Internet Presence and Marketing Strategies of Three Environmental Non-Profit Organizations: Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace

Transcript

1. Katherine Watier March 26, 2001 CCTP 722-01 Marketing on the Internet Internet Presence and Marketing Strategies of Three Environmental Non-Profit Organizations: Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace Most non-profit websites target a diverse range of audiences. The three sites in this analysis are no exception. What ties these sites together is their work to educate and encourage environmental activism on the issues of clean water, clean air, endangered species, climate change, and habitats. They all use some form of community to engage and increase member involvement with the organization, and some form of basic rule-based personalization along with viral marketing strategies to increase the number of potential supporters and activists. All of the sites deal with international environmental issues, but two of the sites (World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace) are more internationally focused. They use the web site as a portal to the field offices that have their own branded web sites. The three sites are engaged (or are constructing the technology to engage in) Silverstein’s “Seven Proven Marketing Strategies”: 1. generating and qualifying leads 2. promoting products and services 3. executing e-fulfillment 4. building customer relationships 5. establishing business communities or exchanges 6. creating and managing partner programs and 7. selling goods over the Internet. (Silverstein, 2001:103) They all use these strategies to enhance donor relationships, cultivate interest in non- donor/non-members, promote services, streamline members’ activism and information gathering (especially among educators), encourage community, and promote and sell branded product through ecommerce. This analysis will determine which site is most successfully engaged in the 1
2. seven strategies and explain why. The answer lies in the visitor’s ease of use, the clarity of the branded experience and the demonstrated involvement in an established virtual community. World Wildlife Fund www.wwf.org or www.panda.org (international site) or www.wwfus.org (US site) The World Wildlife Fund was founded in 1961 and, partially due to its strongly recognized panda logo, is the largest privately supported international conservation organization in the world with more than 1 million members in the U.S. alone. Since 1961, World Wildlife Fund has invested in over 13,100 projects in 157 countries. In its effort to increase awareness for preservation efforts, World Wildlife Fund utilizes a full range of membership services and benefits (both through virtual and physical incentives) and also engages in a range of donor acquisition and solicitation techniques. It has truly developed multiple points of access for a supporter of the organization through the acquisition of individual donations, information about major and planned gifts, corporate support, ecommerce and retail support via its website. Its audience receives a highly personalized experience through its direct mail and online one-to-one marketing efforts. The site is designed as an informational introduction to the organization with a few enhanced options for repeat visitors. World Wildlife Fund has multiple websites which all branch off from www.wwf.org. This analysis will focus on the international and US site. Both sites are brightly colored and full of images of endangered species and nature scenes. Each issue area is branded with its own color, though the corporate logo is present throughout. The international site (Appendix W.1) targets at adult audience and their motivations for visiting the site. There is a press section for reporters to learn about the organization’s stance and research on a number of issues, a large 2
3. educational section, a resource section, a corporate information section and an action section. This international site is also offered in French and in Spanish. Unlike the US site, the youth section on the international site is targeted at adult educators and teachers, not the youth, and primarily provides curriculum. The international site is designed primarily for their unqualified prospect audience – the casual surfer who is driven to the site in search of research, current press or curricula. The site is focused on generating leads (i.e. interest) in the organization. Even though the site is dynamically generated and the content refreshes daily, there are no personalization techniques in place throughout the bulk of the site to make the return experience different from the first. They have attempted to create a minimal amount of relationship-building content for their repeat visitors by developing a “What’s New” as well as”Story of the Day” sections. The main site is designed as a first level relationship-building device for WWF to generate leads and promote their products and services. It utilizes a one-to-many marketing strategy with the more personalized experiences (utilizing personalization techniques) occurring once the user becomes involved in cyber activism and grassroots marketing. The US site has targeted their audiences more specifically within their navigational structure. They address each of their audiences specifically (educators, kids, members, etc.) and as a result are more focused on using the site as a way to sustain and build their donor and partner relationships (Appendix W.6). At the same time, the US site has more general content targeted to a wide range of audiences in an attempt to create a diverse prospect pool. It is beginning to develop a member’s corner where members of World Wildlife Fund can receive virtual incentives in exchange for becoming a critical part of their grassroots marketing strategy. There are also two options for educational materials – one for the educator, and a completely 3
