Ingrid Srinath - CEO, Child Relief and You (CRY).

Do you believe that branding in NGO is important ?
I think brand building for an NGO is critical not just important.

What are the key advantages of NGO branding ?
There are many advantages to building a brand.

It insulates the organisation from the vagaries of the economy. Strong brands tend to better survive periods when the economy is on the ebb as they are not dependent on networking or on a few big donors.

Rippan Kapur, the founder of CRY passed away in 1994; I am officially the fifth CEO since then. But as far as the perception of the organisation in the outside world is concerned, CRY has remained a strong stable entity. In many other organisations where the founder is the brand, when the founder moves on or passes away, the entire organisation collapses.

Branding also allows us to increase our reach without increasing cost. Because of the strength of the brand, we were successfully able to enter new fundraising channels like face-to-face marketing and the internet. I am told that our online income is higher than big international players and certainly bigger than Indian organisations that specialise in online giving.

The reason for this is people on the internet are already looking for CRY rather than us having to convince them about CRY. These are some advantages of brand building.

What are the key disadvantages of NGO branding ?
It sometimes creates the perception of an organisation being bigger than it actually is. Often people conclude that CRY is too big a brand and does not need his/her money.

It creates the feeling that 'my small donation may not make much of a difference, so I might as well give it to a small struggling NGO that does not have the resources and brand equity that CRY has'.

This is the main disadvantage.

What are the steps involved in branding an NGO ?
As far as I'm aware Rippan did not start CRY with the deliberate aim of building a brand. At that time there was not a coherent marketing strategy. He does seem to have had a fabulous instinct for brand-building however. The greeting cards CRY started with, key events all went a long way in establishing the CRY brand.

The same rules of the general marketing universe apply when building an NGO brand.

Firstly, there has to be a coherent brand identity. e.g. the CRY logo is always consistently represented in yellow and black and a standard typeface across all communication material.

Secondly, focus - whenever one thinks of an NGO working for children in India, the first name that comes to mind is CRY. If the cause related to an organisation is dispersed or scattered, it's much more difficult to build a brand. So staying with a particular focussed cause is a second step.

The third step is consistency in message. For 25 years CRY has been repeatedly saying same thing i.e. you can make a difference. We don't talk about a different issue every day.

Finally, accountability is most important for building a brand. When people think of an NGO, there has to be a feeling of trust - this feeling is generated by being much more transparent than the law requires one to be.

As a trust we are only required to file returns with the Charities Commissioner, Income Tax department and FCRA department. But we go much further. We publish an annual report, we talk to the media about our finances and we report our accounts in far greater detail then we are required to. The essence of our brand is trust.

What are the key audiences in branding an NGO ?
For us the key audience is individual donors as they are CRY's main source of income.

An average middle class person is the core target audience for us. Also, buyers of greeting cards which include a large component of corporate buyers. Finally, companies are an important audience because they see the benefit of a brand rub off when we do a tie up. So these are the three really key audiences. And to a lesser extent our audience is also bureaucrats, media, judiciary and celebrities.

If individual donors are your main source of livelihood, then brand building is particularly important. But if you are working mainly with a few large donors - corporates, funding agencies or the government, then branding can be less important.

Who is the main driver- CEO or board ?
In CRY everybody is a driver. It starts from people who go out and sell cards all the way up to the board of trustees.

I can't say that any person is more representative or less representative of CRY. CRY has never been about personalities.

Most people would not be able to recognise Rippan's face, or the face of any other CEO, board member or employee of CRY.

At CRY we've always projected the organisation and the brand and not ourselves.

What is the role of NGO board in branding ?
The board plays a couple of key roles when it comes to branding. They themselves are brand ambassadors. In every circle that they move in, whether business or social, they are representatives of the CRY brand.

They conduct themselves accordingly and are completely informed about the organisation. Secondly they have to make sure that different parts of the organisation remain true to the mission.

Sometimes an organisation pushes faster down the advocacy route or at times there is an opportunity to get quick money. But it can be negative for the organisation in the long run.

Ensuring overall accountability and good governance is also a board responsibility and that is a big contributor to building brand equity.

