Final Tweaks & and learning something about myself

I met with the professor on Friday to review my project and today I'm working on incorporating her suggestions and finishing my paper.

Prof. Nordhielm's suggestions were very helpful and I'm planning to change or tweak:
- My five box -- instead of trying to focus on attitude and major gifts, I'll focus on getting people to increase (double) their donation. This was a BIG help to me because one of the things I've struggled with all along is that in fundraising the amount of the gift is tied to a person's wealth and ability to give. How do I include everyone AND articulate things in the single-minded and specific way the big picture requires. If anyone else is doing a fundraising objective this might be helpful you!
- My product description: My slides and write-up were light on the features, benefits, etc of each product. I'm going to go back to the post-it exercise for that.

Learning about myself: It takes me longer to get up a change curve than i thought. I was really uncomfortable with this blogging thing in the begining; I didn't know what to write, etc. In other words I struggled to embrace a new way of working. I find this ironic considering that what I do all day as a consultant is help my client's implement change. I can identify and develop plans to overcome resistance in others but not so well in myself. Anyway, I still don't love the blogging but I think I'm starting to get the hang of it -- too bad the class if over!

Metrics

One of the measures I'm most concerned about is whether the business objective is really achieveable with the chosen target. $21 million is a lot to raise. The nature of the big picture forces prioritization and narrowing in on goals but I am concerned that we are leaving a lot of potential donors out. Although we're only required to do one TA description for this class, the obvious first solution is to add segments/targets that somehow incorporate "willingness to pay." At any rate, one of the key measures we really need is some wealth indicator analysis on the our list of prospective donors. The University regularly purchases this data from a 3rd party so I think it's a matter of iniating a project to really dig in and analyze it. I imagine that the business objective might be revised after this review -- at least the $ number but I'm not sure much else would change in the big picture. A second question I'd really like to explore in more detail and in a more data driven way is is there a way to get interest from non-alumnae donors.

4 Ps

Product: There are multiple products to correlate with varying levels of need to help:
• Annual giving
• Chairs
• Rooms
• Major Gifts: Highly customized product. Tailored to each donors “needs.” High contact. Recognition … board knows its limits on these. E.g., would not give naming rights to the Gold Room for less than a million dollars
Price: Product Line Pricing strategy. Tie to dynamic variable "I need to help women" the amount that i need to help translates to willingness to pay translates to "price" for fundtraising? What about the fact that personal income and other economic factors impact size of a gift?

Promotion: Marketing Communication Objective = Image or Behavior. Thinking image b/c “distribution” could pick up the call to action – response device included with promotion is an implicit call to action; discussion with a governor or gifts officer is the call to action. Perception objective b/c the target already considers helping women to be important

Place / Channel: Considering the channel strategy variables, the Martha Cook fundraising channel should be:
Depth: Relatively shallow – in fundraising its important to be close to your donors. Also given that most of MCB’s donors are heart loyal its important to keep close control over the message that they hear. The “product” is also high on credence attributes which also supports tighter control
Breadth: The number of “outlets” should also be relatively limited – keeping the message consistent in human interactions will require a well-trained group that is on message. The “outlets” would include: direct mail pieces approved by the board and fundraising committee, interactions between fundraising targets and fundraisers – the building’s development officers, board of directors, and a small fundraising team.

Depth: The channel needs to be highly integrated

The channel I envision looks like:

Relationship Building interaction with fundraiser (x 4-5) -> The “ask” -> Potential donor makes decision to give -> gift is given to a fundraiser or building representative -> gift is turned over to University development for processing -> building rep/fundraiser thanks donor -> as appropriate organization recognizes donor beyond the thank you.

This channel is relatively short and the building is in control of the steps where there is interaction with the consumer. Gift processing should be outsourced to the University to take advantage of its economies of scale in transaction processing and to avoid building a duplicate asset – especially a non-strategic one where the building lacks a core competence.

Targetting

My Target Audience description needs a lot of edittig. I had a lot of fun writing it but I think I have some details that don't serve a real purpose.

