Discussion Board
Chapter 4
The BCOS factors are comprehensive, but I think they encourage paternalistic thinking on the part of the marketers, which may alienate the audience. The audience’s perception of the costs, benefits, others and self-efficacy potential varies according to highly personal factors that often come into play at the market segmentation/product positioning/targeting stages (e.g. socialization, culture, and values). Effectively, I believe more concern for cognitive/affective dimensions of how the audience conceptualizes the BCOS factors for greater effectiveness in creating “mutually beneficial want-satisfying products”. I recently read about the Chinese dog meat festival, which has cultural and other value to the locals, but would seem unconscionable to me, but I think a campaign against this must bear in mind the culture and people’s cognitive conceptualizes of the BCOS factors.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is an interesting idea, absolutely. If however, have a sneaking feeling that non-profits mostly “operate” at higher levels of the pyramid. I feel that donating to a charity, giving blood, standing up against animal cruelty, or even getting into shape fall above the social needs level. I I am a marketer looking to get funding, it therefore means non-profit marketers ignore audiences struggling with more basic needs because it should take plenty of commitment to move people from the lowest level to a level where they can give $15 to a dog charity. Then again it works, because it helps me to target audience e.g. with certain level of incomes and education, etc, making my work easier.
Ehrhardt: I agree with you, to the extent that price falls under the costs (especially since in non-profit marketing the price i.e. its strict market application is not as common as say donation, support or action) and it would be slightly misleading as a category because it is too specific. I however, think Maslow’s hierarchy has value because it explains the value of the BCOS factors to the marketer. For instance, a homeless person's understanding of food and safety is different from a billionaire’s, and I think Maslow’s hierarchy adds such insight.
Dorsey: That must have been difficult for you, and sadly, it appears to me that BCOS factors are effective in influencing behaviour except that the benefits (product aspect of the marketing mix) were not up your expectations. They anticipated your needs and expectations and manipulated you into changing your behaviour. This also points to the need for managers with higher level of understanding, as they will be capable of creating a great marketing mix, to satisfy the market’s needs.
Chapter Five
The justification for marketing research is sound, and it is without doubt that any organization’s success is heavily dependent on its ability to continually identify and meet its market’s needs and expectations. It establishes a communication between the organization and key stakeholders, which is vital in decision-making. Other than the seven myths, I feel the most important factor for failure to conduct, which underlies all these myths is a poor organizational culture. This comprises numerous aspects including structure, communication channels, mission/vision, values, history, internal regulations and decision-making processes. In one firm, a marketing manager may want to conduct research, but the finance department and other decision-makers would fail to approve it, for non-marketing reasons. In another organization, the marketing department may have its own budget and therefore becomes easier. The culture is a collective organizational mind-set, which informs many of the decisions that managers make, which in turn leads to the seven myths contemplated by Andreasen & Kotler (2007). Organizations with more robust cultures, allowing for experiemntation and autonomous decision-making by managers, etc, would encourage more research. Further, I think some non-profits are overly structured around their core businesses as against marketing, and therefore, the value of marketing to them is perceived as low.
Ehrhardt : I feel similalrly, except I am convinced the problem lies deeper than that. I believe the issue is the organizational culture. I have had of firms such as Apple and Google (while not non-profits or small), which have cultures that demand a lot from its members, and I don’t think such myths can be allowed to thrive.
Spencer: Using existent research is a great idea, but in my experience, I have found that high quality market research by firms such as MarketLine/Datamonitor, Euromonitor, and Nelson’s is often sold. Some reports sell for as much as $5000 a copy. Even more importantly, such reports tend to be at a macro-level e.g. national and state level. Freely available reports are more likely to be dated or of poor quality. I however, think it is still possible to find great quality research out there. I also think technology will make it easier to conduct research, with the emergence of firms such as Survey Monkey that allow people to carry out research at little or no cost at all
Dorsey:Interesting! Your rhetorical questions got me thinking. Unlike for-profit organizations, where results, transparency, competition, and accountability are critical (especially public organizations), It is possible that these factors are not as stringent in the non-profit world. This then makes it affordable to fail to give market research the priority it deserves, because failure to meet the fundraising target is not as bad as Apple posting losses.