4. different branded site for young people. The US site offers youth an opportunity to play games, take quizzes and sign up for a youth oriented newsletter as well as other incentives (Appendix W.8). The activist section for the US site is also a separately branded sub site, which offers fewer options for incentives after the user participates in one of their campaigns that the international site (Appendix W.9). The Action Center is placed within the template of the rest of the site and the user is easily able to navigate back and forth. World Wildlife Fund International’s Action Center is distinctly different creating an environment that illustrates their emphasis on utilizing their membership as grassroots marketers and activists (Appendix W.4). Each issue section had an activism list with calls to action and a link to the user’s “Panda Passport” where the heavy-duty activism begins. Once a user logs onto their personalized passport, their activities are recorded and presented in a printable certificate (Appendix W.5). New campaigns are automatically filled in with the user’s information and the viral marketing techniques used to enable the user to spread the word about the campaign are seamless (Appendix W.3). Both the international and US sites offer e-fulfillment of donations, however the offline speed of acknowledgement of a gift leaves something to be desired. (It took this researcher 4 weeks to receive a hard copy acknowledgement for an online gift). Both have e-giving capabilities, which present the potential donor with a case statement followed by a secure credit card form which the user submits (Appendix W.2 and W.7). The user is then thanked for their gift and immediately offered free online screensavers. A confirmation email is then sent to the donor, and the hardcopy follow-up thank you letter follows weeks later. 4
5. The multiple World Wildlife Fund sites are confusing to a casual browser. Only after an extensive stroll through their site does the user realize that the international site was not the US web presence, though the visitor never feels as though they have left the World Wildlife Fund family. From a donor perspective, however, it is easy for the user to be confused about what exactly his/her donation supports (nationally versus local) and how that donation might be affected by what level of the website they give through. If a user decides to donate to World Wildlife Fund International, a user can become “trapped” and is unable to browse to other areas of the site due to the fact that there is no navigation on that page. Even though users of the newsletter are asked to fill out address information in order to access the different action centers, the user isn’t automatically put on the house list to receive print solicitations and direct mail campaigns. This researcher has been an e-activist for 4 months and has yet to receive World Wildlife Fund print publications. E-activists are also not asked for their support via a direct appeal (email for instance). Whereas asking over email is a relatively new approach, it might be one that these sites would want to consider. Greenpeace www.greenpeace.org Greenpeace began in 1971, when a small but determined group of activists boarded an aging 80-foot boat, slowly making their way through the cold North Pacific waters off Alaska. Their mission was to "bear witness" to the destructive nuclear weapons testing planned for Amchitka island (www.greenpeace.org ). It is an independent campaigning organization that uses non-violent direct action to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions. Greenpeace differs from the other non-profits in the sense that it does not accept financial support from corporations, governments or political parties. Eighty-one percent of its financial support comes from individual donors. The reasons behind this deliberate revenue source 5
6. restriction are explained within the organization’s annual report: “Greenpeace neither seeks nor accepts donations, which could compromise its independence, aims, objectives or integrity. Greenpeace relies on the voluntary donations of individual supporters and on grant support from foundations” (Greenpeace Annual Report, 1999). Greenpeace is primarily an activism-based organization. It is possibly one of the first environmental non-profits to utilize Internet technologies to aid its activists and increase communication internationally for the organization. Greenpeace’s use of technology has been deliberate and strategic. Its history of launching onto the Internet, which it started in 1994, can be found on its website (www.greenpeace.org/history.shtml). True to its organizational culture, when it first established its first website, it utilized shareware and freeware (Linux) on a donated computer. Unfortunately, the feel of the early Internet beginnings with Gopher and newsgroups are still present in the current International website making (the activism section), and it is a little difficult to understand from a user’s perspective. The design of this site is pointedly different in that it graphically looks as though a non- professional designed it in comparison to the other more corporate looking sites. (Appendix G.1) It has a definitive home-ground look with a nature-patterned background (which changes upon a refresh though the content does not). The drive to becoming active is much stronger on this site with the largest section being a column for Campaign News, and big buttons for Activism and Join. The navigation along the top is a brief insight into Greenpeace’s customer cycle with (from left to right) options for information, interacts and joins. The navigation clearly illuminates Greenpeace’s Internet marketing objectives. The first step is to educate the visitor about Greenpeace and how the organization works to support environmental issues. The next 6
