The 4Ps from classic marketing textbooks include; Product, Placement, Promotion and Price.  We prefer adding two additional “Ps” for People and Processes.

Contrast this with the two big dimensions often cited for branding – differentiation and relevance.  The problem with these two dimensions is not their original intent (which was as part of larger, more thoughtful framework) but rather, the bastardization of relevance on the one hand and what has become a slavish, mindless refrain of differentiation on the other.

Relevance has taken on a life of its own with many arguing it is a multifaceted construct with brands or products being relevant in certain situations and not others – e.g. personal relevance, work related relevance, leisure relevance.  This twist on relevance confuses time and place of offer (i.e. Product Placement) and life-stage (e.g. with or without kids, single or married, young or old) with what is, without question, a singular construct that either exists (i.e. it is relevant to me) or does not.

Relevance then is a “build it and they will come” dimension.  Start with who are, what you do well (don’t obsess over whether it is different from others) and how to position for maximum understanding, clarity and appeal; those to whom you are relevant, if do your placement and promotion correctly, will magically rise to the top.

A quick example: if you have a baby then diapers are relevant to you.  You may not be interested in a diaper coupon at work but this is a weakness of the time and place of the offer.  Confuse this with relevance and you risk losing a sale.  Similarly, put a crappy, poorly positioned offer in front of a consumer for whom diapers are relevant – i.e. an “in-market” consumer – and risk losing a sale.

In the case of differentiation, it has too often become a diatribe, a mindless chant for the need to be differentiated.  It is not that differentiation as an element of the brand product is un-important; it is merely that most brands are also built on elements of parity.  Furthermore, brands achieve differentiation and consumer preference through many facets that are far better captured using the 6P’s framework versus the limited brand framework of relevance and differentiation too often relied upon by supposed brand experts.

So let’s revisit the 6Ps.

Product – A product for non-profits is their organizational brand; who you are and what you stand for and the (preferably unique) benefit of associating with you.  It is conveyed in all that you do, including your appeals.  P.S. trying to define this without external, primary research among your target audiences is a really, really bad idea.

Placement – This is the channel piece so often discussed in non-profits.  It is HOW AND WHEN the offer or communication (e.g. newsletter) is sent.

Promotion – This is the creative element of taking the product and selling it.  It is your fundraising appeal, your website, your Facebook page, etc…The external manifestation of your Product definition work.  P.S. Putting these pieces into the market without testing them among your target audience is a really, really bad idea.

Price – In fundraising parlance, this is the ask.  The “ask” is science, not art.  P.S. Approaching it as an art is a really, really bad idea.

People – These are your internal people, those who directly interact with key constituencies, including those who financially support what you do and the recipients of your mission.  It is well documented that employees and staff do far more to impact your product (read: brand) then all your formal communications combined.

Processes – This includes processes to deliver services to recipients of your mission as well as supporters.  For the latter, the acknowledgement process is one example of an extremely important, internal process that can singularly “break” your product if done poorly (or not at all).

The next time you are discussing your brand or considering a branding exercise think about the best framework for fully evaluating and delivering on it.  We think the 6P’s easily beats “differentiation and relevance” (or any of its similar cousins) as the more useful, specific and thorough approach.