Category: messaging

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

communications, messaging, organizational development

Why your brand isn’t working for you

I feel like I’ve been seeing the word “brand” more and more recently, and yet I still find that many organizations aren’t developing brands in a way that really serves their goals.

The traditional idea of a brand is in a marketing context: a type or set of products that a company sells. You know: Crest, Adidas, Johnson & Johnson, Whole Foods. Just from their name you know what these companies sell and what their products are about.

The common interpretation of brand that persists today is the visual brand – the logo, the typeface, even the tagline. These can definitely be powerful elements that convey a brand. Think of the Nike swoosh or “Just Do It.” You don’t even need the name to know what company they represent and what products that company sells. The same goes for the Starbucks mermaid, the Apple apple, and the Twitter bird. Simple images that tell you the company name and its products.

A lot of organizations think a brand is just the visual part. They think branding is a marketing tool and they focus on creating a logo to improve visibility and recognition. They are so worried about the look of their logo that they forget the image is just a shorthand representation of their organization. The image only works because it stands for something else. The Starbucks mermaid doesn’t just stand for lattes and frappuccinos. It also stands for the cafe environment – a warm, cozy place to hang out or meet up or do some work – and the experience of drinking your coffee there. The Apple logo doesn’t just stand for iPhones and MacBooks. It stands for cool, beauty, quality, and value, and the prestige of being an Apple product user. The Twitter bird doesn’t just stand for a messaging service. It stands for a trendy, quick, easy way of staying in touch and staying informed, and the status that goes with having a lot of followers.

And that is what a brand is about: the experience you create. For your constituents, for your donors, for your volunteers, and even for your employees and Board members. Because the experience you create is reflective of who you are. Not just the work you do, but your personality, your values, and the unique value you offer to others.

At the end of the day, your brand stems from who you are as an organization. When an organization that doesn’t have a concrete mission, an inspiring vision, a clear strategy, a cohesive staff, or articulate messaging doesn’t have a strong brand, they shouldn’t be surprised. It doesn’t matter what cool image you put in front of someone. If it isn’t clear what it stands for, why would anyone remember it, let alone care about it? The logo is just an image. The meaning behind that image is made up of so much more.

If you want to create a strong external brand for your organization, you have to look inward. What is the essence of your organization? Who are you as an institution? What are your values and personality? What experience do you create for those you encounter? And what unique value do you offer others?

A brand can be a powerful way to garner support and advance your mission, but to create such a brand you have to go beyond appearances.