Hamlin On Non-Profits

There’s a good chance that some of you are here for the first time, so perhaps an introduction is in order.

I’ve been working in PR, mostly on behalf of nonprofit and advocacy organizations, for about 25 years. I’ve taught PR to upper class communications majors in college and with my partner I’ve conducted hundreds of workshops and seminars for nonprofit organizations and associations.
Prior to opening WHPR, I spent the good part of a decade as an Executive Director in a one-person office and then another with a staff of 20. And, before that, in the middle of my college education, I was grounded in community organizing as a graduate with the first class of VISTA volunteers assigned to urban areas and I’ve been in and volunteered for community organizations ever since.

So I’ve spent most of my professional life in and around nonprofit and advocacy work and it’s a wonderful thing to be able to work at what I really enjoy. But I also believe it is important:

Effective PR is a useful tool in most aspects of our society. In nonprofit and advocacy organizations, it is an absolute imperative.

Regardless of the need –
generating funds for the organization,
building support for your cause among your members,
educating the public about the facts behind your cause,
enhancing the organization’s reputation as a leader in its field,
managing a crisis,
knowing the right message for the audience and the right audience for the message,
driving your agenda forward –
smart communications strategies and tactics are vital to your success.

My goal is to share communications ideas which I hope help you to succeed and to share as well my observations about the nonprofit world in which I work. I hope something I deal with makes your work easier or more effective. I hope now and then to provoke, too.

I don’t get to post as often as I’d wish – and nowhere near as often as my blog guru wants me to – but I do post as often as I can.

If you start scrolling down the pages here, you’ll get a better idea of what this is all about. If you like what you see, come on back.

Thanks for visiting.

On an internet exchange group recently, I followed a discussion which reminded me, anew, of one of the most obvious – and most often ignored – communications lessons nonprofits need to heed.
One of the group’s participants posted a query which included the use of an abbreviated name – let’s say it was “XYX.” She knew exactly what XYX meant, but many of those with whom she was communicating were unfamiliar with it. In a subsequent posting, she explained what the initials stood for.
There’s a small lesson in that exchange and it represents a larger issue which nonprofits have to address constantly: vocabulary.
The small lesson is that one can’t assume that the rest of the world knows the internal vocabulary and short hand which is often common inside nonprofits. The use of initials to substitute for the full name – LAHSA for Los Angeles Housing Service Authority, OMB for Office of Budget Management – happens all the time, usually among “insiders” who know from their own experience what the initials mean. The problem arises when that same shorthand is used, without explanation, for a larger audience.
This problem isn’t confined to nonprofits, of course. Doctors often try to communicate with the public using their own arcane vocabulary, leaving most mystified; lawyers are notorious for falling back on legalese even when the audience are not lawyers. In any case, the point remains – when talking to those who don’t know your vocabulary, take care to be sure those strangers can understand what you are communicating.
The larger lesson is one which nonprofits ignore or forget all the time: The audience is not as well-informed about your cause as you are.

It is one thing to use an accepted vocabulary inside the organization – among staff or board members or volunteers or members – and quite another to use that same vocabulary with the public at large.

Time and again, I’ve watched nonprofits spend hours carefully crafting a message which will be presented to the public. They work long and hard to make sure that their message satisfies everybody in the room – all insiders – but nobody asks the critical question: Will this make sense to strangers? This exercise is typically compounded when there are more than one group involved – when coalitions or alliances decided to join forces to deliver a message, they usually spend hours making sure each member of the group is content with the message but never consider those who will ultimately get the message.
There’s a very simple way to fix this problem. If your message is to be delivered to and consumed by strangers, share that message with a stranger before you distribute it. When a stranger can understand the message you want to deliver with accuracy, then, but only then, it is ready for broad distribution.
Paying careful attention to vocabulary is essential if you want to deliver the right message to the right audience – and the message will fall flat if you don’t do it.

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the disaster which flows from the explosion on the British Petroleum oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, but one rings out clearly. It is far better to think first and talk later than the other way around.

At every turn over the past weeks – now approaching two months – spokespersons for British Petroleum have changed their message. From the total of oil escaping from the damaged rig (10,000, then 15,000, then 20,000 gallons) to the existence of plumes of oil beneath the surface (they don’t exist, they exist but they aren’t very big, they may exist but we haven’t found them), BP has rarely delivered the same message more than once; often, they’ve changed their message within the hour.

