Design. Charity. Life.

The web is changing. Society is changing. And people are coming together to do something good about it. Net Change Week is full of events that explore how social innovation and social technology are changing our society. The week on “social tech for social change” exists because of this rapid change, and I believe it’s key for social causes to get on board! This is where the MyCharityConnects conference comes in, the sold-out event which I had the opportunity to attend this year.

Over 200 charities and non-profits from across Canada gathered at the well-designed MaRS Centre for this exciting social media and online fundraising learning opportunity, on June 6 and 7 in Toronto. There were opportunities to learn about social media platforms, trends in technology, mobile giving, community building, online fundraising and video, movement marketing, and a lot more. As CanadaHelps describes it, the conference was “by the sector for the sector; it was just the attendees and the experts, including the charities that have done it right”.

By the name of this website alone, you can understand how relevant MyCharityConnects is! For a brief intro to the conference itself, watch this video:

The conference included some incredible presentations, and for someone like me who is constantly online with social media and active in the non-profit world, it was challenging narrowing down which ones to attend.

One seminar that caught my eye was called #Fail – Biggest Online Mistakes and How to Avoid Them, sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Presenter Lee Rose made the session interactive, and displayed the many tweets coming from the conference and its outside followers. Rose posted his presentation online, which you can click-through in full here:

Being really interested in design and branding personally, I found the session on Reaching the Next Generation of Supporters Through Integrated Branding Programs eye-opening. Sheetal Persaud and Matt Barr of a company called HJC lead this session, which included executing branded programs and campaigns for non-profits. The complexity of Passion Branding is very interesting.

“Let’s get real – social media is only one complementary channel for your online programs,” says Claire Kerr, Director of Digital Fundraising at Artez Interactive. I had a great conversation with Kerr during a break and am a fan of her down-to-earth presentation topic, “Oops! You Raised Awareness Without Raising Money (Whatcha gonna do about it?)“.

But what is the real relationship between technology – the online world – and charities? I found a comment by Katya Andresen fascinating when she answered the question of why people contribute to causes: “Technology when used right helps people be generous. People have to feel compelled to give.”

To gain some insight on the conference from an organizer’s perspective, I asked CanadaHelps‘ Fundraising & Business Development Coordinator Katelyn McKeown, and Marketing & Communications Manager Kirstin Beardsley their thoughts.

Of course there’s a huge conference about it, but those who did not attend may wonder how important technology is for non-profits today.

“Technology is hugely important to non-profits for many reasons: donors/volunteers/clients and other constituencies are using technology and non-profits/charities need to be able to communicate with these groups where they are. Technology is a low-cost communications options compared to many traditional communications tactics. Technology tools allow charities to publish their own interactive content without needing to wait for a media outlet to be interested in the cause.”

I also asked how the CanadaHelps’ team feels that a conference like MyCharityConnects benefits the non-profit community overall. They shared that it “levels the playing field in terms of building knowledge about how to use technology effectively.” They added that MyCharityConnects is cost-effective, which isn’t always the case for other tech conferences, and that the content is geared specifically to a non-profit audience.

Since the conference featured so much great content, it’s easy to miss some great presentations. I asked CanadaHelps’ McKeown and Beardsley what they found most memorable, and it was was a case study presented by Sara Falconer.

“Sara provided the audience with some great examples as to how organizations such as World Wildlife Fund-Canada are taking its online communities to the next level. Throughout the presentation Sara highlighted the importance of creating a strategy by looking at three main areas: Goals, Tactics and Metrics. As the audience shared their experiences and ideas we were able to learn as a group the importance of defining what we want to accomplish, how we want to accomplish it and the most effective way of measuring our success in social media.”

All of the 2011 MyCharityConnects Conference presentation slides have been conveniently posted online here.

Thank you to to the teams at CanadaHelps, SiG@MaRS, PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada Foundation, and the many other supporters and sponsors, who put on an inspiring event.

From rectangle to square – Evolving and ever-changing, Canada’s University of the Imagination, OCAD University, has launched it’s visual identity.

After being part of the consultation process and committee, I am definitely excited about the final result. As a proud OCAD University graphic design student, this launch is something I have been looking forward to for the last several months.

