Nonprofit Marketing

7/30/2019 Nonprofit Marketing

1/22

1

EMMANUEL TETE DARKO

ID#: 18963BMA26807

Non Profit Marketing:

(How will nonprofit branding provide resource sourcing diversity to createwealth?)

ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITYHONOLULU, HAWAII

November, 2012


2/22

2

Table of Contents Page

Abstract..3

Chapter 1: Introduction....4

Chapter 2: Literature Review..5

2.1:Study Descriptions/Structure ......52.2: Objectives...52.3: Matters Arising From The Article5-72.4: Methodology.7

2.5: Findings .7 -82.6: Conclusion and Recommendation.8-92.7: The Extent to Which The Objectives were Achieved .92.8: Market/Industry..9 2.9: Strengths 9 -10

2.10: Theoretical Limitation10

Chapter 3: Study Methodology11

Chapter 4: Findings And Discussions..........11-16

4.1: General Discussions of Relationships Amid

Previous Studies and Extant Study..16-18

4.2: Limitations of The Paper18

Chapter 5: Conclusion And Recommendation.18 -20

Reference. .21-22

Table of Figures Page

Figure 1: Brands of Selected nonprofit organizations4

Figure 2: Communication Tools.13


3/22

3

AbstractNonprofits marketers are operate in turbulent environment and with global economic

volatility contracting donors liquidity positions, nonprofits revenue expectations aremost likely to witness multiple-digit decline. Thus the need to ensure pareto optimality inapplying limited donations to blossom. Branding is an influential pedal and aconsiderably less utilized in the nonprofit environment and offers an opportunity. Truebranding has the potential to transform ailing nonprofit firms into successful ones. Theimplementation of nonprofit strategic plan without branding perspectives can beexceptionally dear.

The inability of previous studies to show the importance of nonprofits branding and whateffective branding could do for donors and nonprofits as well as failure to demonstratefundraising via branding and make nonprofit marketers responsible social marketers

justifies this study. In view of this, the study intends to bridge the gaps in the previousstudies This paper aims to extend the area of study in nonprofit by contributing toidentification of ways non-profit marketers could brand effectively and highlights waysnonprofits can be responsible social marketers and develop fund raising skills.

Review of previous concepts, reading, watching and listening to audio-visual materials,interactions with nonprofits staff, academia, branding practitioners, stakeholders andprofessionals were used to validate the findings of the study. Information solicited wasnot tinkered and this made the study reliable and valid. Data obtained were examined,explained and interpreted to make the study meaningful.

The study found that Branding stretches beyond nonprofits logo and name and meanspositioning your offerings strategically at the marketplace to facilitate recall at point ofneed. And branding builds extraordinary rapport between nonprofits and theirconstituents; is a tool for fundraising; accelerates nonprofits communication andenhance the image of donors as well. In branding the constituents need to be involvedin need identification and this has to be compatible with nonprofits mission, nonprofitsneed to understanding the marketplace dynamics, branding should include visibleidentity for easy recognition and messages have to be unambiguous, nonprofits staffneed to be trained to deliver branding strategies. Branding provides diversified revenuesources for nonprofits and when technology is employed revenue generation isoptimized. In so doing, there is the need to build strong database to reach intended and

unintended targets. In branding initials, numbers, words, or amalgamation of thesecould do for names and should be mentioned with ease.

The study recommends nonprofit managers to upgrade their skills and literacy culturaldiversity, embrace dissenting views, and display skills in: grant proposal writing andmultiple funds sourcing, technology, project management shrewdness, riskmanagement, communication, financial management. Integrating branding strategies fornonprofits is a need for them to explore social media, offering placement, and inventive


4/22

4

media partnerships. There is the need for different but novel methodology beyond theconservative modalities to a broader audience.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1: Brands of Selected Nonprofit organizations.

Sources:http://www.careinternational.org/,https://camfed.org/,http://solidaridadnetwork.org/,http://www.worldvision.org/

Wow each of the nonprofit brands above is productive, recognizable and accepted.

Each has stayed so for longer period of time in spite of global economic recessionamidst unbelievable competition and each has build value for its stakeholders. With therapid growth of nonprofit marketing in recent times non performance from nonprofitfirms will less be tolerable by stakeholders since much is expected by them. The issueto inquire is how will nonprofit branding provide resource sourcing diversity to createwealth? And why do they brand their identity. In contemporary marketing environment,opposing branding is opposing current approach to useful marketing interventions. Inthe communal interest environment, paying attention to details, being literal and specifichas become an issue. More people are turning to nonprofit for help, creating a largerburden on the financial stability of nonprofit that are already strapped for money. Aconsiderable number of nonprofits expect a rise in demand for their value proposition in

the coming years and they confront increasing demand for their solution proposition anddeclining resources. Nonprofits are not impervious frommarketplace forces justbecause their focus is more of social. With packed marketplace, nonprofits need to bedifferent to capture media attention, prospective donors, andstrategic stakeholders.

The failure on the part of the first concept study to indicate the crucial role branding ofnonprofits interventions and how branding, when done effectively could do for donorsand nonprofits and the second previous concepts inability to demonstrate how brandingcould be used by nonprofit to raise funds, and make nonprofit marketers responsiblesocial marketers provide a basis for the extant study. The over-arching goal of thispaper is to partially fulfill the gaps in the previous studies by contributing to identificationof ways non-profit marketers could brand effectively; highlighting branding waysnonprofit marketers can be responsible social marketers and developing fund raisingskills. Emphasis will be on abstract indicating an overview of what the study, thehypothesis and the gaps in previous studies, why the present study, how the study wasdone, findings and what next; chapter 1 introducing the field of study, stating the aim ofthe study that will in part fill the previous studies gaps and providing the structure of thestudy; chapter 2 where previous studies will be reviewed to produce study gaps that willinform the hypothesis; chapter 3 indicating comprehensively study methodology;
http://www.careinternational.org/http://www.careinternational.org/http://www.careinternational.org/https://camfed.org/https://camfed.org/https://camfed.org/http://solidaridadnetwork.org/http://solidaridadnetwork.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://solidaridadnetwork.org/https://camfed.org/http://www.careinternational.org/


5/22

5

chapter 4 revealing the findings and giving the implications of the findings; chapter 5where concluding remarks will be noted with proposals and lastly sources of datacollected to enhance the quality of the study will be acknowledged in the referencecolumn.

