Exceeding expectations.

I tend to think of myself as someone with a fairly broad vocabulary.  I can pull out the flashy big words when I need them.  However, I have heard a new word tossed around so much lately that I think it is worth taking note.  I know it is not new for everyone but it has certainly gained mainstream footing in the past year: Monetization.

Technically, the various dictionary sources that I checked define monetization as converting or establishing something as legal tender, particularly for a country.  The new, expanded definition of the word in popular vernacular means to turn something (or package something) of previously intangible value into something that can purchased and sold - something that can generate income.

I found several news stories accusing lack of monetization for the downfall of the dot-com boom.  Every podcast I hear about creating web sites and blogs encourages its listeners to monetize sites through widgets and affiliate marketing.  This change in perception of VALUE has led to information products galore and even the IRS questioning the taxability of “income” from Second Life.

Nonprofits are not immune to this craze, nor are the data junkies who collate and categorize consumer trends and habits.  People are big business and organizations of all types are profiting from their ability to deliver a cohesive, responsive, valuable consumer segment to the marketplace - smart nonprofits are building these benefits into their cause marketing programs and savvy companies are demanding donor and client access as part of their sponsorship agreements. 

Here is an example: I blogged last month about the media battle raging between Sierra Club and its Florida chapter.  The debate was over the national organization’s decision to endorse the new “green” product line launched by Clorox.  In exchange for financial and other support of the Sierra Club, the NPO provided its endorsement and access, directly or indirectly, to its extensive base of supporters.  Sierra Club MONETIZED its supporters and its brand.

Is this a bad thing?  Possibly, but I think it is more about the evolution of our consumer culture.  Traditional advertising is not delivering the returns it once did, so corporations are looking for new ways to reach target markets.  NPOs are one of the sources and they leverage this potential into sponsorship dollars and relationships around shared goals.  Who can blame them?

I was teaching a workshop yesterday and one of our exercises was creating a demographic and psychographic profile of our donor base segments.  All of the agencies who participated in the program were great NPOs with open minds and open hearts yet none of them had a core group of non-white donors.

Each of the organizations confirmed that there is a minority population of some type in their communities (some much smaller than others) but there seems to be a disconnect between these groups and people of varying ethnicity.  Pondering this question, I realized that it is not part of the organic growth of an organization - whether an NPO or a consumer based business.  We tend to recruit staff who look like us, board members who look like us and, therefore, attract donors who look like us.  It’s a vicious cycle.

Perhaps NPOs and for-profit organizations could be more effective working together to solve this issue?  If we use our advertising and brochures as a “mirror” we will only see the same thing and never grow.  If we turn this around and use them as “telescopes” to see the world beyond us, we could make great new discoveries.

This week’s New York Timeshad an article about the power of celebrity endorsements in marketing.  It seems that everyone wants to wear Nicole Kidman’s perfume and Jessica Simpson’s hair extensions. 

This piece [see the entire article here] raises lots of question for me about cause marketing and its future potential.  First of all, celebrity spokesperson/endorsement/collaboration (whatever package it comes in) is based on a very simple psychological phenomenon - image transfer.  Image transfer is when we develop a perception of Thing #1 based on our beliefs about Thing #2 because they are related.  Our good or bad experiences with Thing #2 rub onto Thing #1. So, if Kim hangs with the cool kids then Kim must be cool. Got it?

The Times even references a celebrity index called the Davie Brown Index - created by someone on-line and scored based on eight metrics.  Tom Hanks, the cutie in the photo about and one of my personal favorites, ranks at the top of the heap.  We like him, we trust him, and we want to be like him.

Now, back to cause marketing… Successful cause marketing is based on the same concept of image transfer.  When looking for a cause to associate with your business, think about the likability and trustworthiness of your potential partner.  This is one of the reasons that you may decide on either a general cause or a specific allegiance with an individual NPO.  A single NPO is more likable because it has a personality of its own but it can also make choices that impact you (what if it starts hanging out with the un-cool kids?).

Nonprofit organizations face the same challenges.  NPOs pick corporate partners for their money and their reputation.  Money is great but a strong market presence can make your cause into the CELEBRITY of the day.  Are you ready for your close-up?

I was reading a post this morning about the Triple Bottom Line (financial, social and environmental) and also followed a thread to another site that talked about the Integrated Bottom Line.  Despite the jargon on both (you can find references on the web back to the origins of each and links too many to mention here), they seem to be basically sound ideas but without the legs to support them.

