Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Non-Profit Branding

pointless and uncalled for

19:09 / 29.05.02

At the moment I'm working for a non-profit organisation who are in consideration of developing a branding model as part of an upcoming public advertising campaign.

While I'm aware of the issues that are regularly raise surrounding the issue of corporate/business branding, I was wondering how you felt that this related to/affected an organisation such as this one?

If it adds any relevance to the issue the organisation is a shelter for abused women and children which is planning to expand it's operations and plans to raise 3.5 million to create another shelter and develop expanded operations.

19:42 / 29.05.02

Branding is an important marker to create awareness and an effective way to reach out to others. Once a symbol is generated, any abstract notions people have regarding the organization could be pinned to it. I mean, how many organizations do you notice that don't effectively advertise their services?

I'm branding and working on a site for a community center linked into a religious organization at the moment. If you want to get people's attention, they do need more than word of mouth. Plus on the flip-side, it feels good to do work for a non-profit since the mission is generally a good one whereas you never know how a business or corporate entity will function in the future.

17:05 / 30.05.02

I, also, am a non-profit monkey. I realize that this may be a bit off-topic, but I've been increasingly frustrated of late by the whole non-profit dynamic, and the whole concept of a Board of Directors.

I guess I was really naive when I started working in this sector, but I expected less class and power politics than existed in the corporate sector. I've actually found these politics to be more of an issue here than in the big conglomerates for whom I've worked in the past. Our Board of Directors is entirely comprised of rich white folk, and, though I'll shamefacedly admit to having a pretty virulent anti-rich bias, I feel that a B.o.D. should be made up of the population being served by the organization, with a few philanthropists thrown in for the sake of funding. As it is, I'm getting the impression that the Boards of non-profits are feel-good clubs for rich folk who want to make decisions while shouldering no real responsibility.

How do you feel about this? And I guess this does kind of tie in to the whole 'branding' issure (which we're also dealing with at my work), in that branding is a very corporate concept. How do you feel about receiving funding from companies which aren't all that ethical (banks and big tobacco, for example)? Is anyone else as incredibly frustrated as I am by this state of affairs, or is writing these grant reports making me crazy?

pointless and uncalled for

18:03 / 30.05.02

I can understand frustration at the concept of a B.o.D, although it would seem that one one for this organisation have at least some people of related interests. As I understand it, to qualify to register as a NPO then there is a requirement to have a B.o.D.

In terms of the make-up of a Board of Directors, just having a few philanthropists to bandy cash around may not be enough, especially if the organisation, like the one I'm working for, requires a high level of support. I think they're currently at 1 mil+ per year. If you have people who are slightly removed from the issue, particularly as sensitive as providing shelter for abused women and children, will allow them to be more objective without emotional clouding when it comes to directing policy and determining funding and distribution. While that may seem cold I see it as an important factor when dealing with certain non-theoretical realities and logistics. This then ties in with shouldering responsibility. In this case and with some others there is a very real and immediate responsibility that needs to be addressed and the B.o.D is doing just that.

As banchee explained, there is relevance to branding beyond a corporate level. As for the money? I'm only here as a Temp to cover a staffing shortfall but my opinion is the same as it has always been. Donations to a charity or NPO are always good on the provision that they don't come at an inhumane expense. I know that some people may consider big tobacco companies and banks to be inhumane but I think that's something of an unfair assesment. I think ethics can afford to be a little looser under certain circumstances.

19:06 / 30.05.02

That's a very good point re: separation helping objectivity, and one that I hadn't thought of.

In terms of B.o.D.s (ours in particular) shouldering responsibility, I'm going to have to stick with my original assessment. I realize that they help to develop the budget, and that they are legally responsible for the organization, but I think that their aforementioned separation is a detriment when it comes to making informed decisions about how funds should be allocated, which programs should be expanded, etc. I sort of believe that, unless you've at least done a tour on the front lines and experienced the (sometimes emotional) realities of working in the field, you don't really have the right to make decisions on behalf of the folks who'll have to carry out your orders.

But I guess this is the same as in the corporate world: Bosses don't tend to ask what you think before assigning you a futile project or cutting your entire department.

As for the funding issue, I'm not so sure that this is one of those circumstances in which ethics could be a bit looser. If your organization is promoting equity and inclusion, accepting money from, say, Nike or the Gap doesn't do a whole lot to help your image as an organization which really believes in the principles it claims to be promoting. Then again, it raises the whole issue of whether, in a capitalist system, any money is clean money...

I was just about to type out my thoughts on branding and competition in the non-profit sector, and realized just how idealistic my view of that situation is. So I've decided to spare you until I can get myself to sound like less of a hand-wringing neo-hippie...

pointless and uncalled for

19:13 / 30.05.02

Bear in mind that capatalist organisations are going to dispense that money anyway, for tax reasons. The same situation is going to exist in the same underdeveloped countries and someone with slightly lower scruples than you is going to be doing more charitable work for someone else. I'd far rather see that money be put towards shelters and aid than funding some half-assed artwank with little or no community merit.

You won't send a message to the capitalists by not taking their money.

As for the B.oD situation, in their semi-defence, it will depend largely on each seperate group. The people governing my NPO seem to have their heads looking the right way, even if they are comprised of tich white socialites.

19:24 / 30.05.02

I know, I know. And you're absolutely right.

But taking their money sends many messages, and not just that you'd rather use their money for good than see it go to some eejit making plaster casts of his penis. Accepting funding from unethical sources = being complicit. And that doesn't sit well with me.

And it's good to hear that some Boards aren't complete wankers. My experiences here, and those of my friends in other NPOs, had me thinking that they were all ineffectual and tyrannical. Nice to know that there's hope.