Chapter 2: Concepts Review

Introduction

This section of the article provides an overview and a critical evaluation of pastliteratures in relation to this topic, notably:Changing Strategies for Philanthropic Giving:Implications for Financial Planners by Susan Raymond, (2010); and The Role of Brandsin Nonprofit Sector by Kylander, Nathalie and Christopher Stone, (2012). The conceptsreview: positioned the current study into proper perspective and made it meaningful;highlighted the known and the unknown in the field of study; refined the hypothesis;underscored the bottlenecks in the field which other had encountered and that addedsome bite to the theme of the extant study and more imperatively motivated the

hypothesis of the extant study. Consequently the current study focused on Hownonprofit branding will provide resource sourcing diversity to create wealth?The review focus will be on the structure and study description; objectives; main ideas;methods employed by the previous studies; findings; conclusion; recommendations; thedegree of attaining the objectives in the previous studies; market under discussion;strengths of the studies as well as theoretical limitations.The similarity in all these studies including the extant is that the first literature review

and the present study highlights nonprofit firms activities whiles the second and theextant highlighted the roles of brand in nonprofit markets.

2.1: Study Descriptions/Structure

The first previous literature discussed cause branding and marketing, program driveninvestments, mission driven investing, and strategic investment feeding intophilanthropy, and social enterprise; and implications for financial planners in nonprofitfirms. The second previous concept described fresh models for nonprofit social impactsustainability; Identification of brand roles and brand roles skepticism.

2.2: ObjectivesThe first previous literature explored offering and developing financial strategiesthinking, in order that financial planners can assist donors and nonprofits in search forrevenue optimization. The second previous concepts describes framework of concepts

intended to facilitate nonprofit social impact sustainability and meeting nonprofitmarketers mission and values.

2.3: Matters Arising From The ArticleFrom the first previous concept, philanthropic donations are considered as investibleresources instead as give away in social venture and in nonprofits, with the view toattaining tangible and measurable social return on investment and this critical


6/22

6

ramification on financial planners. In page 44 of the article, the author enumeratedfactors that could contribute to the search for innovative ways to allocate finitemarketable resources to social needs; and that included the rapid growth in nonprofitfirms; acting innovatively in prioritizing the needs of social to get value for money; withdonor monetary support contracting on daily basis problem solution cannot be scaled

up; social problems have become borderless and complicated which requires more thansoliciting for grant; charity donor stratum has changed significantly towards the youthand are actively involved in attaining results and not just donating; and lastly, the powerof technology has affected the opportunities in nonprofit marketing endeavor .Susan Raymond, (2010, pp.46), argued that cause-marketing and cause-branding areroutes marketers tie their value propositions including brands to social cause and thatresources meant to meet social needs emanates from private sources. Further sheposits that, cause-marketing has the potential to capture more client attention andcontribute to social cause and that nonprofit firms need to explicitly decide on corporateconnections with brands and products if cause-marketing is to generate resourceopportunity without disagreement.

Regarding the second previous concept, the authors posits in page 38 of the article that,the fundamental prominence offered to brand roles in nonprofit business is ingrained inthe multiple solution propositions in promoting funding sources. The study asserts thecritical roles brands play in fostering strategic value chain partnership. Brands accordingto the study are an intangible asset and a promise that expresses personality andactions of individuals and institutions; indicating the character of firms or what theyhighlight; perception and basis of effectiveness. Equally revelation of the study is thatbrand permits resource acquisition and usage as well as offering firms credence andpower to prudently use the acquired resource.

This the study corroborated with Diane Fusillis assertion that, sturdy brands provide significant credibility, trust, facilitates project completion, and persuade partners to comeon board. Brand roles in nonprofit marketing are noted by the study in page 39 of thearticle to be cyclical. The proposed model of the study indicates brand roles are diversein nature which when done effectively could jointly be linked in a virtuous cycle. It wasasserted sound connected identity and image places nonprofit firms to construct innerunity and trust with external stakeholders; thus leveraging to reinforce capability andattain the desired stated goals. In page 40 of the article, the authors postulate the fourprinciples of Nonprofit Brand IDEA notably: brand integrity, democracy, ethics, andaffinity. The study did not defined brand integrity as nonprofit firms internal identityaligned to its external image and mission but to connote structural integrity instead ofmoral integrity. Nonprofit firm with high structural integrity connects the mission to theidentity of the firm, offering stakeholders common sense of reasons behind firmsactions; incorporating its mission into civic image which permeates through all itsinterventions. Regarding brand democracy the authors meant stakeholders expressingtheir own understanding of the firms core character; and this purges any controlmechanism regarding brand communication. This, the authors buttressed withcomments from Alexis Ettinger, when he asserts candidly it will be disgusting with therise of social media to attempt controlling brands. On brand ethics the authors meant


7/22

7

deploying nonprofit brand to reveal core values, and in as much as brand integrityassociate the brand with mission, brand ethics support firms inner identity and itsexternal reputation with values and corporate traditions. The study however contendspersuading donors to offer social project budgetary support via deplorable graphicalrepresentation of destitute are gravely unethical. Concerning brand affinity, it was used

to mean effective and productive partnering with other stakeholders along the valuechain of nonprofit interventions and having mutual benefits.Additional imperative ideas in the conceptual framework to inject efficiencies in nonprofitmarketers operations include managing ancillary responsibilities like board governance,international activities, and risk management.Brands according to the article boost velocity together with span of mutual decisions ingoverning bodies and in spite of brand roles enunciated above managing globalnonprofit brands could be exigent task due to differing cultural values on the globalmarketplace.

Most less known nonprofit firms are desirous of assuming greater social business risk to

penetrate the marketplace, after gaining building some tolerable image on the marketthere is a huge temptation to use brand protectionism and avoid further risk that couldpay off for stakeholders. However some nonprofit managers were hopeful this jinx couldbe handled effectively to capitalize of innovative prospect inherent in assumingcalculated risk with the support of insider understanding and confidence.

