Some healthy discussion was
generated in tonight’s class regarding what distinguishes the brand in a for-profit
organization versus a non-profit organization.
As mentioned, a non-profit brand is tied to its mission, but goes
further. As Patricia Tan so eloquently put
it, “A brand is the platform on which the motivation behind the
organization's work may be articulated, and the significance of its work may be
appreciated.” It encompasses more than a logo, mission, or marketing
strategy. It’s a behavior.
When comparing branding between the
non-profit and for-profit art world, I think it’s important to look from the perspective
of the consumer. Products and services
can be the same, but expectations are different. The behavior is different. Rephrased… the promise to the consumer is different.
So what is this promise
non-profit art organizations are making?
Being relationship focused is the distinctive aspect of a non-profit art
organization’s brand. As discussed in previous classes, the
marketing approach should go beyond loyalty and encourage relationships with
consumers. Here deep relationships are
forged. The organization and the
individual create an evolving two way communication to establish recurring
exchange transactions (ticket sales, attendance) as well as social transactions
(advocate, volunteer). I believe this is
what separates the non-profit art organizations from the for-profit: The
promise of a genuine connection.
Here the expectation is that the
consumer can be a part of the organization.
And not just express their opinion on a matter, but can volunteer,
donate, and network with the arts organization.
They become a member of the organization’s community, connected in a
tangible way that cannot be done in the for-profit world.
In a world where I believe most
consumers do not make the distinction between the for-profit and non-profit art
world, I think it is important to look at how art organizations “brand”
themselves and how this "brand" is perceived by consumers. What are we “promising” to our audience that
they don’t get somewhere else? What type
of relationship is being formed between the organization and the audience?
Patricia Tan. Down to the Core:
Branding for Not-for-Profits. http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=140 - I found the reading to be helpful in
understanding branding in the non-profit world
To address your first question, what are we promising to our audience that they don't get somewhere else, I think you got it right with your point earlier. I think what a lot of non-profit art organizations offer the consumer is the ability to actually interact with the product and feel like they are a part of the organization - not just a consumer of the product. However, I feel like with the rise of social media, a lot of for-profits are actually becoming a lot better at involving customers and making them feel like they are a part of the company, which is only helping to blur that line between the experience offered by nonprofits and the experience offered by for profits. For instance, ModCloth lets users “be the buyer” and help decide what products ModCloth will sell, allowing the customer to feel like they are a part of the ModCloth brand. Additionally, Nike has created an entire culture around their brand, which connects customers and has allowed Nike to create a community beyond their products.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I personally feel that local arts organizations have an advantage because they form deeper one on one relationship with their customers: first, due to their accessible location and second, because they have more events to tie in their consumers than for-profits. For example, arts organizations have gallery openings, their normal performance season, fundraising events, and any other events that may occur throughout the year that patrons can volunteer for or attend. Many for profits would have a harder time establishing a one on one relationship because they are often inaccessible to the public as a whole, outside of social media.
I wonder if this has more to do with the size of the organization than with its for-profit / not-for-profit status or its mission/focus. For example, I have a much closer relationship with a small, independent copy shop than I do with the Public Theatre. Size is correlated with flexibility, which is, in turn, correlated with the ability to form meaningful relationships with customers/audiences. Just a thought.
DeleteSize does have something to do with it, rather than business model, but the travesty of it all is the small companies who can cultivate those personal relationships don't have the budget to strike the emotional directness of brand into their constituents.
DeleteI speak from experience in our systems project.
But, I am a huge proponent of Kelly Strayhorn's marketing and their size. I have gotten a little bit of both the relationship and the emotional directness form them.
I don't know- Nike's pretty big, but many people feel a personal connection with that brand, right? I also remember some crafter co. that utilized its consumers' deep investment (obsession?) for scrapbooking & started an "advocate" program, which involved these people basically doing free marketing for the brand. That's pretty amazing commitment for a for-profit, I think. Maybe the difference between for profit & not-for-profit is about need-- one absolutely needs you in order to survive, while the other, technically still dependent, needs you less so?