Is the size of operations critical for branding an NGO ?
It is the other way round - the brand helps achieve size. One does not need size to be a brand.

Mother Teresa was a great NGO brand.I remember when she died, the Air India hoarding at Nariman Point had just a blank white hoarding with two blue stripes. Every one knew who and what they were talking about.

There are brands that spend lots of money, but still don't have that kind of recognition.

As I said earlier, consistency, focus, and being accountable is most important for building a brand, and not just size.

How much time does it take to build an NGO brand ?
It depends on your resources and creativity. The quick route to building a brand would be to put in lots of money, which most NGOs including CRY do not have. So that is not an option for most of us. Being creative can be a way. I will share an instance here.

Every year we produce a new range of greeting cards and come out with a press release. And that press release appears as a small 20-column centimeter article in the not so noticeable parts of newspapers.

But two years ago, our agency came up with an idea of putting up a picture of children interacting with cards instead of sending out normal pictures that just have the cards in them. So instead of having 20 c.c. news items, we got quarter/half page articles - every publication loves to run pictures of children. Thus, innovation and creativity is the way to build a brand quickly if you don't have resources that the corporate sector has.

Another way of building a brand that CRY has consciously chosen not to do is to get endorsements. Mr. Vaghul on television endorsing Give India Foundation or Waheeda Rehman talking about Pratham- is another way to rapidly grow the brand in the absence of resources.

CRY chooses not to do that because we would rather talk about children's issues and the work we do than have attention diverted by celebrities.

With an internet medium where by you can reach varied audiences like individual donors, NRI faster and cheaper - do you think building an NGO brand is simpler ?
In fact it is more difficult in many ways to build a brand online. As the online medium is more fragmented and cluttered, there is no difference seen in terms of the work an organisation does.

Just putting up a good website is not enough. The question is how can one generate traffic to the site ?

As is the case with most other product categories, a strong offline brand has inherent advantages online.

There are some NGOs giving more value to branding, but their work is superficial - do you think it affects credibility of branded NGOs as well as the sector ?
I don't know whom you are referring to. I am not aware of any NGO that is well branded but whose work is superficial.

Certainly in some ways well known NGO brands should carry a greater responsibility. The way well-known brands behave affects the image of the sector as a whole.

It is much easier to target a big brand. For example, if someone wants to talk about the health hazards of fast food - it is much easier to target McDonald's than somebody not as well known.

So big brands in that sense have the onus of being extra accountable, careful and cautious in everything they do. Because whatever they do will affect the sector as a whole.

How can corporate professionals, brand managers, production managers, advertisement and PR professionals help NGO in branding ?
In many ways! In our case, we get support from people who sponsor our products catalogue that allows us to mail out many more catalogues, which in turn helps to sell more cards, and that helps to build a stronger brand. We have had help in various areas from warehouse space, sponsorship of advertising and sponsorship of events to cause related marketing tie-ups.

We also have tie-ups like the CITI-CRY credit card or the TATA Salt Desh Ko Arpan programme that happens twice a year. We would never be able to promote the cause or CRY on the scale TATA Salt does. Cadence Design Systems does an annual cricket event for us.

That helps us reach out to over 40 different companies in Delhi and Chandigarh, which wouldn't have been possible without the Cadence sponsorship.

Finally, advertising agencies, market research agencies, PR agencies and media companies provide us with free or discounted services that go a long way in building the brand.

CRY has been fortunate to have had some of the most talented professionals in these areas extend their support right from its inception 25 years ago. Thus there are multiple ways in which they can help us build a brand.

People think that when they support CRY, funds go to CRY. Not many are aware that CRY supports 171 odd NGOs across the country working on children's issues.
Do you think CRY should address this dimension of its largeness ?
It certainly should and we are trying very hard to communicate this. Obviously we haven't been terribly successful at it. This year we are making a greater effort to create awareness.

In this years print ads, we are talking about case studies from these organisations and communities that we support, which are very specific. We talk about Subhag Lal who was a bonded labourer but today is a graduate and a pradhan in his village.

