When I started out as a freelance designer, many of the projects I worked on were not necessarily "profitable." However, my first experience with an ACTUAL 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization was during college with the Community Alcohol, Drug, Rehabilitation and Education Center, or CADREC. This was a place that people visited because they either were arrested for DUI, DWAI or domestic violence, or needed help to get off alcohol or drugs. It's main responsibility was to provide services that focused on addiction treatment.

The branding of CADREC focused on communicating the essence of the center - "Treatment Works," community-centered, experienced and professional - while keeping addressing the mindset of the clientele. Imagine you have just been arrested for DUI and have been ordered to attend a program at CADREC. Now, you might be thrilled that you have this opportunity to get help and the possibly expunge this offense from your record, but, most likely, you feel a deep sense of shame or embarrassment and feel begrudgingly bound to have any sort of contact with CADREC.

How do you brand for people who are adverse to your mission?

In the case of most for-profit organizations these people can simply reject, protest or boycott whatever product they choose. Non-profits have to find a way to deal with people who do not necessarily desire their services.

This is comparable to an anti-globalization protestor being forced to order a drink every day from Starbucks. At first you might say, "That's a win for Starbucks. They get a new customer, right?" Well, yes, but that customer is going to be the most pissed off patron ever! He or she might hold up the line, steal merchandise, or even start fights. Suddenly this becomes Starbucks' problem - this isn't part of the brand experience! Thankfully, for Starbucks, they can mostly ignore their detractors, run a “social responsibility” campaign to gain the moral high-ground, and go back to selling overpriced lattes to an extremely willing populace.

Contrarily, the CADREC brand experience has to be inclusive and accessible to its adversaries as well as supporters - it has to be a common ground. The design has to relate to a number of points of view without condescension or heavy-handedness.

In the case of the embarrassed DUI arrestee from before, the brand experience has to work against a feeling of shame, anger and embarrassment by communicating openness and trust; otherwise it would risk entrenching that person in their negative view of the center and treatment in general. For example, the CADREC web site is easy to navigate so someone can get what he or she needs and get out. The goal for the design is for someone with a negative attitude to think, "Gee, that wasn't as bad as I thought."

In the case of the grateful DUI arrestee, the CADREC brand has to communicate the concepts of hope and professionalism, or else that person might start to have doubts about the outcome of treatment. For example, the logo shows a sun rising from the vantage point of the Five Points area of Denver with italic sans serif type. The goal for the design is to leave people inspired and for them to think, "These people know what they're doing."

Lessons learned:

• The power-shift of pro-bono work - where accountability is ambiguous - is something to be aware of; a designer could choose to be a real asshole in this situation. Additionally, a designer has no incentive to stay if the client is causing tension. Personal relations set the tone of the project, and have the potential to affect the outcome of the work.

• Everyone makes their own personal investment in the work, but at different levels. It is often the sheer will of one or more individuals to move the work along. This force can be exerted from either side of the designer-client relationship, but because of the power-shift mentioned above, it almost certainly has to come from the designer(s).

• The issues involved in designing for non-profits are implicitly different than other organizations, products/services or events. In this case, CADREC's clientele consisted of people who possibly harbored contempt for the center and/or shame for having to use its services. These are people who have suffered, or are currently suffering, abuse, addiction, and/or number of psychological issues. Trust, Accessibility, Community, and Hope are all concepts that had to be addressed in every single piece of design for CADREC.

• In a non-profit, design has a different capacity for change than in other, commercial applications. For example, design can change a person’s perception of fizzy water, and motivate them to buy one over another. It can create brands that people identify themselves with, and live their lives by consuming the right amounts of certain products. With non-profits, design can make someone feel comfortable with getting treatment for their alcohol problem, and motivate them to change their life. It can create a brand that people support as a cause to better themselves or others.

I picked up this book in Rochester, NY about a year ago. Originally printed in 1865 it has over 200 engravings, all incredibly bizarre & beautiful.

