The History of Brands and What It Means for Nonprofits

One of my favorite Twitter content providers Jerry Michalski (@jerrymichalski or www.sociate.com) posted a simply awesome link last night about the history of brands. Check out the video by German ad firm Scholtz & Friends.

The basic point is this. Brands used to:

• compete in a world of fewer choices
• be able to take advantage of one-to-many media like television to connect with
• mass market audiences

Brands now:

• compete in a world of phenomenal choice, in which
• a large percentage of consumers report feeling bombarded or overwhelmed by brand messages,
• tend to listen to their friends more than advertising (i.e. trust in advertising has gone down), and
• can instantly replace an unfulfilling brand experience with a better one

What does this mean for social entrepreneurs and the nonprofit sector? A whole lot.

I think that mass media humanitarianism began with the Nigeria-Biafra civil war in the late 1960s. Not only was it the conflict that inspired Bernard Kouchner to split from the Red Cross and found Doctors Without Borders, it was the first time that Americans had seen images of starvation streamed into their living room. Citizen's relief movements - faith-based and secular - formed in an attempt to deliver aid to the Biafrans.

Importantly, the Biafrans were the first rebel movement to seize upon the power of media and brand to make their case to the world. Militarily they didn't have much of a chance against the Nigerians, and Pan-African sentiment was against them. Their only chance was to brand the tactics of war used against them "genocide," the "genocide brand" ostensibly forcing the international community to step in.

A few years later, George Harrison held the Concert for Bangladesh; a decade later the first Live Aid was held. Along the way, international development and humanitarian relief organizations learned how to brand themselves as the answers to global tragedy. Sally Struthers and Walter Coppage became part of the brand we associated with doing good. But these brands became successful in the old context, televised one-to-many appeals and a sense that institutions, not average citizens were the way to have an impact on global issues. They also tended to reinforce the deficiency, helplessness, victimhood and other-ness of their "beneficiaries."

Obviously the times have changed. Emotional appeals that appeal exclusively to guilt and superlative horrors ("the worst humanitarian crisis") have lost some of their ability to inspire action. CARE, MSF, and Save The Children are not the only games in town (although in many cases, still the best way to support global emergency relief), and as people find more fulfilling, engaging, impacting experiences with organizations like Kiva, it puts pressure on the whole sector to adapt.

I believe this is a good thing. Nonprofits now have the opportunity (and to some extent, the necessity) to build their brands around demonstrable impact and stakeholder engagement. Measurement matters more than ever, but so does finding the right strategies to get people engaged. And more than ever, a vision of the world as a series of partnerships where all boats can based on talent, capacity, and new opportunity has more emotional resonance than poverty alone.

I keep coming back to something from "A User's Guide to 21st Century Economics" by Umair Haque. It sums up the difference as simply as possible:

"In the 20th century, marketing was the pusher of a consumption addiction: Madison Ave's game was to create perceived value by "differentiating" the same razors, blades, and toothpaste. At the Lab, we've found that companies who create perceived value are significantly less profitable and more vulnerable than companies who are rethinking marketing to create real value."