Nancy Schwartz has asked about ways that nonprofits can improve their marketing effectiveness.  I would like to begin my answer by politely disagreeing with the fundamental premise that nonprofits should be “marketing” their services.  I do not disagree with the need for nonprofits to engage constituents, raise money, organize, mobilize, advocate for policies and provide services.  My point of contention is that the notion of marketing too often results in organizations doing things at rather than with their communities.

 

The response of nonprofit groups when I say that is usually a defensive, “We never do that!  We work with our members/clients/funders/board members to build consensus on issues and involve them in our efforts.” If that were the case than those one-way newsletters that don’t ask for input or start a conversation wouldn’t happen.  Or the millions of dollars spent on direct mail fundraising campaigns to prospective donors wouldn’t be spent. Or communications efforts developed by professional staff alone in a conference room and aimed to keep everyone “on message” wouldn’t exist, would they?  Too often, we are developing strategies, campaigns, movements as organizations in isolation from the people we want involved in our efforts and then pushing them out, in a one way, top-down way that has the opposite effect of keeping people out rather than inviting them in.  How often have you heard a group say we launched an email campaign and no one responded?  Or we asked people to write their legislator or host a house party or give us money and no one did.  Why should they?  We haven’t asked them to participate, we’ve only asked them to do your bidding.

 

So, what’s the alternative?  We need to switch from models that are organizationally focused to ones that are network-centric.  Social change happens through our social networks.  Friends tell friends to pay attention, participate, donate and volunteer.  And these networks can grow quickly and organically (and much less expensively) than organizations.  Network participants can develop their own goals and strategies that can be guided and steered by organizations but without organizations having to do all the heavy lifting all the time.  This shift marks the difference between campaigns and movements.

 

Several organizations I know are moving from a hierarchical organizational model to a flatter, networked approach to take advantage of the new digital technologies and the power of networks.  One such group is the Asset Building Community Development (ABCD) Network of Maryland.  This new entity fills the void left by an organization that worked in very proprietary, closed and hierarchical ways.  ABCD will use a leaner staffing structure and cutting-edge networking technology to improve communications and coordination among its members. Through its website, email blasts, web chats, regional meetings and statewide convenings, the ABCD Network will engage community-based organizations in shaping policies that can improve the families and communities that they serve.

 

When the ABCD network is fully active its members will shape activities, policies.  The network members will reach out through their professional and personal networks to exponentially enlarge the array of people who are interested and active in helping ABCD successfully influence policy, raise money, and inform local activists.

 

The end result of moving to a network model is much more participation at a lower cost for greater results. And that’s what marketing is supposed to accomplish after all, isn’t it?