One site talked about the need to a set of quantifiable measures to balance the scales.  For example, we know our income and expenses for the financial piece but what about the costs and benefits of our social bottom line?  I would pose a radical thought here…

What if life is not numerical?  Let me say, I have taught statistics at a major U.S. university and my brother has a PhD in Mathematics so I don’t say this lightly.  What I mean is that we have evolved in our views of economics and consumption theory elsewhere - so why not in our measures of success?

Imagine 1,000 years ago trying to explain to a farmer growing corn to sell at market that someday people would be paid for writing computer code or being a personal trainer.  He/she could not have imagined a world in which these provided measurable value.  Over time we have quantified them but the process has evolved.

It seems to me that the Triple Bottom Line concept wants to make a complex and dynamic universe into a simple checklist with easy categories and clean demarcation.  There are many more values to running a business and running our lives than just three.  Good leaders know that the numbers, no matter how you calculate them, only tell part of the story.

This month marked the launch of another big splash in the green marketplace.  Discovery Networks has created Planet Green -a 24 hour eco-living television network.

The idea is to present programming from a variety of perspectives that encourages environmental sustainability while having a good time.  Ads for the launch of the network featured Tommy Lee, Emeril Lagasse, and lots of other household names saying “Hi, I’m [name], and I’m an ecomaniac.”

I really like the idea of lifestyle marketing from a cable network and we have certainly seen success with products such as Oxygen Network and Cartoon Network, each of which appeal to a specific market segment.  However, I wonder how long a network with a social conscience will survive.

Yes, they say it will be fun, not preachy.  No, you don’t need to have solar panels installed on your roof to find good home renovation ideas.  Yes, Emeril will likely continue to be his dynamic, Martha Stewart partner, delicious self.  BUT I personally can only take the green thing so far in a day!

I’m still predicting that the green bubble with burst sometime soon.  I hope we make some legitimate impact on the quality of life on our planet before it does - but all of this green media may overload our senses before we get there.  Stay tuned.

At the checkout line in Whole Foods today, I saw a magazine that caught my attention.  I’m not a big fan of magazines usually but this one had a striking black and white picture of Robert Redford at his debonair best on the cover.  The title of the Magazine is Aware.

It turns out that Aware Magazine is absolutely fantastic!  With the tag line”inspire the world,” they take on a philanthropic issue each time and cover it from a variety of angles.  The issue currently on newsstands is their Green Issue and I expected the same finger-wagging admonishment we see everywhere about our carbon footprint and the future of the planet.  Could we possibly rewind to the time when I had never heard “carbon footprint,” please!

Instead, I found an insightful take on the issue that looked at successfully philanthropy and advocacy in unlikely places.  Of course, I couldn’t resist putting on my marketing hat and looking closely at the advertisers.  This publication seems tailor-made for corporations trying so hard to be heard in the loud, loud world of corporate do-gooders.  The ads were classy and well executed.  Some of the messages I still doubt as more than greenwashing, but that’s another matter.  The good news is that the publishers found enough interest in the subject to create a magazine around these issues - and they are doing it is a consumer friendly way (such as Redford’s cover photo).  The bad news may be that it won’t last.  I wonder if this vote for sustainable development and caring thought can sustain itself.

This morning I was checking email and received a message from our local Girl Scouts Council about a great program called GoGirlGo! It is administered by the Women’s Sports Foundation founded by Billie Jean King in 1974.  The focus of the program is to use “sports and physical activity as an educational intervention that supports girls’ health and wellness…”

Gatorade is one of the leading sponsors of this program and, as I explored the web site, seems to me to be a great partnership fit.  However, I was disappointed as I further explored the GoGirlsGo! site and even linked over to the Gatorade web site.  Neither of these organizations are expending the effort to maximize this partnership.

Yes, I’m sure the Women’s Sports Foundation is thrilled with the generous financial support.  I’m also sure that Gatorade is happy with its featured partner status and logo placement on the GiGirlsGo! web page.  But… let’s think about this in the context of a bigger picture.

Who’s website generates greater traffic?  Gatorade must see millions more hits than the Foundation yet there is nothing on Gatorade’s site that ties back to the program.  I know I have read of other philanthropic efforts by Gatorade and its brands but their site says nothing about these efforts or does anything to distinguish itself as a caring brand leader.  What about a mention on the Gatorade site about the program whereby both the Foundation and Gatorade win?

