Organizational Culture As Barrier

Organizational culture is at least partially to blame for an ineffective flow of information between not-for-profits and the media. Not-for-profits are usually passionate about their work. Such fervor is guaranteed to raise the eyebrow of any journalist who has been trained in the fine art of skepticism. Journalists characteristically approach with caution anyone who is vehement about the "rightness" of their cause. Hard-nosed reporters tend to be particularly wary of organizations that exist to preserve, transmit or promote any kind of social values. Educated to play "watchdog" over government, journalists are loathe to tackle topics which could make them look like "lapdogs" to their sources or peers such as reporting on groups perceived as generating only "good news."

In trying to draw a distinction between the community sector and other sectors of our society, management consultant Peter Drucker has described not-for-profits collectively as doing work that "changes human beings."11 He contrasts their endeavors with those of government, whose work he describes as controlling, regulating and providing for the general welfare, and that of business, which supplies goods and services for a profit. Not-for-profits' "products" are neither an airplane, a latte nor a disk of software. They are a cured patient, an educated child, a soaring soul, an individual whose life is altered for the better.

Many not-for-profits are crisis-driven operations, particularly where finances are concerned. For these reasons, activities perceived by not-for-profit executives as distracting from the organization's core mission — even those as potentially important as broad-based communications efforts — can be given low priority. This is especially true in the current era where for any given organization there are increasing demands for services and apparently diminishing resources.

Not-for-profits' seemingly unquenchable thirst for resources often promotes the very media cynicism they deplore. It is hard to blame journalists for being turned off by not-for-profits' transparent, perpetual requests for publicity or their occasionally hysterical appeals aimed at raising money. The strategy of "shocking" potential donors into action via media stories has a particularly negative effect on journalists.

Said one editor: "The constant barrage of publicity-seeking tends to make journalists pretty cynical. The only time they (not-for-profits) come to (us) is when they want something publicized. Most often it is when they want money from the public."

It may be difficult for not-for-profits to separate genuine news stories from the "ask" (request for money) if only for the fact that in many such organizations, the development officer also serves as public relations officer. (He or she may work as the executive director, too!) Drawing a line between issues-oriented communications and those aimed at raising dollars can be a challenge for even the most seasoned professional.

Ironically, while media coverage can fuel public sympathies that in turn may loosen pursestrings, it is far less effective than other fund-raising strategies. A 1987 survey of Washingtonians bore out what many in the field of development know by heart: The approach that works most often to unlock a donor's treasure chest is if that donor is asked to give by someone he or she knows well. Being asked to give through news stories, telethons, TV or radio commercials rates just slightly more effective than being solicited by a stranger who goes from door to door.

Another reason media and not-for-profits have difficulty interacting lies in the latter's communications tools and practices. Most not-for-profits rely on word-of-mouth advocacy, direct mail, newsletters, annual reports, public forums, performances or special events to increase public awareness. Tools such as voice mail, broadcast fax, e-mail and websites increasingly are being used, but their arrival is too slow and still too expensive for many organizations. Few organizations are able to direct sufficient resources toward communications efforts. They must balance the expense of communications needs against every other need they are trying to meet.

The work of not-for-profits — that is, the work of building community — moves slowly and can be quite process-oriented. To cover this work thoughtfully and thoroughly requires time — time for homework and dialogue with not-for-profit leaders and their constituencies. Time is needed to understand the complexity of changing issues facing the community and the constellations of not-for-profits and government agencies grappling with them. But, time is money, and the profit motive increasingly dictates media agendas. Fewer resources are available to newsrooms to do the kind of thoughtful coverage that occurs over time and is required if a news outlet is to adequately cover community building efforts. (More on this topic in the chapter that follows.)

To Next section

To order the full report