The reason for the competing, if not contrary, messages could be simple or sinister. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that BP simply doesn’t know the answers to key questions because the circumstances are so new and the consequences so uncharted. It is also possible to assume that BP is acting with deliberation, consciously downplaying the impact of the crisis in order to ease their responsibility or ease public concern. Whatever the cause, the result is an object lesson in how to manage crisis communication badly.

Rather than admit the real truth – “We don’t know” or “We’re still trying to figure it out” or “Our data just isn’t complete” or even “We know the volume of oil pouring into the Gulf is massive but we have no reliable means of measuring it” – BP has put itself in the worst possible position. They have created a climate in which absolutely nobody – not experts, not the media, not the public at large – believes a word they say. That total loss of credibility not only harms their ability to squarely address the problems they face, it also creates an enduring and harsh long-term problem. It will be a long time before BP can issue a statement of any kind which is viewed with trust or confidence by the audience they seek to persuade.

Nonprofits and associations can learn a huge and vital lesson from this.

In crisis, it is far better to be sure than to be quick.

Delaying a response or a statement until the facts are firmly in hand is far more effective than having to double back, shift and change, alter or amend. Each new change, each new alteration from a previous statement subverts credibility and, in crisis, such subversion is amplified – it doesn’t take very long at all to reach a point where every statement issued is viewed as dishonest or, at the very least, unreliable. Once that label is affixed, only bad things follow.

In crisis communications, the public and the news media share one simple conviction: Truth is trust. Risking the loss of trust at any time is not good; risking it in crisis is a cardinal sin. Hold the BP lesson dear – it is as valuable as any an organization in crisis can ever learn.

There is a fascinating Task Force on Homelessness at work in Los Angeles which can – and, I believe, should – stand as an object lesson for many in the nonprofit sector.

Often, those who lead nonprofits exhibit a strangely disconnected view of the business community. While most nonprofits are all too happy to have business leaders on their boards and to draw on the business community when it’s time to raise money, those same nonprofits shun the business community when it comes to policy.

The L.A. Task Force suggests that there is ample reason to call on business leaders when it comes to advocacy. In L.A., the Chamber of Commerce has joined forces with the area’s major United Way campaign to find new approaches to the city’s homeless issue, far and away the worst in the nation. L.A.’s United Way is comfortable on this turf because they’ve been addressing poverty issues as a matter of policy for quite some time. The Chamber is in the game for one simple and undeniable reason: homelessness is not good for business. L.A.’s homeless problems dampen downtown commerce, depress real estate values, intimidate potential business tenants and drain city resources which might be applied to other suitable purposes. The Chamber believes that solving the problem is smart business.

So the two agencies created their Task Force. It has been studying the issue from a logical perspective, looking at other cities which have successfully reduced their homeless populations. In every instance where that has occurred – and it has happened in most major U.S. cities – one key ingredient to success has been the participation of the business community. This is no surprise: business leaders are savvy about using available resources to get things done and keenly attuned to return on investment; they expect tangible, measureable results and shift course when those results do not flow from any given initiative.

In short, business leaders know how to leverage resources into results. Since that is precisely what every nonprofit in the nation seeks to do, there is good reason for them to draw on the seasoned, proven leadership the business community can provide.

While this may seem heretical to many in the nonprofit universe, the existence of that perception hardly makes the conclusion correct.

The next time your nonprofit is struggling to find a good solution to a difficult problem, it would be smart – and probably productive – to seek assistance from business leaders. Stop assuming that the only value business brings to nonprofit work is the writing of checks and start exploring other contributions your business leaders can provide.

A disclaimer: I sit on the L.A. Task Force and my agency played a role in creating the framework which led to its creation.

It is critical that nonprofits spend ample time and resources communicating with the public – it is a matter of absolute fact that if they don’t know who you are and what you do, they can’t support you and the cause you serve.
One vital aspect of communication is selecting the right medium. Lately, there is a lot of emphasis being placed on social media – the growing array of digital and internet media which reach unique audiences – and while social media is increasingly important to nonprofit communication, it is by no means the only source. In many cases, it may be less effective than it first appears.
A recent survey, a poll conducted by SSRS early this year among more than a thousand adults, is quite revealing. It found that older adults – those 50 and older – much prefer traditional media: 42% read a newspaper every day. Younger people (18-49) do not turn to papers very often; only 20% of younger consumers read a daily paper and nearly 40% don’t read a paper at all.
Those findings do not automatically lead to the conclusion that digital media is the answer, however.