Chapter Six
The ultimate function of market segmentation is to make it possible to customize products and/or their marketing to a specific group more effectively in the market. I think Andreasen & Kotler’s characteristics are comprehensive, but other books e.g. Reynolds & Lancaster (2005, p. 87) include stability (characteristics are not too fluid) and meaningfulnes as additional characteristics. By meaningfulness, even though its explanation resembles differential responsiveness as described by both Andreasen and Kotler. I also believe there is a hierachy (with varying importance), based on the very role that market segmentation is meant to play. Firstly, the segments have to be such that one can tell them apart (mutually exclusive) and meaningful, but they must be accessible/reachable and substantial (in that order). To determine substantiality, one has to be able to measure the segments (e.g. population size and income), but I don’t think exhaustiveness is as important and should be last. For instance, I can identify a segments according to their income, and target those whose income is more than $100,000 and do not feel any necessity to include all segmentation (of course I could be mistaken here).
Spencer: This makes a lot of sense, but I lean more towards the opinion that no single size that can fit all non-profits. While reading my mail this morning, I saw an advert by UNICEF, I believe, about child labour. I think such an advert falls under the undifferentiated mass marketing category. UNICEF has a lot of resources and a global constituency, which is why this strategy fits. For smaller organizations, resource-light strategies such as those that you have recommended for Buffalo Soldiers National Museum are more suitable.
Chapter Seven
The American Heart Foundation, the Alzheimer’s Association and Houston Hospice are to me some of the best-branded non-profit organizations. Of course, the first two have enormous resources, but they have managed to achieve high brand recognition, parity, emotional connection with the audience, uniqueness, memorable and distinct. The simplicity of the brand names/images and their ability to capture the organization’s mission, purpose and even scope of the charity is very effective. For instance, the American Heart Association, which promotes proper cardiac care and reduce disabilities, deaths and suffering associated with heart diseases, has a bright red logo with a white flaming torch in the middle. This is simple but effective. Further, given the debilitating nature of these diseases, their inclusion in name strikes an immediate cord with the market, especially those affected by such diseases. On the other hand, I think the Livestrong Foundation, which was previously known as the Lance Armstrong Foundation is poorly branded, because of its close association with a disgraced athlete, on whose star power, the organization depended. In building a brand Andreasen and Kotler talk of brand parity, reality and perception problems, as well as feelings, which scores a lone, Livestrong fails, even worse because of thje publiciity generated by Armstrong’s doping scandal.
Ehrhardt: I think St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital is a great example. The silhouette of a baby and the words in logo are a winner for me. The brand’s ability to tug at the market’s heart strings is critical in creating an emotional connection to it, besides the fact that it is clearly alligned to the organization’s vision, values, uniqueness, and promise to the market. I appreciate your references to the class text. A brand is an important part of the overall marketing strategy, and therefore, its ability to achieve the said roles is important.
Dorsey: Having had my fair share of difficulties pronouncing brands such as Chic Fil-A and Givenchy (which score highly for uniqueness), I also think simplicity and descriptiveness of the organization’s business are critical in effective branding. The market hardly makes an effort to remember anything, and therefore the marketer has to make it easy for them, while at once ensuring uniqueness and relevance to the organization.
Spencer: While am not too sure “MD Anderson Cancer Research Center” is brief, I quite agree that it is memorable, simple, complete and having looked its brand image up, I agree it looks apt. As Margaret pointed out from her research, this organization employs multiple media to advertise, which in turn makes substitutability of the name and the image possible, but only after years of successful brand building. I do think this would be easy for smaller organizations, but I stop short of suggesting it cannot be done.
