EMMANUEL TETE DARKO ID#: 18963BMA26807

Non Profit Marketing: (How will nonprofit branding provide resource sourcing diversity to create wealth?)

ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY HONOLULU, HAWAII November, 2012

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract..3 Chapter 1: Introduction....4 Chapter 2: Literature Review..5 2.1: Study Descriptions/Structure ......5 2.2: Objectives...5 2.3: Matters Arising From The Article5-7 2.4: Methodology.7 2.5: Findings .7-8 2.6: Conclusion and Recommendation.8-9 2.7: The Extent to Which The Objectives were Achieved .9 2.8: 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

Abstract Nonprofits marketers are operate in turbulent environment and with global economic volatility contracting donors liquidity positions, nonprofits revenue expectations are most likely to witness multiple-digit decline. Thus the need to ensure pareto optimality in applying limited donations to blossom. Branding is an influential pedal and a considerably less utilized in the nonprofit environment and offers an opportunity. True branding has the potential to transform ailing nonprofit firms into successful ones. The implementation of nonprofit strategic plan without branding perspectives can be exceptionally dear. The inability of previous studies to show the importance of nonprofits branding and what effective branding could do for donors and nonprofits as well as failure to demonstrate fundraising 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 previous studies This paper aims to extend the area of study in nonprofit by contributing to identification of ways non-profit marketers could brand effectively and highlights ways nonprofits 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 and professionals were used to validate the findings of the study. Information solicited was not 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 means positioning your offerings strategically at the marketplace to facilitate recall at point of need. And branding builds extraordinary rapport between nonprofits and their constituents; is a tool for fundraising; accelerates nonprofits communication and enhance the image of donors as well. In branding the constituents need to be involved in need identification and this has to be compatible with nonprofits mission, nonprofits need to understanding the marketplace dynamics, branding should include visible identity for easy recognition and messages have to be unambiguous, nonprofits staff need to be trained to deliver branding strategies. Branding provides diversified revenue sources for nonprofits and when technology is employed revenue generation is optimized. 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 these could do for names and should be mentioned with ease. The study recommends nonprofit managers to upgrade their skills and literacy cultural diversity, embrace dissenting views, and display skills in: grant proposal writing and multiple funds sourcing, technology, project management shrewdness, risk management, communication, financial management. Integrating branding strategies for nonprofits is a need for them to explore social media, offering placement, and inventive
3

media partnerships. There is the need for different but novel methodology beyond the conservative 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 recession amidst unbelievable competition and each has build value for its stakeholders. With the rapid growth of nonprofit marketing in recent times non performance from nonprofit firms will less be tolerable by stakeholders since much is expected by them. The issue to inquire is how will nonprofit branding provide resource sourcing diversity to create wealth? And why do they brand their identity. In contemporary marketing environment, opposing branding is opposing current approach to useful marketing interventions. In the communal interest environment, paying attention to details, being literal and specific has become an issue. More people are turning to nonprofit for help, creating a larger burden on the financial stability of nonprofit that are already strapped for money. A considerable 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 and declining resources. Nonprofits are not impervious from marketplace forces just because their focus is more of social. With packed marketplace, nonprofits need to be different to capture media attention, prospective donors, and strategic stakeholders. The failure on the part of the first concept study to indicate the crucial role branding of nonprofits interventions and how branding, when done effectively could do for donors and nonprofits and the second previous concepts inability to demonstrate how branding could be used by nonprofit to raise funds, and make nonprofit marketers responsible social marketers provide a basis for the extant study. The over-arching goal of this paper is to partially fulfill the gaps in the previous studies by contributing to identification of ways non-profit marketers could brand effectively; highlighting branding ways nonprofit marketers can be responsible social marketers and developing fund raising skills. Emphasis will be on abstract indicating an overview of what the study, the hypothesis and the gaps in previous studies, why the present study, how the study was done, findings and what next; chapter 1 introducing the field of study, stating the aim of the study that will in part fill the previous studies gaps and providing the structure of the study; chapter 2 where previous studies will be reviewed to produce study gaps that will inform the hypothesis; chapter 3 indicating comprehensively study methodology;
4

chapter 4 revealing the findings and giving the implications of the findings; chapter 5 where concluding remarks will be noted with proposals and lastly sources of data collected to enhance the quality of the study will be acknowledged in the reference column. Chapter 2: Concepts Review Introduction This section of the article provides an overview and a critical evaluation of past literatures in relation to this topic, notably: Changing Strategies for Philanthropic Giving: Implications for Financial Planners by Susan Raymond, (2010); and The Role of Brands in Nonprofit Sector by Kylander, Nathalie and Christopher Stone, (2012). The concepts review: 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 added some bite to the theme of the extant study and more imperatively motivated the hypothesis of the extant study. Consequently the current study focused on How nonprofit 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; the degree 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 the extant highlighted the roles of brand in nonprofit markets. 2.1: Study Descriptions/Structure The first previous literature discussed cause branding and marketing, program driven investments, mission driven investing, and strategic investment feeding into philanthropy, and social enterprise; and implications for financial planners in nonprofit firms. The second previous concept described fresh models for nonprofit social impact sustainability; Identification of brand roles and brand roles skepticism.

