Nathaniel Whittemore of Social Entrepreneurship (http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/the_good_the_bad_the_ugly_a_chase_postmortem) titled dubbed his wrap-up of this contest “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” and suggested that the negatives run from “bad taste to fraud.”
And the winner is...
It’s true that Chase (and its corporate philanthropy department) had little to do with the selection of the winner and that the winners were selected–not unlike American Idol–based on their “sexiness” and their ability to draw voters in. They were rewarded, therefore, not for the merits of their organization but for their ability to drum up exposure. (Surely, this is an important skill for non-profits to have, but it does smack of pageants based 90% on beauty and 5% on talent and 5% on the ability to answer the judges’ queries about what they’d do to save the world.)
Still, this contest DID end happily for a lot of organizations–and not just the winners. Hundreds of non-profits were SEEN through this promotion. They reached audiences who now know their name. So, even though Chase didn’t give to support their causes, someone will!
Likewise, many younger and smaller non-profits learned a valuable lesson: only the strong and visible survive. We sometimes make the mistake of thinking of non-profits as wholly altrustic entities which should ALL survive for they ALL do good things. In truth, charities have to compete just like their for-profit counterparts. Contests like this reinforce the truth that in order to stay in “business,” non-profits must have a well-conceived strategy, a compelling message, AND the means to convey that message to the right audience.
This contest has been a hot-button topic around the Corporate DevelopMint water cooler this week so I look forward to hearing how those consultants “on the street” feel about the conclusion of this effort.
But your final point is, in my mind, exactly what is wrong with the non-profit sector. You can have a great-sounding strategy (i.e. plan), concoct a brilliant message, communicate it incredibly effectively, and still be lousy at generating results and change for the people you’re supposed to benefit.
The NPOs that survive shouldn’t be those with the best PR firms; they should be those that make the biggest difference. This is a huge problem, and contests that play on that reality are not helping.
Excellent comment, Mike, and thanks for joining the discussion. I think you are absolutely right that some of the best organizations with the best opportunities to make a huge difference often go overlooked because either their voice isn’t loud enough or their cause isn’t sexy enough.
A colleague passed on this story about Nicholas Kristof (and his book, HALF THE SKY) who was amazed and disheartened upon returning from a nightmare experience in Africa (where no one seemed to be responding to pleas for help) to New York where the whole city rallied behind relocation efforts of, that’s right, a bird. Check out his response and suggestions for how to make less-than-sexy causes get the attention they deserve here: http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200912/nicholas-kristof-philanthropy-advice-1.html
Thanks again for your feedback. Come back and visit any time!
I completely understand and support the thought that the BEST NPOs should be the winners, but unfortunately, that isn’t always how corporate support looks at their big picture. For corporations, much like many donors, their key issue is not only what aligns with our mission/vision, but also where and how we are going to get the most bang for our buck.
I believe that Chase opened a door and while it may not have been perfect, they were the first ones to REALLY blow the doors wide open on Corporate use of philanthropy in social media in this manner. Very few organizations, people or corporations are perfect their first time out of the gate. It takes making mistakes and learning from them to continue to improve. It is my hope that people take the incredible good that came out of this and keep making it better.
The bottom line that I feel it is important for us to remember is that corporations are donors too. There is someone within that corporation making a decision on where and how and why and to whom to give their money away. We don’t always like or agree with a donors decision, but it is still theirs to make.
Again, Chase could have certainly done this differently and had few people with disgruntled feelings at the end of it. I can only hope that they will do it again and do it better.