2.4: MethodsOn the first previous study, clear theoretical study design in reaching the findings andconclusions were vague to say the least. Concerning the second concept, previousstudies were built on in investigating this study and 73 nonprofit managers,communication executives, consultants, and donors in 41 institutions were structurallyinterviewed. The results were evaluated and a conceptual framework designed to guidenonprofit managers. The study also relied on definitions of concepts in building itsarguments; a clear case is the broad definition it offered to brand in page 38 of thearticle.

2.5: FindingsThe first previous study found that nonprofit firms target financial advisors to donors topress for their demands since donors trust their financial planners and advisors.Nonprofit firms with requisite skills in social enterprise, finance, planning, negotiationand project implementation has the prospect in meeting the desires of donors. Forresults in nonprofit firms intervention to be pronounced will require a longer time linesthan expected. Nonprofit firms can only be sustainable granted that they engage thepeople they serve, particularly the community. Donors of nonprofit firms anticipate notonly enhancement corporate image for supporting a worthy course but also brandloyalty from stakeholders and this should be cause-branding driven. Novel financingprospects for nonprofit marketers demand commitment to the mission and aspirations ofdonors and mutual objectives of donors and nonprofit firms.


8/22

8

The following findings were reported by the second previous concept study: In page 37of the article, the authors posit both large and small nonprofits have policy guidingusage of brands, especially on tangible products. Although many nonprofits haveshortsightedness towards using brands productively, this is evident in most firmsapplying it solely for fund raising, when there could be wider application of brands by

nonprofit firms to scale up operations. Notwithstanding this the study equally revealsbrand managers in nonprofit such as The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has inrecent times chosen Tom Scott as director of international brand and innovation. Thisindicates that some nonprofit firms are paying considerable low attention to fundraisingand rather concentrate more on social impact and organizational cohesion. Indeed,some of the most appealing brand strategies are undergoing developmental stages inendowed, private foundations with less intent to raise funds. The proposed model by thestudy as guidelines for nonprofit firms to perform surfaced from unique sources of pridethat nonprofit managers articulated in their functions, notably: pride in the socialmission, participatory development, shared values, and strategic alliances.

Four valid basis of skepticism was identified in Pages 38-39 of the article and nonprofitmanagers tie branding with business search of financial benefit. Skeptic consider thetop prices that for-profit businesses charge for branding and express concerns aboutdistortions this could create. For example there could be disequilibrium in the marketersname and performance in pursuance of fund raising or corporate knowledge sold asproduct. Another intriguing criticism is that there is top-down approach in managingbrands which contrasts bottom-up approach when crafting strategic plans. Skeptics ofbranding express that branding concentration is stuck in nonprofit managers pride andmay not necessarily be the desire of the firm. Equally important skepticism is thefostering of partnership by nonprofit firms which allows one brand to eclipse a partner

Brand uncertainties reveal pride in: mission, participatory planning, and cultural valuessupportive partnerships and the Nonprofit Brand IDEA builds pride sources and brandroles. Further findings of the study are that mismatch amid internal identity and externalimage require rebranding efforts in nonprofit firms and that aligning mission, values,identity, and image positions the brand effectively, enhance cohesion among differentinternal stakeholders. Nonprofit marketers that have synchronize their communicationsidentity with the view to reinforcing the trust reposed in them by stakeholders, since thiscould lead to improved competence, budgetary support, and prudence in resource use,and social impact, attainment of mission. Whereas failure to do this and reap itassociated benefits results in mission failure.

2.6: Conclusion And RecommendationThe first previous study concluded that financial planners as advisers need to supporttheir clients configure novel modalities to meet donor needs with sound planningstrategies; and that there is the need for them to foster partnership with clients tobrainstorm on financial innovation to revolutionalize nonprofit funding to bring value tophilanthropy. It further recommended the need to tread cautiously when recommendingnonprofit firms to donors based on the viability of programs presented. In all cases the


9/22

9

credibility of their recommendation should match with the expected program quality toavoid embarrassment and that they must design benchmarks for nonprofits firms thatsolicit their support.

The second previous literature concluded the growth in nonprofits managers ambitions

do not match with the availability of strategic frameworks and management tools. Thetheoretical concepts applied in understanding branding in nonprofit sector are alien tothem, but are exploited to project image and raise funds. The study thereforerecommends the need for nonprofit managers to embrace novel models that canguarantee sustainability in social impact, reflecting their corporate values and achievingtheir mission. Pages 40-41 of the article recommended a basic swing in traditionalapproach to brand management if brand democracy is to be attained, and that thereshould be bottom-up involvement in brand management and that nonprofit managersand boards need to manage their brands distinctively.

2.7: To what extent was the objectives achieved?

For the first previous concept, the extent that nonprofit budgetary support is deemed byphilanthropic individuals and corporate institutions including nonprofit firms as investibleresources requiring excellence performance from beneficiaries nonprofits; andidentifying some factors in page 45 of the article that contribute to searching for novelways in resource allocate to meet common social projects needs could be consideredas achieving the goal of exploration in offering and developing financial strategiesthinking, in order that financial planners can assist donors and nonprofits in search forrevenue optimization.

The second concept study to a greater extent fashioned out in page 40 of the article aconceptual model namely Nonprofit Brand IDEA( where: I = integrity; D= democracy;E= ethics; A= affinity) that provides indications to nonprofit firms on how to ensuresustainability of their social impact, meeting their mission aspiration and keeping to theircorporate cultural values is a testimony of achieving the objectives of the study.

2.8: Market/Industry ConsideredThe author of the first previous concept concentrated on the charitable and nonprofitindustry within the concept of social and communal development. Whiles the secondprevious study focused on nonprofit markets.

2.9: StrengthsThe first previous concept remarkably acknowledged the works of others used in thearticle. A clear case in point is the credit offered to National Centre for CharitableStatistics for applying its data on growth pattern of environment nonprofit between 1999-2009 and Raymond, S. (2009) on resource view of revenue in pages 45 and 46respectively. Applying graphical representation of trends and relationships in makingsubmission was exceptional and enhanced the data quality. The executive summary


10/22

10

made, introduction to the article, arguments put forward, findings and recommendationsmade were okay intellectually; and the study had a clear objectives.

