$809 million $228 million (11.7 pp) $359 million $163 million (3.3 pp) Guinea $130 million (2.1 percentage point) Short Term Impact 2014 $66 million (3.4 pp) A World Bank Group’s analysis of the Ebola epidemic released Wednesday, September 17, finds that if the virus continues to surge in the three worst-affected countries – Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone – its economic impact could grow eight-fold, dealing a potentially catastrophic blow to the already fragile states in the West African sub-region. The analysis, however, finds that economic costs can be limited if swift national and international responses succeed in containing the epidemic and mitigating “aversion behavior” – a fear factor, it observes, resulting from peoples’ concerns about contagion, which is fueling the economic impact.In a statement on the Ebola epidemic, World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said, “The primary cost of this tragic outbreak is in human lives and suffering, which has already been terribly difficult to bear. But our findings make clear that the sooner we get an adequate containment response and decrease the level of fear and uncertainty, the faster we can blunt Ebola’s economic impact.”“We have seen in recent days a serious scaling up on the part of international donors to contain the Ebola epidemic. Today’s report underscores the huge potential costs of the epidemic if we don’t ramp up our efforts to stop it now,” said Kim.The analysis uses two alternative scenarios to estimate the medium-term impact of the epidemic to the end of calendar year 2015. A “Low Ebola” scenario envisions rapid containment within the three core countries, while “High Ebola” corresponds to the upper ranges of current epidemiological estimates. Please see below a chart highlighting the World Bank’s estimates of impacts on output individually and in aggregate. Estimates of impacts on output individually and in aggregate, in the short term (2014) and medium term (2015) Liberia Core Three Countrie Medium-term impact(2015 – High Ebola) $59 million (1.2 pp) $82 million (4.2 pp) – $43 million (1.0 pp) Sierra Leone $439 million (8.9 pp) Medium-term impact(2015 – Low Ebola) $97 million $142 million (2.3 pp) Entries are in current US dollars (with percentage points of GDP in brackets where appropriate).The analysis estimates the short-term impact on output to be 2.1 percentage points of gross domestic product (GDP) in Guinea (reducing growth from 4.5 percent to 2.4 percent); 3.4 percentage points in Liberia (reducing growth from 5.9 percent to 2.5 percent); and 3.3 percentage points in Sierra Leone (reducing growth from 11.3 percent to 8 percent).This forgone output corresponds to US$359 million in 2014 prices. However, if Ebola is not contained, these estimates rise to US$809 million in the three countries alone, the Bank said. In Liberia, the hardest hit country, the ‘High Ebola’ scenario sees output hit 11.7 percentage points in 2015 (reducing growth from 6.8 percent to -4.9 percent).The short-term fiscal impacts are also large, at US$93 million for Liberia (4.7 percent of GDP); US$79 million for Sierra Leone (1.8 percent of GDP); and US$120 million for Guinea (1.8 percent of GDP). Slow containment gaps would almost certainly lead to even greater financing gaps in 2015, the analysis finds.Inflation and food prices were initially contained but are now rising in response to shortages, panic buying, and speculation. Those families already vulnerable to food price shocks are becoming increasingly exposed. Exchange rate volatility has increased in all three countries, particularly since June, fueled by uncertainty and some capital flight, the Bank added.The analysis finds that the largest economic effects of the crisis are not as a result of the direct costs (mortality, morbidity, caregiving, and the associated losses to working days) but rather those resulting from aversion behavior driven by fear of contagion. This in turn leads to a fear of association with others and reduces labor force participation, closes places of employment, disrupts transportation, and motivates some government and private decision-makers to close sea ports and airports. In the recent history of infectious disease outbreaks such as the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic of 2002-2004 and the H1N1 flu epidemic of 2009, the analysis notes that behavioral effects have been responsible for as much as 80 – 90 percent of the total economic impact of the epidemics.The findings of the analysis underline the need for a concerted international response. External financing is clearly needed in the three core countries, and the impact estimates suggest that containment and mitigation expenditures as high as several billion dollars would be cost-effective if they successfully avert the worse scenario. The analysis describes four related activities such a response should include:Humanitarian support Such as desperately needed, personal protective equipment and hazard pay for health workers, emergency treatment units, standardized and universally applied protocols for care, etc.Fiscal supportThe fiscal gap, just for 2014, is estimated at around US$290 million. Increased injections of external support can strengthen growth in these fragile economies.Screening facilities at airports and seaportsPolicies are required that will enable the flow of relief and encourage commercial exchange with the affected countries.Strengthening the surveillance, detection, and treatment capacity of African health systemsWeak health sectors in Africa are a threat not only to their own citizens but also to their trading partners and the world at large. The enormous economic cost of the current outbreak could be avoided by prudent ongoing investment in health system strengthening.The World Bank Group, meanwhile