Torture survivors don't think this is noise

Today, you may read 100 emails.
You may visit 25 websites and blogs, maybe more.
You may be on the phone for more than an hour.
You may watch the news, feeling anger, horror, perhaps even numbness.
You may be frustrated by information overload.

But somewhere near you, here in Canada, there is someone who has shut out the noise of the modern world.

They may not speak the language—but that is not why they are mute.
They are paralyzed by a fear of the past—but the future is scary.
They are traumatized and they feel helpless—but they are not numb.
They are alive--but they wake up sweating every night, fearing the closeness of death.

They are a survivor of torture, and they need our help.

We cannot change the past, but we can give them a chance to look forward with dignity and with hope. We can allow them to believe that now that they live in Canada, they have an opportunity to see justice done and their torturers be exposed. With the help of the Canadian Centre for International Justice, they can seek legal, emotional, and social assistance to address the injustice they have endured.

They have lived through it, but we can help them live with it.
They need to know that it won’t happen again—to them, or to others.

I invite you to consider making a contribution of $100, or a monthly pledge of just $10 to allow CCIJ to continue to work with the survivors of torture, genocide, war crimes and massive human rights abuses to welcome the modern world with all its imperfections.

If you believe in human rights and justice for victims of systematic abuse, visit http://www.ccij.ca/. Consider passing along this message to others who might share your belief in international justice.

With all of us making a small contribution, CCIJ will continue to work to make a difference for survivors, for the families of the victims, and for the fabric of a just society.

By December 10th (the Anniversary of the adoption of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), CCIJ hopes to build a network of 100 new individual donors. Please join them by making a donation or a pledge using our secure online giving page at www.ccij.ca/donate.

Subject: Solar power for developing countries.

The sun does not shine for a few trees and flowers, but for the wide world's joy.

Henry Ward Beecher

I see development aid as simply the act of helping fellow citizens who have had the misfortune of being born into poverty seek a better life for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Admittedly, the "aid industry" has had it's ups and downs. It has been paternalistic during colonial times, self-serving in the budding days of international trade, inextricably tied to religious conviction, and arguably misguided during the green revolution, but aid has also done immeasurable good for millions.

I argue that it is a responsibility for each of us who have inherited good fortune to participate in helping others.

But it always requires energy. Not just emotional energy, but literally, power.

In the vast majority of countries where extreme poverty is the norm, the sun is hot and constant for most days of the year. One would assume that solar power, then, would be the most effective way to generate the energy needed to cook food, provide light at night, sterilize water, refrigerate medicine, power radios, or even to support small businesses.

However, development organizations and developing country governments have been slow to adopt solar power, even as passive solar collectors require minimal investment or moving parts, and even as photovoltaic solar collectors are becoming cheaper and simpler to produce. It is not clear to me why this is the case.

“In one hour, the earth receives more energy from the sun than the world uses in a whole year, and yet 2 billion of the world’s poorest people have no access to electricity.” Solar Aid video narration

One shining light in the field of developing solar projects overseas is Solar Aid, based in the UK. This organization trains and supports local entrepreneurs in developing countries to use develop small scale solar projects to generate income, improve community health, access clean drinking water, reduce reliance on kerosene or wood for cooking or lighting, and allow students to continue studying after dusk.

In emergencies and humanitarian disasters which disproportionately affect the world’s poorest, solar power also has a role. This site offers a selection of links and information on uses of solar power in disaster response, but these ideas and technologies are also applicable for development work.

The developed world, with its heavy reliance on fossil fuels, is toying with developing renewable energy programs: solar, wind, geothermal, micro-hydro, and tidal turbines. The European Union, for example, is investing heavily in research and development with a view to generate 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. These efforts are welcomed to address concerns of pollution and global warming, but they are massive and costly infrastructural projects. (including an incredible proposed solar array in the Sahara that would export African solar power to Europe)

However, the HUMAN BENEFIT of minimal investments in solar projects in developing countries is staggeringly profound, and will set a precedent for economic growth that is based upon renewable energy sources.

I suppose that the precedent for trying to promote “clean” economic development is buried in the trading of carbon credits globally, and in The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM is an arrangement allowing industrialised countries with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. This mechanism, at least in principle, should help bolster solar aid projects in developing countries.

Of course, there are also marketing angles to support solar development aid. For example, IKEA’s Sunnan lamp campaign proposes that a child in a developing country will receive a solar powered lamp for every lamp sold worldwide. This campaign will help children do their homework after the sun goes down. It will also help boost sales for IKEA.

There is nothing wrong with a win-win proposition.

Another fascinating solar product that has been developed specifically for the developing world is the solar powered refrigerator. Based upon the principle of evaporation, and designed by a 21-year old British woman, this invention has been put to use in Namibia, Zambia, and other African countries, notably for keeping vaccines cool without power.

Solar power is not science fiction. It is successfully being used in countries all over the world to supplement existing energy sources in residential, commercial and industrial applications. The initial source—sunlight—is free. The cost of solar collectors is decreasing, and they are becoming more reliable, more field serviceable and more easily built. Passive solar power, in particular, is simple and low cost and can be used for everything from home heating, to fish farming and aquaculture, to water purification.

It sounds to me that if we invest in solar development aid, we will very quickly help those who have been born into the misfortune of poverty.

Convergence in three sectors

In the wake of the Social Capital Conference held earlier this month in California (SOCAP09) there is a renewed vigor in the discussions about effective financial investments (rather than donations) to solve social problems.

Perhaps the comments of Nell Edgington summarize best the value of this new movement towards a convergence of commercial ideas with the age-old agents of change in western society: the non-profit organizations.

Sadly, in the world of social investments, charities are often seen as the “cousins” working tirelessly, yet fruitlessly, on changing the fabric of our society. It is not that they are completely ineffective, it is that they are not “transformational” in the way social entrepreneurship is expected to be in the coming decades.

Nonetheless, if the experience and knowledge of venture capital markets can be married successfully with the understanding of the needs that is resident with charities, then we may indeed see significant movement forward on human rights, basic needs, global justice, and alleviation of poverty and suffering.

One organization that is leading the charge in Canada is CanadaGives.org. The head of this organization is Denise Castonguay, with whom I recently shared a lengthy discussion on this issue, is a product of the financial world, and her business savvy is evident. She, like many others who have been successful in managing money, wants to put her skills to use to support charitable endeavors. In her own words, her leadership in Canadagives.org provides her with “the lifetime satisfaction of combining industry skills with personal values.”

Canada is still a neophyte player in the world of social capital investing. That being said, Denise Castonguay is one of a small, important cast of like minded social entrepreneurs and organizations: Jeff Skoll (himself a Canadian, although his foundation is US-based) to Social Capital Partners and Social Venture Partners, to the Tides Foundation and the Canadian Ashoka office, with their many Fellows across the world, to name a few.

Canada has a long history of charitable activity. With a registered charity for every 400 citizens, and host of other non-profit entities (companies, regional and local governments, religious organizations, service clubs, UN organizations, and others) active in social issues, the expertise in defining and tackling social problems is not lacking.

However, the ability to design effective interventions on a significant scale remain hamstrung by limited funds, charitable traditions, competition between charities, charity legislation, and a diversion of the majority of investment capital into the for-profit world of stocks, bonds, real-estate and businesses.

I agree with Nell Edgington when she states, “Let’s take a bigger picture view of the essence of what we are attempting to do. And that is to completely reconfigure, and create a productive convergence among, the three sectors (public, private, non-profit). Now that would be innovative.”

Indeed.

Demarketing

In the great yin and yang of changing public consumption and behavior, social marketing often plays the role of “demarketing” the success of commercial marketing programs.

I tip my hat to Craig Lefevre for coining and defining the phrase in his article featuring the New York City Health campaign to discourage the consumption of pop.

Most marketing is asking us to DO SOMETHING: buy this product, use this service, visit our national parks, wear our seatbelts, climb the stairs instead of taking the elevator, etc.