7. step is for the visitor to join the organization as an activist and interact via their online community. The final step is for them to join the organization via a financial donation. The International Greenpeace site is driven more toward motivating the visitor toward direct action versus just receiving information or current news. However, by limiting their focus to sustaining existing relationships (and there are issues with their approach in this area as well which will be discussed later), Greenpeace International is hampering its growth as an organization. Customer cycles for business and non-profits are similar in that one gathers a large number of prospective supporters/customers and then qualifies those leads by virtue of their demonstrated support and their potential for support based on demographic research. Customer and donor relationships are often not lifetime relationships, and thus requiring the organization to continually develop new prospects. Without this pool of new potential supporters, the organization becomes stagnant and Greenpeace’s web strategy is feeding this deterioration of their prospect base by making their website difficult to navigate for a new user and with content that is only focused toward their qualified audience. The Greenpeace activism site does not appear coordinated with each of its different campaigns taking on different cosmetic appearances based on the partnership that is involved in that campaign (Appendix G.2). For instance, the Lapeyre.org protest was a direct link from Greenpeace’s site, yet it is difficult to return to the main activism site. This is an example of Greenpeace’s effort to encourage business partnerships One of the main ways that Greenpeace attempts to encourage community and enhance their members’ benefits is through their Cyber activism community section. Unfortunately, on Greenpeace International site is not much better in regards to usability. The site simply contains a list of threaded discussion boards (Appendix G.4 and G.5). The user can create a personalized 7
8. protest letter, but there is not an option for the user to send news about the campaign to their friends on either the international or the USA site. The International site does not utilize personalization techniques (the user would have to remember if they completed a campaign or not) and there are no personalization techniques in place that record the user’s personal information so that in the future the user can just hit a submit button. (These features are utilized on the USA site, Appendix G.7). Also, once a user enters the other areas of the International site’s cyber activist section, it is not abundantly clear how one would return to the Greenpeace main page. The “home” button on the page routes the user back to the top page of the cyber activist’s section and not to the main page of the entire site. Partially due to the fact that US Internet users are accustomed to a more corporate look, the US site is strikingly different in its design, navigation and content than the International Greenpeace site (Appendix G.6). The US site has an easier navigation system and displays the content in a cleaner and more corporate fashion. This site does offer the user a personalized activism experience, but only after filling out extensive personal information (more than was asked on the other two sites) the technology was mal-functioning (Appendix G.7). Greenpeace USA has a feature not found on the other two sites: the user of a members only section where members can renew their membership, change their online profile and view the Greenpeace Magazine. This section of the site utilizes personalization techniques that enhance the user experience. The US site is also working on installing an ecommerce feature that is not yet fully functional, and it will be interesting to see what kind of strategy they employ. This site has also developed a very small licensed products section (Appendix G.8). The activism section of the US site is also much more cleanly displayed than the International site, though the experience is still not as seamless and as easy to use as the other 8
9. two web sites in this analysis. This site does, however, attempt at real time support with a link to a “Quick Response” center that is displayed wherever the user has to fill out and submit a form. It is not clear whether or not the response is available 24 hours a day or just during business hours. Defenders of Wildlife www.defenders.org Defenders of Wildlife was formed originally to protect wolves and their habitat and have since grown to protect other animals and their environments (Appendix D.1). This site is targeted at an adult population of largely activists. Its curriculum section is rather small, and its youth section is entirely encapsulated in a youth-centered site where you can play games and learn about conservation at www.kidsplanet.org (Appendix D.7). From the organization’s 1999 Annual Report, Defenders surveyed its members and discovered that nearly one half of the members spend at least some time on the Internet. In response to that, Defenders has enhanced its technology driven membership benefits over the past year such as its push e-newsletter, and its online activism section (Appendix D.5 and D. 2). One of their efforts to engage its activist audiences was through the creation of the Denlines. Denlines, a free bi-weekly e-mail newsletter was activated in October of 1999 and had more than 130,000 subscribers by year’s end (Defenders of Wildlife Annual Report, 1999) (Appendix D.5). The organization utilizes both an improvement-based business model and revenue based business model for their website with a small ecommerce site where they sell trademarked products and have a donation agreement with other online retailers (Appendixes D.6 and D.4). This site does a good job engaging their activists in their campaigns through a daily e-newsletter. Through using a highly effective rule-based personalization technique, Defenders is able to 9
