by Zach Weismann
Whether you work for a nonprofit, corporation or start-up, odds are you’ve engaged with a brand strategy, communications or public relations (PR) agency.
In the universe of agencies, there are those that offer creative services, advertising support, PR, marketing, design, website user experience and consumer awareness. The options seem endless.
There are also scopes of work and proposals to be written, sprints, pitches, and presentations to prepare, RFPs, RFIs and many other abbreviations to understand.
Not only can executing a project itself be overwhelming, but finding the right agency to help deliver on your organizational needs is exhausting. The process can cost you and your company more than you realize.
Think about your last experience with an agency. Let’s say you had a $50,000 budget and you shared your proposal with 10 agencies. First you had to research and vet the 10 agencies. Then each of the agencies submitted their proposals and probably also made pitches (virtual and/or in person). Then you selected finalists. Perhaps you met in person a few times, held numerous phone calls, and executive leadership got involved to hear pitches and ultimately helped select the winning agency.
In many cases, if you totaled up your true costs, including overhead and time, I’d be willing to bet you spent the entire $50,000, if not more, of your allocated budget on the selection process alone.
What happens once you finally select an agency, they begin the work, and you know a few months into the engagement you aren’t satisfied with the results? Are you going to start from scratch?
Probably not. You’ll think of the $50,000 you spent on the process of selection, realize you can’t justify losing that investment by spending it again on another search, and ultimately you end up with a sub-par campaign, website or deliverable. You are left wondering why the results didn’t have the anticipated effect.
Rinse and repeat.
It’s not to say that there aren’t some very talented agencies out there doing outstanding work. For example, we love the work of Oliver Russell, Eat Well Global, The Black Sheep Agency, and Pursuant, just to name a few.
But the selection and RFP process is extremely time consuming, costly, and often leads to unsatisfied customers, missed deadlines, and unfulfilled promises.
That’s where Connective Impact can help.
Connective Impact specializes in creating partnerships and designing partnership strategies. With 40+ years experience among our partners, we have helped non-profits, foundations, large brands, and start-ups by bridging their goal gaps and finding more productive partnerships, thus yielding greater impact.
We are excited to bring this expertise to the creative space and to the agency selection process.
Connective Impact’s agency partnership process can greatly reduce the time (and therefore cost) of your proposal processes, help connect you to the right agencies that can truly deliver on what you need, vet partners for you, and help create a strategy for maximizing your return on investment to achieve your social, environmental and economic development goals. This enables you and your team to focus on what’s truly important – making a difference.
I'd love to hear your thoughts! Email me today to start the conversation.
Special thanks to Bethany Palm of
Original post on AMEA.org
I also hope to link brands, small and large, to this effort, and frankly that was a big part of my intent from the beginning. As for what I will gain, I don’t see this effort being about me. I really see it as being about the small farmers and their families. Being able to experience their growth will be very rewarding.
What is the role of the IWA chair and how will you lead the development of the Global Standard Definition for professional farmer organizations?
As the IWA chair, I hope to both spread the message about the work of AMEA, and get the right people engaged in the dialogue, and even more, ensure there is consensus and agreement on the specific terms of the standard. Recognizing that working from one voice to carry the standard forward is not going to be easy, I also hope to tap content experts from members and participants to be sure the standard correctly reflects the needs of both AMEA members, but also and equally important, the farmer communities.
How is AMEA changing the game for smallholder farmers in emerging markets?
Small farmers are critical to the future of sustainable agriculture, sustainable sourcing and the supply of food and inputs for the entire planet. This is becoming more and more of a reality to companies and buyers that depend on small farmers for their purchasing. If farmers can’t continue to produce, either due to financial constraints, climate change, or other social, environmental or economic issues, food supplies will dwindle, land will become increasingly degraded, and the potential to build a viable economy around small farming will simply cease to exist. Instead, by professionalizing small farm organizations, AMEA is creating an environment under which farmers gain the business acumen, institutional backbone and support to compete fairly and competitively. This will hopefully support a fair market system for small farmers, and provide a level of confidence to commodity buyers that small farmers are just as viable an option as any producer. For years the risks associated with producing agricultural commodities have fallen on the shoulders of small producers. With the AMEA program underway, small farmers can receive more targeted support, and compete from the same starting line when it comes to how farm organizations operate.
In your opinion, who should be involved in developing the IWA global standard definition?
Any actor that operates in a supply chain, or that supports the development of small farms by purchasing, training, providing technical assistance, regulating, advocating, or communicating.
Why are professional farmers so important for the reliable supply chain?
Supply chains can be complicated, so there’s no one easy answer to how effective supply chains must operate to ensure a competitive market, fair prices, lucrative enough wages to keep farmers in the business, and low enough prices at point of sale to sell final products. That all said, the farm organization is just as much a key component of an effective supply chain as any other actor (including the processor, aggregator, exporter, buyer, retailer or brand). If anything, without a strong basis at the farm level, there may be a lack of transparency, ineffective market dealings, unclear market signals and ultimately an economic inequality that will lead to too many unintended consequences in the supply chain.
