Key Concepts in Nonprofit Marketing

In the for-profit sector, marketing is the means through which firms engage in transactions with customers that are based on an exchange of value. Successful firms are those that are able to understand the needs and wants of their customers better than their competitors. In the nonprofit sector, marketing is based on a similar notion, although vastly more complicated in execution.

First, those who provide revenues to the firm are not often “customers” who buy goods or services. Therefore, the value exchange is often nonmonetary—though nonetheless valuable. For example, in exchange for financial contributions, labor (paid and unpaid), political support or behavioral change, a nonprofit organization may provide achievement, inclusion, sociability, status, skills, social networks, advocacy, enactment of public policy and—extremely difficult to measure but nonetheless very “real” in terms of value—better communities and a better world.

Second, in nonprofit marketing, the idea of multiparty as opposed to dyadic, or two-party, exchange is critical. There are many more constituencies with which a nonprofit organization engages in exchange transactions than simply “customers.” Those for whom programs are designed are not always those who support the organization and even if earned revenues are substantial, resources are almost always attracted from a variety of sources (Young, 2006). The key concept here is that in each of the markets in which a nonprofit organization transacts, the notion of value exchange applies—government funders are looking for a means of implementing public policies while volunteers are looking for skill development, social engagement, or a way to contribute meaningful activity to their community. If a nonprofit organization wants to be successful in attracting resources, it will have to deliver sufficient value to the providers of those resources—while providing value to the different constituencies that “consume” those resources.

Of course, in practice, as an organization attempts to devote limited financial and human resources to the creation of value for all of the various constituencies that form the context in which it is embedded, conflict may emerge. A strategic marketing approach will not dictate that resources go to the market as opposed to the mission but it will provide a logical and defensible framework for analysis and planning that can lead to the most efficient and effective use of resources to build organizational success, defined as the organization's ability to achieve its mission over the long term. A marketing approach is based on the recognition that nonprofit organizations must be responsive to many different constituencies, understand the unique needs and wants of each, and take steps to create the tangible and intangible value that will form the basis of stable, sustainable, long-term exchange relationships.

The long-term quality of the relationship between an organization and its exchange partners is coming to be recognized as more important than using marketing techniques and tools to trigger isolated transactions (Conway, 1997). It is becoming increasingly important to consider the lifetime value of a client in the nonprofit sector because long-term relationships are associated with lower costs over time (Brennan and Brady, 1999). It is particularly difficult to continue investing in long-term relationships when organizations have revenues that are unpredictable from year to year and, moreover, are under substantial pressure to spend as much money as possible on programs and services and not on fundraising or recruitment or other kinds of administrative expenses. A marketing analysis based on value exchange would suggest, however, that investments in long-term relationships pay off not only in terms of cutting costs that come from losing clients after one transaction and then having to pay more later to attract new ones, but also from the ability to move long-term relationships to higher levels of value exchange.

A strategic approach to marketing goes beyond a focus on the relationships between an individual organization and the many client groups to which it directly offers services or advocacy or from whom it gathers financial and other resources. Nonprofit organizations are embedded in large market systems that operate the same way that for-profit market systems work. Market systems consist of many producers or programs and services and many potential clients who “consume” the programs and services in different ways—as well as many indirect players and forces such as regulators, suppliers, umbrella groups, credentials, qualifications, reputations, and others. Market systems can be based on a system of production (settlement programs for new immigrants, symphony concerts, opposition to an oil pipeline) or can cut across producers (such as the market for volunteer labor or fundraising). Understanding the totality of the market systems in which an organization participates will determine how well it is able to innovate, adopt new technologies and ideas, obtain financial support and achieve its goals (Giesler, 2015).

In the next section I examine the three direct components of the market systems in which nonprofit organizations are embedded and introduce concepts and theories that underpin a strategic approach to nonprofit markets and marketing. The three elements of this framework are the clients or customers for whom the organization develops programs and services, the “competitors” or rival organizations appealing to clients, and the particular competencies or strengths of the marketing organization in terms of producing its programs or services. In the final section of the chapter, I examine the four main types of decisions that an organization must make in order to develop the “marketing mix” that it will use to participate in a marketing system. In this section some of the key models, tools, and techniques of marketing are presented and adapted for nonprofit organizations and systems.