10. remember the user’s personal information and automatically match their zip code to their correct congressmen and representatives. Once the user logs onto the activism site, the letter is ready for a quick personal note and with a click of the submit button, the user has become an activist. The system is by far one of the smoothest and most effective activism programs. Users are offered many ways in which to financially support Defenders of Wildlife, through either a direct donation (and they offer information for online or offline donations), through “sponsoring” an animal, shopping through their portal or buying trademarked products. Their revenue model is similar to World Wildlife Fund, except that a donor can better understand what the donation is supporting through the Defenders of Wildlife site. The Comparison This comparison will begin with a general overview of the sites different features and technologies used to attract and retain their supporters followed by an analysis of which site used each feature most effectively. 10
11. Organization World Wildlife Fund Greenpeace Defenders of Wildlife (DoW) Mission Focus (mission statements and FAQs that are easy to find are useful to first time visitors and aid in the generating of leads) (under About Us) WWF’s goal is to stop, and eventually reverse the worsening degradation of the planet’s natural environment, and build a future in which human live in harmony with nature. WWF is working to achieve this goal through: • Preserving genetic, species and ecosystem diversity • Ensuring that the use of natural resources is sustainable both now and in the longer term • Promoting action to reduce pollution and wasteful consumption to a minimum. Impossible to find, not under “About us” or in “Annual Report”. Under “Information” there was supposed to be a FAQ, but this researcher could not find the FAQ (under About us) DoW is dedicated to the protection of all native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. We focus our programs on what scientists consider two of the most serious environmental threats to the planet: the accelerating rate of extinction of species and the associated loss of biological diversity, and habitat alteration and destruction. Long known for our leadership on endangered species issues, DoW also advocates new approaches to wildlife conservation that will help keep species from becoming endangered. Our programs encourage protection of entire ecosystem and interconnected habitats while protecting predator that serve as indicator species as ecosystem health. Number of Members (1999) 1.2 million (FYE ’00) Impossible to find, unable to retrieve with search 381,568 Total assets and net assets (1999) $111.8 million (FYE ’00) $110,009 thousands of Euros ($122,805 thousand US) $16,664,265 Scope of Physical Presence International- site offered in three languages International- site offered in native language of each country National –English Only Viral Marketing Strategies 1. E-newsletter with link to activism forms and refer a friend 1. E-newsletter with link to activism forms and refer a friend 1. E-newsletter with link to activism forms and refer a friend 2. Referral technologies- e- 2. Referral 2. Referral technologies- 11
12. stamp option that rewards activist for referrals technologies- weak, no incentives on website Easy to circulate articles and petitions within site 3. Online activism section- separately branded with incentives 3. Online activism section- Difficult to find direct action 3. Online activism section- section within branded section. Co-branding Opportunities Yes No Yes Educational Materials Section Yes No Yes Corporate Strategy Yes No Yes Personalization Strategy Yes within Panda passport. Establishing members only section on website No No Branded Products Yes No Yes Navigation/Search Capabilities Well developed, more specific search. Does not include other country sites. Sitemap well developed Not a very specific search, sitemap not helpful and does not include country sites Sitemap coming soon, search only available on top page, not very specific search. Level of Customer Service (with online and offline interactions) No phone number or email on donation page if the user has problems. “Contact us” is only an online donation form. No phone number. High level of customer support on donation page including chat capabilities. “Help” leads to unhelpful Sitemap. “Contact us” is developed with graphic rollovers that may not be accessible to all users. No direct assistance on donation page. “Contact page” has address, phone number and email. Ease of navigation (Scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest) 5 2 4 The customer base for all three of these non-profits consists of donors, potential donors, educators, students and/or youth, and journalists. These organizations generate leads and build relationships through their program, press and activism sections; and they all have e-fulfillment options through either a direct donation or e-commerce section. With such similar organization structures, it is how these sites brand each of these sections and focus them to their audiences, which clearly illustrates the focus of their Internet marketing strategies. All of these sites use the Internet as a “sustaining” rather than “disruptive” technology. World Wildlife Fund and Defenders of Wildlife have also developed user based revenue 12