disclosed that it is mobilizing a total $230 million financing package for the three countries hardest hit by the Ebola crisis, which will help contain the spread of infections, help communities cope with the economic impact of the crisis, and improve public health systems throughout West Africa. The World Bank is supporting country responses in line with the World Health Organization (WHO) Roadmap, and is coordinating assistance closely with the UN and other international and country partners. As of mid-September 2014, of the pledged US$230 million, the Bank declared that it has mobilized US$117 million for the emergency response, which includes IDA grants of US$58 million for Liberia, US$34 million for Sierra Leone, and US$25 million for Guinea. The IDA, or the International Development Association, is the Bank’s fund for the world’s poorest countries. These funds, the Bank explained, are paying for essential supplies and drugs, personal protective equipment and infection prevention control materials, health workers training, hazard pay and death benefits to Ebola health workers and volunteers, contact tracing, vehicles, data management equipment and door-to-door public health education outreach. Additional support will help strengthen countries’ health systems and capacity to delivery essential health services, along with disease surveillance and laboratory networks to guard against future outbreaks.The World Bank Group is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world, with the goals of ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity. Improving people’s health is integral to achieving these goals. The Bank Group provides financing, state-of-the-art analysis, and policy advice to help countries expand access to quality, affordable health care; protect people from falling into poverty or worsening poverty due to illness; and promote investments in all sectors that form the foundation of healthy societies.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Crescent City >> Jaden Gorge gave up nine hits and struck out three in a complete-game effort as the Arcata Tigers outlasted the Del Norte Warriors 9-5 in Big 5 Conference baseball action Tuesday afternoon at Del Norte High School.“They (Del Norte) got us in the championship game of the tournament in Redding last weekend, so it was good to get this win,” Arcata coach Troy Ghisetti said.The Tigers (9-4 overall, 3-1 Big 5) quickly took advantage of what was a porous defensive showing behind …
Tags:#Amazon#App Store#Apple#apps#Appstore for Android#Kindle Fire#lawsuits Role of Mobile App Analytics In-App Engagement What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech … Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Apple and Amazon have settled their differences over the term “app store,” putting an end to a dispute that began when Apple sued Amazon in 2011 over the e-commerce king’s use of the term for the store that it uses to sell mobile applications for its Kindle Fire tablets. Today, U.S. District Court judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland, Calif. agreed to dismiss the case. According to a report from Reuters, Apple agreed to drop the case in order to avoid a counterclaim from Amazon. Apple had originally claimed trademark violation and false advertising over Amazon’s use of the App Store name. “We no longer see a need to pursue our case,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told Reuters. “With more than 900,000 apps and 50 billion downloads, customers know where they can purchase their favorite apps.”Amazon’s application store is technically called the “Amazon Appstore For Android.” It sells and markets apps specifically for its Kindle Fire tablets, which compete with Apple’s iPad. Apple’s version is just the “App Store” on iPhones and iPads; it also lives as a feature of Apple’s desktop iTunes software. Amazon had claimed that the “app store” term had become generic and was thus safe to use. Apple’s App Store turns five years old on Wednesday, July 10. The Amazon Appstore for Android was launched on March 22, 2011. dan rowinski Related Posts The Rise and Rise of Mobile Payment Technology
China furious as Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Pagasa: Kammuri now a typhoon, may enter PAR by weekend Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next MOST READ BACKSTORY: Jeff Horn starving, still overweightManny Pacquiao, left, and Jeff Horn pose for a photo after weighing in, Tuesday, July 1, 2017, in Brisbane, Australia. Pacquiao, is putting his WBO welterweight world title on the line Sunday, July 2, against the 29-year-old Horn. APPacquiao, an 11-time world champion across eight divisions, is a hot favorite to win his 60th fight when he lines up against Horn, the 29-year-old former school teacher who is unbeaten in his 17 fights since turning pro in 2013.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool starsThe fight will be held on Sunday afternoon local time and broadcast live on ESPN into the U.S. on Saturday night.READ: Pacquiao vs Horn: Chance for a masterpiece Cayetano to unmask people behind ‘smear campaign’ vs him, SEA Games Pagasa: Kammuri now a typhoon, may enter PAR by weekend LOOK: Jane De Leon meets fellow ‘Darna’ Marian Rivera Another vape smoker nabbed in Lucena LATEST STORIES Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Pacquiao, Horn make weight for ‘Battle of Brisbane’7K viewsSportsVentuno Web Player 4.51 BRISBANE, Australia— The last of the formalities is over, and Manny Pacquiao is ready for his WBO welterweight world title defense against Australian Jeff Horn.Both boxers easily made the weight on Saturday morning at Suncorp Stadium, with Pacquiao tipping the scales at 66.1 kilograms (146 pounds) and Horn weighing in at 66.3 kilograms (147 pounds).ADVERTISEMENT What ‘missteps’? Racela: We’ll find better ways to defend San Miguel View comments