What is your outlook on the agribusiness supply chain in the next five years?
For agribusiness to stay resilient, and continue to thrive, its corporate leaders must think about their supply chains and the actors within, as they would any employee or partner. For a farmer, producer, exporter or technical assistance implementer to succeed in both producing high quality commodities, and staying loyal to the business, being well supported, financially rewarded and having the appropriate level of business support is crucial. Being mindful of the challenges company employees face, all throughout the supply chain, and addressing those challenges as holistically as possible, will be really important. Also, agribusiness may need to start looking outside its own sector to address some of the challenges that make farming more difficult in certain geographies. I’ve often encouraged businesses with whom I work to look to a different sector, to consider non-traditional partnerships, to think creatively about how communities can benefit from many actors working together in concert to invest, shore up resources, provide technical assistance, respect the land and advocate for appropriate government policies. I have a sense that the agribusiness sector will recognize opportunities to form alliances with companies in the mining sector, for example, or healthcare, technology, or infrastructure. I’ve always thought that a producer is never just a one-commodity producer. Nor is land only suitable for one type of investment. Additionally, communities have voices too. Helping farming communities see the potential for their own land, their families and their future means agribusiness investors must be patient, creative and resourceful along with them. This is challenging, but also super exciting to think about!
I’ve definitely questioned what ‘impact’ really means, and how we know whether we’ve obtained it. I wrote an entire book about finding your own personal impact, for goodness sake. Yet when I saw Toms’ Impact report released last week, I felt a question bubble up inside: “is this really impact?” It’s pretty amazing to think that the company started by social entrepreneur Blake Mycoskie after a trip to Argentina in 2006 has given away 75 million pairs of new shoes, and now, with expanding product lines, the company is burgeoning its giving by expanding their one-for-one model and donating to fresh water causes, education, prenatal health and even bullying prevention. When Toms reports that their one-for-one glasses business has “helped restore sight to over 500 thousand people in need” it is incredibly hard to doubt the impact that must have. I do wonder though, while reading these very inspiring statistics, about their methods for data capture, reporting and impact measuring. How does giving away shoes and eyeglasses translate into improving livelihoods and leading these recipients out of poverty? Don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt it does. I am sure if I spoke to the right people at Toms, I could get that information. I suppose that’s the point to this thought of mine. When I question what impact really means for a company, an NGO, a government agency, a foundation or even a person (as I do in ChangeSeekers) I am often comforted by the fact that many companies in this day and age CAN tell you where the data comes from, how their impact is measured, where there are holes in their framework, and where they have greater needs to affect real change in their spheres of influence. The fact that we are even seeing companies reporting on impact rather than straight P&L on a regular basis means we have come a long way.
We can’t rest on these laurels, though. Even a company as forward thinking and acting as Toms, will have needs and gaps that must be addressed, ideally in partnership.
One organization that I admire greatly in the way they push NGOs, brands, governments and other influential organizations to measure and build greater social and environmental impact collaboratively is the Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA). COSA has been helping socially minded companies and organizations evaluate what their promises and commitments towards “sustainability” and “impact” really mean since 2005, and utilizes a robust and tested methodology for collecting data, analyzing it and truly showing results. When we talk about “impact” we may not always think about scope or depth, but COSA is encouraging its customers and partners to think beyond the catchy numbers and consumer facing statements, and truly understand what difference can we make to improve our world. COSA’s approach is worth noting for any organization struggling with how best to define impact. It’s an important question to ask!
In his book, “Rise Up: How to Build a Socially Conscious Business,” Russ Stoddard, founder of purpose-driven brand building company Oliver Russell, explains: “Many of today’s consumers, especially Generation Z and Millennials, are wary of corporate goodness claims. Unfortunately, talk is too often cheap in the corporate world, from decades of greenwashing to the out-and-out fraudulent…..They’re seeking truth—even when it’s not positive.” This is such a pertinent point for companies, even with their splashy social impact reports, to remember. Providing shoes, glasses, even healthcare is so incredibly needed in many parts of the world, don’t get me wrong. And not enough companies are giving back as much as they potentially could be (don’t forget, giving back can be a win-win for any corporate). Yet let’s not discount the rigor necessary to report on impact, and to couch said impact with the staggering needs this planet still has to thrive and prosper.
I will absolutely celebrate the wins along with Toms. In the meantime, I will continue pushing for greater impact regardless of mission, intent or justification. Impact, like corporate social responsibility before it, should one day be just as integral to the way a company, government or any other organization functions as the business operations themselves. It is my goal to get there through partnership development, and I know we can.