In contrast, demarketing campaigns are asking us NOT to do something we already do: do not smoke, do not ignore domestic violence, do not litter, and in the case of the NYC campaign, do not consume sugary drinks. It strikes me that these demarketing campaigns are generally the purview of social marketing campaigns, as a way to deprogram the audience out of behaviors that the traditional marketing world has programmed us to do.

I do not endeavor to explicitly pit social causes against commercial interests, but it is alarming to think of the number of social marketing campaigns where the goal is to undo a behavior that has been taught to us by commercial marketing powers of yesteryear (or perhaps…yesterdecade).

Take smoking. This is a behavior that had to be propagated by the tobacco companies, although admittedly, the addictive nature of nicotine sure helped the retention rates! Anti-smoking campaigns work to undo the addiction with messages rooted in improved health, better social behaviors, and…well….threats of cancer and death. (clearly, social marketing to address addictions requires the big guns of guilt and fear.)

Obesity? Same thing, in essence. I believe that the alarming rates of obesity in North America can be attributed to poor diet and lack of exercise. Diet is now a function of food producer marketing (see photo that says it all) and the promotion of machines that keep us from exercising (cars, elevators, golf carts, ATV’s, etc). Campaigns to decrease obesity tend to target individual behavior that has become entrenched after years of marketing of products and behaviors that make us fat; these campaigns rarely target the products, they target the consumer.

As an aside, folks like Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore are targeting the corporations and institutions that have built our demand for things that are bad for us, but this is vigilante marketing, in many ways, and doesn’t represent the typical social marketing messages or methodology.

What about recycling? Again, the campaigns promoting consumer recycling are, in effect, trying to undo our own reliance on the convenience of plastic, glass, paper and other packaging materials. The packaging is, in large measure, the vehicle for product marketing, and is designed not only to carry its contents, but also to increase point of sale advertising, impulse purchasing, and ensure that the consumer can “advertise” their affiliation to that brand or product. If this were not the case, then every container would simply be labeled “beans” or “milk” or “salad dressing” without any artwork, color or logos.

I like to think of myself as a demarketer. I build campaigns with organizations who are trying to improve the social fabric, and in many cases this means addressing the accepted social mores, battling learned behaviors and beliefs, and generating incentives for individuals to work in the public interest.

In many cases, that means we need to undo what others have helped us to do.

Movements start with…well, movement.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

The Chinese philosopher, Lao-Tzu, more than 500 years before the birth of Christ, is credited with this prophetic statement. The original Chinese script has also been translated as “The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one’s feet,” but either way, the importance of this quotation for social change remains constant:

The beginning of any social change begins from an understanding of where we are, and requires us to make a simple, purposeful action.

“Psst!”

That is the loudest headline I’ve heard in a long time. It is also the key to the newest social marketing initiative of Onechange.org.

This campaign relies on the same principle espoused by Lao-Tzu and paraphrased by onechange.org:

simple actions matter.

The “Psst!” is a call to action. It is the forced whisper you hear in a library that EVERYONE hears. It gets your attention, even in print.

It is also the sound of air escaping from your tires. The escaping air means that tire pressure drops, and when your tires are under inflated, your fuel economy drops. This is an enormous environmental campaign to reduce fuel consumption that relies on the very simple action required of each of us: keep your tires inflated properly.

I should note that this campaign employs a very diverse marketing mix: from celebrity/politician endorsement, to news stories (and morning TV appearances), to billboards, to corporate partnership (Canadian Tire), to freebies (digital tire guages), public workshops, bus advertising, flyers, public speaking, and a host of other media that is visible to the driving public. Moreover, it is being tested in three Canadian markets before rolling out nationally. These folks are not marketing novices.

Invariably, there are stats that support the campaign:

If every Canadian driver checked and maintained proper tire pressure on a regular basis, each year we’d save over $600 million on fuel, cut 1.4 million tons of CO2, and prevent traffic accidents.

This organization also brought you Project Porchlight, where energy efficient compact fluorescent lightbulbs have been given to homeowners DOOR TO DOOR across North America with the request that the incandescent bulbs on their porchlight could be replaced. This simple action would benefit the environment and the homeowner: less energy is used, the bulbs last longer, and the cost to the homeowner was ZERO.

Of course, this notion of taking stock of a problem, and identifying a simple action that can be taken to directly address the problem is the foundation of all meaningful social movements.

Sometimes, the simple actions are dangerous and require courage, however innocuous they may seem. Take for example, the story of Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Wangari Maathai whose simple act of planting trees because of a need for firewood grew into a movement to safeguard the environment, protect human rights, and defend democracy in Kenya.

Meaningful social change demands action, of that there is no doubt.

However, the enormous goals of societal behavior change should not be daunting. These movements often rely on very simple individual action that become infectious and affirming, and can also be in the best interests of the initiator.

I, for one, will be checking my tires.

The missing link: documentary to philanthropy

I have finally discovered the intersection of philanthropy, microlending, social entrepreneurship and film: www.worldflix.org.

Here is an exerpt for the website that describes succinctly the purpose of this new donation/engagement/education device:

World Flix is a non-profit organization determined to change the world one video clip at a time.

We have three underlying philosophies:
1. Through modern technology we can assist thousands of people around the world by bringing their issues to the public through video clips and the Internet.
2. Everyone deserves to know the joy of giving which is why we specialize in microgrants and small donations.
3. Donors should know exactly where 100% of their money is going and be able to see the tangible results of their donations.

As a social marketer, I have been reviewing the landscape of film as a tool for social change, and this endeavor is on the cutting edge of making the internet, and specifically video, a powerful tool for change.

The concept of microcredit is not new. Pioneers like the Grameen Bank and Results Canada document the value of microcredit and development loans. Sites like KIVA, Global Giving and Chip In took the idea online and made it possible for individuals with money to make investments in small scale entrepreneurs (or charities) anywhere in the world.

At the same time, the North American philanthropy world is madly discussing social entrepreneurship, and the use of market driven solutions (or at least commercial techniques) to raise funds to address pressing social ills.

An finally, as the video posting craze overwhelms internet users with home-made-productions featuring the sublime to the ridiculous, many charities are hoping to see some increase in awareness about their cause by posting videos.

And then, along comes Worldflix that neatly marries these trends into a meaningful site for the use of video to generate social venture capital and engage small scale donors in philanthropy and micro lending.

I tip my hat to the founders, and I hope that the white noise that crowds the internet makes enough space for meaningful engagement through this well intentioned, topical and effective site.

Children in war. Our response.

This is a shout out to the 2008 Canadian Red Cross campaign on child soldiers.

The use of children in war is not new, nor is it news (sadly).

The many efforts of UNICEF, the anti-land mine campaigns, and other NGOs to promote awareness about this issue have been ongoing for years. This campaign advertisement, however, is an interesting way to get the message across with the "headline" developed by highlighting the relevant words in the text.

I like the use of white space. I love to see advertisements that draw the reader into the full text. I love development awareness campaigns that don't need to rely on catastrophic pictures. I like that the 7 second message is simple, and engaging:

Even Wars Have Limits. You Can Help.

Humanitarian workers: the unsung heroes of our time

I missed the golden opportunity to remember the work, dedication, courage and loss of humanitarian workers overseas on the UN’s first annual World Humanitarian Day. The date of this inaugural rememberance, August 19th, marks the 5th anniversary of the bombing of the UN Headquarters in Bagdad, where 22 UN staff lives were lost.

As if to punctuate the need to recognize the dangers of humanitarian work, sadly there were two UN staff members and 5 Afghani nationals killed in Afghanistan one day before the World Humanitarian Day.

A poignant article written by the son of the fames UN diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello was published in the Washington Post to commemorate this day, and to announce that we need to invest in humanitarian work in order to guarantee the safety of those working in the field, while simultaneously working seriously to remove the root causes of poverty and violence that necessitate humanitarian aid. The article notes that in 2008 there were 260 humanitarian aid workers who were killed, kidnapped, or seriously injured in violent attacks.

This number exceeds the number of victims from UN peacekeeping forces.

Humanitarian workers do not have guns. They choose to go to some of the most dangerous places on earth--Colombia, Darfur, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar--to work with the citizens of those countries to make a difference through kindness, compassion and diligence. They are the true nation builders, the true diplomats and ambassadors in a global world.