A Strategic Approach to Marketing

Figure 13.1 outlines a step-by-step hierarchy of decisions that must be made about which groups to serve or to target given the competitive situation, the human and financial resources that are available, and the organization's particular competencies and expertise. Once these strategic choices have been made, an organization can develop a marketing mix of appropriate programs and services, communications, pricing and delivery systems that will maximize its potential to achieve its mission. All of the inputs to the decision processes mapped in this chart should be based on analysis of concrete data.

It should be noted that the analytical process outlined in Figure 13.1 can be used to develop marketing strategies that will be applied to each “market system” in which a nonprofit organization is embedded—for example, a segmentation strategy, the first decision point at the top of the chart, will be different for the fundraising market than for the client services market.

The Role of Data Analysis in Decision Making

Formal market research in nonprofit enterprises is quite rare and usually limited to the larger fundraising organizations (universities, colleges, hospitals, and some of the large medical research and service organizations). The cost of research is often prohibitive, but there are other reasons that nonprofits are reluctant to undertake research. One is that many nonprofit organizations are convinced that they already understand their markets and what they need, a notion that results from the fact that many nonprofits offer services provided by highly trained and specialized professionals such as social workers, psychologists, educators, artists, scientists, or medical personnel. Market studies may appear unwarranted because the service deliverer seems to be in a better position than the user to specify the appropriate service or program. The service deliverer may see it as a duty to prescribe what services the other party should receive. Other reasons that many nonprofit organizations fail to see value in research is that they often operate on a small scale and know the individuals with whom they interact personally, and they often deal with end-users directly, as opposed to through intermediaries. However, organizations that make an organized effort to collect and analyze data to answer specific questions with regard to resource allocation and attraction will not only be more effective in their markets but also be more accountable to their stakeholders as a result of evidence-based decision making.

“Big data” is a new term that pertains to the growing proliferation of data generated by digital technology in many areas of human endeavor (for example, science and the environment, business and finance, health and hospitals). The nonprofit sector is far behind the business and public sectors in using big data to help manage their operations. There are several reasons for this: data pertaining to social issues are relatively unstructured, can lack variety, and may be unreliable; there is little sharing of data about social issues between agencies or with the public as relevant data are often buried in administrative systems; effective data governance systems are lacking; and finally, the data can often be misinterpreted or even manipulated when it comes to public issues and thus be misleading and/or lead to unintended consequences (Desouza and Smith, 2014). Large intersectoral collaborative networks formed around complex social problems such as poverty, homelessness, or human migration may be the first to use big data, partly because the owners and analysts of the data will come from the public or for-profit sectors. It remains to be seen, however, what contribution big data can make to addressing the “wicked” questions individual organizations face as they grapple with messy and complex social issues.

However, as for-profit business moves toward big data to support marketing decision making, new and small-scale techniques are emerging in the social sector that allow individual and relatively small organizations to collect their own data relatively quickly, cheaply, and effectively. Recently, Acumen, an organization interested in social impact measurement, has developed a direct approach to data collection that they call “lean data.” The lean data approach is based on a shift away from surveys that collect data for reporting to and enabling compliance with outside agencies, funders, investors, and regulators. Instead it is designed to provide value to the organization itself. It is affordable and easily managed by nonexperts because it is based on familiar mobile phone technology and simple customer feedback instruments. As opposed to simply measuring outcomes “after the fact,” the lean data approach can also be used to help marketers decide about program and product development, understand clients' and customers' needs better, and test hypotheses about the behavioral outcomes of various approaches. This approach can be adopted by almost any nonprofit organization, regardless of size or expertise in data analysis (Dichter, Adams, and Ebrahim, 2016).

Regardless of how simple or small the investigation, it is increasingly important that nonprofit organizations undertake some form of data-based analysis before making decisions about their programs. On the management side, the collection and analysis of reliable data can combat organizational myopia that stems from being too close to an issue and, more important, to a particular organizational culture that has defined the external environment in a particular way. Data analysis is a way to engage in “critical thinking” about an issue and the people involved with it; it allows managers and leaders to look at questions from different perspectives and reframe issues. It has been suggested that because clients and funders are separate constituencies in nonprofit organizations, there is no direct feedback loop as exists in the business sector to ensure good service (Connor, 1999). Moreover, when nonprofit clients are ill-served, their remedies may be few and frail. Clients of many social or community service organizations are more likely to be disadvantaged and vulnerable, to have less opportunity to switch to other providers, and to be more afraid of complaining than in for-profit marketing situations. Anonymous, confidential, and simple data collection can give these important stakeholders opportunities to provide information that should be part of every nonprofit organization's decision processes.