Good marketers understand the values of your audience, not your own, should shape how you communicate. So I want to call your attention to someone who is letting their audience shape their creative work, turning their web redesign into a conversation with constituents. American Rivers is truly moving audience feedback upstream as the organization rethinks americanrivers.org, nationalrivercleanup.org, and healthyrivers.org.First, check out their blog, which shows just how transparent and collaborative their redesign is. Also take a look at their Flickr contest, where they are asking river-lovers to upload their own photos.My Network for Good colleague Stacie Mann knows the clever guy behind this work and the blog, Chas Offutt, and asked him how goes the marketing conversation that he’s started. Here are his responses:1) Was there any pushback within organization about being so transparent? Nothing to date, but I’m not exactly sure how many people are aware of the blog. I’ve been rolling it out on an individual basis to generate feedback, greater review before I make a larger outward push. These small steps have worked out well as I’ve made a quite a few changes over the first 5 weeks that have greatly impacted the direction of my efforts. I’ve gotten some excellent feedback from co-workers, friends, and counterparts within the online advocacy community.2) What results are you seeing with blogging?Well, I’m seeing growth in traffic, comments, and general participation (Crazy Egg’s heat map is pretty cool, which, by the way, that idea came from a visitor). And, internally, I’m getting a lot of support from folks who appreciate being involved in the process. Last month, I held a Web 2.0 Introduction that went over really well. It would be great to have del.icio.us, Flickr, and RSS on our site, but what good would it be if the staff had no idea what it means and more importantly, how it can benefit their work. I feel the blog, as well as my work within the organization, should contain an education (i.e. testing) component – hence some of the “blog bling”. The success of our efforts online will not be because of me or my team, but the organization as a whole.3) What kinds of things surprised you? Good or bad… Aside from folks actually reading it, I’ve been a little surprised with the number of paths that I’ve been able to pursue as a result of this online dialogue – I seem to be referred to some cool new thing everyday (e.g. Vizu from Katya). I know I’m not the first to experience these online changes and one reason I wanted to do start this blog was to learn more about what’s happening in my field and reach out to those who have gone, going, or thinking about going through a website redesign. Down the road, I’d love to see everyone in the organization blogging (but not like PhilTube) about their work – that would be awesome.
“Help! My boss hates marketing!” is one of the most common comments I get from people who speak to me after my presentations. Here are some quick answers to: “How do I get my boss/board/team to value/fund/stop hating marketing?”Simply stated, you don’t. Instead, you do the following six things.1. Stop calling it marketing. Call it something else.Instead of trying to convince your boss, board or team to love marketing, try showing them what THEY care about and how you can make that happen.2. Show how your “initiative” meets their agenda. Don’t position your agenda as a marketing campaign; frame it as your initiative to support your boss’s goals, in your boss’s language. Demonstrate how you are going to help make that fundraising goal, audience behavior change or front-page newspaper story happen.3. Make it about the audience.A good way to depersonalize different visions for “marketing” is to make it about your audience’s preferences rather than a philosophical tug of war between you and said boss. A little audience research is great fodder for advancing your agenda.4. Report every wee step of progress.Every single time anything good happens, be sure the boss knows it. Identify some early, likely wins toward your boss’s goals and report victories.5. Give your boss credit and put him or her in the spotlight. When good things happen, give credit to your boss. Create a dashboard that shows progress against your boss’s goals and let your boss show that progress to the board. Your boss will like you for it. If you pitched your organization’s story in a completely new, marketing-savvy way to reporters and that yielded your boss’s photo in the paper, all the better.6. Seek forgiveness, not permission. If all else fails, just do what you want to do anyway, quietly, and tell your boss about it when something good happens.
Step 1: Research your audience. Effective communication starts with research. Have you done basic research on what’s on the minds of your target donors? A brief phone call to a prospective, current, and former donor will generate plenty of useful information about what motivates people to action. Click here to learn more about audience profiles.Step 2: Create a sense of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is often needed to get someone to donate. A recent research study of nine different nonprofits highlights a few methods to lend a sense of immediacy to your appeals. Click here to read a summary of the study.Step 3: Make it easier to donate. Is your “Donate Now” button easy for people to find? Statistics show that most people won’t make it past your home page, so make sure your donate now button is prominent. Click here for a good example. When was the last time a nonprofit wrote something or did something that inspired you to donate? Here are three steps (with examples) you can take to connect with your audience and make it easy for them to donate.