How does this fit with the Gatorade brand message and mission?  Practically speaking, I can see the connection and it makes sense in my head.  Sports drinks, girls sports, future consumers, etc.  Is Gatorade making a conscious decision to support youth fitness?  Is this a reason for me to favor this brand or to support this cause?

It is wonderful that Gatorade is supporting such a great program and their financial commitment is honorable.  This is a prime example where a Goal Driven Philanthropy model (like the work we try to accomplish) would have built greater value for the partnership. 

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported on Monday about a national conference on volunteerism held in Atlanta.  One of the highlights of the event was a CEO roundtable at which companies discussed the long-term benefits of being socially involved corporate leaders and the importance of encouraging and supporting volunteerism among employees.

I am not usually one to read the comments posted in response to news stories of this type, but I happened to scroll down to the first comment and was amazed at what I found [link to article and comments here].  The comment was from a reader who said he/she did not want to be a volunteer and thought CEOs with the “stuffed pockets” should be doing the heavy lifting.  He/she went on to say “I have enough annoying stuff I have to do on the weekend.”  Wow.

All I can say to this person and others of similar thinking is that they are truly missing one of the greatest blessing we have as human beings.  Volunteerism, whether through employer affiliations or otherwise, is a gift that we give to ourselves AND to others.  There is a good reason why employers who support volunteerism see dramatic increases in employee satisfaction and retention rates.  Providing a forum for community activism is also a proven winner when recruiting talented staff.

Thankfully, most of the posts that followed disagreed with the cynical reader.  I cannot imagine living in a community (or on the planet at all) if everyone felt exhausted and bitter about helping others.  In fact, corporate leaders might consider their volunteer program as a good barometer of employee mindset. 

I would not want to see a climate where people are forced to volunteer time but evaluating the participation rates in such an employee-based program says a lot about the environment in which you do business and the people representing you to your customers, your clients and your community.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably know that the new Indiana Jones movie is all the rage on everything from the Fandango site to the front of your favorite candy bar.  In an article in the Chicago Tribune about the movie’s marketing push, they estimate that as much as $150 million was spent on advertising and promotional tie-ins.

I loved the first three movies and I’m a fan of Harrison Ford from way back.  However, I am overwhelmed and amazed by the pervasiveness of the marketing ties.  Certainly, it is a prime example of the power of connectivity - the same power we try to use in reaching new audiences with our philanthropic efforts.  It is, unfortunately, also witness to the dark side of cross-marketing (get it… dark side, Harrison Ford, Star Wars).

The Chicago Tribune article points out one of the farthest reaching ties with Scholastic Math and Scholastic News which is distributed in schools across the country.  According to Scholastic’s spokesperson, it is a wonderful way to create excitement among school-age children in the field of archeology.  Yes, that’s probably true but it is also a good way to sell movie tickets.  [click here to read the entire Chicago Tribune article]

Here’s a thought for the next blockbuster movie opening… create some real, lasting excitement by making a difference in the lives and minds of your potential audience.  If you want to promote archeology, how about sponsoring a major scientific undertaking with part of that $150 million?  Another sci-fi thriller… how about supporting scientific exploration of space?

Maybe it’s not as flashy as the wrapper on a limited edition candy bar, but I, for one, would stop and take notice.  The press coverage would be phenomenal and the enormous cash machine of Hollywood would connect with something bigger than a two-hour summer diversion.  Don’t forget, the new generation of moviegoers and consumers are not impressed by clever gimmicks but they ARE analyzing every move (and movie) you make.

I have been doing a lot of research lately about Generation Y (the Millennials) and their characteristics.  They are, as reported by numerous studies, thoughtful, relatively conservative, independent and prone to entrepreneurial tendencies.  They are plugged in all the time and get much of their news from the Web.  They are also the first generation to have all of this at their fingertips since they were toddlers - cell phones, computers, the internet…

Many of these characteristics bode well for fundraisers and community-conscious corporation.  They hear our messages and absorb new concepts like sponges.  However, I wonder if this sensory barrage will have a potential negative impact in the long-run?  Just as researchers told us that kids exposed to too much violence on TV and in computer games became desensitized to real violence, will these new potential donors become immune to our messages?  How many images, how many stories and how many calls to action will it take to register on their “screen?”

With so much information out there, it is incumbent upon marketers to make our messages relevant and urgent.  Generation Y , as a group, looks at things from a global perspective and believes it can have a global impact.  This means our competition for their attention has also gone worldwide. Ouch.