I know that the fear faced by humanitarian staff is not taken lightly. When I worked for UNHCR, I was required to pass a course on safety and prevention that included recommendations and instructions on everything from identifying land mines, to how to act at arbitrary "checkpoints," and even to choosing the correct hotel room to minimize risk.

Although the World Humanitarian Day is a result of a UN resolution, it does not only apply to the staff of UN humanitarian agencies like UNDP, UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO and others. We must also remember that the many staff of civil society and international non-governmental organizations are part of the fabric of helping those in need. These humanitarian workers often make the work of the UN possible, yet they often do not have the protection of UN compounds, nor do all have the visibility of the blue flag.

Sadly, it is true that the UN flag is not bulletproof, but neither is that of the Red Cross, nor the flags and logos of the many organizations working to address poverty, desperation, human rights abuses, and injustice.

Even if August 19th has passed, remember that humanitarian workers are in the field all year round, doing work to help others that most of us in Canada are either unable or unwilling to do.

Here are a few concrete actions to show your support:

1. Take a moment to actually read the next piece of direct mail that comes from an international cause.
2. Visit the websites of some of the Canadian organizations working to support international causes and consider making a gift online, to reduce their fundraising costs.
3. Read (or subscribe to) the press releases from the UN news centre to learn that the UN is more than just the security council and the General Assembly.
4. Remember, as I will, to mark on your calendar September 21, the International Day of Peace.

I am honoured to have worked within humanitarian organizations, and I have met some of the most courageous and impressive people who have given up so much to help others.

My hat is off to each of them.

The hygienist parable

What do we want when we visit the hygienist? Scaling, cleaning, fluoride…sure.

But I think that most people also want respect.

Yesterday, I sat down in the chair of a perfectly nice woman. She was middle aged, well dressed, silvering hair, and a welcoming smile. She is the new hygienist at my dentist’s office.

As my mouth was filled with gauze, water jets and that rude-sounding suctioning device, I was asked a few questions. Did I have any problems with my teeth. I shook my head “no.” Did I find it challenging to floss certain parts of my mouth. Again, no.

Then, the questions started to become more pointed and complex, and my responses of head shaking were insufficient (and thus I was rendered mute). The observations and related advice started to flow:

You should show me how to brush (with the clear but silent assertion that I was obviously doing it wrong);

The gaps between your molars are not being flossed well. (that is to say that there are areas of my mouth that I am clearly NOT flossing properly;

I’m sorry to tell you that I would characterize you as having gingivitis...and that is what I'll note in your file today. (the announcement of her findings for which I was being punished);

Finally, the medical community now recognizes the connection between oral health and heart disease. (add her tone, and the translation becomes: brush or death will come knocking)

The longer she spoke to me, the more patronizing her tone.

I didn’t get “lectured” about my sometimes less that perfect oral health, but I did get instructions as if I was an 8-year old. I started to resent her assumption that oral hygiene was the only thing that could possibly be of importance in my life. When she started to infer that my mild gingivitis was a “risk factor” for heart disease, I wanted to scream through the suction tube that I think my extra 40 lbs and my grandfather's aortic aneurysm were likely larger determinants in any early demise I may suffer.

The part that annoyed me was that I had gone into the dentist this time with pride. I had painstakingly developed a much improved daily schedule of brushing and flossing since my last visit, and I was really looking forward to a little praise for the diminished tartar build up.

However, as I said, she was new.

Her only perspective on my mouth was her current view, and a few cryptic notes and x-rays in my file that spoke of cavities, caps, and dates. My file, apparently, did not document the years of “soft reproach” I had received from the last hygienist that had led me to gradually adopt improved behaviors.

Finally, to seek some reprieve from this "treatment," I changed the subject by asking whether the admittedly very nice photographs in her room were her own.

This story, although true and a very recent personal experience, is a social marketing parable.

It reaffirms my opinions about trying to direct a person’s actions:

1. Don’t be overly paternalistic or maternal in your tone; even children like to be treated with respect.
2. Don’t assume that your message is the only important message in their life.
3. Be aware that if your audience is giving up something of value (or worse, PAYING) to listen, you don’t have carte blanche to say anything you like.
4. Give your audience a chance to respond.
5. Trying to scare your audience into action by giving them a worst-case scenario may be counter productive, especially if the link is tenuous.
6. Don’t be disingenuous: don’t disguise your message in a kind, friendly demeanor that only appears benevolent.
7. Ensure that your message reinforces existing good habits and actions.
8. Don’t focus on the negative exclusively.
9. Make sure that your audience research includes “soft” information and not only statistics and facts.
10. Don't make it so that your audience feels compelled to change the subject. (or flee!)

Who knew that a visit to the dentist could be so illuminating?

Subject: Water

More specifically, clean water.

For us Canadians living in the land of lakes, rivers, snow melt and glaciers, clean water is an assumption. Tap water is clean and almost free to most Canadians. Kayaking on Georgian Bay offered me the luxury of simply dipping my cup overboard to quench my thirst.

So what are the social marketing messages related to water? Conserve? Reuse greywater? Collect rainwater? Install a low volume toilet? A tuna can of water on your lawn each week?

Yes, these are all typical messages for Canadians to hear: important environmental messages.

However, the real message we need to deliver is not about water (ab)use in Canada, but about water scarcity for the rest of the globe. Access to water—let alone clean water—is a luxury for millions of people worldwide.

Few resources could be considered so important for humans (and all living things) and yet the scarcity of water in many places makes it more valuable per litre than gasoline.

The real social marketing message to Canadians should be encouraging everyone in Canada to participate in some way to provide clean water to those in developing countries who need it.

Water conservation is important, but access to clean water is a necessity.

Here is my shameless plug for worthwhile organizations to support:
Watercan, is a Canadian organization that is dedicated to water and sanitation programs overseas.
Charity:Water, with a very much dedicated program to potable water (as compared to the more typical water and sanitation efforts of many international aid organisations).
WaterAid, a UK-based global charity which can be supported in Canada through Engineers without Borders.

If your are buying bottled water in Canada, be sure to purchase EarthWater where 100% of net profits support refugee water programs run by the UN Refugee Agency.

As an aside for online marketers, Charity: Water has a strong online presence that is worth a visit. They have a web design that is welcoming, professional, and motivational. I particularly like the staff listing page because it allows supporters to put a face to the work of the organization.

Next time you have a drink of water, consider a way you can support an organization that makes it possible to quench another's thirst.

Between stimulus and response

"Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."
-VIKTOR FRANKL, Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, 1905-1997

Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, was describing how he was able to live through the hell of a Nazi concentration camp. He saved his humanity—and his own life—by choosing not to respond with aggression to the torture and the inhumanity to which he was subjected.

His is a remarkable and inspiring case of triumph and courage.

Most of us, thankfully, will never have to engage this “space” to seek our spirit’s freedom from cruelty. Nonetheless, when confronted with social ills and inequality, we each ought to consider Frankl’s words of wisdom as we prepare our response.

Social marketers need to be mindful of this almost imperceptible delay between stimulus and response. Marketing is the business of stimulating people into action and we want to be sure that we give our audience the stimulus in such a way as to allow for their moment of reflection to generate a positive response for the society in which they live.

All too often, marketing messages are delivered forcefully, graphically, even belligerently in the hope of shocking the audience into action. This approach appears even more common now than ever, as we are all competing for attention in the white noise of advertising.

Indeed the goal of most marketing is to expedite a response. We fear that our audience will become distracted and lose interest or conviction if they don't act immediately.

Our messages for positive social behavior need to cherish the space between stimulus and response. We need to cultivate the time for every audience member to allow them to consider their actions and behaviors such that their response can be sustained and can be adopted into their habit.

For social marketing messages, we need to generate this cause for pause.

Talking to your ex (donor)

After reading Jeff Brooks comments on “last notice” fundraising control packs, I feel compelled to add my voice.

