Category: communications

case for support, communications, leadership, messaging, rationale

What organizations can learn from Trump

Regardless of what you think about him, the fact is that Donald Trump has stunned everyone. He has lasted longer as a presidential candidate than anyone presumed, and he has garnered far more support among the Republican base than anticipated. His brash, off-the-cuff, anger-driven style has resonated with a lot of people, and it has gotten him more attention and media coverage than all other candidates combined.

Whether or not he wins the Republican nomination or even the presidency, there’s a lot to be learned from his performance during this campaign season. Organizations seeking to build a larger base of support for their work or their cause should take notes from Trump’s success – and his failures. Here are some key lessons to consider:

  • Have a strong brand. There’s no doubt that Trump has a strong brand. Just the mention of his name conjures a certain impression of the man, what he represents, and the kind of experience he creates. The strong emotional responses that people have to him are indicative of his distinct style and presence.
  • Keep it simple. Carnegie Mellon University did an analysis of Trump’s campaign speeches and found that they contain language commonly spoken by children ages 11 and under. His overall vocabulary ranked around the level of an eighth grader. Is it no wonder that he has been able to reach so many people? Too often organizations use words or syntax that are difficult to understand, which keeps people from connecting with or supporting them. Keep your language simple so people have no trouble agreeing with you.
  • Tap into emotions and values. Trump has run for president before, but this time he has gotten much further in his pursuit, and that’s in large part because he has tapped into the anger and frustration of a lot of Americans. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s a lot of anger and frustration about the economy, immigration, terrorism, and our government. People respond to Trump (and similarly to Bernie Sanders) because he speaks out about these issues and he shares their feelings. What he says about immigrants, terrorists, politicians, and the economy reflects their own feelings and it resonates with them. Organizations wanting to grow and engage their own bases of support should similarly find ways to tap into their audiences’ emotions and values, and show how their work will benefit the things they care about.
  • Be authentic. A lot of people connect with Trump because he tells it like it is (in their view, anyway). They admire him for side-stepping political correctness and just speaking his mind, unfiltered. This is a big contrast to most politicians, who measure their words carefully and, as a result, come across as duplicitous or untrustworthy. Though organizations should probably be culturally sensitive to avoid the kind of negative attention that Trump has garnered (see the last point below), they should strive to be honest, straightforward, and true to their values in their work and their communications.
  • Be consistent. Trump is consistent in his style and personality, which reinforces his brand. Consistency also breeds trust and loyalty, because people know what to expect from him, and this in turn reinforces the relationships he’s built with supporters. On the other hand, he has not been very consistent in his policy positions, and though he has dismissed such accusations, it has caused problems for him. People find the inconsistencies in what he says to be cause for mistrust – someone who says two different things is less predictable and therefore less trustworthy – and such mistrust erodes your base of support. Organizations should be sure to be consistent in both their brand – their presence, personality, and messages – and their positions – what they stand for and believe in. If you dramatically or frequently change your brand or positions, you will lose some supporters, and it will make it harder for you to gain new ones.
  • Don’t be afraid to turn people away. If you’re going to have a strong brand that is authentic, taps into people’s emotions, and takes a hard position on the issues, you’re bound to say things that will turn people away. And that’s okay. If you’re trying to appeal to everyone, you’re probably appealing to no one, because you end up washing out your brand and your messaging by taking too many positions or dampening your language too much. Organizations should be confident in what they stand for and be comfortable communicating as much, even though there may be people who disagree with them. The people who disagree are not your target audience, and trying to appeal to them means you risk losing those who do agree with you by downplaying or moving away from what they care about. You probably don’t want as many people hating you as Trump has, but don’t feel that you need to appeal to all those who disagree with you either.
  • Back up your word. One of Trump’s weaknesses is that while he has an opinion about a lot of things, he doesn’t really have any evidence to support his positions. This makes him vulnerable to attacks from those who disagree with him. Organizations who will take positions on issues should be able to support their claims and justify their rationale with concrete evidence from reliable sources. This not only defends you against any attacks from naysayers, but it builds your case for support – and it makes your organization look more expert and professional.
  • Own up to your missteps. Trump is never shy to boast about his accomplishments, and a big part of his brand appeal is his success as a businessman. However, many have pointed out that many of his so-called successes were actually failures (Trump Steaks, anyone?). Trump refuses to admit any failures or weaknesses, and as a result, some have questioned his qualifications for Executive-In-Chief. After all, a sign of good leadership is accepting responsibility for your mistakes and then learning from them so you don’t repeat them. Similarly, organizations should step up and admit mistakes when they occur, take responsibility for them, and then learn from them so they don’t happen again. No one likes to admit failure, because they think it is shameful and will make people dislike them. But consider the alternative: hiding your failures takes a lot of effort, covering them up makes you vulnerable to those who might uncover them, and ignoring them increases the chances that it will happen again. And denying your failures only to defend them instead will make you look foolish, unprofessional, and untrustworthy. Just look at Trump.
  • Stay positive. Trump was quick to go negative in his campaign – against those he didn’t trust (he insulted Mexicans when he launched his campaign), against anyone he didn’t like (politicians, Obama, Megyn Kelly), against those who didn’t like him (the media), and against his competition (Republican candidates and the Democratic candidates). While those who supported him and his positions may have been energized by such attacks (and his willingness to speak his mind openly), it certainly turned a lot of people off, and it raised questions about whether or not his disposition was appropriate for the office of the President. As noted above, it’s important to stand for what you believe in, but that doesn’t mean you need to take down others too. Staying positive doesn’t mean you can’t talk about problems or crises. In this context it just means not offending or insulting others, including those who disagree with you. Especially in a world where social media and word of mouth can make or break a brand, it’s important that you earn people’s respect by behaving professionally and civilly. It will help you keep those who do support you, get positive attention from those who might support you, and minimize conflict from those who don’t support you.