Concerning the second previous concept, the introduction, main ideas, findings,implications of the study and recommendations made were presented logically; and the

study had a clear objectives. It is imperative to assert that the study corroborated theirmain ideas with remarks from authorities. A case in point is when the authors relied onDiane Fusillis assertion that, sturdy brands provide significant credibility, trust,facilitates project completion, and persuade partners to come on board to corroboratetheir contention about brand roles in page 38 of the article. The works of others werecited and that provides a big plus for the study. The use of chart to illustrate thepropound model was positive and clarified the correlation among the variables.Significantly, the study in page 41 signaled hinted further investigations into the role ofthe brand in boosting action competence to drive social impact; metrics of effectivenessof brand management in measuring dedication and pride amongst staff and directorsamong others is source of strength for the study. The presentation of the both side of

brand roles towards mission attainment by the study was noteworthy.

It is insightful to accentuate that the study provided prospective analysis in page 41 ofthe article when probing questions like how brand management is contributing torevenue, how brand is connected to the mission, values, and strategy of the nonprofits;asking about the configuration of image and identity; the contribution of brand to internalunity as well as to outside faith among others.

2.10: Theoretical LimitationThe failure on the part of the first previous concept author to indicate the crucial rolebranding of nonprofits interventions and how branding, when done effectively could dofor donors and nonprofits was a sour point and generate the gap which provides

justification for the current study. Data collection and analysis procedures and sampleframe for the first previous study was implicit and this did not provide strong basis forissues raised and limited the discussion made in the article. It was weak for the studynot to have provided the pros and cons in its own arguments and there was norecommendation for future studies to either authenticate or reject the findings providedin the article. Generalizing the findings will be problematic since methodology employedin reaching the results is unknown for critique; thus endangering the ethical standards

Regarding the second previous study, the inability of the study to demonstrate howbranding could be used by nonprofit to raise funds, and make nonprofit marketersresponsible social marketers unlock the gaps in the study in spite of the sketchy ways itshown on how nonprofit firms brand and this justify why the extant study is imperative infulfilling that gap. In text reference were mostly not acknowledged in the foot notes andthat is sour point to the study since it did provide opportunity for readers to check suchreferences. For instance, there was no reference in the foot notes on works used byDiana Fusilli, Peter Walker, Mahnaz Afkhami, Pip Emery, Will Nory-Hildesley, KatherineFulton, Ramesh Singh, Yasmina Zaidman, Kerry Zobor, Rachel Hays KylanderNathalie, Christopher Stone, (2012, pp.38-41).


11/22

11

Chapter 3: Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative view from secondary sources were examined, measured,compared and contrasted; tables and pictorial representation of trends were used tomake findings and discussions meaningful. There was review of previous concepts toindentify the gap to be fulfilled in the study and that facilitated the establishment ofrelationship between the previous and present studies. Added to this was extensiveReading, watching and listening to audio-visual materials.

Interactions with nonprofits staff, academia, branding practitioners, beneficiaries ofnonprofits value propositions and professionals were resorted to in validating the

findings of the study. Information solicited was not tinkered and this offered the studythe needed reliability and validity. Data obtained from the above supposition wereexamined, explained and interpreted to make the study meaningful and theseconstructive interactions enabled the study to draw invaluable and findings andconclusions; maintained ethical standards; made nonprofits constituencies had a senseof the study and guaranteed flexibility; offered a better-off contextual source for resultsvalidation and interpretation; minimized expense. The School of Business, AIU Hawaiirigorously scrutinized the ethical issues in the study. All materials and data sourcedwere acknowledged.

Chapter 4: Findings And Discussions

The extant study found that Branding means further than nonprofit tools such as logo,slogan ads and it concerns positioning your value proposition in the minds ofstakeholders for prompt recall in event of need, thoughts, recommendation andpatronage. Nonprofits brand is greatly advance than name, logo, or its valueproposition that nonprofits offer. It is what others think, share and feel about nonprofit: itis the impression the public hold about your work that influences their response to everymessage sent, intervention embarked on and project supported by your firm, explainsLucille Maddalena, (2008, pp.1). It became evident from interaction with practitionersthat branding is for all, small or big marketers, start-up or blue chip marketers, for-profit

or nonprofit marketers; thus nonprofits irrespective of size should have brandinginitiatives. Branding in nonprofits if implemented effectively has durable upshots.Brands emerge from the real-world interactions a firm has with its clients and become afunction of firms actions and performance Nelson Fabian, (2006, pp. 66)The study revealed the following significant roles branding could play in nonprofitmarketing. Notable among them are: branding and brand communications enablenonprofit firms to interface strategic partners; it is the vehicle for fundraising. Forinstance where items have been donated to nonprofits with the view to influencing the


12/22

12

life of the people they serve, there is still the need to absorb delivery and distributioncost of the items funds and as posit by FENTON Communications, (2009, pp. 3);branding instills trust in your cause and for nonprofits, this trust results in fundraisingpower. Branding, then, is not just a tool to generate awareness of your organization.

Branding facilitates marketing communications and revolutionize why stakeholderscontinue to be loyal to nonprofit and constituencies feel less danger when patronizingnonprofit value proposition which they recognizable via branding and for which theypossess positive attitude. Co-branding in nonprofit marketing has the potential ofprojecting the image of donors, thus committing them to further budgetary support ofnonprofits. Branding makes nonprofit marketing identifiable and distinct fromcompetition and is an indication of how powerful branding could be.