As a designer, cultivator, and purveyor of direct mail for years I would celebrate when I could work with my colleagues to design a pack that could generate a 3-4% response rate from lasped (or even long-lapsed!) donors. If you are in the business of direct mail, you doubtlessly are nodding your head in agreement.

If you are a person living in the real world, you’re probably perplexed.

Maybe even shocked.

The corollary to a “spectacular” 4% response in this very difficult segment, means that you’ve effectively “lost” the other 96% of past donors.

Jeff is absolutely correct…there is a tendency to beat these non-responders over the head with the same message over and over again every time you feel like throwing the lapsed segment in the house control pack (or as a segment of the next prospect mailing).

In effect, this postal abuse means you are gambling with the organization’s credibility.

As a fundraiser, I was relatively “lucky.” I worked for an agency that helped the most disadvantaged on earth—refugees—and the best way to renew lasped donors was through an emergency appeal that dovetailed with some complex humanitarian global tragedy reported in the news. However, once renewed, this segment would often revert to dormancy until the next visible emergency. We were ambulance chasing for a good cause, using the horror faced by others to compel the reluctant donor into action.

As hard as I tried (sic), I was never able to successfully build an annual campaign of appeals out of humanitarian catastrophes; although there were sadly legitimate examples of human tragedy every time we mailed (Afghanistan, DRC, Haiti, Uganda, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Lebanon…) it was admittedly crass to continue to scream EMERGENCY on the front of every envelope. I know it was crass only because donors would tell me: in the unmistakable voice of no response. (and sometimes using our toll free number to make their opinion expressly clear to me!)

Fundraisers need to gracefully shepherd lapsed donors into the pasture once they have given what they wish to give. In my opinion, mailing them the same EMERGENCY or LAST CHANCE copy will do more damage than good. We all know that good opinions travel slowly, while anger, frustration, and annoyance spread in social circles like wildfire.

Everyone likes to complain; don’t give your ex-donors the ammunition to shoot your program in the back while you leave their home.

Of course, I don’t advocate simply walking away. The discipline of fundraising requires us to at least do our best to include donors in the annual program. All fundraisers will try to renew donors with a regular mailing schedule, using interesting and compelling and well tested copy. Seasoned pros will then try a personalized lapsed donor copy (or at least a tailored variable paragraph in your renewal appeal.) Some may even test this segment in the prospecting program, and determine response for both the prospecting control pack, or a new creative. Those with significant budgets may even try calling lasped donors to ask for their support, or to get a sense of why they have stopped responding.

Maybe your outgoing donors simply want something different from you. If you can give them online outreach, better program access, volunteer or staff visits, participation in the mission, invitations to special events, or some other form of engagement, then renewal may fall outside the realm of direct marketing. (and therein may lie the dormant major donor!)

If, however, your donors are ready to walk away, set them free. Keep their record as a memento of their generosity, and stop pestering them if they haven’t responded to your sincere multiple appeals.

Certainly don’t make them angry with belligerence or with volumes of the same package.

Leave the endless stream of “last chance” mailings to the credit card companies and the desperate, or those who have already lost their good name.

Donors: leaders or followers?

Ken Burnett has furnished fundraisers with the theory of relationship fundraising. For many, this noble concept has been degraded into a sort of formulaic and politically correct form of donor relations. Speak to your donors in their language. Take the advice of donors and adhere to it religiously. Treat your donors as your charity’s key audience.

The problem is that donors are NOT ALWAYS right.

(I can feel the awkward silence, and the glares of heresy. )

Donors are not the only group in a charity’s constellation of relationships: the actual beneficiaries (lest we forget), volunteers, staff, management/board, competitors, and suppliers must all be part of the equation when developing policy and programs.

On top of addressing the many stakeholder needs, some donors are seriously off the wall. I’ve managed donor expectations for large charitable organizations, and some of the recommendations (often stated as if requirements) are bizarre, some unethical, and many downright rude. Other recommendations are well intentioned, but underinformed. And some were real gems in the rough.

In my experience, ALL donors who offer their perspective are basing their comments on THEIR own experience—this is a human trait, admittedly—and we know that not all donors are the same.

For example, if someone says that they will only give online, that does not mean that all donors give online. (Editorial aside: In fact, studies and proper statistical analysis indicate that for most successful fundraising non-profits, receiving even 10% of annual revenue from online donations is considered real success)

In an increasingly competitive fundraising environment, any marketing professional is tempted to be swayed by the voices of individual constituents. Especially if they are the ones "caught" by the donor on the phone. Donors can be quite persuasive.

The problem is that individual comments, recommendations, and advice are not normally based upon universal truths, solid testing, or large enough sample sizes. As a colleague is fond of saying: advice is free, but good advice will cost you.

Having said this, donors are a valuable source of insight. Statistics on donor behavior drawn from various donor segments can be incredibly useful in defining fundraising strategy. If many donors offer the same advice, then chances are that advice is worth considering. Furthermore, SOME ideas proposed by donors may also be marvelous and worth testing. From my own experience, I offer a few words of suggestion on how to manage the advice given by the self proclaimed “donor leaders.”

First, don’t argue with the wingnuts. It will suck time out of your day, patience out of your demeanor, and your soul from your work. In spite of the intrinsic need to be nice to each and every donor, it is rare to actually get to the root of these donors’ concerns in a way that will appease them, let alone sufficiently motivate them to actually give.

Second, accept rational suggestions as credible, and employ them as a starting point to engage that donor. Discuss the relative merits of the new idea or suggestion and offer your perspective based on other donor comments, policy directions, and available funding. More often than not, the conversation you have, even if you collectively decide that the idea may not work out, will build a relationship with that donor that will lead to greater support in the future. This is my understanding (interpretation) of Ken Burnett’s relationship fundraising.

Third, don’t acquiesce to ultimatums. If a donor requires you (or your organization) to change to get their support, then they have the wrong organization. Tell them so, nicely, get off the phone, then call a major donor to say thank you for whatever they did recently. I believe that limited time is better spent with those who are partners, not adversaries.

Finally, be sure to test those ideas that “fit” the budget, policy and ability of the organization, before assuming that they are true. Seasoned fundraisers don’t actually KNOW what their donors (or prospective donors) will do until they ask their donors.

So, are donors the leaders of an organization? No, they must be followers of the organization’s mandate, policy and programs.

The “customer,” it would appear, is not always right.

Nonetheless, good fundraisers must keep their ears and eyes open to the possibility that donors may offer some useful insight and ideas, and all non-profit staff must have faith that donors, in general, want to see the charity succeed and most of the time their ideas are a plea to help in a constructive way.

Business for good, or only for good money?

A business that runs solely to generate a needed product or service for clients while compensating employees fairly and investing in modest growth? C'mon.

Why not?

It is about initial investment capital, really. To start a business needs seed money, and the model today is to “borrow” money from investors and then promise to give them a financial rate of return on that long term loan as the business grows.

But there are new philanthropic investors out there like Jeff Skoll, and new giving mechanisms like community foundations and donor advised funds. It is no longer impossible to "sell" a business model to an investor that doesn’t give them a financial return on investment, but rather gives them the social change that they want to see.

True, in order to get an investor for a social business, the business model must be sound, the entrepreneur has to be trustworthy and capable, and it isn’t simply a matter of asking for money from the world’s rich to invest in a good cause…it takes perseverance and a good deal of strategic thinking.

That sounds like the necessary preconditions for ANY business.

In Dan Pallotta’s excellent new blog, he indicates that early in their careers, young people face a choice: work for good, or work for good money. He notes that this paradigm is changing and Nell Edginton’s related blog commentary also notes the possibility that “despite lower salaries Generation Y is entering the nonprofit sector in higher numbers than previous generations.”

So, to summarize, we no longer have the best and the brightest of the new employment pool avoiding working in the social sector. We no longer have rigid barriers to accessing venture capital for social businesses. We no longer have the choice to ignore the desperate needs in our society—our global society—from poverty, to environmental degradation, to health care disasters (HIV, flu epidemics) to basics like access to clean water or protection of fundamental human rights.

Businesses have germinated with a lot less reason.