Segmentation and Target Marketing

Target marketing is the process whereby decisions are made about which groups an organization will choose to serve within specific market systems. For example, in the market for donations, an organization may divide individual donors into several groups, each of which responds differently to a nonprofit organization's appeals, such as board members, current or former clients (such as students, audience members, patients), people who may be affected personally by the cause in the future, prominent and known philanthropists, and well-to-do members of the community who are aging and perhaps considering legacy gifts. Moreover, because organizational resources are limited and may not allow a nonprofit to target all of these segments at once, decisions need to be made about which market segments best fit the organization's objectives and abilities, and then about how to tailor marketing programs to create the most value for each of the chosen segments. All of these decisions about whether and how to segment a market need to be made for each of the separate constituencies or market systems within which a nonprofit organization acts (Rupp, Karn, and Helmig, 2014).

Choosing to “target” certain groups while ignoring others may seem a questionable, if not unacceptable, approach in the nonprofit sector. Choosing some segments means that an organization will focus on some people and that may mean not serving or communicating with others. In a field in which turning no one away or achieving mass social change is often a cherished norm, neglecting some possible clients as a matter of policy can seem to degrade fundamental organizational values.

However, the case for target marketing is both strong and responsible. In an environment in which human needs are escalating while resources are constrained and shrinking, no organization can reach all possible constituencies. The question then is not whether the enterprise will constrain its domain but how. Market segmentation allows nonprofit organizations to control whom they serve by choosing where they will be most effective, based on their competencies, or where it is most important for them to act, or according to organizational mandate or mission, and then to spend limited resources efficiently, rather than letting the limits of their funding arbitrarily decide which markets they cannot serve when they run out of funds. Segmentation helps an organization focus its resources on the clienteles that best fit its mission, capabilities, and aspirations.

The first step in segmentation is to divide the market into meaningful groups. Segments are considered meaningful when they are “homogeneous within, heterogeneous without.” This means that the people or organizations within a segment are considered to behave the same way in response to particular marketing programs and to behave differently from people in other segments. There are a number of variables that may be used to define segments. The most conventional segmentation criterion is socio-demographic, a term coined to represent a wide variety of easily observable characteristics (for example, geographic residency; “social class” as measured by education, profession, or income; or age). These variables are convenient because available data are most often arrayed along these lines, and they can serve as useful surrogates for deeper psychological and behavioral motivations that marketers cannot always access. For example, fundraisers are becoming more and more interested in segmenting on the basis of age since research indicates that Generation Y donors behave differently than older ones; they are motivated much more by “sharing” as opposed to “giving” and are therefore more likely to respond to appeals based on social network ties and that emphasize pleasure as opposed to duty, which may be more relevant to older segments (Urbain, Gonzalez, and Le Gall-Ely, 2013).

However, despite the convenience of using socio-demographic segmentation, it does not always stand as an effective surrogate for behavior. Other data, although more difficult to collect and interpret, can often provide a more nuanced approach to segmentation. Psychographics, based on information about lifestyles, values, attitudes, and opinions, can be particularly important in segmenting for social marketing efforts designed to change attitudes and behaviors. Personality variables such as empathy and self-esteem have been suggested as useful segmentation variables for recruiting volunteers (Wymer, 1997). Benefit segmentation is efficacious because, being rooted in the fundamental notion of market exchange, it not only identifies homogeneous client clusters but also is suggestive of the most relevant offer for each. Benefit segmentation is useful in volunteer marketing and is also used to good effect in fundraising. Behavioral segmentation (for example, heavy versus light users) is relevant to many causes; heavy users are especially propitious targets. Fundraisers have now begun to segment their markets on the basic of financial value, calculating the worth of a potential target group over the course of a long-term relationship (Rupp, Kern, and Helmig, 2014).