2.2: Objectives The first previous literature explored offering and developing financial strategies thinking, in order that financial planners can assist donors and nonprofits in search for revenue optimization. The second previous concepts describes framework of concepts intended to facilitate nonprofit social impact sustainability and meeting nonprofit marketers mission and values.

2.3: Matters Arising From The Article From the first previous concept, philanthropic donations are considered as investible resources instead as give away in social venture and in nonprofits, with the view to attaining tangible and measurable social return on investment and this critical
5

ramification on financial planners. In page 44 of the article, the author enumerated factors that could contribute to the search for innovative ways to allocate finite marketable resources to social needs; and that included the rapid growth in nonprofit firms; acting innovatively in prioritizing the needs of social to get value for money; with donor monetary support contracting on daily basis problem solution cannot be scaled up; social problems have become borderless and complicated which requires more than soliciting for grant; charity donor stratum has changed significantly towards the youth and are actively involved in attaining results and not just donating; and lastly, the power of technology has affected the opportunities in nonprofit marketing endeavor . Susan Raymond, (2010, pp.46), argued that cause-marketing and cause-branding are routes marketers tie their value propositions including brands to social cause and that resources meant to meet social needs emanates from private sources. Further she posits that, cause-marketing has the potential to capture more client attention and contribute to social cause and that nonprofit firms need to explicitly decide on corporate connections with brands and products if cause-marketing is to generate resource opportunity 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 in the multiple solution propositions in promoting funding sources. The study asserts the critical roles brands play in fostering strategic value chain partnership. Brands according to the study are an intangible asset and a promise that expresses personality and actions of individuals and institutions; indicating the character of firms or what they highlight; perception and basis of effectiveness. Equally revelation of the study is that brand permits resource acquisition and usage as well as offering firms credence and power 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 come on board. Brand roles in nonprofit marketing are noted by the study in page 39 of the article to be cyclical. The proposed model of the study indicates brand roles are diverse in nature which when done effectively could jointly be linked in a virtuous cycle. It was asserted sound connected identity and image places nonprofit firms to construct inner unity and trust with external stakeholders; thus leveraging to reinforce capability and attain the desired stated goals. In page 40 of the article, the authors postulate the four principles of Nonprofit Brand IDEA notably: brand integrity, democracy, ethics, and affinity. The study did not defined brand integrity as nonprofit firms internal identity aligned to its external image and mission but to connote structural integrity instead of moral integrity. Nonprofit firm with high structural integrity connects the mission to the identity of the firm, offering stakeholders common sense of reasons behind firms actions; incorporating its mission into civic image which permeates through all its interventions. Regarding brand democracy the authors meant stakeholders expressing their own understanding of the firms core character; and this purges any control mechanism regarding brand communication. This, the authors buttressed with comments from Alexis Ettinger, when he asserts candidly it will be disgusting with the rise of social media to attempt controlling brands. On brand ethics the authors meant
6

deploying nonprofit brand to reveal core values, and in as much as brand integrity associate the brand with mission, brand ethics support firms inner identity and its external reputation with values and corporate traditions. The study however contends persuading donors to offer social project budgetary support via deplorable graphical representation of destitute are gravely unethical. Concerning brand affinity, it was used to mean effective and productive partnering with other stakeholders along the value chain of nonprofit interventions and having mutual benefits. Additional imperative ideas in the conceptual framework to inject efficiencies in nonprofit marketers 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 in governing bodies and in spite of brand roles enunciated above managing global nonprofit brands could be exigent task due to differing cultural values on the global marketplace. 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 market there is a huge temptation to use brand protectionism and avoid further risk that could pay off for stakeholders. However some nonprofit managers were hopeful this jinx could be handled effectively to capitalize of innovative prospect inherent in assuming calculated risk with the support of insider understanding and confidence. 2.4: Methods On the first previous study, clear theoretical study design in reaching the findings and conclusions were vague to say the least. Concerning the second concept, previous studies were built on in investigating this study and 73 nonprofit managers, communication executives, consultants, and donors in 41 institutions were structurally interviewed. The results were evaluated and a conceptual framework designed to guide nonprofit managers. The study also relied on definitions of concepts in building its arguments; a clear case is the broad definition it offered to brand in page 38 of the article. 2.5: Findings The first previous study found that nonprofit firms target financial advisors to donors to press for their demands since donors trust their financial planners and advisors. Nonprofit firms with requisite skills in social enterprise, finance, planning, negotiation and project implementation has the prospect in meeting the desires of donors. For results in nonprofit firms intervention to be pronounced will require a longer time lines than expected. Nonprofit firms can only be sustainable granted that they engage the people they serve, particularly the community. Donors of nonprofit firms anticipate not only enhancement corporate image for supporting a worthy course but also brand loyalty from stakeholders and this should be cause-branding driven. Novel financing prospects for nonprofit marketers demand commitment to the mission and aspirations of donors and mutual objectives of donors and nonprofit firms.