Chapter Eight
Non-profit organizations that market their products include UNICEF, Oxfam, the Wounded Warrior Project, and the American Heart Association. An important challenge that these organizations face is the nature of their value proposition, which often seeks to maximize the welfare of the society, as against an individual consumer. The benefit to a consumer from donating to a children’s charity in Palestine, is more difficult to put across than the value derived from an iPhone 6 (as against iPhone 5). I saw a video of somebody that suggested to Floyd Mayweather that he donates to charities in Africa, and he replied saying “why should I donate money to Africa? What has Africa done for me?” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB8bkXXcEGA) This sums up my point, really. Whereas Floyd would have no problem buying a 300-carat diamond from South Africa (or even receive money from pay-per-view subscribers in Gabon), he sees no value supporting refugees in Darfur. Other challenges include the fact that most non-profits have to create new demand or benefit, that the market is not used to, which harder that operating in a large industry. For instance, it has to firstly make people understand that there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, that it matters to them, and that they should do something about it.
Spencer: I quite agree that selling "the experience" is much more difficult (unless it is a Caribbean holiday). I was looking for a better way to describe it, and this is far better. Consumers are rational and every penny matters to them, which is why they are unlikely to buy an armband to $30 in support of a cancer charity, when the same goes for $2 on Amazon.com. This makes non-profit marketing far more difficult.
Background/Profile: Heritage Society Houston
With a mission to collect, preserve, exhibit and celebrate the Houston region’s diverse history, the Heritage Society Houston, is non-profit (falls under 501(c)(3) of the of the Internal Revenue Code). Located on a ten-acre museum complex, the Society runs 10 historic buildings going as far back as 1823, and mounts a huge range of programs on Houston’s history, its people, and culture. The Society has been restructuring to achieve diversification its revenue streams. The Society does not have a marketing staff, but the website currently lists a vacancy for a volunteer coordinator, whose job description is essentially marketing. The Heritage Society Houston’s idea of marketing lies in the visibility of its work to the people of Houston. Its programs/activities are widely publicized, with the exposure serving to create greater brand recognition/awareness, parity and equity, which in turn drives revenues. There is no evidence of market research on its website and from the members that were conducted, but it appears marketing success is appraised based on the funding and event attendance.
The company’s revenue model draws on direct donations, gift shops, membership fees ($750 for lifetime members), event sponsorships, and guided tour fees, as well as a large army of volunteers. Most of its other programs and activities are free. However, these revenues are inadequate in sustaining its activities. For instance, by the end of 2014, the Society had less than 30 fully paid up members. Consequently, the Society is overly dependent on a few institutional donors, including the City of Houston, Houston Parks and Recreation Department, the Houston Endowment Inc., and the Wortham Foundation. According to the Mayor’s Liaison for Cultural Affairs, Minnette Boesel, who is also a member, the Society is also struggling against an emergent generation that is apathetic about history. The millennial generation is more in interested in space tourism and celebrity than history. Effectively, the Society faces an ever-declining pool of volunteers, visitors, and donors. According to another member, Harriet Latimer (a practicing lawyer), while the current institutional patronage is enough, the growing disinterest in history and art, will ultimately be the median voter’s (and consumer’s) opinion, which will in turn lead to institutions cutting their funding.
Final Case Study
Recruitment of institutional donors remains important, but activities meant at diversifying the Society’s revenues are increasingly critical. To this end, the construction of the Sam Houston Park began in 2013 to create visitor friendly upgrades that will in turn draw paying visitors to Society’s varied events. This strategy also draws parents and their children to the museum park, which should in turn make for a new generation that is interested in history. Further, programs aimed at younger generations, including guided tours for children, travelling trunk shows, are family days are important to the management.
References
Andreasen, A. R., & Kotler, P. (2007). Strategic Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Reynolds, P., & Lancaster, G. (2005). Management of Marketing (1 ed.). New York: Routledge.
The Heritage Foundation at the Sam Houston Park. (2014). Annual Report 2013-2014. Houston: The Heritage Society.
The Heritage Society. (2014, June 8). About Us. Retrieved July 18, 2015, from http://www.heritagesociety.org/membership.html