Once potential segmentation criteria have been formulated for a particular market, the marketer must calculate whether the value of using these specific criteria is worthwhile. For example, if some potential donors are moved by sympathy for people who have a given disease while others react to a warning that they may contract it, a segmentation scheme that identifies that these groups respond positively to different messages and develops two different marketing programs to solicit donations may be warranted. In a case such as this, the decision will be made on the basis of whether the expected reward from appeals tailored more specifically to the needs of individual groups will outweigh the costs associated with developing multiple campaigns.

In choosing which segments to target, several criteria come into play. The first, of course, is whether a particular segment fits the mission of the enterprise. Just because a particular segment is easiest to reach, for example, may not mean it will be the most important group to target. A second criterion is whether the segment aligns with the organization's capabilities. In appraising the goodness of fit of a potential target market with an organization's capabilities, organizations must be careful not to overvalue their own capabilities and underestimate the strengths and competencies of competitors.

A third criterion is whether the segment is sufficiently large to justify a special marketing treatment. Arriving at an answer to this question can be complicated in the nonprofit sector. In a commercial firm, the projected value of a superior return from an investment in a unique marketing program is usually the only arbiter of acceptable segment size. In a charitable enterprise, financial considerations may be overridden. This may be acceptable if the organization is able to cross-subsidize special programs through revenues from more “profitable” segments, but not if the loss associated with serving the small segments endangers the survival of the organization.

A final consideration in target selection is whether particular segments can be accessed by special marketing programs. Often targets are difficult to estimate and the members are hard to reach through specialized marketing programs. Ideally, the idea of targeting specific markets is to use a narrow approach in which only the specified clients are reached by specialized media, messages, pricing, and so forth—it is through targeting specific segments that the cost savings are realized that make segmentation so efficient. However, if a segment is not easily reachable, it is often necessary, and more economical, to use a “mass market” approach, which leaves it to members of the target population to choose to “come into the market” through a process of self-selection. Social media now achieve some of the benefits of both strategies; it is a cheap way to distribute messages to many people, but the messages are somewhat restricted to those who participate in particular social networks. It can be suitable for large target markets for whom personal contact is not required and the message can be tailored to appeal to specific groups. For important small target markets where personal contact is paramount, other methods of reaching the target will be necessary.

Competition, Positioning, and Branding

Competition is an idea that is often troubling in the nonprofit sector. Adherents of economic theories of the nonprofit sector who consider these organizations to have developed out of market failure argue that nonprofit organizations respond to need and do not compete. Often there is a philosophical aversion to the idea of competition on the part of those who work in the nonprofit sector, who would prefer to think of the sector as being engaged in cooperative, as opposed to competitive, behavior.

Nevertheless, competition is a reality in the nonprofit sector (Oster, 1995). In many countries the number of nonprofit organizations has exploded, and many of them have been founded specifically because they intend to provide alternative programs or philosophies to the offerings of existing organizations in the same market system. Moreover, many nonprofit organizations are trying to influence attitudes and behavior, and their target markets always have choices about how they think and behave—even if it means continuing with their old habits and patterns. In this sense, even “doing nothing” can be considered “competition.”

Positioning refers to the place that an agency occupies in the minds of the individuals in its target market (Trout and Rivkin, 1997). It is always related to how an organization and its offerings are evaluated in terms of a known set of alternatives (or competition). The first step in developing a positioning strategy involves understanding the dimensions that the target market uses to compare organizations and alternatives, and the second seeks to place the alternatives, relative to each other, in a “space” defined by those dimensions. For example, if potential clients evaluate immigrant-serving organizations along the dimensions of “multiple service offerings” and “effectiveness in service outcomes,” they would place different settlement organizations in different positions on a grid formed with the two dimensions as axes (see Figure 13.2).

One of the troubling realities of positioning in the nonprofit sector is that the multiple constituencies with which organizations interact often evaluate both the dimensions that they use to compare agencies and the position of individual agencies along those dimensions differently. For example, wealthy potential donors may compare arts organizations in terms of the service and opportunities for recognition that they provide to their major patrons, while government granting agencies that support artistic work may compare the same organizations on different dimensions, such as originality or creativity. It may also happen that different market constituencies use the same dimensions but evaluate competitors differently. For example, both clients and foundation officials may evaluate and compare social service agencies in terms of their effectiveness. However, clients may evaluate a particular agency as highly effective in personal terms, while a funder may rate the same agency as low on effectiveness because they don't see large-scale change in a community. The key point is that positioning refers to the dimensions and the relative positions along those dimensions that are in the minds of each clientele with which the marketing organization interacts. A nonprofit organization that serves several clienteles (for example, donors, users, government grantors) will develop a unique positioning map for each market system, and this in turn will dictate a unique marketing strategy for each separate clientele.