A majority of both younger and older folks rely on television for news – 52% in the 18-49 group and an amazing 69% of older folks turn to TV for news. Only a third of young people rely on the internet and less than 20% of older people go digital for news. Among the younger audience, radio is more preferable as a news source than newspapers.
These are critical numbers for those who seek to deliver messages about their nonprofits.

While the internet is an excellent tool for communicating with those who already know about and support your cause – the “captured” audience who are already with you – it does not, yet, reach strangers.
This means that nonprofit communicators need to pay very careful attention to the process of disseminating news. Here are some obvious conclusions:
If television reaches the largest segment of strangers, your communications strategy must be visual – talking heads and dry, static news conferences are not suitable to TV. Lively, energetic, highly visual events are the first and only choice if TV news is the target.
If the audience you need to reach is older – if you provide services to seniors or if your cause requires the support of those with more financial resources – print is still a potent option. If you seek an audience with younger people, the internet is a helpful tool, but it still isn’t their prime source for news.
So, social media has valuable but limited reach. If they already know who you are and what you do, digital media is a great option – websites, Facebook pages, twitters and tweets, listserv postings and digital newsletters can all preach to the converted. If you’re trying to reach a specific affinity audience – those who are dedicated to social justice or the environment or healthcare issues, for example – internet communication can reach them when they surf those issues.
But if your goal is to tell a broad and inclusive audience who you are and what you do, the internet is not the most logical choice. Like it or not, TV and radio have more power and, depending on the audience, print media is still a powerful resource.
Before you communicate, think about the audience you’re trying to reach – the media you select will make the difference between success and failure.

Over the past year or more, I’ve been suggesting that the impact of the current economy has created a perfect storm, a worst-case set of circumstances in which the demand for the services nonprofits provide to their communities has risen dramatically as the resources they have to provide those services are falling like Niagara.
Unemployment is high, but people still need to eat. Wages are down, but people still get sick and need care. Families are trying to cope by generating two or three or four incomes, but they can’t do that without reliable day care for their kids or their elderly parents. The “safety net” which tries to catch those spiraling down with the economy is a nonprofit enterprise.
Now comes a report from the National Council of Nonprofits which suggests that things are not only bad, they’re getting much worse. “State Budget Crises: Ripping the Safety Net Held by Nonprofits” finds the storm is growing more sinister at every turn.
The demand on nonprofits is indeed higher than it has been in ages, but that’s just the beginning.

As one state government after another cuts services to those in need, the burden on the nonprofit sector rises. As one state government after another cuts their budget to the bone, funds available to nonprofits are drying up.

And, to make it even more horrible, states are now beginning to withhold payments to nonprofits, driving them into debt (or, more accurately, dragging them down).
What is happening to nonprofits is not new. There has been ample evidence of the plight they face for quite some time now, but just as it isn’t new, it also isn’t news. The pressures which nonprofits are enduring are barely noted in most media most of the time, save an occasional story about a strapped food bank or a challenged United Way. That must change.
The NCN report echoes what many of us who work with and for the nonprofit sector have been arguing for a long time now. They argue that it is time for nonprofits to band together and use their collective strength to make noise and make change. The also recommend that nonprofits draw upon the clout of Boards, often powerful and well-connected folks who can make a difference as advocates within state government and as respected voices in media.
It would be wise of leaders in the nonprofit world to read the NCN report and pay attention to both its focused portrait of the state of affairs and its recommendations about next steps and action needed.
The disaster which nonprofits face is bad, but there’s growing evidence to suggest that it’s worse than we thought – the need to make the public aware of what’s happening and to take steps to prevent far greater harm to our society is as urgent as it can be.

http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/sites/default/files/Special-Report-State-Budget-Crises-Ripping-the-Safety-Net-Held-by-Nonprofits.pdf

Throughout the decades I’ve working with nonprofits, I’ve maintained that the most effective way to have a real impact is to advocate, that getting into the trenches and making the fights that matter leads to real, lasting, important change. While some of the nonprofits I’ve observed and worked with understand the importance of advocacy as a central strategy, most are reluctant to be aggressive and proactive.
Now, I can offer solid, hard evidence to suggest that those organizations which advocate and organize really do make an enormous difference.