DeleteJoanna - many people definitely do feel a personal connection with the brand. The idea you've talked about with "advocates" is actually one that I've seen a lot of for-profits take advantage of. I've seen ABC, Hulu, and Google all have "ambassador" programs where students/individuals give up their time to do free marketing for the brand. I think your idea of needing them to survive is interesting though, I hadn't thought of it that way. But, I know some of the people who do this ambassador work are very committed, so maybe they feel like without their volunteer work, the show/brand they're helping to market might not survive or would be at least impacted if they don't help? (I don't actually know though, since I've never asked them)
DeleteAn interesting example that is relevant here is the outdoor store REI. "Being a consumer co-op, rather than a publicly-traded company, enables us (REI) to focus on the long-term interests of the co-op and our members." (http://www.rei.com/about-rei/business.html)
DeleteREI has a VERY strong community. Brett mentioned them in class the other day in relation to 'living your brand' - which is absolutely true. You know when you go to REI and you are in the shoe section, the employee there has worn a few of the styles available, or has friends who have.
I think the community aspect is extremely important to REI, and is very genuine, even though it does not run as a non-profit organization.
Nonprofits certainly establish relationships with their customers by providing opportunities to get involved with the organization outside of performances/exhibitions. I'm not sure, though, if I see this as "branding". Instead, I see it as their attempt to make their art more accessible. To me, branding has more to do with that je ne sais quoi which makes an organization recognizable and distinct from others like it. Building a loyal community is of course part of it, but not all. Just because you have an involved community, does not mean you have a brand.
DeleteIndeed -- the average consumer doesn't understand 'nonprofit' but hopefully as the relationship develops so will his/her understanding.
ReplyDeleteI found the following article amazingly apt for our discussion of Brand from last night. Intriguing, yes?
http://adage.com/article/small-agency-diary/cares-brand/240136/
yes. And I am reminded of what was said in class about how people have an emotional connection to a brand. It's the memory of the good or bad experience with the product that people cling to.
DeleteI think this article runs true for many consumable products we purchase. It directly correlates with consumer behavior research about how buyers are influenced by the brand before entering into the store, based on the experiences and messages they’ve received in advance. If the brand message is going to be effective, it has to be integrated into the buyer's mindset, as the in store purchase is often a gut, instinctive choice.
DeleteRelating this to arts organizations, the constituents listening to the brand message are the long-term supporters, and those choosing to establish connections away from the performance location. I agree with this article’s assertion, single ticket buyers’ decision to attend a performance isn’t reflective of the brand identify, it has much more to do with the specific offerings and personal feelings at a point in time. Once they become repeat attendees, then the permanence of the brand is more valuable to their decisions. At least we hope so!
Mission-related branding is not necessarily exclusive for nonprofit organizations. For-profit organizations have “brand equity statements”, equivalent to mission statements, which are core beliefs that support all activities. These statements are supported by “Reason to Believe”, which is consumer’s perspective on perceived benefits and values toward the brand; therefore, effective branding is entitled to holistic execution of both consistent branding and strong “Reason to Believe”.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the values of mission and brand equity statements are not identical. A mission statement contains much high-level of values according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While for-profit’s branding is often related to “belonging” or “self-esteem”, nonprofit arts organizations pursue our utmost needs – “self-actualization” that fulfills our inner talent and creativity. That means, if we successfully build a strong brand, we can more effectively run an organization with strong brand loyalty. Also, there are fundamental differences in organizational structure between these two. To build a strong brand, frequent review and evaluation are vital. Yet, oftentimes, nonprofit organizations don’t have enough resources to conduct proper program or audience evaluation as employees at nonprofit organizations often have multiple responsibilities with limited resources.
The importance of branding is even greater in nonprofit organizations. It not only allows them to increase participation and engagement, but also helps raise more contributions to the organization. As consumers of nonprofit organizations can contribute their time and money to their matching organizations, consumers can be more involved in activities; thus, organizations have greater motivation to engage them through effective branding.
I would also like to share an interesting research report about “The Role of Brand in the Nonprofit Sector” published by the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University. It talks about the fundamental differences between for-profit and nonprofit branding and suggests a new model for nonprofit organizations to increase the effectiveness of branding with IDEA frameworks (brand Integrity, brand Democracy, brand Ethics, and brand Affinity)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_role_of_brand_in_the_nonprofit_sector
Thanks for sharing this link, Aimee!