Of course, the grids cannot be mapped unless the perceptions of the target markets are known, and the best way to collect this information is through some form of concrete data analysis. However, even a dispassionate and objective “back of the envelope” grid can be mapped without expensive data if managers are willing to talk to their potential audiences and listen to what they say about the evaluative dimensions that matter to them and how they see the alternatives before them in terms of these dimensions.

Once an organization has determined its positioning, the next step is to develop a positioning strategy. Positioning is based on the key marketing idea of differentiation—in other words, an organization is positioned on the grid on the basis of how it differs from its competitors on the dimensions of interest. The important thing to notice about Figure 13.2 is that, even if an organization has given no thought to positioning and is not interested in the process, it is still positioned on the grid in the minds of its target market!

An organization may choose to maintain its current position by continuing to emphasize those factors that differentiate it in positive ways, or it may choose to emphasize characteristics that would differentiate it in more positive ways by using elements of the marketing mix to move to a more advantageous position on the grid. In either case, it is important to keep in mind that not all competitors should plan to locate themselves in the same position on the grid (different segments will be located in different places in accordance to their particular preferences). The trick is to find a market group of sufficient size, that wants a particular combination of attributes the organization has the capacity to provide—and is able to provide them better (faster, cheaper, with better outcomes) than other organizations. If an organization can do something better than a competitor, it will not be in the same place as a competitor on the grid—it will be in a better one.

In Figure 13.2 the shaded circles represent the size of market segments and their preferences. We can see Organization A is well positioned and Organization B is not. What should Organization A's strategy be? It should continue to emphasize the fact that it offers “one-stop shopping” (multiple services) and that it is effective in delivering desired outcomes. What should Organization B's strategy be? This organization has two choices: it must definitely improve the public perception of its effectiveness, but instead of adding more programs and services in order to move up and serve the segment located in the upper right quadrant, where it would have to compete directly with Organization A, it would be better off to target the segment in the lower right quadrant interested in, say, effective language training but who are not particularly looking for job training, child counseling, or computer training. It should also be noted that there may be several ways that it could “move” to the right on the grid and target the segment we see there. It may be that this organization is, in fact, highly effective but that is not well known. In that case a communications or advertising strategy would be effective in “moving” the organization to the right. If, on the other hand, the organization has not had a record of high achievement in language training, it will need to change or improve its programs in order to increase the perception of its effectiveness in this area.

Managing the Marketing Mix

Having chosen target markets through a thoughtful approach to segmentation and determined a positioning strategy on the basis of dispassionate competitive analysis, the marketing organization is in a position to use the four major tactical elements of the marketing mix to facilitate exchange relationships with its chosen targets by offering them better “value” than alternatives. Value is the ratio of benefits to costs, and in the nonprofit sector this, of course, includes not only material benefits and financial costs but also intangible benefits (for example, experience, status, social networks) and costs (time, inconvenience, hard work). In other words, value is a perceptual construct, not simply an economic one.

Marketers, in an excessive devotion to alliteration, sometimes define the elements of the marketing mix as the “four Ps”: product, place, price, and promotion. None of these is a very exact term. In the nonprofit sector, the product construct is the element of the marketing mix that refers to services, programs, advocacy, or ideas for which the organization wants to find users or supporters. Place refers to choices about distribution channels; price refers to all of the costs, tangible and intangible, that are considered by potential exchange partners; and promotion extends well beyond advertising to include all marketing communications (paid and earned, planned and unplanned).

Product Marketing in the Nonprofit Sector

The marketing of physical products, while it occurs in the nonprofit sector, is relatively uncommon. Instead most nonprofit organizations are engaged in service marketing and/or social marketing (behaviors and ideas). Physical products such as items in a thrift store, baked goods in a sheltered kitchen, or merchandise offered to those who buy membership is relatively easy for potential clients to evaluate. The same is not true of services such as literacy programs or home care for senior citizens, and it is even more difficult for potential supporters to evaluate such intangibles as anti-racism, a political candidate, or recycling.