The following findings were reported by the second previous concept study: In page 37 of the article, the authors posit both large and small nonprofits have policy guiding usage of brands, especially on tangible products. Although many nonprofits have shortsightedness towards using brands productively, this is evident in most firms applying 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 reveals brand managers in nonprofit such as The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has in recent times chosen Tom Scott as director of international brand and innovation. This indicates that some nonprofit firms are paying considerable low attention to fundraising and rather concentrate more on social impact and organizational cohesion. Indeed, some of the most appealing brand strategies are undergoing developmental stages in endowed, private foundations with less intent to raise funds. The proposed model by the study as guidelines for nonprofit firms to perform surfaced from unique sources of pride that nonprofit managers articulated in their functions, notably: pride in the social mission, participatory development, shared values, and strategic alliances. Four valid basis of skepticism was identified in Pages 38-39 of the article and nonprofit managers tie branding with business search of financial benefit. Skeptic consider the top prices that for-profit businesses charge for branding and express concerns about distortions this could create. For example there could be disequilibrium in the marketers name and performance in pursuance of fund raising or corporate knowledge sold as product. Another intriguing criticism is that there is top-down approach in managing brands which contrasts bottom-up approach when crafting strategic plans. Skeptics of branding express that branding concentration is stuck in nonprofit managers pride and may not necessarily be the desire of the firm. Equally important skepticism is the fostering of partnership by nonprofit firms which allows one brand to eclipse a partner

Brand uncertainties reveal pride in: mission, participatory planning, and cultural values supportive partnerships and the Nonprofit Brand IDEA builds pride sources and brand roles. Further findings of the study are that mismatch amid internal identity and external image require rebranding efforts in nonprofit firms and that aligning mission, values, identity, and image positions the brand effectively, enhance cohesion among different internal stakeholders. Nonprofit marketers that have synchronize their communications identity with the view to reinforcing the trust reposed in them by stakeholders, since this could lead to improved competence, budgetary support, and prudence in resource use, and social impact, attainment of mission. Whereas failure to do this and reap it associated benefits results in mission failure. 2.6: Conclusion And Recommendation The first previous study concluded that financial planners as advisers need to support their clients configure novel modalities to meet donor needs with sound planning strategies; and that there is the need for them to foster partnership with clients to brainstorm on financial innovation to revolutionalize nonprofit funding to bring value to philanthropy. It further recommended the need to tread cautiously when recommending nonprofit firms to donors based on the viability of programs presented. In all cases the
8

credibility of their recommendation should match with the expected program quality to avoid embarrassment and that they must design benchmarks for nonprofits firms that solicit 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. The theoretical concepts applied in understanding branding in nonprofit sector are alien to them, but are exploited to project image and raise funds. The study therefore recommends the need for nonprofit managers to embrace novel models that can guarantee sustainability in social impact, reflecting their corporate values and achieving their mission. Pages 40-41 of the article recommended a basic swing in traditional approach to brand management if brand democracy is to be attained, and that there should be bottom-up involvement in brand management and that nonprofit managers and 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 by philanthropic individuals and corporate institutions including nonprofit firms as investible resources requiring excellence performance from beneficiaries nonprofits; and identifying some factors in page 45 of the article that contribute to searching for novel ways in resource allocate to meet common social projects needs could be considered as achieving the goal of exploration in offering and developing financial strategies thinking, in order that financial planners can assist donors and nonprofits in search for revenue optimization. The second concept study to a greater extent fashioned out in page 40 of the article a conceptual model namely Nonprofit Brand IDEA( where: I = integrity; D= democracy; E= ethics; A= affinity) that provides indications to nonprofit firms on how to ensure sustainability of their social impact, meeting their mission aspiration and keeping to their corporate cultural values is a testimony of achieving the objectives of the study.

2.8: Market/Industry Considered The author of the first previous concept concentrated on the charitable and nonprofit industry within the concept of social and communal development. Whiles the second previous study focused on nonprofit markets.