According to BoardSource and Taproot Foundation, (2011, pp.19), Succinct missioncreates branding development easier and valuable to nonprofits. In the same vein ,Heyman, Darian Rodriguez, (2011, pp.410); posits if your firm is like most of our clients,

you know its imperative to engage them continuously in your mission. As a first step inmaking nonprofits branding effective, the study found that nonprofit marketers engagethe people they serve in identifying their needs to understand how compatible it is tononprofits mission and goals to be attained. And in the words of Bray, Ilona M. (2008,pp. 33), A fundraisers relationship to people is critical to the success of that personsand everyone should take pleasure in networking with others outside nonprofit,regardless of whether they are donors, funders, board members, or others.Appraising market situation to understand the strengths, weaknesses opportunities andthreat of nonprofit operations is equally key in branding decision. This is corroborated byBridget Hartnett, and Ron Matan, (2011). Situational analysis encapsulates reviewingthe strengths and weaknesses of nonprofit whiles looking at opportunities and threatsyou face in your market.http://www.sobelcpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdfIn view of this, branding initiatives are generated with complete support of the nonprofitclients. The next stage the study found is evaluating the identified needs to appreciateits impact on nonprofit firm which will inform nonprofit the benefits in branding attempts.The brand needs to be well positioned via constructive statement agreeable to allstakeholders to differentiate nonprofit value proposition from the competition.Thereafter, nonprofit considers brand associations in relation to function and passion,and this is the way to design brands to be effective in the sight of strategic partnersespecially donors. Further nonprofits establish visible identity and are the mostrecognizable part of the process by people, yet it includes the last stages. It is onlywhen nonprofits design an exceptional brand with differing features that are wellpositioned that, they got to understand the functional and emotional imperatives andcommence constructing logo or re-construct existing ones. The next stage the studyfound was crafting core messages in ads and products/service to comprehend historicalaccount and legacy of nonprofits. Aside this, nonprofit staff are trained since they arebrand representation of nonprofits interventions and their actions and inactions has theprospect to make or unmake nonprofit.
http://www.sobelcpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdfhttp://www.sobelcpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdfhttp://www.sobelcpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdf


13/22

13

The extant study revealed strategies nonprofit could adopt to diversify their interventionbudgetary support includes: mounting signages to communicate tangible projectscompleted and acknowledging individuals and institutional donors. As posits by Petteyand Janice Gow, (2008, pp. 19), sending some form of acknowledgement is the rightthing in response to a donor that have contributed to an emergency fund drive.

Again, nonprofits marketers are combining online branding to offline since online offersalacrity in efficiencies and results. Averagely, nonprofits improved their cash raisedonline by 19% from 2010 to 2011.http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/. Imperatively nonprofit strategy in raising funds from diversesource includes building robust database to reach their target groups via e-mails whichhas proven to be effective. There is the potential for e-mail recipient to download, buy,navigate the site and inquire on how to donate. Nonprofits can rely on E-mails to createtraffic on their networks and donation pages. Direct Marketing Association posits that, in2009, marketing via e-mail cashed in $43.62 as return on investment for a dollar spent.With a projection of $42.08 for 2010. Clearly there is the need for nonprofit to have

website.http://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketing.

Figure 1: Communication ToolsCommunication Tool Very Important (%) Somewhat important

(%)Least

Important(%)

Website 68 25 1

Email Marketing - E-Newsletters

67 22 1

Print (Newsletters-Direct Mail) 38 29 9In-Person Events 38 28 4

Facebook 31 49 3Media Relations/PR 28 29 6

Blog 9 18 20

Video (YouTube etc.) 6 24 12Twitter 5 29 22

Paid Advertising 5 12 48Phone Calls/Phone Banks 5 14 34

Photo Sharing 1 5 30Audio (e.g. podcasts) 1 3 49

Texting 1 3 57

Source:http://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfFrom the table above the use of website and E-mail are top on the list of nonprofitscommunicational tools to make an impact.It is insightful to note that the study shows nonprofits use the power of branding duringevents to raise funds. Products are branded and used to raise funds for interventions. Aclear case is an MVP in Bonsaaso, an international NGO in Ghana branded cups andsold during a football match organized with the proceeds directed towards provision
http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/


14/22

14

hygiene facility for schools. According to David Williamson, (2009), Raising funds canbe the fire alarm in awakening nonprofit managers. Preliminary attention will be lessfocused on strategy, and more focused on stuff: brochures, pamphlets and newslettersused to promote the firms to donors. Further findings from the studies show that inselecting a brand name for nonprofit numerous probable sources exist and regarding

brand extension an egression name, logo and symbol could be applied for theintervention and that where there is the need for a name, initials, numbers, words, oramalgamation of these could do. In these branding should be mentioned with ease,easy to bear in mind, short names such as Camfed, World Vision and Care.As a result of this a research report by Nonprofit Leadership Alliance, (2011, pp. 22)posits Understanding the role fundraising plays in a nonprofit is critical to any manager.

As the director of development, I always try to help managers comprehend their role infundraising process - many of them do not understand or accept that role.JOURNAL FOR NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT 2004Discussions

Engaging the people you serve in understanding their needs is an indication that

branding is a marathon action if nonprofit marketers are to derive the full benefits ofbranding. It is therefore imperative for nonprofit to appreciate that this action could beextremely tiresome and volatile and this require planning way ahead. It is vital torecognize the resource implication in terms of cost and time in branding process beforeexecution. This requires building the capacity of nonprofits staff to be able to executethe branding task effectively to attain its intended goals. Aggregate cost will be reducedif nonprofit staffs are properly trained even though there will be training cost initially.Limited branding activity funding could lead to insipid nonprofit marketing which couldbe detrimental to nonprofit mission. Fantastic nonprofit branding expense could be nix,little or lofty, it however demands novelty and commitment of funds to derive theoptimum from nonprofit branding. Leveraging on the strengths of experts agencies

research bodies and educational institutions create synergy in executing brandingactions could attract nix cost or less cost and yet reap optimum benefits. Volunteers andnonprofit staff could be branding channel and branding grounded in staff and volunteersculture could impact significant.

Positioning branding by nonprofit via constructive statements implies designingmessage consistencies over a longer period of time and a fraction of the target groupsometimes might express dissenting concerns about the same ads over and over againbut the message will be communicated effectively, though there could be changes in themessage structure but not the content. This, it is envisaged will appeal to existingdonors and prospective donors to offer budgetary support to nonprofit and emphasized

why there is the need to brand as nonprofit marketer. The issues that remain are willthis result in nonprofit brand loyalty? Will strategic partners that are enthused aboutbranding message be diplomat of nonprofit intervention? And will dissatisfied clientabout nonprofit brand messages be nonprofits terrorist? In all this cash spent in capacitybuilding around nonprofit branding pays dividends.In nonprofit marketing, each client channel contact being it short or long will be crucialfor nonprofit to strengthen brand communication and as said by Rachel Armruster,(2011, pp. XV). If you put relationships first, big things are possible.