13. strategies for e-commerce. Online giving universally is not a highly successful venture for most non-profits (except for the Red Cross’s disaster campaigns) and therefore these non-profits are utilizing the web as a relationship enhancement tool that could lead to a successful philanthropic relationship rather than a direct solicitation vehicle. Most of their direct support is likely to come through traditional solicitation vehicles versus online donations (The Chronicle, 6/15/2000). In their efforts to leverage their websites as a relationship-building tool, these three non-profits have focused on using the Internet to 1) Increase activism; 2) Increase revenue via traditional ecommerce arrangements; 3) Increase communication among its members and the organization; and 4) Increase brand recognition. Activism The easiest way to monitor the effectiveness of the relationship enhancing features on each website is to analyze the web trends for those activism pages to determine if users are leaving the page and/or if they are staying long enough to reap a benefit from the service. Whereas Greenpeace International publishes a summary of their web trends on their site, the information was not pertinent to this question and connecting with a live person at the headquarters of each of these organizations proved nearly impossible. All three sites have some form of activism or community building strategy in place of varying degrees. What is interesting is that the organization that is most highly engaged in activism (Greenpeace) has the poorest community building technology. Where a listserver does allow its activists to communicate with each other it requires a high level of motivation to become fully engaged. There are no clearly defined instructions and the threaded discussions are not easy to engage in if the user is not familiar with threaded discussions. 13
14. World Wildlife Fund has two different activism sites for which you can register. The form on the international site is a bit frustrating from a user perspective. It requires the user to enter personal information before he/she is able to select a user name and password. If that user name has already been taken, then the user is dumped back to the beginning of the process and none of the previous information has been retained. The e-newsletters, which arrive on a weekly basis, are visually very appealing and the “fill out the form” protest letters that it has developed are very painless way to spread the word about the campaign. It is as easy as just filling in an email address. World Wildlife Fund US has developed a Conservation Action Center, which is the cleanest and most efficient action navigation out of the three examples of technologies that enable activism in this analysis. This site utilizes personalization techniques (greets the user by his/ her full name for example). It keeps track of the actions that the user has already been involved in through its “Action to Do List”. Within that page the user can modify his/her profile, join World Wildlife Fund and tell their friends about the Conservation Action Center. Once the user has completed sending a letter of protest to his/her political or business leaders, he/she is then offered a range of free animal screen savers as a “free gift”. The international site also has an action center, which is called the “Panda Passport”. Once registered, the site becomes slightly more personalized (the user is greeted by their full name) and user campaign participation is summarized and displayed. The results can be printed in a certificate that states the users campaign status (Appendix W.5). The user can change his/her profile, take advantage of the free screensavers and other virtual products, and play the water game on the WNF Watersite. 14
15. Defenders of Wildlife is very similar to WWF with its e-newsletter and activism capabilities. The experience is easy and convenient. It is easy for the user to pass the message on to others. The activism experience is a separate event as with World Wildlife Fund. It is not quite as effective due to the absence of certain membership benefits. Due to Greenpeace’s organizational commitment to not accept funds from corporations, it does not have a strategy to solicit funds from corporations. Nor does it have a strategy for licensing its organizational logo for corporate products. In some ways its use of the website to generate individual donations is weak because its mission is difficult to locate and there is no clear visible explanation for what a donation supports. What Greenpeace does implement, which the other sites do not, is easy access and contact through email, chat and phone with the fundraising staff. The staff is available to help with online donation processing. World Wildlife Fund is a gorilla environmental non-profit that uses corporate sponsorship, donations and licensing for revenue production. Its strategies for revenue production and enhanced marketing opportunities are far beyond what the other two organizations are doing. For example, the content on World Wildlife Fund's international site focused on soliciting corporate support. Lafarge, Canon and Ogilry are “Corporate Conservation Partners” with World Wildlife Fund International as well as Groth AG (a company who produces World Wildlife Fund stamps and coins) and IBTT BV, which produces a range of plush toys with the World Wildlife Fund brand. Its e-commerce strategy is also beyond the scope of the other two organizations. World Wildlife Fund launched its first global retail campaign in December of last year titled, Save Wildlife: Grab a Mouse. The Internet effort was coordinated among offices in all five continents. However, access to customer support information can be 15