2.9: Strengths The first previous concept remarkably acknowledged the works of others used in the article. A clear case in point is the credit offered to National Centre for Charitable Statistics for applying its data on growth pattern of environment nonprofit between 19992009 and Raymond, S. (2009) on resource view of revenue in pages 45 and 46 respectively. Applying graphical representation of trends and relationships in making submission was exceptional and enhanced the data quality. The executive summary
9

made, introduction to the article, arguments put forward, findings and recommendations made 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 their main ideas with remarks from authorities. A case in point is when the authors relied on Diane Fusillis assertion that, sturdy brands provide significant credibility, trust, facilitates project completion, and persuade partners to come on board to corroborate their contention about brand roles in page 38 of the article. The works of others were cited and that provides a big plus for the study. The use of chart to illustrate the propound model was positive and clarified the correlation among the variables. Significantly, the study in page 41 signaled hinted further investigations into the role of the brand in boosting action competence to drive social impact; metrics of effectiveness of brand management in measuring dedication and pride amongst staff and directors among 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 of the article when probing questions like how brand management is contributing to revenue, 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 internal unity as well as to outside faith among others. 2.10: Theoretical Limitation The failure on the part of the first previous concept author to indicate the crucial role branding of nonprofits interventions and how branding, when done effectively could do for donors and nonprofits was a sour point and generate the gap which provides justification for the current study. Data collection and analysis procedures and sample frame for the first previous study was implicit and this did not provide strong basis for issues raised and limited the discussion made in the article. It was weak for the study not to have provided the pros and cons in its own arguments and there was no recommendation for future studies to either authenticate or reject the findings provided in the article. Generalizing the findings will be problematic since methodology employed in reaching the results is unknown for critique; thus endangering the ethical standards Regarding the second previous study, the inability of the study to demonstrate how branding could be used by nonprofit to raise funds, and make nonprofit marketers responsible social marketers unlock the gaps in the study in spite of the sketchy ways it shown on how nonprofit firms brand and this justify why the extant study is imperative in fulfilling that gap. In text reference were mostly not acknowledged in the foot notes and that is sour point to the study since it did provide opportunity for readers to check such references. For instance, there was no reference in the foot notes on works used by Diana Fusilli, Peter Walker, Mahnaz Afkhami, Pip Emery, Will Nory-Hildesley, Katherine Fulton, Ramesh Singh, Yasmina Zaidman, Kerry Zobor, Rachel Hays Kylander Nathalie, Christopher Stone, (2012, pp.38-41).
10

Chapter 3: Methodology Qualitative and quantitative view from secondary sources were examined, measured, compared and contrasted; tables and pictorial representation of trends were used to make findings and discussions meaningful. There was review of previous concepts to indentify the gap to be fulfilled in the study and that facilitated the establishment of relationship between the previous and present studies. Added to this was extensive Reading, watching and listening to audio-visual materials. Interactions with nonprofits staff, academia, branding practitioners, beneficiaries of nonprofits value propositions and professionals were resorted to in validating the findings of the study. Information solicited was not tinkered and this offered the study the needed reliability and validity. Data obtained from the above supposition were examined, explained and interpreted to make the study meaningful and these constructive interactions enabled the study to draw invaluable and findings and conclusions; maintained ethical standards; made nonprofits constituencies had a sense of the study and guaranteed flexibility; offered a better-off contextual source for results validation and interpretation; minimized expense. The School of Business, AIU Hawaii rigorously scrutinized the ethical issues in the study. All materials and data sourced were 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 of stakeholders for prompt recall in event of need, thoughts, recommendation and patronage. Nonprofits brand is greatly advance than name, logo, or its value proposition that nonprofits offer. It is what others think, share and feel about nonprofit: it is the impression the public hold about your work that influences their response to every message sent, intervention embarked on and project supported by your firm, explains Lucille Maddalena, (2008, pp.1). It became evident from interaction with practitioners that 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 branding initiatives. Branding in nonprofits if implemented effectively has durable upshots. Brands emerge from the real-world interactions a firm has with its clients and become a function of firms actions and performance Nelson Fabian, (2006, pp. 66) The study revealed the following significant roles branding could play in nonprofit marketing. Notable among them are: branding and brand communications enable nonprofit firms to interface strategic partners; it is the vehicle for fundraising. For instance where items have been donated to nonprofits with the view to influencing the
11

