Many of the nonprofits and foundations that I work with tell me the general public is one of their primary audiences. We’ll call them people. When we explore their needs and goals, and how they can mutually support one another, there’s often a lot to discuss. And it’s never straightforward. We often explore what compels people to get involved, to take action, or to make a donation. And we have to take the time to evaluate the language and the frames we use, the narratives we tell, the connections we’re making with people, and the brands we’re creating if we want people to consider a different viewpoint or take action toward a shared vision.

The following study looks to uncover some of the mental models that people use to understand nonprofits and how those models influence their decisions. By understanding their ways of knowing about a sector that doesn’t work for profits, we can begin to shift how nonprofit brands show up and communicate.

Broadly speaking, the largest source of funding for nonprofits comes from individuals—the general public—who contributed $319 billion in 2022 to nonprofits, representing 64% of total giving. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that in order for the sector to scale its impact, it needs to be part of people’s everyday world. So what does it take to engage them? How can we convince someone to help fund an innovative model or support an idea? What it takes: Clear, values-aligned messaging; differentiated messages that people can remember; a mission that’s easy to understand; measurable outcomes (not just outputs); and a clear pathway for how funding supports an organization’s services, which helps them achieve a bold vision.

One of the first things I wanted to know is whether or not respondents could match a nonprofit with a statement that was placed prominently on their website—a mission, tagline, hero copy, or defining statement designed to communicate quickly and simply. Three were from well-known environmental organizations, and one was from the YMCA. Fewer than half of respondents were able to identify the EPA’s mission statement (44%), or the Rainforest Action Network’s mission (27%), or the YMCA’s “Hero” messaging (46%). Only 9% of respondents could identify the Sierra Club’s mission statement.

An interesting insight about the Sierra Club: Respondents born between 1962 and 1977 (that’s just the way the survey tool divides age groups, so that includes some late Boomers and a large chunk of Gen X) correctly identified the Sierra Club’s mission at a higher rate of accuracy (27%) than every other age group, and by a good amount. Younger age groups did poorly. No respondent born 1994-2005 identified the Sierra Club’s mission, and only 7% of those born 1979–1993 got it right. Adults born before 1963 also scored poorly, at only 8% selecting the correct mission statement. The data suggest that the Sierra Club has work to do if it wants to remain relevant and compete for a place in the minds of younger generations.

It’s a little surprising that the YMCA’s messaging wasn’t more easily identified. Especially since it was mixed with environmental nonprofits. Statements in the Y’s prominent messaging like being “committed to strengthening individuals and communities across the country” or “contribute to a stronger, more cohesive community” could easily belong to many other nonprofits and don’t create any differentiation. Similarly, the Sierra Club states part of their mission is “to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment,” which again, could also describe almost any environmental nonprofit.

So what can we do? We can first start by examining our messaging. What do we say that differentiates us? For-profit brands do this all the time, and people can easily remember and repeat these taglines. They just do it. Because you’re worth it. And we never leave home without it.

Nonprofits today don’t chase or promote such sticky taglines the way consumer brands do, but they can still communicate in simple and clear ways that others can repeat. However, it doesn’t have to be word-for-word. Nathalie Kylander and Christopher Stone’s article [3] “The Role of Brand in the Nonprofit Sector” (and corresponding book The Brand IDEA) calls this “brand democracy.” And it’s about a participatory approach to brand management where internal stakeholders and supporters are able to communicate their understanding of the organization’s core brand identity. To do this, the message must be clear, simple, and focused on outcomes. “Change we can believe in” is a good example. It also appeared as “Change We Need” and was shortened to just “Change,” which founds its way across a range of graphics and communications collateral.

Top Nonprofits conducted a study that graded nonprofit mission statements based on readability and grade reading level. That’s another great place to start: use plain language that most anyone could read. Two that stood out to me were (1) March of Dimes: “Leads the fight for the health of all moms and babies” which was given an A grade, and it was written for a 3rd-grade reading level. And (2) New York Public Library: “To inspire lifelong learning, advance knowledge, and strengthen our communities,” which was given a C grade and is written at a college freshman reading level. New York City’s census reports that less than 40% of New Yorkers hold a college degree. So you can see how this might be a problem for them reaching their vision.

The study also asked respondents to rank seven factors that influenced their decision in the context of considering making a donation of money to a nonprofit or charity. And while we won’t go into a lot of depth on these, there is still plenty to unpack. Respondents ranked them as follows:

1. The organization aligns with my personal views and values
2. The organization clearly shows its impacts
3. The organization’s mission is easy to understand
4. The organization is transparent about where and how funding will be used
5. I can clearly understand what the organization does and the services it provides
6. I have a personal connection to the organization
7. The organization has a strong brand
8. The organization is modern, not old and outdated

It’s no surprise that shared beliefs are the top influence. Nonprofits can communicate their own views and values in tangible and intangible ways. Some are verbal, and some are experiential. One of the key takeaways here, however, is that shared beliefs create a context that is focused on the collective, or the whole. And this idea is brought to the foreground through the beliefs of the individual. In other words, framing these shared beliefs in the context of the collective good—not the individual or the organization—is a way to create a solid foundation for effective communication.