Love him or hate him, don’t let Donald Trump’s candidacy pass you by without taking away some important lessons. His success and failures are similar to those of many organizations, and like Trump, they will rise or fall because of them.

communications, fundraising, messaging

Get your audience to agree with you

Time and time again, I see organizations sending the same kinds of communications. They talk about themselves and their work, why they believe it’s so important, and why they need your money. But they forget that it’s not about them and what they care about – it’s about their audiences and what they care about. 

It’s hard to think about another’s perspective, especially when you spend all your time on the work, when it means so much to you personally, and when you have the Curse of Knowledge (you know so much about the work that you forget what it’s like to not know so much about it). But if you want messaging that reaches people – that excites them and compels them to action – you need to talk in a way that resonates with them.

I worked with a client recently on some messaging and we wanted to make it easy to understand but also resonant. I reminded the team that they want the audience to agree with them, to nod along as they’re listening, to say “yes!” in response. In order to do this, it’s important to consider what your audience cares about, and to state things in a way that taps into those values.

As I often tell my clients, you should think about why they would care about what you’re saying, not why they should care about it. The former is about relating what you’re saying to the values your audience already holds, whereas the latter is about trying to convince them of values they do not currently hold. The sweet spot is what we call shared values – the values that you hold in common, the things you both care about, what you all can agree on. Framing your message in terms of shared values positions what you’re saying in a way that relates to their values and gets them on your side.

Of course, you may get your audience nodding with you, but for the wrong reasons. They may interpret what you’re saying in a way that is different from what you intended. You all think you agree, but everyone is walking away with a different understanding, agreeing on different things. This is an ineffective message that can impede your efforts to build a strong and cohesive base of support. It can even be a barrier to getting your audience to do what you want them to do.

So it’s important to not just tap into their values, but to make sure you are being clear about your meaning. You don’t want your audience to misinterpret or question your message, and you don’t want them to work hard to decipher it. You want a clear message using articulate, concrete language that is easy to understand and leaves no doubt about your meaning. After all, if you make your audience question what you’re saying, then they will probably have trouble agreeing with you.

Communicating effectively means creating messages that are clear and resonate with your audiences. Frame your message in terms of shared values, and don’t make them ask questions or work to decipher your meaning. Make it easy for them to understand, nod along, and say yes!

 

communications, logic model, messaging, nonprofit sector, strategy

Here’s why your outcomes aren’t clear

Dear Vu,

I just read your blog (as I often do because it’s good stuff that everyone should read) and as with your post a few weeks ago about nonprofits not acting enough like businesses, I felt the need to respond to this one.

First of all, I should say that I agree wholeheartedly with the points you make about the difficulty of defining, achieving, and measuring nonprofit outcomes. Nonprofits do not operate on a strictly dollar-for-dollar basis where outputs are instantly converted to profits. Our return on investment is measured not products sold or dollars earned but in social change over years. Producing outcomes takes dedication, patience, and yes, sophisticated measures of evaluation that donors don’t often fund. I like that you point out the non-linear nature of the work and the importance of process, because we need to remember that things are not always straightforward and that’s okay.