Targeting:
Target Audience Description: Martha is an independent spirit who does not want her success, the notions of good and bad, etc defined by others. Martha marches the beat of her own drummer in some ways. She is a successful woman according to her standards: she has achieved professional success but also spends a good amount of time with her family. She volunteers in her community, is active in her church. Martha believes it is important for women to help each other succeed – not at the expense of men’s success but in a parallel to the old boys club – she and her network are the new girls club: forgoing gossip and back-stabbing in favor of mentoring and helping each other achieve their goals. She is concerned with what other people think of her only inasmuch as it reflects her values. It is important that she be perceived as having high integrity, intelligence, something to contribute. Being “cool,” having the latest gadgets and gizmos, driving the biggest/newest/coolest car, having the biggest diamond ring are not of high importance. This is not to say that Martha has taken a vow of poverty, rejects consumer goods, or is a recluse. Rather, she values quality – in goods and time -- over quantity or “flashiness.” She is willing to pay a little more to ensure she is getting the best quality but doesn’t spend for the sake of having a status item. Martha goes out to eat at nice restaurants 1-2 times per week but happily cooks dinner at home most of the time. She will drive to a different store in search of high quality produce but is frugal enough that she doesn’t do all her grocery shopping at Whole Foods. Martha eschews fast food because it is unhealthy – too high in fat and calories -- except for the occasional sausage McMuffin with Egg at McDonalds on a road trip – everyone has deserves a guilty pleasure now and then
Martha is practical. She started saving for her children’s college education the day they were born by investing in dividend reinvesting stocks.
Time with friends and family are important to Martha. She is equally happy eating a fancy dinner, having a glass of cheap wine, getting a pedicure, indulging in cupcakes sloppily decorated by her kids, finger-painting, or kayaking as long as it is time well spent with those she cares about
As a donor, Martha wants to see her money put to good use for a cause she cares about to benefit people she relates to. She values organizations with low administrative costs that maximize the use of her donation for the real cause. She has a soft spot of “people like me.”
Martha is nostalgic. She has photo albums and scrapbooks chronicling her exploits in high school, college, and beyond. She likes to tell her stories to her friends and children who chide her about telling the same stories again and again.
Martha is loyal. She was never the most popular girl in school. She is personable and widely liked. She knows everyone’s name and they probably know hers but her real friends are small circle. At each stage of her life she had a few very close friends and they remain good friends to this day. They remain close despite distance and the passage of time. When they speak – perhaps after months without communication – it is like they just each other yesterday. They can be relied upon implicitly to help each other. Her network of close friends includes a few from elementary school, a few from junior high and high school, a few more from college, a few from work, a few from grad school.

Segmentation

Segmentation
Category: Self reward and recognition through philanthropic giving to student programs
Main Variable: Need to help college students / need to positively impact educational causes / need to positively impact students / UM
Dynamic Variable: Need to help women succeed

Source of Volume

Source of Volume: Stimulate demand increase size of gifts. Move “customers” from occasional to major donor category.
Steal share not a good strategy b/c of importance of MCB affiliation and proportion of MCB affiliates already in the current donor pool.

Marketing Objective

At this point, my analysis is going to break-off to focus on one group of customers – donors – and one product philanthropic giving.
Current Customer: The current customer is a Martha Cook alumna who has donated at least $100 to the annual fun, preservation fund, or scholarship fund within the last 5 years. (Should it be 3? What would the University Consider recent). The current customer likely makes charitable contributions to other organizations including other University Groups, church/synagogue/religious organization, community groups, etc.
Ideal Customer: The ideal customer is a Martha Cook alumna who makes consistent and increasing contributions. The actual size of gift will vary with the person’s income. Since I have an umbrella brand, can I worry about gift size when we get to the four Ps and offer donation opportunities (Products) to different levels of donors (Price)? Martha Cook is the top prioritiy for charitable giving for the ideal customer.
Marketing Objective: Retention
Why: Most MCB alums are already making some sort of gift. Cost of acquisition very high; probability of conversion low – questions out to gather to supporting data
Research shows big gifts come from repeat donors.
Customer Lifetime value is high for repeat donors
Retention activities: Thanking donors, indicating how the gift was used, inviting to the building
Affiliation with Martha Cook – resident, alum, parent is a key determinant of giving. Current competencies and services don’t have broad appeal with other groups. If the building alters its competence to include academic or leadership missions the market may have a corresponding change.

Goal

Goal: The Martha Cook Building seeks to raise 10 Million dollars by 2015 (it’s one-hundredth anniversary) and 21 Million dollars by 2025.

