, “We’re all supposed to be fighting for breast cancer.”
Yes, she’s right. That’s why many nonprofits collaborate to achieve greater impact. But the reality is that nonprofits fundraising for breast cancer research and programs compete against each other for funding dollars. They also compete with other charities in their market that raise money for other causes. How can they stand out and differentiate their missions unless they have solid marketing and branding strategies?
It is absolutely the same as in the business sector. Companies that invest heavily in their brand assets must protect them to avoid confusion in the marketplace. We accept that. Can you imagine what Nike would do if another company began to use a symbol similar to its swoosh? So, why should we expect it to be different in the nonprofit sector? Is there a double standard at play here?
There’s an archaic viewpoint about the charitable world that needs to be dispelled. If we expect nonprofits to solve the problems that governments and businesses cannot fund, then it is in our collective best interest to ensure they function effectively. And if that means spending money to defend their brand assets, market their missions, and invest in things like leadership and staff development, it can only make them stronger and able to accomplish more.
If we expect them to run so “lean and mean” that they cannot strengthen and grow, then we’ll get more of what we have now. Leadership attrition, staff turnover, wait lists, and an inability to fully tackle the huge problems that face our society.
What do you think? Should charities operate more like businesses and protect their brand assets in the same manner?
Tags: brand assets, brand strategy, Branding, breast cancer, Brian Williams, Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, charity, corporations, Marketing, NBC, nonprofit, nonprofit_marketing, nonprofit_organizations, pink ribbon, Susan G. Komen, trademarks
A not-for-profit, whether it’s a 501c3, c6 or any other iteration, must function like a business and must protect its brand. Despite a lack of traditional for-profit competition, the charity or association is competing for money, for top personnel, for status in their community, for a voice and strength in the political landscape, and none of these needs will be fulfilled without understanding their value proposition and expressing it through their brand.
Thanks, Buz. I totally agree. Although, I once worked for a nonprofit that did compete with for-profit companies. Some provide mission-based services to clients as a revenue generator and can often find themselves head-to-head with company competitors.
Absolutely! Non-profits MUST act like businesses if they expect to emerge from mediocrity. Not to mention the future of government grants are unpredictable. I know non-profit executives (especially in the local sector) say self-sustainability is a must-have but what is their plan to get there? There needs to be more than a 3-year plan – how about a business model for revenue generation aka fundraising? What products/services can they make/build/produce that are good for the local community and raises funds for their cause?
Absolutely, Seth. Government grants are surely unpredictable, especially now in light of so many state and municipal budgets being in deficit. I like your comment, “Non-profits MUST act like businesses if they expect to emerge from mediocrity.” Exactly!
Great article, by the way! Such unpredictability is so predictable, and should be planned for from the beginning, don’t you think? I abhor the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants “Oh no, I guess it’s time to apply for another bunch of grants to replace _______.” If every non-profit (and the government for that matter) acted like a business, we’d see a lot more results…because successful businesses demand (in a positive sense) results! For non-profits that would mean they would develop a self-sustaining plan first, then (after they get going) go look for additional forms of revenue (grants, etc.) and treat those as unexpected windfalls to help grow the organization. Or at least have a rock solid plan to use a (singular) grant to get the self-sustaining wheels rolling downhill, but with a contingency if unexpected problems surface with the grant such as extra restrictions on use of funds, etc.
All good points, Seth. How do we get more supporters to buy in to this, especially developing and investing in a strong brand?
I think since donors are more likely OK with branding (and see the benefits of it) in the for-profit sector, we need to meet them where they are and draw them into thinking “non-profit branding is critical too” by demonstrating how for-profits in similar industries have seen success in part due to solid, consistent branding efforts and then comparing the for-profit’s need for branding with our non-profit’s need for same.