OCAD University wanted a new visual identity to “reflect the path of a 135-year-old institution moving quickly into the future.” Bruce Mau Design – the Toronto-based studio that also created the identity of the AGO amongst others – spent many months and countless hours of consultation with students, alumni, faculty and staff before arriving at their final design.

The BMD team facilitated interviews, designing multiple workshops, disseminating questionnaires, leading classroom discussions, and I had the chance to help with the social media connections – the overall goal being to capture the spirit of OCAD U.

But what a challenge – to design for an art and design school! Bruce Mau Design asked themselves, ‘can the visual identity reveal the extraordinary creative energy that lives at OCAD U?’ Here is how they describe the result:

Inspired by the iconic and transformational Alsop-designed building, BMD “created a base of black and white pixel ‘windows’” which are meant to be frames to hold actual student work. It is through these ‘windows’ that we see the core of OCAD U that is often hidden from view – conceptually strong, diverse, and compelling. This is a dynamic and modular identity where every year, graduating student medal winners will be invited to contribute to the logo within the basic window framework, providing a set of logos for that year. As OCAD U grows and matures, a living library of identities will necessarily emerge, recording the ideas and aesthetics that have shaped our culture over time.

If you’re thinking that the black squares look familiar, they were inspired by the architecture of OCAD U (the Sharp Centre for Design by Will Alsop). They created a “base of black and white pixel ‘windows’” which are also frames to hold actual student work.

Here is a video created by the design studio with the university to express and explain the exciting new identity:

I am most inspired by the openness and inclusiveness of the ever-changing design: the ability to add new pieces of artwork and design within the fixed square of the logo. This will express the diversity of our university and allow it to stay fresh.

It was an incredible experience to be part of the process, and I thank both Bruce Mau Design and the OCAD University Marketing & Communications department for the opportunity.

Visit the OCAD University Visual Identity page or the Bruce Mau Design article.

Update: My favourite branding design blog has posted their review on the new brand! Read the post on Under Consideration’s Brand New here.

There is a lot of discussion about the world of Corporate Social Responsibility today, and the movement is not slowing down.

Last month, I wrote about the how some corporations take advantage of socially responsible advertising. This month, I had the opportunity to ask a key corporate contact about the relationship non-profit organizations have with corporations, how corporate giving affects public perception, and how others can implement socially responsible practices and initiatives in their businesses.

James Temple, the Director of Corporate Responsibility at PwC and of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada Foundation, took some time to answer my questions on this expanding popular topic.

Recently, the foundation put together a report on Capacity Building, which contains content from the community discussions they organized.

The project wasn’t without some necessary friction – there were some big opinions, passionate debates and lot of talk about the fact more of these roundtables need to happen.  Suffice to say, we’re excited about continuing this important project.

How do we do this at PwC? To ensure we make a significant impact in our community involvement, we developed a measurement tool called the Volunteer Continuum, which we’ve recently made available for other corporations and not-for-profits to use as a resource. The Continuum helps individuals and businesses become more strategic in their volunteer efforts and was developed in collaboration with some of Canada’s largest charitable organizations, including Volunteer Canada, Imagine Canada and the Toronto Community Foundation.

Not only are we focused internally on our own approach to CR, we’re also actively engaged with the not-for-profit and corporate communities to help evolve charitable partnerships to become more effective.

The question remains on how organizations will stay focused on what’s really important – having measureable impacts and outcomes in the community vs. driving competition in such a non-competitive space. The first step is for not-for-profits and corporations to have more candid, honest conversations about how support needs to evolve to help not-for-profits achieve their missions. You can read more about our Capacity Building paper at pwc.com/ca/capacitybuilding.

This is a response to Judith Schwartz’s article ”Socially Responsible Advertising: Altruism or Exploitation?”

Judith Schwartz asks if corporate advertising with a social agenda is altruistic or primarily a profit-making marketing strategy. Today there are many examples of businesses and individuals that are increasing their charitable contributions and committing to making the world, or their community, a better place. However the question of motivation and influence of these actions is of great concern. Are most corporations as selfless as individuals are– and would they typically choose to donate?