The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy has recently issued a study which tracks the benefits which flow from foundation support to nonprofit organizations which engage in advocacy, organizing and civic engagement in Los Angeles. Here some of the highlights:

Over a five year period, the 15 nonprofits which NCRP studied generated close to $7 billion (yes, that’s billion with a B!) benefits. This return came in the form of higher wages, huge health care cost savings, greater educational opportunities and a more employable work force and more.
More than 14,000 people received training – they’re all active and informed now.
Close to 40,000 individual new members became active in the 15 organizations.
55,000 active citizens participated in public actions – workshops, rallies, forums and more – on critical issues facing Los Angeles.
For every $1 foundations and others invested in advocacy and civic engagement, the nonprofits generated $91 in benefits to the community. That is a real return on investment.

The findings in this report offer two vital lessons.

First, nonprofits which do not adopt the strategies and tactics of advocacy are missing an enormous opportunity to create the change which lies at the heart of their mission.

Second, foundations which provide critical support to nonprofits engaged in advocacy – sustained general support and advocacy and engagement capacity building – have a far greater impact on the issues they seek to address. Supporting advocacy generates change which is stronger and lasts longer.

The NCRP L.A. report is one of several the organization has conducted in a variety of regions (large and small, urban and rural, wealthy and not-so-wealthy) and in every single study the results are the same.
If you’re a nonprofit leader or a foundation officer, you simply must read this report – it is a road map to success, a path to realizing real and vital goals, a blueprint for making critical, sustained change, a plan to serve your cause in the most effective way possible.

Go. Read. Now! http://www.ncrp.org/campaigns-research-policy/36-campaigns-research-a-policy/606-los-angeles-county

Full Disclosure: My firm worked with NCRP to facilitate the release of their Los Angeles report. That fact in no way changes my view of the findings and their critical importance, but you should know about it.

For several days now, I’ve been following a discussion about cause marketing on a Listserv which I follow on a regular basis. It’s a fascinating discussion.

The issue at hand: is there a benefit for nonprofits in partnering with corporations and businesses for mutual benefit? The discussion has ranged over an amazing spectrum of opinions. The cynical hold that there is no value – and considerable taint – in working with the corporate world and that we’ve been all but corrupted beyond redemption by MBAs. The pragmatic assert that in lots of circumstances, even those which may challenge the core values of the nonprofit, there is something to be gained when the nonprofit expands its resource base in a cause marketing partnership.

I’ve long argued that there is very good reason for nonprofits to find the right partner and work together. I’ve seen several examples in which both sides worked together effectively and both derived considerable benefit. Here’s one good example:

A very large gated apartment complex which features lots of green space and lush landscaping inside isn’t quite so attractive from the outside. The management of the complex wanted to find a way to get potential residents onto the property so they could see for themselves what lay inside. At the same time, a group of artists wanted to expose their work to an audience of potential buyers. The artists and the complex joined forces to create a public art fair. To draw a large audience, they sought and secured a partnership with a nonprofit which aids young people with cancer.

The result was exactly what cause marketing should be: Everybody won. The nonprofit and the artists publicized the art fair to their respective communities while the management of the complex made their facilities and their staff available to help stage the fair. Everyone worked together to publicize the event and, over several years, the art fair drew thousands of visitors. The artists got their show and some sales, the nonprofit gained expanded exposure and the donations to its cause the visitors offered and the complex was able to show off its property to a large audience of new potential customers.

Nobody’s ethics were compromised, nobody had to do or say anything which was at odds with their goals, their mission or their values and everybody realized their own goals.

So the answer to the question, it seems to me, is simple:

In the right circumstances and the right partnership, cause marketing is a terrific tool. Good planning, thoughtful cooperation and the right mixture are essential, but it can – and it does – work.

IF YOU’RE INTERESTED, THE LISTSERV I FOLLOW IS COMPOSED OF NONPROFIT ACTIVISTS WORKING A WIDE RANGE OF ISSUES AND THOSE WHO SERVE THEM. IT’S OFTEN VALUABLE FOR A WIDE RANGE OF INTERNET AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION, BUT IT ALSO FREQUENTLY EXPLORES TOPICS LIKE THE SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG. HERE’S WHERE YOU CAN FIND IT: DISCUSS@PROGRESSIVEEXCHANGE.ORG

As California confronts the debilitating impact of a rancid economy, the surface damage is stark. From fewer students headed to college because tuition has risen as family incomes drop to government services reduced as workers are furloughed or laid off – damaging everything from healthcare to street maintenance – the impact of the economy is easy to see.
Just below the surface, however, lies lasting damage done to the nonprofit sector. It is deep and wide and seems certain to generate pain long after a recovery takes hold.

