July 9, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The New York Times, is stirring up a debate about nonprofit marketing.
In a column this week, he writes that international aid groups are “abjectly ineffective at selling their causes. Any brand of toothpaste is peddled with far more sophistication than the life-saving work of aid groups. Do-gooders also have a penchant for exaggeration, so that the public often has more trust in the effectiveness of toothpaste than of humanitarian aid.”
The Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporter says that too often relief and development charities emphasize the dire situations in Darfur or other overseas crisis, which may turn off the public. He suggests nonprofit groups instead focus on their humanitarian achievements.
The article drew praise from some in the nonprofit world, but Allison Fine, a consultant to nonprofit groups, says it is way off base to compare charity appeals to corporate advertising.
“Cause organizations need to throw out the old toothpaste playbook and start working from a new one that focuses on building strong, trusting relationships and really connecting with people, influentials, and regular folks,” she writes on her blog.
Ms. Fine, a social-media expert and Chronicle contributor, continues: “Our focus, as cause folks, needs to be on creating lots and lots of opportunities for lots and lots of people to participate in ways that work for them — not to buy the cream or rinse or lotion that we’re selling because we’re trying to make a profit.”
What do you think? Are charity appeals as ineffective as Mr. Kristof says? How would you change the way aid groups sell their causes? Click on the comment button below to share your views.