Altruism is about being selfless and making sacrifices for others. I do not believe that corporations publicly sponsoring or donating to a cause is altruistic, because above all other reasons the sole propose of such businesses is to generate profits for their shareholders. If they are instead interested in volunteering and “doing good”, it is because they gain from these actions in some way. Did Starbucks loose out by announcing a portion of every coffee during one day would benefit a non-profit? No. Did Reebok promoting international human rights minimize the fact that they exploit child labour? No. Companies do not sacrifice their resources or profits in order to give to charities. That, however, would be selfless. The corporation’s goal is to earn as much money as possible and to turn a profit every year – helping the homeless shelter next door to their corporate headquarters is irrelevant to this goal. Instead they give some extra profits, mostly at insanely low proportions, to benefit themselves (through increased sales of cause-affiliated products and a positive image in the eyes of consumers). Schwartz illustrates the issues with corporate image and bottom line as a focus (such as Benetton using popular causes in their clothing marketing to increase sales), and that there is currently no such thing as true altruism when it comes to business.

Corporations today are legitimately afraid of losing or offending customers that believe in a just world. Sometimes experiences for corporations do not go smoothly – for example, there have been various “backlashes” on Starbucks, among other companies. Scott Bedbury, Starbucks senior VP-marketing believes that “advertising can help address the issue of Starbucks backlash.” Clearly this advertising; specifically affiliating themselves with non-profits, causes and “sustainable” initiatives around the world; is major evidence of how they want the public to perceive them. Many businesses are becoming affiliated with non-profits simply to better their image – with barely any funds going to their associated causes – yet consumers choose these brands because of the encouraging concept of ‘helping a charity’. The term “Philofrags” was created specifically to describe the small fragments of things that companies do to appear that they are “full of caring, concerned and thoughtful people who have their hearts in the right places”.

Based on this attitude an example of campaigning to associate a brand with “social good” is Starbucks Ethos Water brand, advertised as helping children get clean water – which sounds great, however they charge obscene prices with minimal portions donated. Some consumers notice this and have campaigns against this stating, “Ethos-Water will join leading NGO’s at events across North America to further disguise profits with the guise of operating a philanthropic business as profits shoot through the roof.” Polls have shown that cause marketing (the fastest growing form of marketing, in which brands affiliate with a social cause) influences consumers’ perception of brands and their purchasing decisions.

Sadly, causes are selected based on guidelines that fit the image (referred to as “Image Builders”) of the brand. As Schwartz explains, cause-related marketing proceeds are mainly directed to large, visible causes that appeal to a private-sector constituency. Because of this trend, “less marketable” yet equally worthy causes may not benefit. I do not think this is just – but does it have to be? No, because “corporations seem to have one goal in common—to increase their profits through advertising”. Unless there is a proportionate, significant impact and they are practicing what they preach – it is important for consumers ask, “Is what appears to be socially responsible advertising actually ethical?” Schwartz states that businesses are are trying to “persuade the consumer to buy their products by portraying themselves as having progressive value systems similar to their own”.

Being someone who has started a non-profit organization and works with various charities, I find it frustrating and selfish when corporations create their own causes, registering new non-profit organizations that would simply result ib tax benefits and control. There are countless worthy charities and causes in existence today, many of which who are highly credible and can have a far greater impact than a new initiative run solely by a corporation. I agree with Schwartz in stating that at times there is much insincerity with businesses – such as Levi’s, appearing socially responsible for donating auction proceeds to Peace 200, while at the same time operating some of the “worst sweatshops in the developing world.” Large businesses capping donations or donating an incredibly low percentage of earnings is unfair and not effective to the causes that need support most. Especially if additional earnings are generated by showcasing the cause – the non-profit better be receiving legitimate support. Brands seeking to strengthen relationships with the community at large will generally sponsor or donate to events and local causes. Despite their efforts and some positive outcomes, I personally see this as buying out support, buying out a positive image. I am a huge advocate of philanthropy and social activism overall – and like Schwartz, I encourage individuals to from their heart for the right reasons. Hopefully one-day corporations and non-profits can co-exist without constant exploitation.