life of the people they serve, there is still the need to absorb delivery and distribution cost 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 fundraising power. Branding, then, is not just a tool to generate awareness of your organization. Branding facilitates marketing communications and revolutionize why stakeholders continue to be loyal to nonprofit and constituencies feel less danger when patronizing nonprofit value proposition which they recognizable via branding and for which they possess positive attitude. Co-branding in nonprofit marketing has the potential of projecting the image of donors, thus committing them to further budgetary support of nonprofits. Branding makes nonprofit marketing identifiable and distinct from competition and is an indication of how powerful branding could be. According to BoardSource and Taproot Foundation, (2011, pp.19), Succinct mission creates 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 in making nonprofits branding effective, the study found that nonprofit marketers engage the people they serve in identifying their needs to understand how compatible it is to nonprofits 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 persons and 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 and threat of nonprofit operations is equally key in branding decision. This is corroborated by Bridget Hartnett, and Ron Matan, (2011). Situational analysis encapsulates reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of nonprofit whiles looking at opportunities and threats you face in your market. http://www.sobelcpa.com/sites/default/files/whitepaper%20Marketing.pdf In view of this, branding initiatives are generated with complete support of the nonprofit clients. The next stage the study found is evaluating the identified needs to appreciate its 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 all stakeholders 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 partners especially donors. Further nonprofits establish visible identity and are the most recognizable part of the process by people, yet it includes the last stages. It is only when nonprofits design an exceptional brand with differing features that are well positioned that, they got to understand the functional and emotional imperatives and commence constructing logo or re-construct existing ones. The next stage the study found was crafting core messages in ads and products/service to comprehend historical account and legacy of nonprofits. Aside this, nonprofit staff are trained since they are brand representation of nonprofits interventions and their actions and inactions has the prospect to make or unmake nonprofit.

12

The extant study revealed strategies nonprofit could adopt to diversify their intervention budgetary support includes: mounting signages to communicate tangible projects completed and acknowledging individuals and institutional donors. As posits by Pettey and Janice Gow, (2008, pp. 19), sending some form of acknowledgement is the right thing in response to a donor that have contributed to an emergency fund drive. Again, nonprofits marketers are combining online branding to offline since online offers alacrity in efficiencies and results. Averagely, nonprofits improved their cash raised online by 19% from 2010 to 2011. http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-andtrends-for-nonprofits/. Imperatively nonprofit strategy in raising funds from diverse source includes building robust database to reach their target groups via e-mails which has 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 create traffic on their networks and donation pages. Direct Marketing Association posits that, in 2009, 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 Tools Communication Tool

Very Important (%)

Somewhat important (%)

Website 68 25 Email Marketing - E67 22 Newsletters Print (Newsletters-Direct Mail) 38 29 9 In-Person Events 38 28 4 Facebook 31 49 3 Media Relations/PR 28 29 6 Blog 9 18 20 Video (YouTube etc.) 6 24 12 Twitter 5 29 22 Paid Advertising 5 12 48 Phone Calls/Phone Banks 5 14 34 Photo Sharing 1 5 30 Audio (e.g. podcasts) 1 3 49 Texting 1 3 57 Source:http://nonprofitmarketingguide.com/freemembers/2012NonprofitCommunication sTrendsReport.pdf From the table above the use of website and E-mail are top on the list of nonprofits communicational tools to make an impact. It is insightful to note that the study shows nonprofits use the power of branding during events to raise funds. Products are branded and used to raise funds for interventions. A clear case is an MVP in Bonsaaso, an international NGO in Ghana branded cups and sold during a football match organized with the proceeds directed towards provision
13

Least Important (%) 1 1

hygiene facility for schools. According to David Williamson, (2009), Raising funds can be the fire alarm in awakening nonprofit managers. Preliminary attention will be less focused on strategy, and more focused on stuff: brochures, pamphlets and newsletters used to promote the firms to donors. Further findings from the studies show that in selecting a brand name for nonprofit numerous probable sources exist and regarding brand extension an egression name, logo and symbol could be applied for the intervention and that where there is the need for a name, initials, numbers, words, or amalgamation 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 in fundraising process - many of them do not understand or accept that role. JOURNAL FOR NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT 2004 Discussions 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 of branding. It is therefore imperative for nonprofit to appreciate that this action could be extremely tiresome and volatile and this require planning way ahead. It is vital to recognize the resource implication in terms of cost and time in branding process before execution. This requires building the capacity of nonprofits staff to be able to execute the branding task effectively to attain its intended goals. Aggregate cost will be reduced if nonprofit staffs are properly trained even though there will be training cost initially. Limited branding activity funding could lead to insipid nonprofit marketing which could be detrimental to nonprofit mission. Fantastic nonprofit branding expense could be nix, little or lofty, it however demands novelty and commitment of funds to derive the optimum from nonprofit branding. Leveraging on the strengths of experts agencies research bodies and educational institutions create synergy in executing branding actions could attract nix cost or less cost and yet reap optimum benefits. Volunteers and nonprofit staff could be branding channel and branding grounded in staff and volunteers culture could impact significant. Positioning branding by nonprofit via constructive statements implies designing message consistencies over a longer period of time and a fraction of the target group sometimes might express dissenting concerns about the same ads over and over again but the message will be communicated effectively, though there could be changes in the message structure but not the content. This, it is envisaged will appeal to existing donors 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 will this result in nonprofit brand loyalty? Will strategic partners that are enthused about branding message be diplomat of nonprofit intervention? And will dissatisfied client about nonprofit brand messages be nonprofits terrorist? In all this cash spent in capacity building around nonprofit branding pays dividends. In nonprofit marketing, each client channel contact being it short or long will be crucial for nonprofit to strengthen brand communication and as said by Rachel Armruster, (2011, pp. XV). If you put relationships first, big things are possible.
14