However, if we try too hard as non-profits to educate donors on branding, its almost like children trying to teach their parents…the parents “have their guard up”, so to speak. There’s something to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” As a non-profit, give a small mention upfront about what you plan to do but don’t make a big deal about it. Then go do an awesome job of branding, measure it’s impact, and give a powerful report of your success. Classic under-promise, over-deliver…
Even more importantly, I think the education needs to come from donors’ peers. I’m sure there’s market research which indicates the publications that donors read, perhaps there are magazines, ezines, etc. that are targeted specifically at donors. Writing about branding for these publications would be a good thing.
Changing donor opinion will be a long-term challenge certainly, but I think there could be a tipping point someday where donors DEMAND branding platforms in grant applications and Internet marketing line items in budget reports.
It’s not just competing with other non-profits. Trust is at the center of any cause supported by a charity, non-profit or foundation. Protecting your brand in the non-profit world assures potential donors they are contributing to the real deal. When you see the pink ribbon, i.e. the brand, you know your contribution is going to a legit cause. So yes, protect the brand and in turn you protect your integrity in the minds of the consumer.
Well said, Pete. So, how do we convince supporters that the brand is worth the investment?
Non-profits and for-profits all need to generate money to operate. They just do it in different ways and one gets better tax advantages. The brand is tied to a corporation identify and brand recognition creates awareness and support (purchases or donations) so it definitely must be protected by any type of org.
However, it is a bit ironic that this article started with the breast cancer group trying to protect their brand when the breast cancer group is the first to jump on other org’s branding efforts. If memory serves, the ribbon started as a red ribbon to support AIDS awareness when breast cancer org created duplicated it in pink to claim it. When Lance Armstrong started the yellow plastic wristbands for cancer awareness, the breast cancer org was one of the first to create a copy in pink. Many others then created copy wristbands in every color for everything from jokes to causes which diminished the original message.
Should one organization be able to claim ownership and exlusive usage of a brand that was started and utilized by another organization?
Excellent point, May. It appears that wearing colored ribbons goes way back. Here’s what I found:
The Origins of Awareness Ribbons
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6193260/the_origins_of_awareness_ribbons.html?cat=7
The ribbon concept took on a life of its own in the 1970s, before we began to apply branding principles to nonprofit marketing. Can you imagine a company today using a Nike-type swoosh, but in a different color? I doubt that would go over.
I have to agree with most on this topic. Non-profit organizations must do what they can to protect their image. If a Non-profit organization did not run as a business it could end up crumbling upon it’s self. Because of this they can stay non-profit and will never have to end up charging or what looks like charging someone for a product. So yes what it all comes down to is protect your brand and the image it upholds.
I am a student at Western Michigan studying Internet marketing with @dr4ward,#in and #mkt3730 class Hashtag.
Thanks, David. Good luck in your studies. Maybe you can do a project on nonprofit Web sites?
I think protecting your brand and intellectual property is just due diligence. If your cause is worth your time and effort, it’s worth protecting.
I don’t think that protecting intellectual property has to be at the expense of collaboration. But there are bad people out there that might try to hijack your brand.
When I worked at a The Stony Brook School, a prep school on Long Island, an alum told us to get the web domain of our motto “Character Before Career.” We used that on EVERYTHING but we hadn’t registered the URL. Fortunately, neither had anyone else! If we hadn’t, that would’ve been a major loss for us!
Thanks for sharing this, Marc. Would love to hear how you think we can convince more supporters that the cost and effort their favorite charities must invest in branding are worth it.
Elaine thanks for starting this dialogue on a very important topic. Categorically nonprofits must protect their brand. As their most valuable asset, a strong brand can drive tremendous economic and social gains and predispose people toward a personal and emotional connection with the group it represents.
We have to realize that we work in a complex, competitive environment. A strong brand is vital to an organization’s success and sustainability. Jim Collins argues that brand and reputation are more critical in the nonprofit sector than the for-profit world. Let’s not forget that a brand is a trustmark —an organization’s commitment to consistently deliver on who they are, what they stand for and their unique benefits. It’s too valuable to not be protected.