15/22

15

The revelation of the study that branding is not only logo slogan, ads but also meanspositioning solution proposition strongly implies designing brand materials, respondingto phone calls in a subtle manner. This is because the beneficiaries of nonprofitintervention compare competing interventions to draw their own supposition aboutnonprofits which could largely affect interventions sustainability. Ultimately, re-aligning

all nonprofits interventions in cohesive, alertness attempts, and describing the missionstatement will be a way of reminding stakeholders on the value of their efforts.

In a data based market communication is key and nonprofit firms possess brand in anadvance, but the critical question is do nonprofit firms know the impression stakeholdershold about their intervention? Regardless of the response, beneficiaries perception onnonprofit intervention could include emotion, zeal and unconfirmed judgment and thisrequire influencing the judgment of people to imbibe nonprofit brand via aligning theirthinking with the affirmed mission. Implying each intervention, statements, openpresentation and spending must be aligned with mission statement. Any conflicting orinconsistent actions to the objectives of nonprofits will results in unspecified adverseeffects that could injure the hard won image of nonprofits. With this it is blatant people

who patronize nonprofit interventions represent their brand.

Using branding in nonprofit to raise funds implies nonprofit demonstrating desirableintervention habits that reposed trust and confidence in existing and prospective donors

And for nonprofit marketers to achieve this means being intuitive nonprofit marketers,but not automatically intentional marketers, with this there is a possibility of buildingdurable rapport with constituencies. The menace however could be building rapport onindividual level which may not help nonprofit cause. If branding projects the image ofdonors as well then that provides the basis for their continue support to nonprofitbudget. This implies nonprofits tangibilize the intangibility segment of branding attemptsto make it measurable. For example measuring communication campaigns and

investment in accepting brand contact and values are key. Failure to do this connotesdenying nonprofit firms the actual brand value and impact, which could affect nonprofitfunding subsequently. Branding attempts need to be measured by the dividends onmission and interventions. It should be noted that competition is emerging fiercely innonprofit environment and there is space for partnership and competition. Withinnumerable nonprofits requesting for budgetary assistance, resources will be competedfiercely and this cannot be discounted. Doing so implies creating amateur advances tostrategic constituents and revenue loss. The velocity of technology and application ofsocial media platform have mushroomed and technological choices through brandinglens have become imperative. The critical questions to pose are will technologicalchoices are classified by the same standards? And what barriers will these

technological choices bring? Technological cost, awareness and investment return needto be considered in addition weighing donors perceptions on technological moves.

Nonprofit putting up signages enthused donors and they see the need to offercontinuous support. For example World Food Program (WFP) in Ghana (WFP) is nowreluctant to support the school feeding program operated by Millennium Villages Project(MVP) in Bonsaaso, Ghana on the pretext that over the years MVP has refused uponrequest to mount a signage to indicate the support offered to them by WFP. This is a


16/22

16

blatant indication that when nonprofits acknowledge support received from donors, viacommunication tools such as signages, billboards among others not only will existingdonors continue to demonstrate interest to offer budgetary support to nonprofitinterventions but also prospective donors.Combing online to offline as sources for generating budgetary support by nonprofits

implies nonprofit can reach individuals and institutional donors from diverse backgroundespecially if mobile fundraising services are incorporated into their interventions, andthat will enable them to meet the rise in demand for their services and a fall in resourcesdue to globalization. Essentially this point stresses the need for nonprofit to own websiteto serve as hub for all its interventions. Nonprofit will benefit immensely from interactivetools. Thus will nonprofits marketers build brand loyalty via website? Or build rapportwith people via e-mails prior to appealing them on social networks? Building fantasticrapport with stakeholders and addressing their needs in sustainable fashion meansnonprofit are social marketers and this has its associated benefits particularly attractingdonors to donate more for a good cause. It is in view of this that Corina erban positsthat socially responsible firms will profit from the predicted pecuniary gains, while the

non-profit firm enjoys desirable social impact.http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdf.

It is critical to assert that cash generated from fundraising activities need to be appliedprudently, else donors confidence level will contract and this potentially will affect futuredonations from existing and prospective donors. Since globally most nonprofits areexempted from tax payment any deceptions in actions on nonprofits part has thepotential to offend the law especially when ample resource is allocated to nonprofitsexpense that are not directly related to their core business interventions. As opined byLinda L. Golden, Patrick L. Brockett, John F. Betak, Karen H. Smith, William W. Cooper,(2012, pp. 4), Far-reaching research reveals open perception of non-profits efficiency

in fundraising and application for the ultimate goal greatly affects attitude and likelihoodto donate.

4.1: General Discussions of Relationships Amid Previous Studies and ExtantStudy

In spite of differing goals of the current and the first previous concept, the present studyfindings that nonprofit marketers engage their stakeholders in identifying their needs tounderstand how compatible it is to nonprofits mission and goals as a step in brandingdecision corroborated the first literature reviews findings thatnonprofit firms can only besustainable granted that they engage the people they serve and that novel financing

prospects for nonprofit marketers demand commitment to the mission and aspirations ofdonors and mutual objectives of donors and nonprofit firms. Another similarity in thepresent and the first previous concept studies is that the former found that nonprofitstaffs are trained to upgrade their skills to be brand symbol whereas the latter foundnonprofit firms with requisite skills meet their goals.Also, the present studys finding thatdonors continue to support nonprofits because nonprofits interventions project theirimage as well; and the first previous concept also noted same by positing that nonprofitsdonors expect their image to be enhanced for supporting a good course.
http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdfhttp://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdfhttp://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdf


17/22

17

In contrast, the existing study made findings on imperatives of branding to nonprofitsrevenue diversification and how nonprofits could attain social marketing status byfostering inconceivable relationship with stakeholders. This, the first previous conceptwas unable to find. On the flip side the first previous concept did assert that nonprofitfirms target financial advisors of donors to press for their demands owing to the trust

donors have for their advisors judgment, this the current study could not corroborate.Although there were some similarities between the current and the first previousconcept in their findings, it is hard to generalize some of the findings of the first previousconcept since there was no obvious method employed in reaching the findings. And thisraises a query whether a known method employed would have made same findings orotherwise.