Nonprofits can also use the same words that people use to express their views and values and make them their own. I think it’s important to mention that views and values don’t need to be polarizing or perpetuate divisions in an already-divided society. They can be apolitical—especially when they’re focused on a shared outcome or responsibility. Not all nonprofits can take that path, and that’s okay. They can still be excellent communicators when it comes to their views and values.

Brands express their views and values in a lot of different ways. Some are obvious: their issues, actions, and investments. And others are more subtle: through their messaging, positioning, core values, theory of change, strategic plan, research, resources, partners and grantees, design, and so forth. Using design as an example, Human Rights First and Human Rights Watch are tackling an issue from two very different fronts and yet they’re vastly different visual (and verbal) brand experiences. One isn’t necessarily better or more effective than the other. The question is: How does the way we look, feel, speak, act, and show up inform the general public about us? Does the sum of our expressions equal our views and values? Or do they confuse?

This is an essential part of the overarching brand narrative that nonprofits must weave. It’s no longer enough to talk about the trinity: Who you are, what you do, and why it matters. You also have to demonstrate the outcomes of your work. There’s a story to tell, and the organization is not the protagonist.

Many of the nonprofits I’ve worked with have a difficult time communicating their impact and outcomes. Rather, they get stuck on the inputs and the outputs. How much money a foundation has given in grants is not an outcome. It’s actually an input. The YMCA feeding an estimated one million people and distributing thirty-eight million pounds of food is still an output of their incredible work. Outcomes and impacts are changes that follow the outputs. They’re measurable. And they should be tied to the organization’s vision for how the world is different when they’re achieving their mission.

Let’s try something. If you were shown the following mission statement from a nonprofit, do you think you would be able to intuitively know the details about their services and actions? “Prevents and alleviates human suffering in the face of emergencies by mobilizing the power of volunteers and the generosity of donors.” (That’s the American Red Cross.) What about this one? “To discover, interpret, and disseminate—through scientific research and education—knowledge about human cultures, the natural world, and the universe.” (That’s the American Museum of Natural History, and its for children.) Charity:water’s mission is must more simple, effective, and easy to understand: “Bringing clean, safe drinking water to people in developing countries.” What makes it more effective? The language is simple, it can be envisioned, it tells you what they do and for whom. And lastly, it speaks to a commonly held value: That all people should have access to clean, safe drinking water.

One of the questions asked of respondents in this study was to rate their confidence in being able to explain terms like Advocacy (60% confident), Capacity Building (21%), and Building Resilience (29%). Whenever I’m working with a nonprofit to cut through the industry jargon, I often find myself asking questions like “But what do you really do?” and “What does that look like in your day-to-day work?” The activities and services that a nonprofit provides and/or engages in shouldn’t be communicated to the public using industry language. Instead of simply saying “advocacy,” go further by telling people how: voter registration drives, protests, etc. Instead of simply saying “capacity building,” give examples like developing leaders or providing operations support. Instead of simply saying “building resilience,” talk about activities like providing temporary shelter after natural disasters.

I appreciate how the Ford Foundation has begun to outline its strategies on its website through “Our Aims and Approach.” However, it’s both written at a college grade reading level and doesn’t get into the key activities that it performs when “creating a united front” among grassroots organizations and legal and policy advocates. Really though, tell me what you do. It can be a tricky balance. Many organizations need to communicate in simple terms for the general public, but in industry terms for peers. One example is the Legal Aid Society of New York. When I worked with them, it was my belief that they could create a better experience and strengthen their brand by creating two separate websites: One for those seeking services (written at a lower grade reading level without any jargon) and one for those providing services (filled with important legal terminology). Today, the website uses language that’s confusing to individuals seeking services, but is easily understood by attorneys and other professionals.

The top five influences that respondents ranked—alignment with personal values, showing impacts and transparency around how money is used, communicating a clear mission, and making it easy to understand what an organization does—are all key elements of a brand. The fact that strong brands and modern organizations rank the lowest highlight that people don’t necessarily associate those brand elements with brands, or at least they don’t think about nonprofit brands in this way. In a future study, we’ll look more into this.

All of this research points toward a prominent North Star: Communicate better about who you are, what you do, why it matters, and what the outcomes are. Think about your audiences and use simple, approachable, and clear language. Whenever possible, reference aspects the name of the organization in your messaging. (For example, the ASPCA’s mission is “To provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.”) And think about what gets repeated. What would you want people to say about your organization that other people are going to really get?

Lastly, say what makes you unique. Differentiation and positioning aren’t easy tasks, and they often require looking across peer organizations to see where you stand out, and where you’re trying to accomplish the same things. I’m a fan of Renée Mauborgne and W. Chan Kim’s Blue Ocean Strategy as a method of exploring differentiation. A mentoring nonprofit I worked with asked whether or not their focus on the academic middle was important. (These students’ grades are too high to require academic support to excel, but low enough that they risk graduating and not achieving economic mobility as a result.) Using blue ocean strategy, we clearly saw this was the single most important differentiating factor for them. It provides services to a group of students who are often overlooked, and it resonates with students, staff, schools, and donors.

Interested in learning more or pursuing a research topic? Get in touch.