Oh, right, the only reason to start a business is to make money. Indeed, some bright commercial mind will design, market and produce garlic peelers, nose hair clippers, or cabbage patch dolls if money can be made.

The key point here is that historically business success is measured in LOTS of money, both for the senior staff and the initial investors.

However, it is possible to generate a business model that creates enough revenue to pay staff, overhead and suppliers that generates a social benefit rather than 100,000 new widgets and a $0.31 per quarter stock dividend.

This might sound like a charitable model, but notably, charities do not get the same sort of latitude enjoyed by commercial businesses. Charities do not typically have robust advertising and marketing budgets, nor salaries commensurate with market value, nor the ability to investment in multi-year projects without disbursement quotas, and they suffer from extreme risk aversion.

Charities, then, are not the best foundation for social business. They have too many constraints placed on them by law or by convention. But a not-for-profit company doesn’t necessary have to be a charity. It is a business. It operates in the business world. Investments, not donations.

The good news is that the day of the social business has arrived. It appears that there is a new hunger amongst qualified staff and investors; they want to see their efforts and money lead to LOTS of improvements in society rather than accumulation of wealth.

Why, then, are not-for-profit businesses so rare?

In a decade, I believe they won’t be.

The Informed Activist

In a recent blog post, Alexandra Rampy comes to the proud realization that she is an activist and that the key ingredient to being an activist is to “act.”

I agree wholeheartedly, but I also think that we need to apply Seth Godin’s advice in his blog post on the dangers of asking for something before we know what we actually want and before we have a sense of how our prospect will react to our request.

I recently had a conversation with a colleague about how exciting it is to work with senior high school and undergraduate university students on social issues. As a rule, these audiences are excitable, energetic, and full of idealism and (often) excellent ideas. Their excitement is infectious. Then, once they get supercharged on an issue, they have the time and enthusiasm to really do something: to really ACT.

…and act quickly, as they rarely have jobs/children/mortgages to temper their daily routines.

This haste and passion can quickly generate a room full of headless chickens.

To be clear…that isn’t good.

“Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks that it is his own.”--Sydney J. Harris.

In fact, wanton action is not only "amusingly arrogant," but is often counter productive to the social cause. Too many of the new recruits will re-invent the wheel and then feel frustrated as they watch it spin without traction.

When I first started my own company, I wanted to go out and conquer the world (and my fears!) with great social change brought about by skill and informed investment. However, the first step I took was to take it slow. I read widely about social marketing, re-affirming my knowledge and offering me new insights. I looked for competitors and collaborators, and then researched each of them before calling them. I went to job interviews, in part to practice my ability to pitch myself, and my services. I reflected on what I wanted to keep as my focus in the business, and in my life.

My personal reflection leads me to propose that before becoming a social activist, there are several important preparatory steps to take:

1. Research the history of your cause. Here is where the Internet makes a month of research possible in a few days (or weeks, once you find out how interesting social change can be!). Know at least a little about major milestones, current challenges, and a little bit about “the competing views” so that you can prepare your thoughts, arguments, and position. This also will identify opportunities for you to fill voids in the actions currently underway.

2. Know the lexicon. Labels, language and jargon are regrettably part of every field, cause or movement. In order to understand the issues, speak to your audience, or to colleagues, you will need a firm grasp about the words being used to describe theories, actions, and ideas.

3. Forget the lexicon. Once you know the jargon, try NOT to use it. This advice sounds argumentative, but your key public audiences will likely not have a glossary of terms to which they can refer when they hear about your action.

4. Research the experts. Learn about the leaders and key players in the field, if any, and know their interests. Contact them directly, if you feel that you have something to share with them, or if you feel they can help propel your ideas forward.

5. Start in a minor role. Don’t assume that you’ll be the champion of the movement right away. Chances are that there are many capable minds who have considered this cause their own for years. As a minor player, you can have a voice, and you can learn from the mentors in the field. It also makes the new activist credible.

6. THEN ACT.

Of course, many great activists have expedited this process, often out of necessity. For some, their gender or their ethnicity, or their social status or place in history allowed them to have implicit knowledge—or even personal experience—about the cause, the language and the relevant supporters, peers, or adversaries.

However, I contend that all successful activists will have considered, either implicitly or explicitly, the necessary preparation before they became truly useful to their chosen cause.

In the example of working with youth, then, the challenge is to bridle their enthusiasm with knowledge without extinguishing their flame; this is the only way for the new wave of activist to successfully guide their roles in social change.

Word of Mouth

Seth Godin Prediction: 90% of your sales will come from word of mouth or digital promotion by 2011. How do you change what you're doing today to be ready for that?

How does a charitable cause develop word of mouth promotion?
Web 2.0? Using the dizzying array of new tools?
Face to face? Facing the uncertainty of contract staff?
Door to Door? Regressing to the use of paid armies?
Events? Embracing sponsorship and crossing our fingers?
Perks? Invitations to the hockey game? Seriously?
Speaking tours? Overcoming time and travel constraints?
Viral campaigns? Using our donors to sell?
Something new? What can we do?

In the last decade, I’ve witnessed a series of trends in charities, all of which make the above list of “opportunities” less plausible:

1. The retraction of voluntary armies because of costs. Maintaining volunteers is not free. It requires dedicated staff time, the ability to support volunteers, and a vision of how to use volunteers to effectively to promote ideas and campaigns.

2. The decreased ability to afford travel in Canada. Travel budgets for charities are small. In a country the size of Canada, that means that it is very difficult to afford to pay for a staff member (or volunteer) to have a face to face relationship with anyone outside of the head office region.

3. Closure of regional offices to cut back expenses? Rent, computers, staffing, overheads. These are the inescapable facts of running an office in a region, and these costs increase with inflation and are a typical target in annual short term accounting which is required in most charities.

4. Lack of knowledge or even a fear of the speed of change in the online landscape? Facebook, according to the Washington Post, is a bad fundraising vehicle, but blogs may be required for fundraising communications and cultivation. Charities are in the business of helping address social needs, not mastering social media.

5. Minimizing staff costs? Charities are trying to shrink the HR budget. People are costly, anyone in business knows this. If charities can keep only core staff, then they can generate a better return on charitable investments…in the accounting office, at least.

6. Outsourcing donor relations work. Toll free lines, charitable processing, receipting are now typically being done by for-profit call centers and streamlined, high tech administration conglomerates. Again, this choice looks good on a spreadsheet, but how do you develop a one-to-one relationship with a donor through a third party administer?

So in a world where charities are paring down costs, word of mouth promotion is a costly proposition. How does one build and sustain relationships one-to-one, if that is the prediction of the future?

Charitable causes have been spoiled by relatively successful non-profit marketing through mass media, direct mail, and DRTV in the last decades. I’m sure some charities would challenge me on that assertion, but costs of acquiring and renewing donors in direct mail may seem expensive, but is a fraction of the costs of word of mouth acquisition without volunteer labour.

Many in the fundraising world will argue against Seth Godin, as direct mail revenues are not falling so precipitously as his prediction might suggest. Nonetheless, when I look at the behavior of anyone under 40 today with respect to their consumer choices, their philanthropic ventures or even how they carry themselves, they are influenced by peer pressure or very personalized marketing. Even advertising messages are trying to mimick a one-to-one relationship through personal testimonials, personality advertising, and very rarely through the mail, or even through email.

I believe Seth Godin's prediction, although I don’t agree on his timeframe. I honestly believe that charities need to work with their supporters to build more supporters. Viral campaigns work. There are various models out there: telephone pre-call, reminder call, followed by mailing a package of paper solicitations for donors to pass along to friends and family. Another is the “pass this email along.” Yet another is to develop “widgets” (little graphic identifiers with a hyperlink to a cause) for people to put on their webpage, Facebook profile, myspace page, or blog. All of these ideas are worth testing for charities.

And they should be tested today, not in five years, after direct mail acquisition and retention costs go through the roof.

