Strategic planning: terms of engagement

On his Duets blog, brand attorney Stephen Baird gives a guest spot to strategist Jack Cuffari, who elaborates on the often-misunderstood definitions of planning terms. It's quite an extensive primer, and here is the comment I offered to it:

Strategic planning is both the basis of my communications practice and the siren's call that threatens to crash good ideas on the rocks of abstraction. Accordingly, I try to reduce the operative terminology to its most actionable essence. The main thing is the components of planning should fit clearly into a delivery system.

• Vision: What is the big-picture opportunity and how will it make an impact?
• Mission: Defines how you intend to realize the vision.
• Goal: Defines success for a mission-driven initiative.
• Objectives: The results necessary to achieve your goal.
• Strategy: The game plan for executing a mission and the rigorous justification for trying. Defines cost-benefit of the goals, objectives, tactics.
• Tactics: Specific approaches/techniques for meeting objectives and thus fulfilling the strategy.

Nonprofits and brand

Got into an interesting LinkedIn conversation, excerpted here. If you are in non-profit leadership, this is good reading. The question, posed by brand strategist Colin Dowling, is this: "What's your thoughts on the importance of branding for non-profit organizations?"

Well, the "Brand Gurus" group had a lot of thoughts. Among them:

"The term Not for Profit has no meaning in the world of business, only in the world of taxation. Each and every NFP is competing for the recognition and the pocket of a consumer, just like any other brand would do. And therefore, branding is essential in the NFP world, especially when many similar causes are represented by so many different organization." – Ilan Geva

"Branding is essential in the world of Non-profit. But, the two greatest impediments to branding in the NFP world are budget (which tends to be non-existent) and discomfort with the concept of branding itself. Many folks enter the world of non-profit with a desire to escape the negative aspects of the for-profit world, of which they perceive branding to be a part." – Phil Granoff

"Branding should be viewed as an essential aspect of reaching your audience, not as a trick of the corporate world. If you do not have a brand image, how do hope to stay in the minds of the people you hope to serve and the people you hope will fund your efforts?" – Michelle Johnston

"For the NFPs I've worked with - I am on the board of one now - branding has traditionally been viewed as an expensive nice-to-have. In my work, I try to explain that building a brand need not be expensive. In fact, it already exists - the choice is not whether or not to brand the organization, but rather whether to try to control/enhance the brand image or not. The investment of time spent thinking through the brand fundamentals pays back enormous dividends." – Peter Sonenstein

"When done well branding can be a key difference and core asset for a not for profit organization . . . . increased donor support and loyalty, enhanced volunteer and board recruitment and greater awareness to name but a few." – Stephen McGill

Underlying the consensus here on the value of branding for NFPs is a related need my company is now discussing with foundations: the need to be a lot more clear about goals, metrics and outcomes.

Many endowments have taken a significant hit in the fiscal crisis and will be slow to recover. Among foundations, the funding engine for most NFPs, the new chatter is "How do we get more impact from our resources?" I see this as a cultural change: the foundation as investor rather than as funding provider. Meaning, "How do we do better with return on investment?"

Returning to the underlying need, foundations tend to think and communicate in terms of intentions. But they're soft on describing the outcomes they're seeking. And if they've not defined expected outcomes for themselves, so how can they enforce accountability on the nonprofits they fund? This is a vicious cycle in the NFP world. Research, metrics, efficiencies? From what I've seen, most program officers are too busy managing grant requests to tackle these challenges in a substantial way.

Clarity on outcomes will help foundations tighten their brands. Among other virtues, tighter brands can lower the volume of applicants, freeing foundation resources to focus on efficiency and accountability.