That said, I’m surprised at how insulted you are at the suggestion that nonprofits do not have clear outcomes. Now, granted, whoever wrote that comment about outcomes and ROI may have a certain meaning about outcomes that’s more about the very nature of nonprofit work. But in a more literal sense, the fact is that many nonprofits do not, in fact, have clear outcomes.

I viewed your organization’s evaluation map and I was thoroughly impressed. But you have to understand that many, many organizations do not have such thoughtful or sophisticated logic models for their organizations. Heck, I’ve worked with organizations that don’t even have logic models for any of their programs, let alone ones that include inputs and tie program outputs to short-term and long-term outcomes. Are there organizations that are as on top of things as your organization is? Absolutely. But throughout my career – first in nonprofit organizations, then in philanthropy, and more recently as a nonprofit consultant – I can say that your evaluation map is indeed the exception, not the norm. I would love to be proven wrong – to learn that the vast majority of nonprofits have thoughtful logic models for their organizations – but my experience has been that too many do not have them.

The map aside, let me tell you why I don’t think nonprofits have clear outcomes: they don’t know how to define an outcome. Sure, they may think they do, but time and time again I see outputs instead of outcomes. Yes, outputs are easier to define and measure, absolutely they are. But that doesn’t make them outcomes. Even in your own evaluation map, which I think is top-notch, there are outputs listed as outcomes (e.g. gaining skills and participating in advocacy efforts under short-term outcomes, more clients served and increased number of leaders in intermediate-term outcomes). From my perspective, you may call these outcomes, but they aren’t really. Results? Yes. Change? Sure. But outcomes? Not quite. It doesn’t detract from their value or importance, but again, I would say they aren’t clear outcomes.

And yes, some outcome statements are indeed fuzzy. I’m not talking about the “warm and fuzzy” kind of outcome (though there are plenty of those in the nonprofit world – and I often like them), but fuzzy in terms of their definition and clarity. This is usually because they’re worded in a way that leaves it unclear as to what the outcome is or how one would know if it was achieved. For instance, on your own evaluation map, Outcome 6 is “Increase in meaningful collaborative activities.” What do you mean by “meaningful” in this context? What exactly are collaborative activities? And when you say increase, does that mean that one more than the current number is sufficient to claim success? Yes, I’m being excessively critical, but I’m also trying to point out why outcomes are often seen as unclear or fuzzy. Even when you have a true outcome (as opposed to an output), if you don’t state it in an articulate way, it will open you up to the criticisms to which you take such great offense.

I should mention that I work with lots of organizations on this exact problem – clarity and definition of outcomes – because I too hate the criticisms. I am adamant that nonprofit work is worth the investment, even if it isn’t a financial return that you get. But I also hear the criticisms and try to learn from them, and the truth is that nonprofits can do better at defining and articulating their outcomes.

So what can nonprofits do to improve their outcome statements and reduce some of the criticisms (given that you won’t please the people who just want everything measured in dollars of ROI)? Here are some basic steps to take:

  • Know what an outcome is. Outcomes are not the same as outputs, but rather are a change in the behavior of people, institutions, or a system. This is the real, lasting change that you’re after with your work. It’s what we call “impact.”
  • Frame your outcomes as SMART goals. Yeah, yeah, I know we’re all sick of hearing about SMART objectives, but if you can state your outcomes in specific, measurable, and even time-bound ways, it gives them greater definition and clarity. Saying things will be “better” or “more effective” doesn’t really give much definition to an outcome.
  • Think in concrete terms. I’ve written before about improving your communications by cutting the crap, but this is also true for outcome statements. If you don’t want people to think your outcomes are fuzzy or fluffy, then make sure they are worded in a way that paints a very concrete picture of what you mean. Don’t leave people with questions about what exactly your outcome is. Be concrete. Be direct. Cut the crap.

Again, I don’t disagree with you on the challenges of defining, achieving, and measuring outcomes in the nonprofit world. And I know that you’re responding to a slightly different criticism that’s more about the nature of nonprofit results. But I wanted to present my own tough love perspective, which is to say that nonprofits need to do a better job of defining and articulating their outcome statements. I’m not saying it’s always easy, but it will reap rewards: not only will it reduce such criticisms, but it should create a more compelling case for support and it should give organizations more clarity and focus in their work.

Thanks for always putting forth such great thought-provoking pieces, and an early congratulations on your forthcoming addition to the family!

Eric