A big part of the misunderstanding related to the nature of the partnership. The second part related to the nature of the partner, Transfield Holdings. The two are interrelated and one can often be a predictor of the other. Fundraisers generally understand this. However non-fundraisers often don't.
Firstly, you should look at the nature of the partnership between a business and a nonprofit. To confuse matters there is a whole plethora of different descriptions of business partnerships with acronyms like CP, CSR, CSI, CI and CRM*. Most widely used of all and usually misused as a catchall phrase is "sponsorship". In my view this misuse seems to have also been perpetrated by the Australian Minister for the Arts.
When I'm training fundraisers, I usually talk of a spectrum of types of business partnership ranging from the soft and subtle to the hard and highly visible. At the soft and subtle end of the spectrum are partnerships that are purely philanthropic. This is where the partner is supporting the organisation without expectation of any tangible benefit. This is usually because of some type of shared value or belief. This is what I would argue was in fact the case in respect of Transfield Holdings and the Biennale. The owners of Transfield Holdings, the Belgiorno-Nettis family, have been closely associated with the art show since its inception. Franco Belgiorno-Nettis was the Biennale's first major donor and he until his death, then his son have been on the board of the organisation ever since.
In the middle of the spectrum from soft to hard are partnerships with companies wanting to put something back into the community. Usually they want this for business reasons such as wanting good relations with government, a particular community, or the public generally. This is very often the reason why banks, mining companies and oil explorers form partnerships with nonprofits.
At the hard and highly visible end are partnerships that are marketing driven. These usually involve businesses that have something to sell to the public. They hope that their association with a non-profit will enhance their brand and directly increase their sales. Often there are some direct promotional activities associated. For example, a competition or product sampling at the sponsored event. It is this hard and highly visible type of partnership that can accurately be described as a 'sponsorship'. The obvious sign that it is 'sponsorship' are highly visible company, brand or product logos.
This is where the nature of the partner can be a predictor. A FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) company such as a soft drink or an ice cream manufacturer is most likely to be interested in the type of partnership that will have a direct effect on sales and market share.
A company, that doesn't sell direct to the public but is dependent on public or government goodwill for its business is likely to want to be seen 'doing good'. These companies will talk about 'putting something back into the community'. Sometimes these may be a parent company which owns a large number of brands and products. For example, Unilever has a strategy quite separate from its brands, such as Dove Soap or Ben & Jerry's Icecream. Whilst the brands and products may be involved in marketing driven sponsorships, the parent company is likely to be involved in a less commercially driven, - a longer term partnership with a community activity. Often that activity is located in a community to which it is geographically linked in some way. For example, where its HQ or biggest factories are, or its raw materials come from, or from where it hires its workers.
Would the stoush that affected the Biennale have happened if all those involved had a better grasp of corporate partnerships? There are many types and there are many reasons that a nonprofit might be attractive to a corporate partner. This is, of course, the beauty of corporate partnerships for nonprofit organisations.
* Corporate Philanthropy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Investment, Community Investment and Cause Related Marketing. I call the acronyms the 'alphabet soup'!
No comments:
Post a Comment