Summary

Marketing is the management discipline charged with facilitating exchanges with key constituencies. The marketing concept posits that organizational success is achieved through satisfying the needs and wants of exchange partners better than competitors do. In large nonprofits, particularly in those that deliver services in return for payment or create programs that attract large donations, we have seen the adoption of sophisticated marketing systems and thinking across organizational departments and levels, sometimes characterized as a “market orientation.” In many other organizations, particularly those that are most reliant on grant income (transfer payments), the importance of external constituencies is much less evident to leaders, and marketing is still considered to be limited to the fields of communications and public relations. A value-based approach to clients (both providers and users of resources), a strategic approach to competitors, and an analytical approach to organizational programs, services, and competencies is lacking in many nonprofits. Moreover, in some nonprofit organizations, a fear persists that a “marketing approach” to decision making will derail an organization from its mission.

In part this is because marketing theory as applied to the for-profit sector dictates that the marketing department has control over all of the “four Ps,” whereas this notion is rejected almost universally in the nonprofit sector. In fact, in many organizations there is a “dual leadership” function that is designed precisely to separate decision making that pertains to operations and programs from that which pertains to income development. In some arts organizations, this is formalized by having two “equal” leaders at the top of an organizational hierarchy (Reid and Karambayya, 2009), whereas in other nonprofit settings the duality may reside in one senior leader who takes advice on programs from different experts than those who offer marketing advice. For example, in a live performing arts company, the repertoire is largely chosen by the artistic director; in a family service agency, the programs to be mounted are primarily determined by professional social workers or psychologists; in a university, the curriculum is mostly shaped by the faculty; in a public arts gallery, decisions about acquisitions lie primarily with curators; and in a hospital, the type and quality of care are governed largely by physicians, nurses, and other health care workers.

These customary organizational arrangements are highly significant for nonprofit marketing. They testify to the fact that in many parts of the nonprofit sector, key decisions about the most pivotal parts of the “marketing mix” are made by experts who, in their training and their experience, have little exposure to or regard for marketing. Whereas the primary purpose of for-profit organizations is to make money for their owners or shareholders, and thus it is appropriate for marketing managers to have control over much of the production of these organizations, the primary purpose of nonprofit organizations is to serve the public good through the production of goods, services, and ideas that are generated on the basis of expert knowledge and not necessarily on the basis of demand.

However, while marketing experts in the nonprofit sector must understand and accept that “subject matter” expertise is critical to achieving the mission of nonprofit organizations, it is equally important for others to recognize that facilitating mutually advantageous exchanges between the organization and its environments is critical. Nonprofit organizations achieve their mission not merely through producing services and advocacy but also by ensuring that this production is adequately funded and that their services and ideas reach those for whom they are produced.

Marketing is the aspect of management in nonprofit organizations that is most often to be found advocating for responsiveness to external clienteles and environments. For-profit organizations have unambiguous feedback from a conventional market mechanism, but nonprofit organizations must find other ways to ensure that they respond effectively to clients' wants and needs. Marketing facilitates this responsiveness, not by developing programs and ideas that are within the domain of subject-matter experts, but by monitoring the environment, undertaking market research, communicating changing wants and needs of key client groups, participating in portfolio analysis, suggesting suitable segmentation schemes and target markets, creating and maintaining a consistent brand internally and externally, establishing differentiation, and most important, by fostering the relationships that are crucial to the long-term survival of the organization. It is particularly important to recognize that, although many of these relationships may provide financial resources that contribute to sustainability, many others provide equally important “nonfinancial” support—attitudinal and behavioral change, public trust, political pressure, or volunteer commitment and engagement.

Progressive nonprofit organizations realize that in an era of increasing emphasis on notions of transparency, accountability, participation, engagement, equity, and democracy, a more systematic and strategic approach to both understanding and responding to the needs of the multiple constituencies with an interest in the organization is necessary. Organizations need to pay more than lip service to the notion of including the needs of key constituencies, both internal and external, in their decision making and activities and to the need for increasing participation in and engagement with civil society organizations. Marketing is the discipline of management that is charged with “boundary spanning” activities and bringing the perspectives and ideas of external constituencies inside the nonprofit organization. Incorporating the insights and analysis of marketing into decision making at all levels of the nonprofit organization is thus a critical aspect of a new third-sector leadership that is focused not only on increasing the resource base and visibility of the third sector but also on enhancing its role in building connected communities and an active and engaged citizenry.

