8 responses to “Putting The Lipstick On”

1. Elaine Fogel says:

   October 25, 2011 at 1:40 am

   Hurray! “Marketing is not just about communications.” Wish more orgs would “get” that. 🙁

2. Kevin Schulman says:

   October 25, 2011 at 7:57 am

   I’m afraid Kathy’s observation is even more right, or pervasive, than perhaps even she realizes. Consider a recent study, among non-profits, cited in Harvard Business Review,

   “When asked about their organization’s core capabilities — distinctive things their association could do better than anyone else — only 29% said these supported their organization’s strategy”.

   We wrote a full post about this article (http://www.thedonorvoice.com/struggling-with-donations-it-could-be-the-brand-stupid/), even got the gratuitous Carville reference in with our headline – It’s the brand, stupid – but suffice to say this finding from HBR is the antithesis of a good product or more broadly, organizational brand (which is really what the product is for most non-profits) – the lack of connection between organization strategy and core, distinctive capabilities.

   Tom has benefit of working for a non-profit, Environmental Defense, that runs counter to this finding. Unfortunately, EDF is the exception, not the rule.

3. Brian Reich says:

   October 25, 2011 at 8:05 am

   Do you honestly believe that option 3 – putting on the lipstick – is a good option? Maybe it saves the organization some short-term disappointment, or fools the audience into believing that their investment is worthwhile. But long term it has the potential to backfire, big time. The organization won’t accomplish its mission. The fundraising will dry up (further). And the donor, feeling slighted, will start to guard their limited resources more closely with every charity, for fear of being screwed. Its not a choice at all – either do it right, or don’t do it at all. And if an organization can’t figure that out on their own, someone needs to tell them to step aside before they do more harm than good.

   Wrote up some of these thoughts in my new book, Shift & Reset (http://www.amazon.com/Shift-Reset-Strategies-Addressing-Connected/dp/0470942673/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1305142675&sr=8-2) – would be interested in your take on the approach/conversation.

4. Kate Mathews says:

   October 25, 2011 at 9:59 am

   Tom, it’s all about risk-taking isn’t it? When an organization’s goals are muddled or “in transition” … when they aren’t willing to let their marketer give advide, or to take it … when the bottom line is at stake — yours as well as your clients … “Life is too short” is okay in a booming economy. But now? Lipstick on a pig? Or responsible leadership and listening to the people hired because of their experience to do a job for you. This post seems related to several earlier posts in The Agitator about leadership and breaking molds and doing the hard work of identifying markets. What do you and other “Agitators” think? Which comes first? The lipstick or the squeal or the meat on the hoof? Kate

5. Erica says:

   October 25, 2011 at 12:32 pm

   I was in a course for nonprofit managers with someone who was the communications guy at a large growing nonprofit which had recently become the next hot thing in education circles. Hearing him speak, though, made it clear that the whole model that the larger world was applauding and aiming to replicate was something of a sham. Its founders had an intriguing idea but no sense of how to properly carry it out or manage it for success. From his view, they actually weren’t meeting their mission in a really basic way. He tried to raise some points, but the problems seems so far spread throughout the organization that he didn’t feel he was able to make headway. It did make me resentful that due to some obviously great marketing and maybe also some other factors, that this organization was flourishing. It definitely felt like lipstick on a pig. I’m not sure if he’s still there, but I always felt that he was too honest and smart of a person to stay and keep making the lipstick…I do believe that in the end, a sham will catch up to the organization..but also that life is too short. I would aim for item 1 – fight for the organization to actually work towards its mission. But if that fails, I’d use my talents someplace that will actually see real results. Otherwise, at some point, you really do become a con artist.

6. tbelford says:

   October 25, 2011 at 3:16 pm

   Just to amend Kevin’s comment. I used to work at EDF … until 2005. Tom

7. Anonymous says:

   October 26, 2011 at 12:51 am

   Tom, please don’t publish my name and organization, but your comment, “Remember that fundraisers are marketers…” struck a real cord with me.

   My experience has been that most fundraisers do NOT think of themselves as marketers, but as fundraisers – which is where many problems relating to the success of a campaign could start. Some fundraisers think “marketing” is a dirty word. Fundraisers have a mission…a cause. Hmmmmmm. Everyone should love them because they are “doing good.”

   With all that is “good and holy” out there, missions/causes still needs to be marketed – smartly, strategically and with all the appropriate tools and technology available.

   As the July 2011 McKinsey report stated, we’re all marketers now.

   “Not a sermon, just a thought.” 🙂

8. Fei Fong says:

   October 26, 2011 at 4:59 am

   Maybe I’m just an old fart, but for some reason I still think marketing is solely based on COMMUNICATION. But that’s just me, because apparently it’s also about lying too nowadays: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/10/20/stealing-valor-stolen-valor-act-2005-put-pasture/