Not-for-profit labels vs community benefit
Labels have power. Marketers and medical practitioners know this fact. For marketers, a name can conjure up a brand and all that is associated with it, for example, sporting prowess or luxury. Marketers know people purchase a particular label, for what the name represents. Porsche doesn’t just make a good car or Dior make a fragrance; we enjoy. These brands are associated with luxury and not just luxury in its broad sense but niched even further to attract particular customers. It is the associations that make customers buy.
The power of naming is also known in the medical field. In the mental health area, up until the 80s, people were often defined by their medical diagnosis. A person who experienced schizophrenia was known as a schizophrenic and was seen as the diagnosis rather than the person. One of the most powerful examples of this were the Rosenhan experiments conducted by Dr Rosenhan between 1969 – 1972. Dr Rosenhan, a psychiatrist, sent twelve people with no mental health illness into psychiatric hospitals. All twelve participants in this experiment were diagnosed with a mental health condition and admitted to the hospital, and the hospitals never realised a misdiagnosis had been made. Such is the power of names and labels.
DOES THE LABEL NOT-FOR-PROFIT MATTER?
If the power of labels and names is recognised in marketing and medicine, is it time to change the labels of not-for-profit organisations?
In broad terms, not-for-profit refers to how the organisation is set up for tax and regulatory purposes. As a not-for-profit, any surplus has to be used for service delivery to clients rather than bonuses to staff or shareholders. However, there are good reasons why the not-for-profit sector should re-brand itself as the sector for community benefit.
Let’s consider some of these reasons.
1. MINIMAL MINDSET
The term “not-for-profit” begins with a negative. In marketing and branding, you would never start with a negative. The aim is to create desire, whether pizzas, perfumes, cars, or kitchenware. Starting with a negative creates an oppositional mindset—the not-for-profit sector against what is ‘not’.
The challenge with an oppositional and minimal mindset is that it can act as a blinker to what may be possible.
EXPANDING OUR MINDSET
To consider what may be possible requires us to develop different perspectives to what we usually consider. We have to shift from a minimal mindset to a mindset that allows for possibility, creativity, and that spark of imagination.
HOW CAN WE EXPAND OUR MINDSET?
One way to expand our mindset is to develop connections with marketers and brand consultants. This is something we are often reluctant to do for two reasons.
WE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO SELL TO US
We often avoid building relationships that would be beneficial to ourselves personally and our organisations because we are afraid we will be “hit up” for money.
Certainly, marketers and brand consultants have to make a living just as staff in the not-for-profit sector; however, many brand consultants and marketers also want to contribute to organisations that are making a social difference. Many organisations are seeking to build their social engagement. As a social and community-based sector, we can build these relationships that allow marketing and branding organisations to contribute. At the same time, we benefit from seeing things from different perspectives.
THE TRAP OF ‘BUSYNESS’
This is the other reason we are reluctant to develop business relationships outside what we do. The increasing demand for services, particularly over the past two years, with the impact of COVID, means we often experience a sense of guilt if we take time out to do things that are not directly related to service delivery and meeting client needs.
The challenge with busyness is that we keep doing the same thing with diminishing returns as we become tired and exhausted. Many within the not-for-profit sector develop hero complexes to the detriment of their mental health and physical wellbeing. We need to step back. Stepping back and learning to see things from a different perspective allows us to develop and expand our mindset.
We can move from what we are not to what we are for.
2. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
Money is a big issue for many not-for-profit organisations. How to use the funds they have effectively, attract more funds; secure government grants and contracts, and build more philanthropic funding streams.
In reality, the term “not-for-profit” is a misnomer because all not-for-profit organisations need to make a profit to remain viable. Not-for-profit organisations that run into deficits will close just as for-profit businesses will close if they have debts.
The challenge of thinking “outside the box” in terms of attracting new sources of revenue for not-for-profits is one of the reasons it is essential to expand our thinking and see things from different perspectives rather than falling into the trap of minimal thinking.
3. IF “NOT”, WHAT?
Given the power of labels, isn’t it time to change the label of “not-for-profit” organisations? Time to change labels from “not” to what the sector is for, for example, the Community Benefit sector.
The not-for-profit sector is about community benefit. The Australian Charities & Not-for-profit Commission has 60,000 organisations listed throughout Australia and over 80,000 programs providing services to people and communities.
Some organisations have branded themselves by what they are for rather than remaining with the term “not-for-profit”; however, these are only a few. The majority revert to using the term not-for-profit or nfp.
Perhaps given the importance of organisations providing support to individuals and communities in 2022, we should be more concerted in changing the label from nfp to CBO’s – community benefit organisations.
- Published in ethics, Not-For-Profit
The Ethics of Nudging
Previously, we have emphasised the importance of organisations having a policy on the ethics that guide their marketing. What are the ethical guidelines around nudging, particularly if it is for a client’s benefit?