References

1. Andreasen, A. R. Social Marketing for the 21st Century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006.
2. Andreasen, A. R., and Kotler, P. Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008.
3. Bagozzi, R. P. Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 1975, 39, 32–39.
4. Brennan, L., and Brady, E. Relating to Marketing? Why Relationship Marketing Works for Not-for-Profit Organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1999, 4, 327–337.
5. Connor, R. How Responsive Are Charities to Market Needs? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1999, 4, 338–348.
6. Conway, T. Strategy vs. Tactics in the Not-for-Profit Sector: A Role for Relationship Marketing? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1997, 2, 42–51.
7. Desouza, K. C., and Smith, K. L. Big Data for Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2014, 12(3), 38–43.
8. Dichter, S., Adams, T., and Ebrahim, A. The Power of Lean Data. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2016, 14(1), 36–41.
9. Fugate, D. L. Channel Design for Early Intervention Services: Is There a Role for Brokers? Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 2000, 7(4), 3–15.
10. Gainer, B. The Business of High Art: Marketing the Performing Arts in Canada. Service Industries Journal, 1989, 9, 143–161.
11. Gainer, B., and Padanyi, P. Applying the Marketing Concept to Cultural Organizations: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2002, 7, 182–193.
12. Giesler, M. The Secret to Bird Feeding (and Innovation Success). Tedx YorkU, 2015.
13. Hanna, J., and Middleton, A. Ikonica: A Fieldguide to Canada's Brandscape. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 2008.
14. Hutton, J. G. Narrowing the Concept of Marketing. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 2001, 9(4), 5–24.
15. Kotler, P., and Lee, N. Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007.
16. Kylander, N., and Stone, C. The Role of Brand in the Nonprofit Sector. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2012, 2, 36–41.
17. Lovelock, C., and Weinberg, C. B. Marketing for Public and Nonprofit Managers (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Scientific Press, 1989.
18. MacMillan, I. C. Competitive Strategies for Not-for-Profit Agencies. Advances in Strategic Management, 1983, 1, 61–68, reprinted in S. M. Oster (ed.), Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations: Theory and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
19. Narver, J. C., and Slater, S. F. The Effect of a Marketing Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 1990, 54, 20–35.
20. Oster, S. M. Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations: Theory and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
21. Parson, L., Maclaran, P., and Tadajewski, M. (eds.). Nonprofit Marketing (3 vols.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008.
22. Quelch, J. A., and Laidler-Kylander, N. The New Global Brands: Managing Non-Government Organizations in the 21st Century. Mason, OH: Southwestern, 2006.
23. Reid, W., and Karambayya, R. Impact of Dual Executive Leadership in Creative Organizations. Human Relations, 2009, 62(7), 1073–1112.
24. Ritchie, R., Swami, S., and Weinberg, C. B. A Brand New World for Nonprofits. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1999, 4(1), 26–42.
25. Rogers, E. The Diffusion of Innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press, 1995.
26. Rupp, C., Karn, S., and Helmig, B. Segmenting Nonprofit Stakeholders to Enable Successful Relationship Marketing: A Review. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2014, 19(2), 76–91.
27. Sargeant, A., Foreman, S., and Liao, M. Operationalizing the Marketing Concept in the Nonprofit Sector. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 2002, 10(2), 41–45.
28. Sargeant, A., and Wymer, W. The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Marketing. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2007.
29. Saxton, G., and Chao, G. Online Stakeholder Targeting and the Acquisition of Social Media Capital. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2014, (4), 286–300.
30. Saxton, G., and Wang, L. The Determinants of Giving Through Social Media. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2014, 43(5), 850–868.
31. Trout, J., and Rivkin, S. The New Positioning: The Latest on the World's #1 Business Strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
32. Urbain, C., Gonzalez, C., and Le Gall-Ely, M. What Does the Future Hold for Giving. An Approach Using the Social Representations of Generation Y. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 2013, 18(3), 159–171.
33. Wymer, W. W., Jr. Segmenting Volunteers Using Values, Self-Esteem, Empathy, and Facilitation as Determinant Variables. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 1997, 5(2), 3–28.
34. Young, D. R. (ed.). Financing Nonprofits: Putting Theory into Practice. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2006.