We talk about Children's Welfare Society - the CRY supported organisation that worked in Ghoraval with children. In these ads, CRY's presence is relatively low. Historically, we tended to do very similar looking ads with a very hopeful child looking at you.

We did small black and white ads that would not allow us room to communicate what we actually do. The process of making what we do clearer is on, but it's too early to say whether we have been successful or not.

How do you define governance ?
Things that you do to ensure accountability to stakeholders is my broad definition of governance.

It ranges from financials and statutory requirements to ensuring that every individual in the organisation is performing to the best of potential.

There is a whole gamut of activities including accounting systems, reporting systems, strategy, audits and reviews and reporting to the public that is encompassed within the area of governance.

What are your views on NGO governance ?
I have mixed views on NGO governance. For a charitable trust, government requirements on various compliances are excessive.

One has to fill in a lot of forms, report to several authorities and yet, there is no real oversight. It is then left to the NGO to decide what level of real accountability it wants to deliver.

That depends on the board, what donors are asking for, and what the NGO itself chooses to do - which is not conducive to generally good governance in the sector. There is huge room for improvement.

Various initiatives have been spoken of - IndianNGOs' own rating concept, CII has spoken of a rating system and the work of the Credibility Alliance - but none of them seems to have taken off yet.

How can an NGO be governed better ?
Donors need to ensure that. Donors must ensure that the NGOs they contribute to are accountable to them both financially and programmatically.

So donors should ask NGOs to establish that their money is used honestly and effectively. I believe that the real force for change will come from donors.

What kind of capacity building needs to be done at board level for better NGO governance ?
It starts from the composition of the board itself. At CRY we try to get some diversity of skills on board.

We have some financial expertise, legal expertise, development expertise etc. because a mix of skills can give a better holistic perspective. In terms of capacity building, the board should be familiar with laws that govern the sector.

I have met members of NGO boards who do not even know what the trust deed says or what the requirements are on reporting, or board rotation. Diligence more than capacity building is required at a board level.

And it is the NGO's responsibility to ensure that board members are familiar with all the laws and regulations that govern the sector.

Also, they should keep themselves informed of new developments in the sector.

How difficult/easy it is to make NGO accountable and transparent ?
If you want to be accountable and transparent, it is extremely easy. Most NGOs I am aware of are not raising funds on a day-to-day basis from the public at large. There is no pressure on them to be accountable.

An NGO living off its endowment or supported by few large entities, does not feel as much pressure to be as well governed as one that has to go out everyday and convert people to the cause. So it's extremely easy at one level.

If donors choose to, donors can make an NGO accountable overnight. If donors choose not to, then there is nothing that you can do to make an NGO accountable.

It does, however, cost money to do all these things - audits, reviews, reporting and qualified professional employees and service providers. Boards, senior executives and donors need to appreciate their value and be willing to spend scarce resources on them.

Do you think if 200-300 large NGOs start practicing NGO governance, it will add credibility to sector ?
Yes.

Certainly the onus is on the larger and more visible NGOs. Not even 200-300 NGOs, even if a few dozen NGOs were to practice and be seen to practice good governance it will make a huge difference.

So it's not just being accountable, but to be seen as accountable that is equally important.

How can NGO credibility enhanced ?
Just by remembering where our resources come from and ensuring that we deliver accountability to those people.

Some degree of competition would be healthy for the sector. We don't compete in the conventional sense; we never in our messages try to portray ourselves better than the others.

In some ways that results in a lack of pressure to be accountable. As more NGOs enter, we will all be fighting for the same donors or resources. This will, I think, put pressure on the sector to be more accountable.

What is the role of media in NGO credibility ?
It's huge just like any other sector. Just as they are the watchdogs of politicians, bureaucrats, the public sector or the corporate sector- the media can play a similar role for NGOs.

The media is currently not paying much attention to this area. They are very co-operative, but they do not proactively seek out information.

There is a kind of empathy for the sector. Perhaps they will not pay attention to the issue until their readers want it.

If readers want it, then the media like any other marketing organisation is going to supply to that demand. Currently they are not feeling the pressure of covering what's going wrong or right with the sector.