The rapid growth of nonprofit firms has contracted budgetary support sources owing tothe disequilibrium between the supplier and users of funds. This only createsbenchmarks and requires nonprofit firms to work assiduously and be answerable toattract limited donors to support their budget whose activities and aspirations have to bewin-win situation for both. And for nonprofit to meet this strenuous requirement for

funding there is the need to inject ownership concept in their interventions and attractstaff who can think and act innovatively to create value for all stakeholders to the extentthat donors will see a vast improvement in their client base of their core businessactivities which leads to improvement in their liquidity position and brand loyalty bystakeholders; particularly customers of their value propositions. To the nonprofitmarketer, ensuring prudency in resource management results in sustainability of theirbusiness of providing social interventions to meet societal needs; this is a sure way toscale up their value interventions. The main ideas in the first previous study signify theturbulent nature of the funding markets and indicate the urgent need to navigate andintegrate the power of technology in searching for alternative fund raising sources tostay in social business. With technology there could be cross border solicitation of funds

from diverse field and more durable ways to raise funds from well meaning individuals,corporate institutions as well as creating wealth from within nonprofits and beneficiariesto guarantee funding continuity.From the foregoing supposition and judging from the conclusion and recommendationsmade by Susan Raymond, (2010); little has been said about branding nonprofit firmsactivities and in view of this, will branding be the way forward in addressing this newway of thinking and acting innovatively to meet the mutual goals of donors and nonprofitfirms? The current study will explore and clarify differing perspectives on this issue aspart of fulfilling the gaps in the previous studies.

The objectives of the current study were different from the second previous concept andyet there were some similarities in findings. The second previous concept contendedthat nonprofits use branding for only fundraising activities and pay more attention tosocial impact, but this assertion was contrasted by the current study since it positsnonprofits use the influence of branding to raise funds and that products are brandedand used to raise funds for interventions.


18/22

18

Intriguingly, the second previous concept found branding criticism which the currentstudy did not trample upon. And more astonishing, the second previous concept positfostering of partnership by nonprofit firms allows one brand to eclipse a partner, rather,the current study found that, nonprofit putting up signages enthused donors and theysee the need to offer continuous budgetary support.

The current study corroborates the second previous concept findings that aligningmission, values, identity, and image positions the brand effectively, enhances cohesionamong different internal stakeholders. When it opines the needs of nonprofitsstakeholders need to be compatible with nonprofits mission for effective implementationof branding decisions. Another level of corroboration was the second previous conceptsfinding on synchronization of nonprofits communications and the current studysassertion on consistencies in message contents even with varied channels.Imperatively, the methodology of the second previous concept was clear and makes thefindings convincing in spite of findings variations in the current and the second previousconcept.

4.2: Limitations of The Paper

Owing to limited time and cash, survey questionnaires were not used, which probablycould have changed the results and might have been more robust in generalizing it.Subject matter covered, stakeholders reached; nonprofits interventions observed;locations covered were all limited. And it is envisaged that extensive works have beenprepared in out of coverage areas. Fresh concepts could be considered to replicate thestudys findings or contrast it. By and large, the studys limitations were surmounted andthat offered opportunities for further study. Nevertheless, frantic attempts made assuredthe quality of the study. The above limitations could serve as a guide to new studies infuture.

Chapter 5: Conclusion And RecommendationThe first and second previous studies did not indicate the roles of nonprofits brandingand using branding to raise funds to be social marketers respectively. And in an attemptby the extant study to contribute to nonprofit branding process, stressing ways nonprofitbranding could lead to social marketing and using branding to raise funds in an attemptto fulfill in part the space in preceding investigations discovered that brand goes beyondnonprofits logo, slogan, ads and encapsulate battling for nonprofits solution propositionto occupy the minds of stakeholders to facilitate recall in event of need and thusbranding regardless of scale of nonprofits operations is key.

In spite of the turbulent nonprofit market environment a considerable number ofnonprofits are able to build value for stakeholders. Non performance from nonprofits willbe unacceptable in the midst of nonprofits mushrooming and for nonprofits to opposebranding will mean opposing current approach to useful marketing interventions. In thecommunal interest environment, paying attention to details, being literal and specific hasbecome an issue. There is an increase demand for nonprofit services and this togetherwith global economic recession in recent times has affected their funding requirements


19/22

19

to meet their stated objectives. And it is view of this that strategic branding of nonprofitshas become imperative.

Branding provides the linkage amid donors, beneficiaries and nonprofits firms and hasthe potential to support nonprofit fundraising; it explains the continue support byconstituencies to nonprofits interventions since it has the prospect to project the imageof nonprofits constituencies. As a result, nonprofits become distinct with branding. Fornonprofit branding to be effective, evaluating nonprofit market situation is imperativeincluding involving beneficiaries in indentifying their needs and this has to match withthe mission and goals of nonprofits. There should be positive agreeable communicationto all nonprofit constituencies in an effort to remain different from the competition, and indesigning brands, nonprofits attach it to their interventions and passion and if this isdone exceptionally, the brand becomes strongly positioned. Above all nonprofit humanresources capacity is built since they reflect the brand in all endeavors.

Engaging your constituencies to identify their needs which ought to be compatible withnonprofits missions, including evaluating nonprofits market situations to appreciate the

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats have the potential of makingnonprofits branding highly effective. There should be distinct solution propositionfeatures, designing constructive ads messages, building the capacity of nonprofits staffare all part of the branding process. These branding processes of nonprofits willdefinitely attract cost and could be tedious. Nevertheless, advance planning, leveragingthe strengths of strategic partners and training of staff has the potential of reducing theaggregate cost in branding process. Strategies nonprofits could adopt includes:employing interactive channels in reaching their stakeholders such as online and thiscan be employed to diversify their funding options. Is nonprofits branding considered asthe solution to nonprofits fundraising challenges? It is insightful to note that whilebranding is key in nonprofits deliverables, and improve the lots of nonprofits, branding

alone might not be enough for fixing everything.By and large the study proved that erecting sign posts to communicate nonprofitsinterventions and acknowledging donors that contributed to such interventions andblending online branding were channels for nonprofits to diversify their budgetarysupport since that attracts existing and prospective donors to donate. And buildingincredible relationship with stakeholders and addressing their needs in sustainablemanner means nonprofit are social marketers.