Resources on film as a social marketing tool

As promised, here is an annotated list of websites that offer great resources on the use of film for social change:

www.voicesofhope.tv is the website of a film production company that is dedicated to “leaving a legacy within our lifetime.” It features information on documentary film making, actual clips, instruction on advocacy, and resources for social marketing campaigns.

www.dogooder.tv is like YouTube for causes. All the films are worth watching. There just isn’t the “noise” of junk on YouTube. www.linktv.org is another site where independent documentaries are broadcast online, along with the independent film channel at www.ifc.com and Wide Angle at www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle.

www.itvs.org is the Independent Television Service, which funds and produces films for public broadcasting. This site offers funding opportunities for independent film makers, offers some films for viewing online, and links to many independent broadcasters. Of note is the series they produced for PBS called Independent Lens www.pbs.org/independentlens

www.centerforsocialmedia.org is the excellent website of the American University Center for Social Media in Washington, DC. “Helping people make media that matters” is featured on the home page, and the site has many resources on web tools, legal issues, media planning and relevant events and conferences. The site assumes that media includes all forms of media, not only film.

www.workingfilms.org “Working Films advances social, economic, environmental and racial justice by linking independent non-fiction media to activism.” The good folks at working films are the lubricant between documentary film makers and partnerships with civil society organizations with the express goal of improving social justice.

www.activevoice.net This is a site that puts “a human face on public policy” through film. They also include discussion guides and suggestions on how to maximize the reach of film for social change. Of particular interest is the joint project with the Ford Foundation called “Beyond the Choir” which investigates the challenge of getting films viewed by a greater audience than the converted.

www.witness.org This is the website for Witness, an NGO that specifically works to document footage for use in documentaries and other media, in order to affect change in policy and opinion on international human rights issues.

www.takepart.com This is a site inviting socially minded individuals to act for the benefit of the social good in one of many causes. It is one of many social activist sites that features the use of video. Note also that there is an active blog on this site.

Here is a resource and reading list created by Roberta Osler Sachs in support of her course on “Producing Films for Social Change” at Tufts University.

www.projectthinkdifferent.org “Our mission is to create a renaissance in the media arts that increases civic engagement by empowering people to think differently and think BIG about their role as citizens and agents of change.” Based out of Boston.

www.spunout.ie is a youth oriented social action website based out of Ireland. It uses film to support various international causes from child labour to famine.

Here is a list of some of the most notable documentary films of history. A great place to start research on film titles.

www.johnpilger.com This site is the home of a Australian (now London based) documentary film maker and journalist. Although this site promotes his work (for sale), his commentary and experience on the use of documentaries to foment change is interesting. (if a bit socialist in tone)

Taking documentary films to the people

Last week, I was a guest of the Britdoc Foundation at The Good Pitch at HOTDOCs in Toronto, an event designed to allow documentary film makers, key decision makers in the charitable sector, media, funders and interested observers to meet in order to maximize the effectiveness of documentary films as a medium for social change.

As I’ve mentioned before documentary films offer thought provoking, incisive perspectives on some of societies global challenges (and oddities!), but too often these films “sing to the choir.” Their audiences are self selecting: this is a case of the educated simply reaffirming their knowledge and beliefs.

The challenge, then, is to broaden the scope of the audience.

Sounds like a social marketing challenge.

In search of an answer, I discussed the issue with Roberta Osler Sachs, a former journalist and producer at Dateline, NBC in the US. She lectures widely on the role of documentaries and media as tools for social change. The complimentary perspectives of a seasoned journalist and a charity alumnus generated the initial criteria necessary for what we dubbed “the modern documentary.”

First, we had to clarify the difference between advocacy films and documentaries. Advocacy films are normally sanctioned by an interest group and offer a compelling, yet fundamentally biased (or singular), perspective on an issue. A true documentary is an unbiased collection of facts that lead the film maker to “document” their findings without a pre-ordained point of view.

To summarize: in documentaries the message is distilled from the research and footage, and in advocacy films the footage and research confirm the message.

However, we humans are dreadfully flawed. Even the most altruistic among us will invariably have a perspective on an issue, and reinforce whatever perspective we believe to be the truth.

And therein lies the massive grey area in which, I argue, most documentaries exist.

Documentaries are not unbiased, and they direct a viewer’s understanding of an issue. Assuming this implicit bias to be true, then presumably the film maker would like to see something change as a result of their “findings.”

Roberta and I agreed that the landscape in which modern documentaries are being developed is changing, and changing rapidly. We felt there are several factors:

1. Peoples’ attention spans are shorter. A nine-hour epic documentary like Shoah (1985) would likely be a futile artistic endeavor in today’s world.

2. There is a sense of “tragedy overload” and that creates a changing landscape where many viewers want to avoid reality rather than learn more about the failings of humanity.

3. Nobody accepts one point of view. We have become a world of skeptics, who presume that there is an agenda behind every action. We know that the world is neither black nor white, but a million shades of grey and messages that don’t acknowledge both sides of a story may be quickly dismissed.

4. There is a rise in “citizen journalism.” Who needs a production team, a director, or an editor when we have the internet? Anyone with a handheld camera and a computer can document their perspective on the human condition. This is where the world of social media increases both the development and distribution of the sublime to the ridiculous. With this change, there is a demise in the use of some traditional media (especially newspapers!) and less reliance on funding sources, and arguably less focus on quality, and more on quantity.

5. Associated with shorter attention spans is the increased “noise” on issues. In order to compete with this information apocalypse, there is a literal and metaphorical miniaturizing of worthwhile messages; does truncating the content also marginalize the message?

To address this new world, the documentary needs to at least acknowledge these trends. Documentaries are the result of the vision, passion, conviction (and often bravery) of the film maker(s) and creative control must remain in their hands, but for the documentary to light a social spark, the audience needs to be consulted (or at least addressed).

Given our jaded analysis of the landscape, we propose a few features necessary for the success of the “modern documentary” in generating social change:

1. Give balanced options for action. The documentary must offer the audience a variety of activities as an outlet. The film experience can’t stop when the lights come up. The action doesn’t necessarily need to be a charitable toll free number for donations, but there must be a set of proposed actions for the newly informed. Not only does this propel the viewer to employ their newly discovered information, it also engages them, and makes the film more interesting as a holistic experience. The key to this is to present several, simple options: further reading, Third Sector partners, ways to contact decision-makers/government, directions to further discussions, or even alternative perspectives on the issue.

2. Segment the film. In marketing terms, audience segmentation refers to generating different messages or using different media to reach different audiences (by age, demographics, education, gender, etc). Documentary films, historically, are edited to be one length (with a possible trailer for marketing purposes), and shown on the big screen. The modern documentary ought to have several cuts featuring material for different audiences that are varying in length. For example, there may be a 5 minute children’s version, a 9 minute web version that can be downloaded to a portable media player for tweens and teens, a 23 minute (½ hour on commercial TV) version for the cable station audience, and the full 90 minute version for the big screen.

3. Integrate with other media. Documentary films don’t draw audiences by themselves. There needs to be a buzz about a film that generates a viral effect. This buzz can be accelerated by some creative blogging, media engagement, film festivals, interactive web content, online challenges or contests, petitions, or even marketing swag for the film: T-shirts, downloadable screen savers, signed scripts, etc. The purpose of the swag is not to generate revenue, but to generate audience ownership of the film’s brand. (the film title or a symbolic image needs to become cool in a kind of “alternative way,” like Hush Puppies, or the Sex Pistols)

4. Avoid advertorials or obvious advocacy films. Intelligent audiences want to be skeptical and criticize your art. Don’t give them an easy target. Encourage them think about all sides of the issue.

5. Embrace citizen journalism. If the movie is about the strength of women in adversity (keep an eye out for Resilience which is currently in production), then encourage viewers to submit their own stories about strong women in their lives. Let the viewer add their voice to the film’s message through “develop your own film for our site” campaigns. This is just one suggestion on how to encourage your viewers to become integral to the issue in your film. If you make it matter to them, then they will want to make it matter to others.

As a last note, I watched a film at HOTDOCs call Sergio, based upon the book Chasing the Flame by Samantha Power, which documented the dramatic life and death of one of the most extraordinary international citizens, Sérgio Vieira de Mello.