- Published in ethics, marketing, Psychology
Wokeness & your Brand
In January this year, Mars, the makers of M & M, announced they were redesigning their M & M’s for a more progressive and inclusive world.
- Published in ethics
Preparing for Metaverse
The last major technology shift was from desktop to mobile, the next evolution will be from mobile to metaverse.
App Tracking Transparency & Search
Apple has impacted the advertising business with the introduction of App Tracking Transparency (ATT).
The Ethics of your Marketing Strategy
Value Creation via NFTs
In April 2021, we wrote about the increasing awareness of NFT technology after Mike Winkelmann sold an NFT for artwork at an eye-watering $69 million. Since then, the use of NFTs has been expanding from the art world into areas unforeseen seven months ago.
The Creeping of AI
The world of AI is here and impacting our lives and influencing decisions in ways we do not consider. The only attention we give to AI is when there is an exciting breakthrough that makes the news or we watch another TV series with scenarios of an AI apocalypse, yet AI impacts us every day, from what we see on social media, to what ads pop up as we scroll through Instagram, to the speeding fine we receive. It is all determined by AI.
What is AI?
AI is a computer program that uses complex code and processors to sift through massive amounts of data to make decisions and take actions. It is more accurate to speak of artificial intelligences (AI’s) because countless different programs fall under the umbrella of AI.
From the world of online dating, shopping to dealing with government departments, AI is becoming increasingly popular. In marketing, AI is being used to target advertising to people based on their past and present shopping and browsing preferences. Based on this data, predictive algorithms make inferences about choices we are likely to make in the future. It is estimated that these algorithms drive 35% of what people buy on Amazon and 75% of what they watch on Netflix.
Is AI as neutral and objective as we think?
The codes and processors that sift through a large amount of data are known as algorithms, which are the set of rules the computers follow to process the data and arrive at conclusions. The algorithms follow the mathematical objective set by the designer. AI decisions are often viewed as the result of neutral, objective technology and therefore superior to decisions made by people.
The reality is that AI is, from start to finish, the product of human choice and decisions that are influenced by human biases, shaped by human values, and prone to human errors. This means AI is only as good as the data used to train it. If the data is incorrect, biased or of poor quality, the decisions and actions taken by the AI will also be inaccurate, biased and of poor quality.
Centrelink’s Robo-Debt system is a clear example of an assumption about the correctness of decisions made by AI despite evidence of the actual harm it was causing to people.
The recent investigation by US lawmakers into Facebook and other platforms use of algorithms to push emotional and toxic content that amplifies depression, anger, hate and anxiety is further evidence that algorithms are not the ethical neutral, objective technology we may have assumed.
Every automated action on the internet, from ranking content and displaying search results to offering recommendations, is controlled by computer code written by engineers who are often white, well-educated and affluent [12].
An example of this is in the employment area, where AI technology is utilised in hiring decisions. Men are often chosen over better-qualified women because of the program’s embedded gender bias, which AI reinforces [13].
Ethics and AI
AI will continue to impact our lives and the decisions we make. Hence the question is how AI can be used ethically and in ways that add value instead of being used destructively as in Robo-debt.
- Structural changes
Organisations developing and implementing AI need to ensure that the teams developing the program represent the wider community. This means having equal representation of women, people who have disabilities, and people from diverse cultural and economic backgrounds involved in program design to combat the unconscious biases when white, middle-class, educated males set algorithms.
- Accountability
Who is accountable for automated decisions, and who are they responsible to [14]? It is easy for the algorithm makers or the decision-makers who decided to implement an AI program to blame “the system”. However, as outlined in this article, the “system” has been generated by people who have biases, assumptions, and beliefs.
Companies like Google have established principles for ‘responsible AI” to guide their practices, including considering issues like fairness, privacy, and security [15]. AI systems also need to be accountable to the end-user, that is, people who are affected by the decisions taken by the AI program. These decisions need to be easily explainable to the end-user; otherwise, the result will be an increase in distrust and a sense of alienation.
- Remedy
When AI makes the wrong decision, there should be a transparent remedy process for affected people. As demonstrated with Robo-debt, the impact on people’s mental health when they feel they are battling an impersonal algorithm can be immense.
Technology is never neutral. While AI can make our lives easier and streamline our choices, we need to ensure that how AI is being used is inclusive and builds communities rather than alienating because of unconscious biases or assumptions in how programs are developed.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news [2] ibid [3] https://theconversation.com/ethics-by-numbers [4] https://theconversation.com/how-marketers-use [5] ibid [6] https://theconversation.com/ethics-by-numbers [7] https://www.abc.net.au/news [8] ibid [9] ibid [10] ibid [11] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles [12] https://www.abc.net.au/news/ [13] ibid [14] ibid [15] ibidGame Theory
Businesses use to have one objective, to make a profit. It was comparatively simple; make a profit, keep shareholders happy, and issues about climate, carbon footprint and social responsibility were ignored, or at least of lesser importance than profitability.
- Published in ethics, marketing, Psychology, Workplace