The revelation of the study that branding is not only logo slogan, ads but also means positioning solution proposition strongly implies designing brand materials, responding to phone calls in a subtle manner. This is because the beneficiaries of nonprofit intervention compare competing interventions to draw their own supposition about nonprofits which could largely affect interventions sustainability. Ultimately, re-aligning all nonprofits interventions in cohesive, alertness attempts, and describing the mission statement 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 an advance, but the critical question is do nonprofit firms know the impression stakeholders hold about their intervention? Regardless of the response, beneficiaries perception on nonprofit intervention could include emotion, zeal and unconfirmed judgment and this require influencing the judgment of people to imbibe nonprofit brand via aligning their thinking with the affirmed mission. Implying each intervention, statements, open presentation and spending must be aligned with mission statement. Any conflicting or inconsistent actions to the objectives of nonprofits will results in unspecified adverse effects 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 desirable intervention 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 building durable rapport with constituencies. The menace however could be building rapport on individual level which may not help nonprofit cause. If branding projects the image of donors as well then that provides the basis for their continue support to nonprofit budget. This implies nonprofits tangibilize the intangibility segment of branding attempts to make it measurable. For example measuring communication campaigns and investment in accepting brand contact and values are key. Failure to do this connotes denying nonprofit firms the actual brand value and impact, which could affect nonprofit funding subsequently. Branding attempts need to be measured by the dividends on mission and interventions. It should be noted that competition is emerging fiercely in nonprofit environment and there is space for partnership and competition. With innumerable nonprofits requesting for budgetary assistance, resources will be competed fiercely and this cannot be discounted. Doing so implies creating amateur advances to strategic constituents and revenue loss. The velocity of technology and application of social media platform have mushroomed and technological choices through branding lens have become imperative. The critical questions to pose are will technological choices are classified by the same standards? And what barriers will these technological choices bring? Technological cost, awareness and investment return need to be considered in addition weighing donors perceptions on technological moves. Nonprofit putting up signages enthused donors and they see the need to offer continuous support. For example World Food Program (WFP) in Ghana (WFP) is now reluctant 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 upon request to mount a signage to indicate the support offered to them by WFP. This is a
15

blatant indication that when nonprofits acknowledge support received from donors, via communication tools such as signages, billboards among others not only will existing donors continue to demonstrate interest to offer budgetary support to nonprofit interventions 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 background especially if mobile fundraising services are incorporated into their interventions, and that will enable them to meet the rise in demand for their services and a fall in resources due to globalization. Essentially this point stresses the need for nonprofit to own website to serve as hub for all its interventions. Nonprofit will benefit immensely from interactive tools. Thus will nonprofits marketers build brand loyalty via website? Or build rapport with people via e-mails prior to appealing them on social networks? Building fantastic rapport with stakeholders and addressing their needs in sustainable fashion means nonprofit are social marketers and this has its associated benefits particularly attracting donors to donate more for a good cause. It is in view of this that Corina erban posits that 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 applied prudently, else donors confidence level will contract and this potentially will affect future donations from existing and prospective donors. Since globally most nonprofits are exempted from tax payment any deceptions in actions on nonprofits part has the potential to offend the law especially when ample resource is allocated to nonprofits expense that are not directly related to their core business interventions. As opined by Linda 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 likelihood to donate. 4.1: General Discussions of Relationships Amid Previous Studies and Extant Study In spite of differing goals of the current and the first previous concept, the present study findings that nonprofit marketers engage their stakeholders in identifying their needs to understand how compatible it is to nonprofits mission and goals as a step in branding decision corroborated the first literature reviews findings that nonprofit firms can only be sustainable granted that they engage the people they serve and that novel financing prospects for nonprofit marketers demand commitment to the mission and aspirations of donors and mutual objectives of donors and nonprofit firms. Another similarity in the present and the first previous concept studies is that the former found that nonprofit staffs are trained to upgrade their skills to be brand symbol whereas the latter found nonprofit firms with requisite skills meet their goals. Also, the present studys finding that donors continue to support nonprofits because nonprofits interventions project their image as well; and the first previous concept also noted same by positing that nonprofits donors expect their image to be enhanced for supporting a good course.
16