"Every year, more than 6 million people die from AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria alone. Today, there are no effective vaccines for these and many other diseases of the poor. That's because low-income countries have average health budgets of $17 to $36 per person, and can only afford to spend pennies per dose on vaccines. As a result, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have little incentive to develop these life-saving vaccines. In fact, only 10 percent of the world's health research and development is devoted to diseases that afflict 90 percent of the world's population."

However, I do have a few questions:

1) Who is going to make the massive initial investment?
2) Can this long-term investment be politically palatable to politicians who are interested in short-term results?
3) If the project is funded, how do you deliver vaccines to people in need? For example, free US food aid is being sold at a premium on the Palestinian streets, or perhaps widespread corruption ala Oil for Food.
4) What is the incentive for countries to not treat this program as a crutch or handout?

Tom Kalil, Bruce Mehlman, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bruce Mau, Designers Without Borders - have your people call their people...please.

Huzzah!

A spokeswoman for Chevrolet, Melisa Tezanos, said the company did not plan to shut down the anti-S.U.V. ads.

"We anticipated that there would be critical submissions," Ms. Tezanos said. "You do turn over your brand to the public, and we knew that we were going to get some bad with the good. But it's part of playing in this space." (emphasis mine)

OMG Ch3vy w4s teh p0wned, but n0w th3y 4re teh r0xx0r!

Seriously. Well-played.

and this definitely won't be around long...

But if they do, and Chevy is able to laugh at itself, then I think the company will end up with a lot more respect and a stronger brand - isn't it very "American" to be able to roll with the punches?. More likely, they will remove the contest all together and pretend it never happened, which will only make the hole that they are in (at least brand-wise) deeper.

Note to Chevy: You can't force cosumer-generated brand love.

This phenomenon raises some interesting questions about an open-source branding model with companies that do not already have a solid, devoted following. How much control over your brand do you give to the masses? What happens if the result is not all positive? Are there steps a company has to take before it can go to an open-source model?

Overall, this was a bold move by Chevy. Not a lot of companies would even consider hanging themselves out like that. As I mentioned above, Chevy has the ability to make this potentially negative situation into a brand-building experience where they can reposition themselves to lessen their arrogant and bumbling appearance. However, that probably will not happen, and they will continue to erode their brand with the American audience.

Link

I was initially incredibly excited, because the headline on the BoingBoing article read Free, ad-supported PCs for the developing world? and that had me thinking that private-sector companies had signed on to sponsor the OLPC project, perhaps realizing the publicity and reputation boost would be unbelievably good for brand image around the world.

But no...of course not. Instead what has happened is another incredibly short-sighted and downright ignorant move by businesses and marketers who just don't get it. AsiaTotal is basically selling people into commercial/economic slavery, and they are selling this point as a sponsor benefit! From the AsiaTotal webpage:

"For the Sponsor, particularly lead sponsors such as a country's telecommunications companies, the potential is immense. Not only will Sponsors benefit from a huge new market, but the social responsibility and impact of being involved with iT cannot be underestimated. Not to mention the fact that sole ownership of a hotkey ensures a level of brand loyalty that you could only dream about." [emphasis added]

This business model is similar to the sponsorship system found in international football (read "soccer" for most Americans). Sponsors benefit teams, which in turn benefit their communities and sponsors through reputation. In the OLPC example, the same model applies - sponsors benefit organizations, which benefit communities, and the reputation boost comes from the act of social investment. This is the model that I've been working on for disaster response and preparedness as well as open source branding. It's viable, proven, and jives with the current thinking on branding & globalism. However, based on the AsiaTotal example, it looks like there is still a lot of convincing to do.

"AIGA Disaster Relief Task Force
The AIGA Disaster Relief Task for is working to support Displaced Designer, extending the reach and effectiveness of this initiative so that no designer is left behind in the wake of a disaster. The task force is working to develop a framework that chapters can use to prepare for disasters in the future." [emphasis added]

There is an inequality of wealth and action here. It's time to start collaborating.

It's all very simple...KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE, KNOW YOURSELF.

Do a little research, live the brand, treat it with honesty, and perhaps some of that Madison Avenue stink will start wearing off.