Core Competence

Martha Cook’s core competence is a skill and relationship building. Something about the ties that residents form with their friends, small close knit community, involved alums, shared experience, women choose to live there, bonds from, people form strong emotional ties, breeds heart loyalty.

Martha Cook’s Core Competence has served it well through its first 100 years of existence. However, the physical building is aging and thus the organization’s financial needs are increasing.

Martha Cook’s “core business” is developing networks of women who interact socially and professionally throughout their lives. The “customer” benefits from college housing, alumni networks, and lifelong friends. The organization benefits from alums who desire to “give back” or ensure the experience for generations to come. Martha Cook’s board of governors is currently exploring ways to expand the “product portfolio” – as Martha Cook enters its second century on campus should it be more than just dorm? How can the building better prepare women to enter an increasing diverse, competitive, and dynamic world? How can we leverage our networks to benefit each other? These questions will not be answered in this Marketing Plan but it will likely need revision

Fundemental Entity

Fundamental Entity: The Martha Cook Building. Martha Cook is an umbrella brand that covers three primary services:
1. Housing and resident life for undergraduate women at the University of Michigan
2. Alumnae associations providing opportunities for socialization, networking, and staying connected with college friends.
3. Fundraising efforts for scholarships and the preservation and renovation of the building.
Although there are distinct sub-groups within the Martha Cook Organization – Residents, a Resident House Board, an overall Alumnae Association, Alumnae Association Chapters, and a Board of Governors, most “Cookies” don’t really differentiate anyone of those things from “Martha Cook” overall. Therefore, in the eyes of its constituents, Martha Cook is and always will be an umbrella brand. As such, care must be taken to keep each “product” that is offered consistent with the values that constituents associate with Martha Cook.
The Martha Cook “brand” brainstorm
• Tradition
• Friendship
• Home
• Leadership
• Women helping Women
• Building a network

Blog Oops and here comes a content dump

Well friends...As we've reviewed blogs in class and I've reviewed other blogs, I've come to realize my initial interpretation of the blogging assignment was a bit different than others. On the first night of class the professor described blogging about problems and issues and I've tried to do some of that. However, what most people seem to be doing is writing their paper's on their blogs. So, I'll join the fray. Here comes the DUMP of the draft I've been writing word as the class has progressed.

Porter's Five Forces and Social Marketing

Background for this post:
A discussion in class last week reminded me of the importance of analyzing industry structure and the competitive environment when setting strategy. I find Porter's 5 Forces a great way to start to get my arms around an industry. However, I was disappointed in Hasting's treatment of Porter's Five forces:

• He boiled them down to four (leaving out Industry Rivalry perhaps because the concept is unsavory when we are trying to do "good"?)
• Didn't offer much insight in to how to apply them in a Social context.
• His citation isn't to the original article by Porter but to an adaptation.

Business School students in the class will be very familiar with Porter from core strategy and any other strategy classes we've taken. But for non-B-Schoolers, I would recommend reading the original Porter article. I can't find a post-able hyperlink but you can find the article by:

1. Navigating to the Kresge Library A-Z Database listing page (http://www.bus.umich.edu/KresgeLibrary/Collections/A-ZListing/)
2. Select "Business Source Complete"
3. Use the database's search tools to search for "The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Industry" by Michael Porter.

Takeaways from applying Porter's 5 Forces:

Initially I struggled a little bit to apply Porter's 5 forces to my project -- trying to get the players mapped to the right forces. I think I was getting caught up in the donor / beneficiary problem we discussed in class.

Industry definition: The first step in an industry analysis is definition. Getting the players right relies on the right industry definition. My project has a fundraising objective. When we are fundraising we are in a market for Philanthropic Giving. When the organization is performing its other function -- student housing -- it is in a different market. The roles of the various players are different in each scenario and thus result in different 5 forces analyses.

1. Suppliers: This is where I first realized I was getting mixed-up. I tried to analyze donors as suppliers -- suppliers of funds. This would be right if I was looking at the beneficiary-side. WRONG when I'm looking at fundraising. The relevant suppliers are people and entities that supply inputs to fundraising: development professionals, donor information databases, volunteers who give their time (in support of fundraising), print shops who produce solicitation materials, mail houses engaged for direct mail campaigns, etc. The bargaining power of suppliers is a medium -- each of these services exists in essentially competitive markets absent monopoly or oligopoly pricing. Most consumers of the services are not significantly large to set prices either.