16. difficult. The only way to get help with an online donation is via a web form, which may or may not suit the donor’s needs. This is not to say that Defenders of Wildlife website is not effective. It developed significant corporate sponsorships through its branded credit card and online retail commissioned donation agreement with major online retailers. It also has its own retail site where it sells branded products. The biggest difference between the branded sales success of these two organizations is the World Wildlife Fund’s recognizable logo. The plush panda is simply a more appealing item then a plush wolf. The issue is larger than the sales of plush toys, however. The root of the problem seems to be in the Defenders of Wildlife’s brand. Even though the organization is older, it does not have as great brand recognition. Whereas a casual visitor might quickly understand that it preserves wolf habitat, it is not as easy to grasp that it promotes the preservation of other habitats and animals as well. Increased Communication Most non-profits that rely on private funding engage in intensive direct marketing campaigns. Many of these non-profits use print personalization techniques in the direct marketing programs. All three organizations are using the Internet as way to cut costs, enhance communication and support their public outreach efforts. Utilizing online communication and encouraging members to engage with the organization on the website make sense for non-profits for many reasons. Cost reduction and reductions of paper waste are the most obvious incentives. These sites are also utilizing the websites to increase activism and to develop an intensive branded relationship with donors and members. The websites also act as a first line of inquiry for non-members and the press. 16
17. Unfortunately, for those individuals who can’t find answers to their questions within FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) reaching a live person is often impossible. Online Brand Enhancement & Customer Service The most significant weakness of both Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund is brand. The branding within WWF and DoW is clear, whereas Greenpeace’s attempt to merge many national offices under an international branded navigational banner did not acheive the same type of consistency. The issue of how to integrate the various national offices with an international website is an issue both Greenpeace and WWF are struggling with, though World Wildlife Fund does a better job of explaining the structure by providing a link to “World Wildlife Fund Family” information off the top site. Customer service within these nonprofits have been addressed with varying digital technologies in order to reduce their overhead cost by staffing call centers. On Greenpeace’s e-giving site, they list phone numbers as well as ICQ #s for technical support for any glitches (Appendix G.3). The other two sites do not offer that type of support. World Wildlife Fund outsources its call center, and users attempting to receive support for a technical or content related question that is a bit out of the ordinary will be shuffled through many extensions without at time receiving an answer. Greenpeace is obviously trying to address this issue with their Virtual Quick Response feature. The Successes The establishment of websites for these organizations has been largely successful. The memberships of these organizations have increased and the financial support has also increased 17
18. over the past three years. The increased membership benefits and opportunities for relationship building and communication have helped to create this trend. World Wildlife Fund and Defenders of Wildlife track the successes of each virtual campaign in order to inform their members. Some of the campaigns have been extremely successful in garnering support. In February of this year, Defenders of Wildlife’s Save the Arctic Refuge campaign overwhelmed the White House’s e-mail system. In only the first month of Defenders’ electronic petition drive to save the refuge, supporters sent more than 650,000 e-mails to President Bush and Congress (www.defenders.org). The most successful site is World Wildlife Fund because of its use of the web to integrate its marketing and reach out to new audiences. Though the multi-layered sites are a bit confusing, visitors are definitely involved in the branding experience no matter what level they enter. Its online activism section is highly personalized. The Internet revenue models are diverse and strongly supported by its corporate strategy. The strongest use of e-newsletters as a push technology to encourage activism, however, is Defenders of Wildlife. Its success was proven When it helped to halt legislation by over-burdening email systems at the White House. Organizational values lack of disposable revenue and inadequate staffing limit a non- profits’ ability to fully utilize the Internet as a communication and revenue-producing medium. However, these three non-profits show selected Internet marketing strategies can be highly effective in promoting message and supporting fundraising and activism efforts. 18
19. Works Cited The Chronicle. Big Charities Have Raised Very Little Online So Far. June 15, 2000. https://philanthropy.com/premium/articles/v12/i17/17003801.htm. Silverstein, B (2001). Business-to-Business Internet Marketing. Gulf Breeze, Florida: Maximum Press. 19