Further investigations could be conducted to ascertain why in spite of branding,nonprofit continue to encounter funding challenges. Additional studies on the correlationamid nonprofits leadership, effectiveness and mission accomplishment will be great.

Good-practice studies on nonprofits to highlight how leaders are chosen and what theydo to develop and augment their bench strength. Conventionally, nonprofits fundraisingstrategies are directed on programs, products, and services. For that to resultscontinuity, research in that direction will be needed.


20/22

20

Recommendation

In support of nonprofits branding providing resource diversity sources in creating wealth,a way forward is nonprofits staff need to appreciate the mission and values of nonprofitsso that they walk that talk. Nonprofits need to craft a novel brand communication to

foster optimistic brand environment. And in order to facilitate brand retrieval in event ofpatronizing a value proposition by stakeholders due to need brand communication needto be diverse and incessant with no distinctiveness in message content. Brand variationin nonprofits has the potential to mislead and perplex stakeholders, thus nonprofits needto stay clear away from that, which is not to suggest nonprofits cannot re-brand.Nonprofits need to have branding team/department to lead in all branding interventions.In creating nonprofits brand, constituencies need to be conscientized on the objectives,road map and programs and with trained staff branding objectives need to besuccessful.

Nonprofits need to develop: images that have visual appeal and can be identified with

ease as an attachment to the name of nonprofits; mission statements presented toattract stakeholders; interactive website including blog posts, facebook updates andtweets, where technology could be used to arouse constituent interest and create a richfamiliarity by understanding their needs will be thrilling and foster the neededrelationship, . Thus optimizing mission engagements.; brand communication applicableto news item; fantastic rapport amongst constituents to know them well; anunderstanding of the marketplace to better appreciate competitors; solution propositionand communicate that effectively to the marketplace; branding Infrastructure that buildcompetencies to raise funds; means to leverage strategic partners strengths leading topro-bono resources; creativity and experiment, conduct actionable research and monitorbrand contact points, test results and develop count back for application, and yourresearch report should have competitor analysis.Nonprofits need to possess brand metric, strategic plan and measure and evaluatebranding impact to ascertain the returns on branding investments. And all staff needs tohave brand responsibilities. There is the need to design a process to discovermovements that impact on donors and other constituents.

It is recommended that nonprofit managers sharpens their skills and literacy in theareas of cultural diversity, appreciate divergent opinions, elucidate accountabilityprinciples in nonprofit firms, exhibit grant proposal writing skills and skills to sourcemultiple funds, information and communication technology skills, project managementshrewdness, showing risk management skills, communication skills, marketing acumen,show financial management skills demonstrate proficient practice readiness in culturallydiverse environment and be able to elucidate the significance of incorporating ethicsand have code of conduct in a nonprofit. Integrating branding strategies for nonprofits isa need for them to explore social media, value proposition placement, and inventivemedia partnerships. There is the need for different but novel methods beyond theconventional modalities to a broader audience.


21/22

21

Reference

BoardSource, Taproot Foundation, (2011). Marketing Literacy For The Nonprofit SectorBoardSource 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036.

Bray, Ilona M. (2008). Effective Fundraising for Nonprofits: Real-world Strategies ThatWork. Nolo

Bridget Hartnett, Ron Matan, (2011). Marketing Your Nonprofit Organization. Sobel AndCo., LLC.David Williamson, (2009). Marketing And Communications in Nonprofit Organizations.Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership. Georgetown University.

Fenton Communications, (2009). Making a Name for Yourself: Branding For Nonprofits.

Heyman, Darian Rodriguez, (2011). Nonprofit Management 101: A Complete AndPractical Guide For Leaders And Professionals. Edition 1; Jossey-Bass.

Linda L. G., Patrick L. B., John F. Betak, Karen H. Smith, William W. Cooper, (2012).Efficiency metrics for nonprofit marketing/fundraising and service provision. Journal ofManagement and Marketing Research.Lucille Maddalena, (2008). Branding for the Nonprofit Organization.

Pettey, Janice Gow, (2008). Ethical Fundraising: A Guide for Nonprofit Boards andFundraisers. AFP Fund Development Series. Wiley

Rachel Armruster, (2011). Banding Together For a Cause: Proven Strategies forRevenue And Awareness Generation. Edition 1; Wiley.

Kylander Nathalie, Christopher Stone, (2012). The Role of Brands in Nonprofit SectorStanford Social Innovation Review. Vol. 10 Issue 2, p36-41,

Nelson Fabian, (2006). The "Branding" of NEHA. Journal of Environmental Health. Vol.68 Number 9.

Nonprofit Leadership Alliance, (2011). A Research Report:The Skills the NonprofitSector Requires of its Managers and Leaders.

Susan Raymond, (2010). Changing Strategies for Philanthropic Giving: Implications forFinancial Planners. Journal of Financial Planning 23 no11 N 2010 p. 44-50 Financial

Planning Association

http://www.sobel-cpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdf

http://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdf

http://aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdf
http://www.sobel-cpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdfhttp://www.sobel-cpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdfhttp://aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdfhttp://aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdfhttp://aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdfhttp://aspheramedia.com/v2/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrendsReport.pdfhttp://www.sobel-cpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdf


22/22

22

http://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_MakingANameForYourself.pdf

http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/

http://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketing

http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdf

http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111074.pdf

http://www.careinternational.org/

https://camfed.org/

http://solidaridadnetwork.org/

http://www.worldvision.org/
http://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_MakingANameForYourself.pdfhttp://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_MakingANameForYourself.pdfhttp://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdfhttp://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111074.pdfhttp://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111074.pdfhttp://www.careinternational.org/http://www.careinternational.org/https://camfed.org/https://camfed.org/http://solidaridadnetwork.org/http://solidaridadnetwork.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://www.worldvision.org/http://solidaridadnetwork.org/https://camfed.org/http://www.careinternational.org/http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/111074.pdfhttp://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_1018.pdfhttp://www.helium.com/items/1831106-should-i-use-email-marketinghttp://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-and-trends-for-nonprofits/http://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_MakingANameForYourself.pdf

Nonprofit Marketing

Documents

Transcript of Nonprofit Marketing