Why… why not?

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

This week has started with questions and more so than any other week of the year. And no this is not a PMS post or a pre-post-PMS post. Most people don’t know/care but the first biggest conclave of women’s rights has started in new york city this week. It brings together every year 100’s (in the past even 1000’s) of women (and some men – mostly as part of country delegations) to the big apple to talk about “A” subject matter that is of import to women’s well being in the world. It lasts 2 weeks and is a very busy hectic time for all those involved and here, its a networking event for women’s rights organizations, international NGOs and donors, government representatives and those select few who are representing the voice of the voiceless women in their countries who go about their daily lives with no knowledge of this meeting.

I have looked at this meeting with awe and despair. I go back and forth with everyone who cares to talk to me about why… why not. I can not find an answer in their reasons that satisfactorily answers why. I can not satisfactorily respond to their question on why not.

What I do know is that the status of women does not change significantly enough every year. What I do know is since everyone who comes to this is already working in changing the lives of women for the better it does no one any service if they continue to just talk to each other. What I do know is changes do not occur over a meeting in a closed room where a privileged few talk to a privileged few about how to help the unprivileged. What I do know is that this is not a celebration of women. What I do know is that there is no tooth when it comes to implementation of what we discuss and even if rarely agree on some recommendations. What I do know is that advocacy is an important strategy but advocating to the converted is a waste of resources. What I do know is that advocacy laced with political correctness is worse than no advocacy. What I do know is that this leaves us feeling that we did something meaningful when in reality we didn’t. What I do know is when we look around us we find others who are skeptics too but none of us have the courage to act to change the skepticism – and we are speaking of empowering women of the world here?

I do not think boycotting is the answer here. We need to engage and engage with reasonable periodicity that will allow us to meaningfully reflect and analyze. We need to engage to hold others to account, to ourselves to account. We need to allow people to say honestly the status of women today not to talk about fake realities that they have created for the sake of the meeting. We need to remember we are the privileged and when we speak on behalf of others (especially since they did not ask us to represent them) we bear a great deal of responsibility and accountability.

dollar raised for dollar spent – communication Strategy for development organizations

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

Measuring of results is no easy business. Specially if you are in the business of social change. However, to me that highlights the need for anyone in this business of social change to constantly monitor why we do what we do, its impact, its costs and the overall sum effect of efforts. Users of public funds for social change in particular need to be greatly mindful of this. However I am not discouraging one from taking risks and making calculated choices to employ the public resources we are entrusted with but it has to be “calculated” and monitored. We can never take for granted the availability of public funds as international development practitioners. Not only because these are tax payer funds but also because we have undertaken to employ them in the best possible way for social change – an unsaid Hippocratic oath of sorts, if you will.

So its no surprise that in the environment of austerity measures and economic uncertainty, I have been thinking a great deal about the fundraising approaches that lead to actual funds raised. Not promises, not intentions of support but actual dollar raised. Within that context I have started to look at the communication departments of an organization. They are the drivers of story telling about an organization, cultivators of positive and inspiring imagery, so why can we not associate a dollar amount in part as a measurement of their impact. In a corporate environment marketing and corporate communication activity is expected to yield a Return on Investment (ROI). Its important because companies are in the business of making profit and marketing and PR are components for that. However in the development sector, one is not making profit but is sharing a vision of change that is equal and aims to bring equity and justice in our divided world. At the same time it is also showcasing the niche/special role that “a”/that organization plays and thereby building brand value and trust for its work. This trust in return is measured by the funds raised and commitments of support. Hence the objective of communication department can be connected with fundraising efforts. Of course the measurement of that can be much trickier if the right proxies and indicators are not part of the communication strategy.

I have started to realize that perhaps one way is to look at the dollar-raised-for-dollar-spent as part of the communication strategy. Let me elaborate that a bit. If one of the objectives of the communication strategy is to mobilize resources, shouldn’t the “success” of the communication strategy be measured in part by the funds raised. If so, how do we know “what” contributed to the said funds being raised. One way is to incentivize the measurement itself. For every dollar we spend on any strategy we employ in our communication efforts we must be able to raise at least that dollar. I would suggest that a direct measure be that the communication department is at least able to raise what they spend.

Is that possible? Perhaps it is, perhaps its not. But to be able to make the case for a particular communication strategy to be funded we need to look at the potential that has to raise funds. I am saying this partly because I have started to notice that “calculated” risks have now given way to just ad-hoc decisions rather than thought out approaches to communication efforts. In the process a complete glossing over the objective of fundraising. How often do we hear from our communication departments on the cost benefit analysis as opposed to “this tool is very popular hence we should use it”. I think communication is a very hard job and somewhat undervalued but communication cannot be about catching on to the latest fad without due analysis of the successes and failures in the context of the objectives. We need a nimble strategy that accounts for adjustments in the process but at the same time also allows for creativity.

How about a simple importance – influence analysis for each “strategy”.

important-influence