In contrast, the existing study made findings on imperatives of branding to nonprofits revenue diversification and how nonprofits could attain social marketing status by fostering inconceivable relationship with stakeholders. This, the first previous concept was unable to find. On the flip side the first previous concept did assert that nonprofit firms 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 previous concept in their findings, it is hard to generalize some of the findings of the first previous concept since there was no obvious method employed in reaching the findings. And this raises a query whether a known method employed would have made same findings or otherwise. The rapid growth of nonprofit firms has contracted budgetary support sources owing to the disequilibrium between the supplier and users of funds. This only creates benchmarks and requires nonprofit firms to work assiduously and be answerable to attract limited donors to support their budget whose activities and aspirations have to be win-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 attract staff who can think and act innovatively to create value for all stakeholders to the extent that donors will see a vast improvement in their client base of their core business activities which leads to improvement in their liquidity position and brand loyalty by stakeholders; particularly customers of their value propositions. To the nonprofit marketer, ensuring prudency in resource management results in sustainability of their business of providing social interventions to meet societal needs; this is a sure way to scale up their value interventions. The main ideas in the first previous study signify the turbulent nature of the funding markets and indicate the urgent need to navigate and integrate the power of technology in searching for alternative fund raising sources to stay 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 beneficiaries to guarantee funding continuity. From the foregoing supposition and judging from the conclusion and recommendations made by Susan Raymond, (2010); little has been said about branding nonprofit firms activities and in view of this, will branding be the way forward in addressing this new way of thinking and acting innovatively to meet the mutual goals of donors and nonprofit firms? The current study will explore and clarify differing perspectives on this issue as part of fulfilling the gaps in the previous studies. The objectives of the current study were different from the second previous concept and yet there were some similarities in findings. The second previous concept contended that nonprofits use branding for only fundraising activities and pay more attention to social impact, but this assertion was contrasted by the current study since it posits nonprofits use the influence of branding to raise funds and that products are branded and used to raise funds for interventions.

17

Intriguingly, the second previous concept found branding criticism which the current study did not trample upon. And more astonishing, the second previous concept posit fostering 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 they see the need to offer continuous budgetary support. The current study corroborates the second previous concept findings that aligning mission, values, identity, and image positions the brand effectively, enhances cohesion among different internal stakeholders. When it opines the needs of nonprofits stakeholders need to be compatible with nonprofits mission for effective implementation of branding decisions. Another level of corroboration was the second previous concepts finding on synchronization of nonprofits communications and the current studys assertion on consistencies in message contents even with varied channels. Imperatively, the methodology of the second previous concept was clear and makes the findings convincing in spite of findings variations in the current and the second previous concept. 4.2: Limitations of The Paper Owing to limited time and cash, survey questionnaires were not used, which probably could 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 been prepared in out of coverage areas. Fresh concepts could be considered to replicate the studys findings or contrast it. By and large, the studys limitations were surmounted and that offered opportunities for further study. Nevertheless, frantic attempts made assured the quality of the study. The above limitations could serve as a guide to new studies in future. Chapter 5: Conclusion And Recommendation The first and second previous studies did not indicate the roles of nonprofits branding and using branding to raise funds to be social marketers respectively. And in an attempt by the extant study to contribute to nonprofit branding process, stressing ways nonprofit branding could lead to social marketing and using branding to raise funds in an attempt to fulfill in part the space in preceding investigations discovered that brand goes beyond nonprofits logo, slogan, ads and encapsulate battling for nonprofits solution proposition to occupy the minds of stakeholders to facilitate recall in event of need and thus branding regardless of scale of nonprofits operations is key. In spite of the turbulent nonprofit market environment a considerable number of nonprofits are able to build value for stakeholders. Non performance from nonprofits will be unacceptable in the midst of nonprofits mushrooming and for nonprofits to oppose branding will mean opposing current approach to useful marketing interventions. In the communal interest environment, paying attention to details, being literal and specific has become an issue. There is an increase demand for nonprofit services and this together with global economic recession in recent times has affected their funding requirements
18

