Many organizations pad their mission statements with lofty, but overused words. In the same way that corporate missions expressing "professionalism" and "trustworthiness" fail to inspire, the broad concepts of "peace," "dignity," "creativity" or "awareness" have been drained of their potency. These broad terms barely help an organization differentiate itself from the next.

All these sources want to see clarity of purpose in the programs and organizations they support. A strong brand is useful in development because it provides the context within which the entire enterprise of the organization is understood. It demonstrates how an organization's various activities follow a definable strategic trajectory. Clear brand architecture also establishes ownership of past and future programs so that the organization is able to nurture success and support new endeavors. (A common complaint from not-for-profit organizations is that the programs are sometimes better known than the organization).

All funders would be happier with certainty than ambiguity. They need to know that grants are carefully managed and employed in the name of causes they support. Institutional funders, the newer private foundations in particular, are keen to see their money go exactly where they want. Building institutional credibility through the brand is thus in the interest of the organization, especially with the marked downward trend in unrestricted gifts. A strong, consistent brand suggests that an organization has the commitment and capacity to work as a sustainable enterprise, even as board members, executive directors, and program directors come and go. Even if earmarking of gifts continues, an organization that crystallizes its identity functionally and strategically will find it easier to persuade funders to "take the leap" with the organization as it embarks on new ventures.

A strong brand, moreover, can save an organization time, resources and effort. As stated in a recent BusinessWeek article, "Most non-profits use their limited resources to market themselves to the same donors and foundations year after year" (December 2, 2002). If consistently managed, the brand is a useful symbol of historical credibility and future strategic direction, to coherent ends that are specific and compelling enough to inspire the confidence of funders.

Despite the multiple benefits of a strong institutional identity, of which effective development is but one, many not-for-profit organizations shy from brand building. The average not-for-profit organization is wary of the terminology, concepts and techniques of branding as practiced in the for-profit sectors. The goals of business are often regarded as antithetical to those of the not-for-profit sector. The lack of resources is another major reason cited. Most small- and medium-sized organizations do not even have designated development professionals on staff; oftentimes one person will multi-task along a range of support activities including marketing, audience development, communications, development and education. Another perennial reason offered by not-for-profits is the difficulty in justifying expenditure on building the brand to funders.

These concerns are valid, though misdirected. A designated brand manager is not a pre-requisite to effective brand building. Institutional identity should be the concern of every member of the organization, starting from the top. Board directors need to contribute their personal insight and influence toward building an intellectually and ethically sound organization. The executive director should ensure that all programs and activities deliver on the organization's mission in form as well as in content. This coherence would also help him or her better represent the organization to key constituents.

Moreover, successful brand management does not necessarily rely on the creation of new roles, but in the coordination of functions across the organization to meet strategic ends. The artistic director and development director, for example, need to view each other as partners in the growth of the organization, rather than as colleagues responsible for separate and distinct jobs. The lobbyist, analyst and outreach coordinator must stay cognizant of how the work of each supports the other. The researcher's cogent remarks at a conference, when accompanied by a paper acknowledging funder support, helps the development director build relationships.

In addition to ideological, budgetary or personnel constraints, the usefulness of branding often encounters a mindset barrier in the not-for-profit world. Branding is sometimes regarded as a suspect tool for management seeking to "enforce the party line" in the fashion of large corporations. In this regard, many not-for-profit organizations are similar to entrepreneurial companies. Their approach to problems and the drive that motivates them are rooted in personalities, passion, and the spark of ideas. Growing pains emerge when the organization expands beyond the founding few, or when figureheads are replaced. As Sorrel Osborne, development director of the International Peace Academy, says, "there is chronic under-investment in institutional management in [the not-for-profit] sector." Speaking in relation to research-based organizations, which include many non-governmental organizations, Osborne observes that "corporate best practice is a concept foreign to many not-for-profits. Everything is done on an ad hoc manner, and is strongly driven by the personality of whomever may be currently at the helm of the organization." This is particularly true of the small- to medium-sized organizations that constitute the majority of this sector. In order to remain effective in the long run, however, all organizations need to institutionalize values, goals and good practice.

In the abovementioned BusinessWeek article, Jeffrey L. Bradach, managing partner at Bridgespan Group Advisors Inc, a consultant to not-for-profits and philanthropists, said, "Compared to the for-profit sector, the non-profit world is back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Japan was beating up American businesses. It's only beginning to understand that if you want good outcomes, you have to invest in building strong organizations."

Investing in brand building should not be regarded as cosmetic. An initial investment of time and expertise in aligning the organization to a well-articulated brand is akin to sound resource management. It lays the foundation for collaboration, it streamlines organizational goals, it directs effort towards institutional credibility and distinction.

To this end, not-for-profit organizations should view the brand as a symbolic and strategic guide for organizational growth. Conscientious brand management, like fiscal prudence, good governance, transparency and accountability, is a principle relevant to all organizations that care about the impact, importance and sustainability of their endeavors.    

[20-Jan-2003]