Thanks, Jocelyne. As you are the co-author of Breakthrough Nonprofit Branding, you are certainly the expert on this subject. Interesting what Jim Collins says. Now if we can convince donors that investing in the brand is important to sustainability, nonprofits would be in better shape!
If I were a grant writer wanting to demonstrate to donors how branding my non-profit was an essential component to sustainability, I think I might include a comparison between my non-profit and similar (very successful) for-profit ventures and how branding took them from “Good to Great”.
Good point, Seth. What would you do if there were NO for-profit competitors? I think that’s where a big challenge lies.
Thanks Elaine. I so agree. But I am really seeing an increased interest in branding in the nonprofit sector – a recognition of its importance for sustainable and FOCUS – one of the core messages in the book! Look forward to reading more posts.
Playing devil’s advocate a little….
What is a reasonable investment for a charity/non-profit to make in the protection of its brand? A brand officer? a lawyer? a law-suit? All of the above?
Keep in mind that a) every dollar they are spending are donor dollars b) currently donors want to see charitable sector collaboration, not divisiveness/fighting and c) many donors are confused about the what and why charity branding is so important to their mission and to the success of their fundraising activities.
Just as a point of clarification – I personally agree with Elaine’s position, but I think our donor communities may not share our view….at least not without a great deal of education.
Tania, you are 100% right! Supporters need to be educated just how important investing in branding and marketing are. Right now, it appears to be a hard sell. They can understand it in the corporate sector, but there’s a double standard when it comes to nonprofits.
In response to your points… Brand management and protection of nonprofit brand assets can be handled by any number of people. Typically, the most senior marketing staff person plays brand police chief with assistance from legal counsel. Senior management staff eventually become involved, and when decisions need making, the issues are brought to the board or executive. Of course, no one wants to spend donor dollars on legal fees, but sometimes, there is no choice. It’s a responsibility to supporters and the mission to ensure that the organization retains the assets it has earned.
Thanks for being our devil’s advocate on this issue!
I think the way to overcome the “not wanting to see divisiveness” issue is to first identify a target niche where there is little or no competition. Then the non-profit must demonstrate how branding/marketing with a big push up front and a long term game plan will cause said non-profit to become established and on the road to success right away. The subtext of a successful non-profit is “our donors make wise choices.”
Moreover, being a niche non-profit (instead of a one-stop shop) has perks, especially if the one-stop shops in the area don’t offer (but need) the non-profit’s products/services. Sounds like collaboration to me!
I think charities have to be more pragmatic about this. This issue isn’t all black and white. While I’m for protecting brands, (I actually own a few trademarks) once you start issuing legal injunction against small “mom and pop” type charities that aren’t intentionally using your organizations logo or trademark in willful disingenuous manner, you’re bound to lose support.
While terms ‘for the cure’ may have some legal basis of protection, it doesn’t always make for good business practice to pursue legal action against the people who you may assume are misusing it. The reason I say this is, the fact that the alienation it will cause will negatively affect donation and in turn negatively impact the main reason the charity is functioning to begin with. (e.g. curing cancer, hunger, whatever) . I can guarantee, this article (see below) caused Susan G. Komen to miss out on some donations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html
Did they have a right to pursue legal action? Of course they did. Should they have? Probably not in a lot of those cases. While charities should be operationally similar to for profit business, at the end of the day, they’re not a businesses with a defined hard or soft product where infringements can ruin a specific products value. Their business is providing funding for whatever cause they choose.
You make a good point, Jon. I believe that there’s a balancing act required here. Nonprofits with branded trademarks don’t always pursue legal action with other small organizations for misuse. Frequently, discussions and compromises can be reached in amicable ways. However, I’ve witnessed serious breaches of trademark ownership between two competing, large charitable organizations and it isn’t pretty when that happens. It’s quite sad, in fact, when one feels the necessity to capitalize on the other one’s brand assets.
[...] [...]