In doing my part to practice what I preach, I encourage you to view this film because it speaks about all of our responsibilities in a global society, the roles of the international actors like the US and the UN, and about the need to take risks to bring about social change. You can also visit this site to learn about ways in which you can participate in honoring Sergio’s legacy and speak your mind about the issues raised in the film. Or you can make financial contributions to support ongoing efforts to build peace through the international community here.

The big screen "documentary"

W.
JFK
Titanic
Charlie Wilson’s War
Frost/Nixon

Here’s a way to make documentaries sell:

Fictionalize them and pawn them off as a historical drama.

The audience won’t know what actually happened. Be sure to throw in some famous quotations, actual settings, and factual news headlines and the line between your fiction and reality will soon blur. Your audience will feel the heady rush of drama and they will naturally link their experience with what really happened. (or vice versa)

Historical fiction is a well respected and very entertaining genre in books, but when it gets promoted on the big screen, it becomes somehow more real.

Aside: I suppose it is ironic that a current movie star playing a historical role makes the characters become MORE real to the audience.

Nonetheless, movies allow our perception of historical figures to be no longer based upon a passage that we embellish with our imagination. Characters on film are flesh and blood…and invariably more handsome or beautiful than reality.

Most of us would accept that James Bond didn’t exist, as these films are pure fiction. Sure, some might argue that Mr. Bond was based upon Ian Flemming’s knowledge of the British Secret Service but the character has been fictionalized by superhuman feats of daring, courage, and amour –and recently a grittiness—that couldn’t possibly be real.

The danger, then, is not the film that uses exaggeration obviously to build drama. The danger is the film that exaggerates quietly between facts. The use of creative license allows for a retelling and possible reshaping of history, as long as there is enough truth to make the story plausible.

So how does this rant feature on a social marketing blog, you ask?

I’ve written already about the power of documentaries to affect social change, and it lead me to critically consider the more popular movies that recount (pun intended) history. People’s actions are actually informed by fiction. This is a worrying trend, and one that even I, too, found myself falling victim.

I watched W., directed by the respected and talented Oliver Stone (read: presumed credible), and I was entertained and outraged (read: smugly satisfied). I found myself feeling mad at the jealousy, arrogance and ignorance of the namesake character.

The problem is, I was tilting at windmills.

The character I watched may, or may not, have actually represented George Dubya. Sure, Josh Grobin looked and sounded like the former president, and I don’t doubt that some of the scenes may have been reasonable facsimiles of history, as drinking at college—even alcoholism—although unfortunate, isn’t uncommon in our society. Did he fall in love with Laura? Presumably. Was it at a garden party? Quite possibly. Did she go all doe-eyed when they met? Maybe. Was she always so supportive? We’ll never know.

When social marketers use media of any sort to share ideas, retell history, or package facts in such a way to engage an audience, we need to be mindful of the “silver screen” effect; that is to say, that we need to be sure to separate fact from fiction in the name of entertainment.

Packaging information to make it effective must not blur its truth.

Subject: Torture

This social marketing blog is an investigation of tools and messages for positive social change.

Most of my first postings have focused on tools for change, and rarely on the subject matter—the actual messages—that ought to be addressed by our society.

Today’s post represents a progress from theory to content:

Democratic societies are failing to eradicate the use of torture, and are now embracing it.

As a student of human rights and given a career working for international causes, I have come to begrudgingly accept that there are places in the world where despots and military dictators employ torture with impunity. The rights of so many are trounced by the privileged (or armed) few in Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Zimbabwe, Nigeria…

But I am ashamed to see torture—or more euphemistically, advanced interrogation techniques—now have become a necessity in our North American fight to protect our freedom.

Simply read through the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the documented role of the American government in sanctioning torture during the previous administration.

It is chilling.

Even Ronald Reagan, who is regarded by some as being responsible for significant aggression in US foreign policy (the Reagan Doctrine), was ardently against the use of torture for any purpose when, in 1988, he signed the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Although the full text of Reagan's statement is available here, I’ve copied the most relevant statement as follows:

"Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

Let’s compare this noble statement to the words of former VP, Dick Cheney, reported in Politico, Feb 4, 2009 and quoted in the Red Cross report:

"If it hadn't been for what we did—with respect to the...enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees—then we would have been attacked again."

And the most discouraging fact? Virtually everyone knows that torture yields confessions or information that is unreliable at best, and a lie at worst. Even the US military! Note the following quotation, given at a Department of Defense News Briefing with Deputy Assistant Secretary Stimson and Lt. Gen. Kimmons from the Pentagon on September 6, 2006:

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that."

We are living in an oxymoron. The more freedoms we curtail in the name of security and self preservation, the less freedom we have. We are living in the protected, relatively safe confines of our own rules, and now we are breaking our own rules.

Here are five ways that you can help ensure that we don’t become victims of ourselves:

1. Remain informed of human rights issues through one of the following organizations: Amnesty International , the Canadian Centre for International Justice , Human Rights Watch, and Relief Web.

2. If something that is said in the political arena makes you feel uncomfortable, contact your member of parliament for more information.

3. Visit this site to learn more about the positions of your MP on the discussions and votes in parliament. They are speaking for you.

4. Read “around” the current media by searching online for different perspectives. Consider using the Google “Alerts” function to amass news postings on key words and have the links sent directly to your inbox.

5. (Re)visit the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights to remind yourself of the basic human rights, and to reflect on the value of those rights in your life, your career, your community and your family.

Note particularly the following articles:

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Torture is unecessary, ineffective, unjust and cruel.

The use of torture for any reason belittles us all.

To document with a purpose

I am quite sure that every documentary film maker wants to believe that through their work they will change the world. They are the self-proclaimed editors of truth.

One could argue that the “raison d’etre” of a documentary film is to expose a set of facts that will leave the audience with an innate desire to change the status quo; it is not just to document, it is to document with a noble purpose.

Journalists, at least in their idealistic days, wish to do the same. So do communications staff members at non-profit organizations. Perhaps even altruistic politicians.

The skill of external relations is to craft the facts to effectively capture the attention of the audience and have them believe and embrace the importance of the message. But the documentary film has a special place in the marketing tool box, as it draws upon a certain air of authenticity and truth. It is not blatant spin doctoring. It is narrated by a confident, trustworthy voice. It is the antithesis to advertising.

Yet its goal is the same.

Sadly, for most people, documentary films represent the offspring of an elite subculture, reserved for the “repertory cinema” intellectual literati. Documentaries are the non-fiction of the film world, where the often unpleasant facts are put on display to make us THINK. On the other hand, the vast majority of Western citizens live in a culture of escapism where films—or more often movies—offer the sanctuary of brain candy.

It seems we only take notice in extraordinary cases, when documentary films merge with pop culture: An Inconvenient Truth, Supersize Me, The Killing Fields, Bowling for Columbine, When We Were Kings, The Last Waltz, Koyaanisqatsi, to name a few. I suppose that pop culture adds a sort of “everyperson” appeal, and this might explain why narrators of documentaries are chosen from the ranks of celebrities: Al Gore, Michael Palin, Morgan Freeman, and Sir David Attenborough (who narrates 98 titles, by one count!).

And of course, we take notice when documentary meets technology at the IMAX if only for the sheer spectacle of the natural world.

But in truth, the documentary film is an artform that spans from the 15 second news story to the 30 second public service announcement, to the hour long expose, to the multi episodic “period pieces” that recount a chapter of history.

These works of art are very effective tools for social change.

The crafting of these visual essays makes them remarkably accessible to most. Of course, it is challenging to fund and then market documentaries in a crowded media environment, but if done well, the documentary is an edited visual synopsis through which a social problem or story can be described succinctly.

The pages of ink to accomplish the same would defeat all but the most avid reader. Although fine art, dance and other art forms may also have the ability to convey these messages, they are even more rarified and subject to (mis)interpretation by the viewer.

The challenge, then, is to bring to a wider audience the documentaries that are made. There are literally hundreds of thousands of documentary films that fade into obscurity. Even from a list of the most highly acclaimed documentaries, only a handful of titles might be recognized by anyone but a film buff.

