Most of the time, when I write about our commercial marketing brethren, I’m talking about stuff they’re doing that we in the nonprofit sector might learn from.

Today, the tables are turned. I’ve noticed two articles lately from commercial guys praising nonprofit marketing efforts. Here’s what they like.

The first article, by direct marketer Bob Cargill, is titled: How 10 Nonprofit Brands Roll on Twitter.

Note the way he calls us mere ‘brands’ … and here, we think we’re doing god’s work! I find that interesting, because often nonprofits forget that we — and our messaging and appeals — are swimming in a much, much bigger ocean of commercial fish … most of them much bigger than us.

And carnivorous … they’re looking for ever larger shares of mind and wallet. It’s definitely not just you against that other enviro organization or arts group or children’s charity.

Anyway, here are ten nonprofit ‘brands’ he regards as “outperforming their business brethren” when it comes to using Twitter (unfortunately, no selection criteria here, just his favs, with a bit of commentary):

1. Operation Smile
2. Rainforest Alliance
3. Robin Hood Foundation
4. Room to Read
5. Gates Foundation
6. Central Park Conservancy
7. RED
8. The Jimmy Fund
9. Christopher’s Haven
10. World Wildlife Fund

The second article is an interview with Tom Goodman, chief creative officer at True North, titled: How nonprofits are succeeding online. True North’s client portfolio is a nice mix of corporates and nonprofits.

Goodman doesn’t offer a list of favs or examples, but talks about what he thinks nonprofits — at least the more effective ones — are doing right.

His success ingredients …

Breaking down internal silos:

“The nonprofits that have shown the most success online, are the ones that have broken down organizational silos (or have at least attempted to break them down) in order to find the right place for digital strategies and execution to be housed. A higher degree of collaboration among departments is a crucial component for success with digital channels.”

Obviously none of us would disagree with that in theory, but personally, I would love to know where he’s observed this in the nonprofit space. An exemplar.

Adapting to the communications style of today’s consumers:

“Generally speaking, all initiatives should adopt a mobile-first approach since most data reveals the majority of emails are seen first on handheld devices and mobile traffic has begun to surpass desktop traffic among top publishers. To develop a successful online donor acquisition program, nonprofits must deliver donation pages that fit whatever screen they’re viewing it on. That means websites, emails and donation pages must be responsive.”

Consistency of message and customer experience:

“A brand needs to take a holistic approach to their audience’s behavior. It is critical the messaging and brand experience remains consistent regardless of the device.”

Targeting new audiences:

“Where the common problem has been aging donor bases, they recognize the need to build a new audience set. In going in, the challenge has been to successfully identify the optimal new donor and then build the donation intent by investing in upper funnel media and testing into the best way to not only reach them, but how to speak with the new audiences.”

Those are the areas of praise. And where could nonprofits do better?

Exploiting the benefits of the online/digital space:

“The more traditional methods of donor acquisition (DM, DRTV and telemarketing, for instance) are now underperforming. However, the online space offers so much in the way of targeting, creative and media flexibility, advanced tracking, performance and conversion analytics, plus scalability, and optimization potential.”

Personally, I accept the advantages that digital media have as precision communication channels; but still waiting for the day that online acquisition of new donors outpaces direct mail.

Tom