Negative branding, often in the image and sometimes the language used, is not attractive to most audiences. It’s much easier to attract people to work towards a positive purpose.
In the cause-driven nonprofit world there are many against something (anti war, anti abortion, combat global warming) when they could just as easily be for something. This sets up a dilemma for organizers. Each category has the potential for a positive spin: ergo, pro peace, pro life, pro sustainability).
Anti is destructive. Pro is constructive. Anti is angry. Pro is happy. Which would you chose? I recall in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez spilled oil all over pristine Prince William Sound, a bright-eyed curly red-headed young woman said there were two camps that formed almost immediately. One said, ‘This is a disaster. We will never recover.’ The other, ‘We can fix this. Where do we start?’ She had no hesitation in choosing which camp she would join.
Eighteen years later, Prince William Soundkeeper, the organization that formed as a result of this near tragedy, has gotten beyond that challenge (but not forgotten its lessons), Soundkeeper’s volunteers protect the quality of their treasured shoreline – for all of our benefit, ultimately.
And I’m pretty sure I see that same woman – in the picture below – still smiling.
But the 900 pound elephant in the room is the entire category: nonprofit. What an unfortunate misnomer! Nonprofits are often neither poor nor weak which is the implication of the word. And profit is not the point anyhow.
Most successful nonprofits work for positive social change, to improve all the conditions of our world – spiritual, intellectual, physical. Some would say they are ‘doing God’s work’ others ‘doing good work’. The human capital involved in their quests is vast, inspired and passionate. Shouldn’t the name reflect this reality?
Shouldn’t the word ‘nonprofit’ change? Ideas?