On March 9^th, the Norwegian justice minister Sylvi Listhaug posted a picture of masked fighters dressed in fatigues, black scarves, and ammo with the caption “Labour thinks the rights of terrorists are more important than the nation’s security. Like and share.”  Several supporters sent flowers.

Ired by this, two Norwegians started a fundraising campaign for Doctors Without Borders in Norway saying (and the translation is a bit rough):

“Our action is a response to the ocean of flowers Sylvi Listhaug got. At the same time this has developed to become something bigger than we first thought. It stands as a symbol. FOR A WARMER SOCIETY! All contributions counts! Let’s all be a part of contributing to make a society without hate and dangerous rhetorics.”

The campaign has raised over 16 million kroner (over $2 million) with 79K people donating.  For perspective, that’s about 1.5% of the Norwegian population.  Imagine a campaign that got 4.5 million Americans to do anything in less than a month.  (Heck, imagine something that would get four Americans, chosen at random, to agree on toppings for a large pizza.)

On Tuesday, Listhaud resigned to avoid a collapse of the minority government.

We’ve talked at length about the value of a donor identity.  At its most basic level, it’s “I am a good person doing a good thing.”  Moving beyond this, it’s taking a donor identity and imbuing it with positive characteristics.

But when we looked at the case study of how the NRA constructs identity, they didn’t stop at talking about gun owners as patriotic, courageous, and law-abiding.  They went one step further, presenting gun owners “different from several distinct out-groups, especially politicians, the media and lawyers” and talking about ““those anti-gunners,” described as radicals, elitists and the like.”

Put simply, having a stronger “they” leads to a stronger “we.”  (Not to hate – to oppose.)

This is tough for many nonprofits.  Not only do we have one hand tied behind our backs when it comes to advocacy, we tend to wield our tongues and pens with a desire not to offend, especially when the other party may be a potential partner down the road.

This is not advocating for picking indiscriminate fights. But I’ve been in strategy sessions where organizations have said their target audience is “everyone.”  If, as Michael Porter said “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do,” this is strategic abdication.

This requires knowing who your donors are and who they are not (and who their enemies are and are not).  Komen didn’t get in trouble because of the quantity of cause-related marketing relationships it set up.  Rather, it faced backlash when partnering with those who didn’t share the values of many of their donors (e.g., KFC, fracking companies).  That’s right – whether you think you have enemies or not, there are organizations and people that will have values dissonance with your mission.  If you have donors with the right type of donor identity for your organization, they will be taking you to task if you have a milquetoast response to a fire and brimstone issue.

The good news is if you make these decisions wisely, you can use them to your advantage if you are nimble.  If the equivalent of the Norwegian justice minister happened on the issue you cared about, what would you do?  How would you mobilize?  And would you be taking action before or after your constituents were already calling for you to take action?

As Noah taught us, it’s best to build the ark before it starts rain.  Likewise, preparation for what you do when your issue comes up in the news or social media will pay off in new donors and advocates.