However, in today’s world, the documentary has a new life. You can download documentaries from the web, they are available on social networking sites, and streaming videos are commonplace on cause specific sites now that the constraints of dial-up access are all but lifted. (see a forthcoming blog from jonsview describing sites that are effectively helping to promote social causes through film and video)

The real issue, then, is that documentaries must be part of a marketing mix.

By themselves the film may be extraordinary, but its success in fostering social change relies on getting reviewed, promoted, marketed to and viewed by right audiences. Films need to be buttressed by speaking tours, posters, online campaigns, festival screenings, media releases, public viewings, blog “buzz,” email broadcasts and other marketing streams.

Of course, to know which streams to use, we need to test each stream for its relative effectiveness.

In the spirit of supporting integrated marketing efforts for documentaries and testing the value of face-to-face pitches, I invite all who are interested in human rights causes to join me at The Good Pitch at HOTDOCS on May 7th in Toronto.

At this public forum, producers and directors of five human rights documentaries will be pitching their work to an audience of non-profits, foundations, governments representatives and others in order to generate new audiences, new marketing opportunities, and to foster discussion on the cause of human rights.

Documentary films provide the intersection between austere facts and necessary response.

No wonder they offer such potential for change.

The role of personality in messaging

How necessary is it to ensure that social marketing messages are delivered with personality?

As a society, it seems we are attracted to and want to associate with personalities: the rich and famous, the funny, the beautiful, and the flawed diamonds…those who demonstrate human characteristics that have been tempered by extraordinary “presence” or skill.

The question, then, remains: Do we need to feel some sort of attraction to the messenger for us to listen to the message?

The success of peer-to-peer or viral marketing efforts appear to underline the inherent value in messages received from a trusted source, or at least a real person.

Certainly, in fundraising, monthly donors are being acquired on the street all over the world—from Australia to Europe to North America—for well known organizations based upon human interaction with (ironically) paid-to-be-friendly solicitors. The same success has been found in the last several decades with the explosion of “a-thons” where participants in a charitable event (golfing, running, walking, biking, fasting…) solicits the financial support of friends, family, and colleagues.

We also can presume that any of us are more likely to pay more attention to family or friends, and possibly change our behavior(s) based upon those peer or blood relationships.

But what about the danger of the cult of personality? If the message becomes synonymous with the personality who represents it, will the marketing remain effective if the person leaves the cause, does something that is out of keeping with the message, or passes away? What about the future of the David Suzuki Foundation without David Suzuki? Would such a scenario mirror the decline in awareness about USC after Lotta Hitchmanova’s death?

Perhaps the fear of linking charitable purpose with a person has lead the charitable sector intentionally to use sterile and "mission" language in official correspondence, while fundraising appeals are laden with often applied personality. By this, I mean that the copy is written by a professional to sound personal, and then it is “signed” by a significant person—a director, a celebrity, a benefactor—as if it were there own words.

In the quickly expanding world of social media, it is clear that we will all “listen” online to very personal accounts: blogs like this one, tweets, Facebook updates, etc.

Look at the success of the ING banking advertisements with that quirky individual whose name we don’t know who simply states “Save your money.” This message is certainly delivered with personality.

My conclusion, then, is that social causes--even at the risk of fostering a cult of personality--should use more genuine personality in their attempts to get a point across in order to foster behavior change.

In a world of spin doctors, political correctness, and communications theories, maybe we just need to feel that behind the message, there is true conviction, belief, and honesty.

Maybe we need to know that social causes are championed by the true flawed diamonds among us.

The Matching Law

“Stated simply, the Matching Law suggests that an animal's response rate to a scenario will be proportionate to the amount or the duration of positive reinforcement delivered.”

Initial research to support this law was done with pigeons, where two buttons would dispense food at different rates as the birds pecked them. Over time, the pigeons would peck more frequently on the button that dispensed more food. In fact, over several tests, the numerical analysis led to a mathematical relationship between the amount of food dispensed and the relative frequency that the more lucrative button would be pressed.

In 1970, one of the founders of this law, Herrnstein paraphrased the importance of this principle by stating: “choice is nothing but behavior set into the context of other behavior” which has since been extrapolated to mean that behaviors can be predicted…and thereby challenges the concept of free will.

In social marketing, we’d love to be able to predict behaviors.

But whereas this law defines a principle that applies reliably in non-human subjects, humans tend to be an anomaly. We don’t always act in a way that is mathematically based upon any objective measure of increased benefit to ourselves.

Perhaps it is that concept of free will that explains why humans—especially in our society of individual rights—do not respond reliably: we desperately want to apply free will to our every action. As a result, we respond to scenarios irrationally, at least according to the Matching Law.

To explain our inefficient response to the natural trend towards maximizing benefit, perhaps we should turn to Dr. Robert Deutsch. He is a cognitive anthropologist and one of the leading strategists on how the mind creates beliefs and how beliefs can be influenced. He is known for saying, ‘Data or attributes are not the issue. The mind evolved to act, not to think.’"

In effect, humans develop a response to new information by both rational logic, and emotion. This may seem self evident, but it is important to recognize that emotion and intangible factors—not information—is what makes us respond in unpredictable ways.

The field of Behavioral Economics, which debates the reasons for economic choices made by humans, is closely related to this discussion. Just as in social choices, humans often make economic decisions that are not rational. Is a brand name dish soap really more effective at cleaning? Is business class really that different? We develop irrational perceptions that there is a difference based upon intangible factors.

In social choices, we also act irrationally, or perhaps we cloud our thinking by applying extra (often unrelated) information or feelings: Fear? Inertia? Laziness? Lack of trust? Group association? Peer pressure? Does it matter to me right now?

Social marketers must not disregard the science behind the Matching Law, but work to understand the influence of emotion and intangible (irrational) factors that truly guide our audiences’choices and behaviors. In a world where social communications from social causes are replete with facts, we almost need to forget about communicating the FACTS and focus on communicating with emotion.

Biologically speaking, facts should elicit a rational change in behavior, but now we know that facts are wantonly insufficient: emotional response is the key to effective behavior change.

What do donors need to know to support effective change?

This IS NOT a question for charitable fundraisers to answer.

What donors need to know is already within them: what do they want, what do they need, and what questions should they ask of the charity fundraisers?

Let’s say that a woman in her 50’s finds herself with a lifetime of savings, relatively few expenses and humble consumer behaviour. Sadly, she has just lost her husband, and with his passing, she has been awarded proceeds from a significant life insurance policy, and his pension from 30 years of work is now to be transferred to her in the coming years.

After a time of grief and loss, she feels strongly that she would like to share what she considers to be considerable wealth with worthwhile causes.

But where does she begin?

Let’s presume that her philanthropic intent did not just begin; her first thought is to increase her annual contributions to the charities she already knows. The local food bank, her church, she sponsors another child overseas may all receive increases. But is that necessarily the best course of action? What about all the other worthwhile causes?

Does the donor now collect all the direct mail that lands on her doorstep to make an informed decision? This is one way of surveying the charitable landscape in Canada, but there are a few more useful resources. Of course the first stop might be the Canadian Revenue Agency where you can search registered charities by type, name or other criteria. This list is only registered charities. But what of churches, service clubs, universities, individual scholarship options or UN Agencies like the UN Refugee Agency ?

More resources are available on the web, but every donor’s first place to start should be self-reflection. Social Delta offers a good resource of questions to begin this contemplation.

Once the donor has assessed what type of organization they want to support, and through what means, and what they will need in the way of recognition, and other preferences, they can then investigate the organizations that meet their criteria.

Of course, they should consider the capacity of the organization to responsibly accept their money. Malcolm Burrows offers an excellent resource to help donors ask the right questions of the charity.

Charity has become a remarkably passive activity in recent years. Donors respond to charitable requests in the mail, on the phone, on TV, on the internet, in the workplace, or from friends who sit on Boards.

These charitable requests are being informed by the fundraisers, and are laudable approaches, but when donors take an active role in INVESTING in charities, then they are likely going to apply a robust research strategy to ensure that their gift is used in the most responsible, efficient, and effective programs to help others.