Delete"I believe this is what separates the non-profit art organizations from the for-profit: The promise of a genuine connection." < - i resent this idea.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have gained more of a genuine connection from for-profit experiences than non-profit arts experiences within the last year. I could go to see Erykah Badu, Dave Matthews, or Wu Tang Clan and I promise that each of those experiences have just as much “genuine connection” and “artistic credibility” as any play or symphony performance that I’ve seen within the last year.
Secondly, non-profit institutions are still subject to the free market therefore a non-profit isn’t really a non-profit at all. Why? Because it has to sell something to exist and in a free market system the root of whatever it is selling is embedded in the paradigm of profit. Therefore the promise of the not for profit arts organization is to maintain the interests of the stakeholders (board/major donors) that own the largest shares and attract other interested parties to invest in the possibility of its artistic integrity. Sounds awfully similar to the definition of a private corporation to me.
I think if arts organizations want to be more successful they need to be honest about what they are selling, because it ain’t “genuine connection". So if you are selling status and pretention, own it, embrace it, but don’t tout yourself down the avenue like the naked emperor because false promises are not clothing.
To clarify: By "genuine" I am not referring to the value of the art. I am not assessing or giving an opinion to the art form. By "genuine, I mean tangible, real, physical.. I am referring to an actual connection where the consumer can "talk back" to the organization and vice versa. There's a conversation...
DeleteAnd in defining the consumer I include everyone: artists, staff, stakeholders, donors, general audience members and public -- consumers in my understanding are all individuals that invest or have the potential to invest in some form or another to the organization.
So in your example of going to a concert, do the consumers have a connection with the organization putting on the concert? It would be interesting to know how many people can name the producing entity of the concert? not the venue.. not the artist.. but the organization that produces the concert, i.e. contracts the artists, venue, ticketing, etc..
My argument would be that many can not.. and there is a lack of this "genuine connection" that I am referring to...
What do we, as audiences, gain from being able to name the producing organization? Is the goal of a not-for-profit arts organization to be a household name, or is it to produce art?
DeleteI agree with Ariel that there is very little difference between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations other than the obvious fiscal differences and the fact that not-for-profit companies have WAY more owners to whom they have to answer.
I kind of agree with both Ana and Kate's points. Like Elizabeth mentions below, Ana seems to be hinting at the importance of brand position for the not-for-profit presenting or producing arts organization. I don't think there's any disagreement in consumers wanting arts organizations to be as transparent and customer-oriented as possible. To respond to Kate's point, I think the foremost goal is to produce art - but perhaps to do competing factors (leisure time, money, other arts orgs, etc) the thought of becoming a household name doesn't hurt... Obviously that shouldn't overshadow the product on the stage, though.
DeleteI wonder if the type of performance Ariel is seeing (Dave Mathews, etc.) is affecting her perception of a "genuine connection." By nature, popular concerts are very engaging and symphonies are not as much. This doesn't mean that the organizations are different in their efforts to establish connections to their audiences.
DeleteAlso, it is important to remember that although nonprofits can have issues battling between finances and mission, I'm glad we have the nonprofit status to help guide organizations in their decision making. Even if it can be hard to see if their mission really comes first, I do believe that people are generally good and want to benefit society -otherwise, nonprofit managers would just go into for profit business or be a stock broker, etc.
So in your example of going to a concert, do the consumers have a connection with the organization putting on the concert? It would be interesting to know how many people can name the producing entity of the concert? not the venue.. not the artist.. but the organization that produces the concert, i.e. contracts the artists, venue, ticketing, etc.. <---
DeleteTis true... that is the discrepancy... however therein lies the problem. The priorities of the organization begin to supersede the artists and the art that it swears to protect. So what are the consequences? The brand of the art is crushed by the ambitions of the monolith. I'm not advocating a for-profit model, but I see the clear benefits of a market based model that is constantly breaking down and redefining itself. It helps to keep things in perspective.
