Beware Of The ‘S’ Word!
Excuse me, but I just gotta get this out of my system.
I am so fed up with reading and hearing from those who use the term ‘strategy’ without the slightest idea what it means. It’s a disease of dumbness and idiocy that has particularly infected the consulting community.
Were it not that it’s a virus as dangerous as Ebola to the nonprofit community they purportedly serve, I’d let it pass.
But they’ve gone too far and are a menace. Just look at the titles the agencies put behind the names of folks with one, sometimes even two or three years of experience: ‘Director, Strategy’ … ‘Chief Strategist’ … or just plain ‘Strategist’. Heaven save us all.
I understand why agencies and consultants love the ‘S’ word. After all, they can charge a lot more claiming next year’s mail plan is ‘Strategic’, as opposed to a copy. Cut and paste can be profitable, but not labeled as such.
I am so offended each time I see a proposal where a consultant is claiming ‘strategic’ insight but all he/she is delivering are production budgets and schedules along with some incremental testing recommendations that lead to nowhere. Orange vs. blue envelopes is not ‘strategic’.
Not only do I get upset with the garden-variety poseurs, but I go absolutely ballistic knowing that this shameful light weight advice is camouflaged under the name ‘Strategy’.
Why? Because it deprives the nonprofit of life-saving innovation and dramatic change that may represent a significant breakthrough for its future.
‘Strategy’ is NOT asking three different copywriters to draft three versions of a renewal series. Strategy IS undertaking an organization-wide review of how donors are treated.
‘Strategy’ is NOT offering a client 100 PowerPoint slides at yet another quarterly or monthly review session. Strategy IS suggesting to the client that the contract should be re-negotiated so the consultant is paid on, let’s say, an increase in lifetime value or retention rates. [Have you read our first two posts this week on lifetime value?]
‘Strategy’ is NOT producing reams and reams of meaningless data and analysis with no actionable outcome. Strategy IS identifying weaknesses or opportunities and recommending changes that will not only piss off the client but, most importantly, make them think. And change.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s a place for ‘tactics’ and this is where consultants thrive and generally know what they’re talking about. Those practical things like frequency, blogs, changes to the website, teaser on envelopes. Most of our trade thrives on spotting these opportunities. And there are dozens of great blogs that deal with tactics.
What most ‘strategists’ miss or are incapable of identifying are those overarching visions that will guide the organization’s overall goals and objectives. Tactics are the daily activities that will contribute to meeting the nonprofit’s goals.
‘Strategy’ is the ‘what’ part of the equation. “What are we trying to accomplish?”
‘Tactics’ are the ‘how’ part of the equation. “How will we accomplish our goal?”
Strategy is your guide, your GPS for when and how to apply tactics. Beware of those who don’t understand the difference, no matter what their title.
Chances are the ‘Chief Strategist’ doesn’t get it … and this ignorance will cost your organization a lot.
Roger
P.S. Check out this post by Kevin Schulman for some more specificity about the importance of ‘Strategy’ and why it should make you and your consulting ‘strategist’ very uncomfortable. Click here.
7 responses to “Beware Of The ‘S’ Word!”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
Not only do folks not understand strategy vs. tactics, they don’t understand goals vs. objectives vs. tactics. The goal answers ‘why’ you’re trying to accomplish something — it’s usually your vision and/or mission. The objective is “how” you’ll get there — and should be measurable. I think of the strategy as “what” — as in what you’ll do to increase your annual support from individuals from X to Y. And the tactics include the “when,” “where” and “by whom.” Now… I’m off to piss off a client!
Hallelujah!!!! Thank you so much, Roger, for ripping the nasty band-aid off this issue. And you are so right about pissing off the client!
Change is a difficult and often painful thing for most of us. We immediately assume that we will lose something if we meddle with the status quo. “We might not be doing so great now, but if we shake things up we could lose what we have, and we’ll all look bad. The board/my boss will see that I don’t really know what I’m doing. I might lose my job. I might expose my incompetence. Quick–get out the smoke and mirrors!” And on and on,….
It’s important for consultants to remember that we are more than salespeople hawking a new bag of tricks/tactics. We must be prepared to expose the vulnerability of an organization and its people and be prepared for what happens next. I’ve found that I use my skills as a crisis counselor at least as often as my knowledge of fundraising.
Wow, I’ve just had my butt kicked!
Roger that! I’m hopeful, decision makers will refer to this post (and definitions) in their next “strategy session”. Asking hard questions about newly proposed “strategic direction” should make agencies/consultants uncomfortable because it should involve risk. Sadly, this is an element increasingly absent from true strategy discussions. I would additionally pose the question: “What does this strategy place at risk”. If the answer is nothing, that should tell you something.
Well said, I couldn’t agree more. While I love all the talk about LTV this post really hits home. And thanks Claire for your follow up.
Great post and so true! As a staff person at various nonprofits, I sometimes find that I run into resistance when talking about overarching strategy that encompasses other’s areas rather than stick to my own slice of the pie. Especially if it means change. Risk aversion is very real in a nonprofit culture not used to taking big risks, or even being punished for doing so. And often staff feel they don’t have time to “waste” on strategic discussion. The key is in talking about the overall benefit to them, and everyone, of transformative strategic thinking, and showing how it worked wonders elsewhere.
hey guys – you’ve nailed it!
the strategic planning that I witness seems to be people locked up for a weekend to look at last year’s operational plan and tinker with it
to me, strategy is a sentence – a sentence with four parts (learned from my political career I suppose)
subject (whose strategy it is)
target – in marketing terms, almost always either the main competitor or the desired audience
action – where the strategy happens and moves
and the result – the desired outcome (or self-defined ‘win’) – the desire for which led to the strategy in the first place
so – to make one up on the spot – let’s say shaeffer beer us the u.s.a way back
subject: shaeffer beer
target: heavy beer drinkers (multiple beers at one sitting, like watching football)
result: sales leadership in the heavy beer drinking market segment
action: position and agressively market ourselves as THE beer to drink for guys who are SERIOUS beer drinkers
case in point: the ad jingle that sang…”shaeffer is the…the one beer to have…if you’re having more than one”
of course strategies can be military (mcarthur’s surprise attack at inchon in korea), political (james carville’s “it’s the economy stupid”), saturn’s old marketing strategy of selling cars to women by respecting them
great strategies are dead simple once they’re arrived at – that doesn’t mean they’re easy – but they should be singular and simple
okay – now I feel better – I’ll sleep tonight with this off my chest
fraser