to meet their stated objectives. And it is view of this that strategic branding of nonprofits has become imperative. Branding provides the linkage amid donors, beneficiaries and nonprofits firms and has the potential to support nonprofit fundraising; it explains the continue support by constituencies to nonprofits interventions since it has the prospect to project the image of nonprofits constituencies. As a result, nonprofits become distinct with branding. For nonprofit branding to be effective, evaluating nonprofit market situation is imperative including involving beneficiaries in indentifying their needs and this has to match with the mission and goals of nonprofits. There should be positive agreeable communication to all nonprofit constituencies in an effort to remain different from the competition, and in designing brands, nonprofits attach it to their interventions and passion and if this is done exceptionally, the brand becomes strongly positioned. Above all nonprofit human resources capacity is built since they reflect the brand in all endeavors. Engaging your constituencies to identify their needs which ought to be compatible with nonprofits missions, including evaluating nonprofits market situations to appreciate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats have the potential of making nonprofits branding highly effective. There should be distinct solution proposition features, designing constructive ads messages, building the capacity of nonprofits staff are all part of the branding process. These branding processes of nonprofits will definitely attract cost and could be tedious. Nevertheless, advance planning, leveraging the strengths of strategic partners and training of staff has the potential of reducing the aggregate cost in branding process. Strategies nonprofits could adopt includes: employing interactive channels in reaching their stakeholders such as online and this can be employed to diversify their funding options. Is nonprofits branding considered as the solution to nonprofits fundraising challenges? It is insightful to note that while branding 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 nonprofits interventions and acknowledging donors that contributed to such interventions and blending online branding were channels for nonprofits to diversify their budgetary support since that attracts existing and prospective donors to donate. And building incredible relationship with stakeholders and addressing their needs in sustainable manner 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 correlation amid nonprofits leadership, effectiveness and mission accomplishment will be great. Good-practice studies on nonprofits to highlight how leaders are chosen and what they do to develop and augment their bench strength. Conventionally, nonprofits fundraising strategies are directed on programs, products, and services. For that to results continuity, research in that direction will be needed.

19

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 nonprofits so 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 of patronizing a value proposition by stakeholders due to need brand communication need to be diverse and incessant with no distinctiveness in message content. Brand variation in nonprofits has the potential to mislead and perplex stakeholders, thus nonprofits need to 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 be successful. 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 to attract stakeholders; interactive website including blog posts, facebook updates and tweets, where technology could be used to arouse constituent interest and create a rich familiarity by understanding their needs will be thrilling and foster the needed relationship, . Thus optimizing mission engagements.; brand communication applicable to news item; fantastic rapport amongst constituents to know them well; an understanding of the marketplace to better appreciate competitors; solution proposition and communicate that effectively to the marketplace; branding Infrastructure that build competencies to raise funds; means to leverage strategic partners strengths leading to pro-bono resources; creativity and experiment, conduct actionable research and monitor brand contact points, test results and develop count back for application, and your research report should have competitor analysis. Nonprofits need to possess brand metric, strategic plan and measure and evaluate branding impact to ascertain the returns on branding investments. And all staff needs to have brand responsibilities. There is the need to design a process to discover movements that impact on donors and other constituents. It is recommended that nonprofit managers sharpens their skills and literacy in the areas of cultural diversity, appreciate divergent opinions, elucidate accountability principles in nonprofit firms, exhibit grant proposal writing skills and skills to source multiple funds, information and communication technology skills, project management shrewdness, showing risk management skills, communication skills, marketing acumen, show financial management skills demonstrate proficient practice readiness in culturally diverse environment and be able to elucidate the significance of incorporating ethics and have code of conduct in a nonprofit. Integrating branding strategies for nonprofits is a need for them to explore social media, value proposition placement, and inventive media partnerships. There is the need for different but novel methods beyond the conventional modalities to a broader audience.

20

Reference BoardSource, Taproot Foundation, (2011). Marketing Literacy For The Nonprofit Sector BoardSource 1828 L Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036. Bray, Ilona M. (2008). Effective Fundraising for Nonprofits: Real-world Strategies That Work. Nolo Bridget Hartnett, Ron Matan, (2011). Marketing Your Nonprofit Organization. Sobel And Co., 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 And Practical 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 of Management and Marketing Research. Lucille Maddalena, (2008). Branding for the Nonprofit Organization. Pettey, Janice Gow, (2008). Ethical Fundraising: A Guide for Nonprofit Boards and Fundraisers. AFP Fund Development Series. Wiley Rachel Armruster, (2011). Banding Together For a Cause: Proven Strategies for Revenue And Awareness Generation. Edition 1; Wiley. Kylander Nathalie, Christopher Stone, (2012). The Role of Brands in Nonprofit Sector Stanford 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 Nonprofit Sector Requires of its Managers and Leaders. Susan Raymond, (2010). Changing Strategies for Philanthropic Giving: Implications for Financial 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/2012NonprofitCommunicationsTrends Report.pdf http://aspheramedia.com/v2/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/BrandingNonprofitOrganization.pdf
21

http://www.fenton.com/FENTON_IndustryGuide_MakingANameForYourself.pdf http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide.com/blog/2012/05/16/online-fundraising-stats-andtrends-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/

22