5 Benefits to Government Cutbacks

Government cutbacks to charities and non-profits will likely do a lot of harm and undermine many aspects of what makes Canada such a special place.  However, in a contrarian way I can argue there will be some benefits.

1. While it won't happen overnight, eventually the pendulum will swing the other way.  As valued charitable services and societal supports erode and disappear, the problems they currently address will get worse. Ultimately there will be a clamour to support (either through donations or "forced donations" via government financing) the highly cost-efficient solutions that charities bring to problems.  And when this happens we'll be less likely to forget their value again so soon.
2. There are too many charities. The bad news is that due to cutbacks some fabulous and innovative new organizations won't survive (or ever see the light of day), but without the fertilizer of government funding at least some portion of the over-abundance of charities will diminish.  Think of it as a very haphazard and unwieldy pruning if  you will.
3. Lean times will force innovation. Fact is, charities by their nature are driven by passion, and that same passion to help others and make the world a better place won't be stopped for long by fewer dollars.  Volunteers, Board members, staff and supporters will (like they always do) step in to help pick up the slack. In so doing they'll all learn new skills, and the organizations still standing will be that much more resilient.
4. Cutbacks will actually allow for greater freedom of opinion and unfettered voices for change. We all know the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you", and very few organizations that receive government funding are eager to risk offending this funder.  Some do and have clearly been targeted for cutbacks (e.g. women's advocacy groups). However, for organizations that can survive they will less constrained in their ability to speak.  Greenpeace certainly is a good example of this freedom provided by how they're funded.
5. Diversified revenue streams will have a positive effect in the long-term.  Once a donor (or company) is engaged in giving, in my experience they generally enjoy the experience and continue to be philanthropic.  So if the cutbacks encourage entirely new donors to ultimately step in, then we'll see new faces at the funding table once government does come back.

Painful? Yes, and likely hurting a lot of people who most need the help in the first place.  But not without some benefits.

Marketing: Gold-plated Charitable Dreams

In the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) world marketing is king. It may be the first budget to get trimmed when sales volumes are soft, but it’s still king. Many charitable leaders look with envy at those impressive ad campaigns and dream of running such a gold-plated media campaign in support of their organizations

Sadly for those charitable leaders it’s actually not that easy, nor possibly even that advisable to launch the campaign even if the funds are available, and here’s why:

• For any charity to spend that much on any media vehicle might well scare off new donors, let alone offend existing donors. If you publish too glossy an Annual Report some donors worry about mis-spent gifts, so just imagine the questions about your new TV and print campaign. "If they have that much money why do they need more of mine
• Charities are complex. Getting your whites whiter, or selling "fewer cavities", are simple messages. Charities do need to figure out effective ways to communicate a simple and impactful version of their message – but even once that’s done how much time and effort (and money) do you want to spend educating the broad mass of prospects on the real complexities of your activities
• CPG marketing departments are full of bright minds who spend a lot of time figuring out the "key message", and once that’s done spend a lot more time and money with their agency figuring out how to most cost effectively reach their target audience. Very few charities have those resources, so there is a very real risk of spending money on media that doesn’t reach your target audience. In other words a shotgun approach is expensive and may be doomed to failure anyhow

In the end, for most charities the biggest distinction on the Marketing side is about products versus feelings. CPG Marketing is fundamentally about meeting an unmet need, real or perceived, by trading the consumer’s money for a product. By definition every charity meets a need, but charities ultimately trade a donor’s money for a good feeling. And selling a feeling is a very tricky thing. Done well both CPG Marketers and charities can achieve greatness through selling feelings (just ask Apple or Nike). But its hard to do well, particularly on a small budget

That’s why most charities stick to marketing in ways they know best. For example, stewarding donors well, getting articles in the local paper, or sharing a well-written newsletter. Solid, less glamorous but certainly less risky ways to consistently build a charitable brand.