There are countless examples of the savage consequences for nonprofits of a state budget in tatters.

Development funds from Sacramento to community nonprofits which construct affordable housing and homeless housing and services have all but dried up. Los Angeles has the nation’s largest homeless population and a stock of affordable housing so limited as to be absurd. Long after a recovery, workers in L.A. will struggle to find housing and the homeless population will continue to live on streets. It will be decades before nonprofits in L.A. can make up the losses. The pool of employees will be smaller and the shame of the city’s homeless crisis – which is hugely expensive – will last far beyond recovery.
California has been a leader in environmental action, but organizations such as the California Urban Forests Council have seen state support evaporate. Two years ago, CaUFC engineered a campaign which planted over 5,000 trees in southern California in a single day; today, no funding exists for such efforts. By the time such funds appear again, the state’s air will be demonstrably less clean, its population (and its young population in particular) less healthy, communities up and down the state less green.
California has slashed the budget which supports seniors who benefit from adult day care. The association which supports those adult day facilities, the California Association of Adult Day Services, has seen its membership drop precipitously as more facilities close under budget strains. This has enduring consequences, all bad. Families requiring more than one income rely on quality day care for seniors who would otherwise live at home – when that second income vanishes, state revenue drops and the families suffer. The support CAADS provides to remaining centers is diminished: a reduced capacity to train workers, limited support for legal and humane care and a reduction in the highest standards of care. Absurdly, every day care facility which closes forces more seniors into full-time care institutions, so California pays for full-time care, astronomically higher than that of day care. By the time recovery exists, it will be too late to save those squandered dollars.
California may be able to fill a few more potholes when a recovery takes hold. It won’t be so easy to fill the enormous holes in our society which California has visited upon its nonprofits.

There is a vital voice missing from the debate over healthcare reform. We’ve heard plenty from posturing politicians and well-heeled corporations and corporate front groups with specific agendas. We haven’t heard much – certainly not enough – from the nonprofits whose services constitute a significant portion of the U.S. healthcare system.

A huge nonprofit network delivers essential health care every day. Those who simply cannot afford insurance rely on this network when they confront a medical concern. Those who are employed but receive no healthcare benefits use the same network. Together, those two groups make up the overwhelming majority of those now outside the system.

When they need care, they go to emergency rooms or a community clinic.

Some ER care flows from corporations which treat healthcare as a business, but most is provided by nonprofits, religious institutions, foundations or tax-funded facilities. The same is almost universally true of community clinics, which exist only to serve, neither turning a profit nor created to do so.

This nonprofit network is critical to our healthcare system. Without it, hundreds of thousands would have no healthcare at all. These providers have vital knowledge: They know what day-to-day medical care demands, what the challenges are, what works and what doesn’t, what reform might or must do.
So why was this voice missing from the debate?

First, mainstream news media tend to rely on readily accessible sources and those sources are those which have the savvy and the resources to feed media. Hand-outs, briefing papers, well-timed releases and well-trained spokespersons (always available because they’re paid to be always available) are simply easier for reporters to use, so they do.

At the same time, healthcare nonprofits tend to shun advocacy. Most clinics simply provide care, pouring every dime they raise into services, not media. They are dedicated to their central mission and they resist dedicating any resources – time, staff, talent, funds – to anything but that mission. Some probably believe that their voice cannot compete with the wealthier, more clout-laden “big guys.”

Nothing will drive news media away from their reliance on the usual sources, but nothing prevents nonprofit healthcare providers from being one of those sources. The nonprofit healthcare sector is probably the most well-informed and vital in the debate on reform. If media have access to that sector, they will use it. In the current debate, the nonprofit sector has not banded together to create a unified voice or to generate valuable input. There is little evidence to suggest the nonprofits made an effort to reach out to media at all. The debate has therefore been deprived essential knowledge, experience and information.

Lots of folks are going to be unhappy with the final version of healthcare if and when it passes. It will be easy to blame “the media,” but the nonprofit healthcare sector hasn’t used media well. Their failure to contribute significantly may be understandable. It is also wrong.