I think Ana’s assertion of a nonprofit Brand being a promise of a genuine connection is very applicable. I agree that most nonprofit organizations use this as their catalyst to bring more people into their organization. That being said, I really agree with Dana’s point that the for-profit world is becoming very good at presenting this same type of connection. I will throw one more example into the mix. UncommoGoods is a company that presents handcrafted gifts. The company almost presents itself like an arts organization’s gift shop. They also allow customers to vote on new products. Many of the products allow you to learn a little about the artist, and they create a connection with an artist (or at least the want to support them). So how will nonprofits differentiate themselves, especially with these for-profit companies that bleed over the lines? I still believe that nonprofits make available a different type of connection than the for-profits, but I think the difficulty will come in trying to represent this in a Brand.
ReplyDeleteThis whole conversation makes me think about community theatre and our systems project with the Oglebay Institute’s Towngate Theatre. It was very interesting to listen to people from Wheeling, WV talk about the organization and the kind of theatre that is done at Towngate versus the type of shows that happen at the “big” theatre in town, Capitol Theatre. The people that attend theatre at Towngate and act in shows at Towngate are extremely passionate about Towngate’s role in the community. Of course community theatre in rural areas is very different from marketing in any other kind of market in many ways, but the emphasis on community is definitely a huge part of a person’s motivation to attend a show in any city. It’s about pride, kind of like the loyalty people have for a sports team. We see that a lot in community theatre, I wonder if that’s what needs to be better established in everything else?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ana's assumption about relationship building with consumers for non-profit organizations is a good starting point. However, for-profit world also strives to build a strong relationship with their consumers in order to make their consumers tied to their brand. Therefore, I would like to elaborate what "relationship" means to non-profit organizations. Generally, people has a notion that for-profit organizations generate profit for their own earning, but non-profit organizations try to generate profit to sustain and benefit the consumers. In this sense, when building a relationship with consumers in the non-profit world, it is important to emphasize how the organization's programs and activities help secure consumers' right to enjoy art and how earned revenue contributes to returning benefit to their consumers through the next coming programs. It is especially true when the organization is for local community. Plug local community in the previous sentence and see.
ReplyDeleteI think that the promise of an arts organization still differs from that of a for-profit organization in one key way. For-profits promise to deliver what you exactly what you order. They say here is our product and if you order it online or go to a store to buy it, it will always look this way, feel this way, smell this way. If it doesn't, we will give you your money back. The promise of an arts organization still involves consistency, but only in quality and alignment with mission. They cannot guarantee you will like how it looks, or feels, or smells. That is why relationship building is especially important for non-profits, because for me when I have a relationship with an arts organization I do not expect to love everything that they do in order to return time and time again, I just have to respect and trust their programming reasoning.
ReplyDeleteI think to some effect, a good nonprofit can control how you will like the product, by staying in touch with their consumers and having plans in place to mitigate the situation when you don't like what they put up.
DeleteI can't say that I necessarily agree with this. The market is no longer driven by companies – it is driven by consumers. I would almost say the opposite is happening. I'm reading a fascinating book called "The Hyper-Social Organization" by Francois Gosseaux, and he makes the case that companies can no longer dictate what their customers want – any good company in the social age will feel out exactly what its customers want, work to please different segments of their markets in different ways, and engage on a human level, rather than with some sort of corporate voice. On the other hand, though I don't think we expect a "guarantee" from a non-profit arts organization, I do think that we do expect to be satisfied (in whatever esoteric, theoretic, emotional, etc.). I think that both non-profits and for-profits have to be good at engaging with, listening to, and satisfying customers, especially in an age when the customer voice is more influential than either the critics voice or the corporate voice.
DeleteI agree with Elyssa, but overall I'm not necessarily sure what this will do for the future. For instance, I do think that some (moving towards a majority of) audiences expect a "guarantee" regardless of venue or company structure. If they don't get this "guarantee," they will simply not attend the nonprofit anymore. Further, I also think that this push to automatically know what the customers wants makes the customer assume that companies and nonprofits always know what they, the audience, wants- regardless of artistic integrity. In the social age, they are responding by not attending future performances AND letting others know that they didn't like the performance and suggesting that the social sphere maybe not attend. The audience is also coming directly to the nonprofit now with gripes, which I think is and will be very difficult to manage.
Delete(Rebecca Fink)