2. Customers: This is where my donors fit! (If I had an objective around service beneficiaries, they would go here.) The bargaining power of customers in the market for philanthropic giving is high: although they are not concentrated, they face an almost infinite number of substitutes. The "product" they are offered is intangible and thus tricky to differentiate.

3. Threat of New Entrants: When viewed with a traditional "Porter's" lens the threat of new entrants is relatively high. There are low barriers to entry and low capital requirements. However, incumbent players do have the advantage of established donor lists and track records for responsible use of funds. (For beneficiary objective, I'd be looking at the probability of new entrants providing the same service.)

4. Threat of Substitutes: The threat of substitutes is very high. Potential donors face an almost infinite number of alternate ways to spend their money -- other causes, goods and services for themselves, saving, creating a trust or other financial mechanism to pass wealth to their heirs. (For a beneficiary objective, I'd be looking at other ways the beneficiaries could meet their housing needs: other dorms, campus apartments, living at home, etc.)

5. Industry Rivalry: Competition for donor funds is high but not necessarily acknowledged as competitive. The risk of retaliation and head-to-head competition is relatively low.

In Search of Core Competence

Step 1: Address the Business Objective Box on the Big Picture



Fundemental Entity: The Martha Cook Building. Check.

Goal: Raise $X million for preservation, renovation, and an endowment. Check.

Core Competence: Hmmm...well it's....uh....hmm...not it's.....uh....hmmmm

And so the internal monologue went as I tried to work out MCB's core competence. Certainly the organization has many competences: providing housing, meal service, an academic environment, etc. But what is the CORE competence -- that thing we do better than anyone else. I pondered, I made lists, I scratched my head, I walked away from the computer, I took a walk, I did all the things I do to get the ideas flowing. Finally, I gave in...I consulted the Big Picture textbook. As my grandfather likes to say "when all else fails, read the instructions."

Although I was searching for Core Competence, I found my answer in the Fundemental Entity section as I re-read the topics on branding strategy. Specifically, the paragraph on heart loyalty unlocked my mental freeze. The section prompted me to re-cast my lens: instead of trying to name a core competence, I thought about how the residents and alumnae of Martha Cook -- the customers -- think about the building -- the product. We think of it not as a building or a place to live but as an integral part of our college experience. In fact, we often refer to it as our "home" or "college home." It's where we spent some of our best times at Michigan and made some for ou best friends. Unlike other residence halls as Michigan, Martha Cook has a very active alumnae group -- imagine that: a dorm that is special enough that people want to stay connected to it AFTER graduation. Heck, people don't even want to return to some of the dorms for second semester but Martha Cook Alums have Almnae Organizations and events; raise money for the buliding; flock to campus for reunions when the building celebrates major milestones. As I thought about the "heart loyalty" the MCB engenders, I realized the core competence is not in providing shelter and food but rather in some secret sauce that engenders lasting ties between people. Now the challenge is to distill that in to words!


So how can this help others? Although I'm sure you enjoyed my walk down memory lane, you're probably thinking: "what is this post going to do for me?" I think the take away is to approach each problem in the Big Picture from several points of view: The Marketer's POV, The CEO's POV; the Shareholder's POV; and yes indeed -- the Customer's!

Proect Background

Disclaimer: The views represented on this blog are mine alone and do not represent official statements by the Martha Cook Building, the Martha Cook Building Board of Governors, or the University of Michigan. This blog is being written as part of a class -- Marketing 614 -- and is an educational exercise. The content is therefore a work in progress rather than fully edited representation of fact or idea.

Project Background:
The Martha Cook Building is a women's residence at the University of Michigan. The building, a gift to the University from William Cook, opened its doors in 1915 and has been in continuous operation as residence hall for nearly 100 years.

Financial Management
Cook's deed of gift stipulated that the "occupants shall have sole and exclusive charge of its income, expenses, and management (subject to the approval of a woman or board of women apppointed by the Regents.)" In other words, the building's residents and board of governors have responsibility for the management and finances of the building -- it is not run by University Housing.

The Building's Needs
Although the residents of MCB have been great stewards of the building, over the past 100 years, time has caught up with us and the building is in need of updates to its infrastructure and furnishings.