I had a fascinating conversation the other day with the director of a UK nonprofit organization that has about a thousand individuals and organizations paying annual fees for online services, newsletters, events and all the other stuff that goes with association membership.As a pretty entrepreneurial outfit the organization also has dozens of projects on the go with scores of public, private and nonprofit partners. Then there’s the host of other people who just want to keep in touch, all making a great cloud of contacts and relationships that are more or less active at any time.It costs the organization a lot to maintain these relationships. It costs the members quite a bit in annual fees. We talked about the ways that things could be improved – but the core question we ended up with was: “What’s the nature of association membership? What’s the point of it these days?”It used to be that you joined associations because it was a way of meeting like-minded people and getting help, facilities, information and other things difficult or costly to organize for yourself. These days it is much easier to find people and resources online, and to mix and match these assets into project teams, communities of practice, and informal networks.In addition, the best ideas often come from crossing professional and interest boundaries. That means you have to pay quite a lot of membership fees if you feel conventional associations are the way to get these contacts. Or you join social networking sites like ecademy and LinkedIn as well as building your own networks, perhaps using new applications like the People Aggregator.I recommend looking at a blog and forthcoming book appropriately entitled “We Have Always Done it That Way” which offers 101 ideas for associations in the future. It won’t offer off-the-shelf solutions to my questioning director friend, because it is based on US experience and does assume fairly high tech competence among association members. The non-tech ideas require some translation into the UK culture, and our legal and funding regimes. I think those translations will be made, and have recently bumped into a few people from the social software and knowledge management fields lucky enough to have nonprofit clients waking up to the challenge.Meanwhile I’m happy to spend a fair bit on membership of the distinctly upmarket Institute of Directors (as well as other lower-cost nonprofits) even if I don’t agree with their political line most of the time. Why? Well, there’s the free meeting facilities in different cities, excellent seminars, legal and other services, and the generally excellent level of service. I feel looked after … and you get half a case of fine wines if you recruit a new member. Anyone want to sign up and split that?Source: http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/2006/08/why_bother_with.html
Open rates are dropping like flies. When we examined data from 15 national non-profit groups for the eNonprofit Benchmarks Study [see PDF below] earlier this year we found a steady, striking decline in email open rates across all the groups over the past two years. Average open rates for the groups fell by 6%.This decline may sound like terrible news for any organization that communicates with its members, constituents, activists, or donors online but please don’t commit hara-kiri yet! Happily, we did not find a corresponding decline in page completion or response rates. At first glance, this discrepancy seems truly puzzling. Shouldn’t fewer people be responding to these emails if fewer people are opening them in the first place?Some believe the recent drop in open rates is a result of “list fatigue” – what happens when formerly enthusiastic supporters become overwhelmed by the sheer volume of email in their inboxes and no longer rush to open and respond to email calls to action, requests for money, or event invitations. Although the fear of “list fatigue” may haunt online organizers, fundraisers, and marketers, it cannot explain away the discrepancy between open rates and response rates. If people are too tired, overwhelmed or unmotivated to open an email message, they’re certainly not going to take action, donate money, or reply to it. Clearly something else is to blame.Could Image Blocking Be the Culprit? Is it possible that just as many people are opening emails today as were opening them two years ago but that not all of them are being counted? The most compelling explanation for both the decline in open rates and the discrepancy between open and response rates is that new image-blocking software is interfering with open rate tracking and causing open rates to be significantly under-reported.In response to the rise of spam in recent years, many email providers have implemented new systems that allow users to read the text of an email while blocking all the images in the message. Image blocking is now used by Gmail, Microsoft Outlook 2003, and AOL 9.0. In fact, the default for both Outlook 2003 and Gmail is to block all images, automatically eliminating images for anyone who is not tech-savvy enough to change the default setting.Open rates are tracked using a very small (one pixel) image embedded in the body of the email message which this new image-blocking technology prevents from loading and being counted by the tracking software. Therefore, image blocking is causing the number of email messages actually opened to be underreported. The Detective Work Begins To determine the impact of image blocking on open rates and to gauge how accurately open rates currently represent the effectiveness of an organization’s online communications, we conducted an in-depth analysis using messaging data from three major national nonprofit organizations: Human Rights First, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and The Wilderness Society.We examined three messages from each organization – two email advocacy messages and one online fundraising appeal – that had been sent to the organization’s full (or nearly full) email list between April and June of 2006. Analyzing the data from each message enabled us to determine how many of the recipients who had clicked on a link in that specific message were actually tracked as having opened that specific message.Mystery Solved! The data from these nine messages revealed that an astounding 20% of the people who had clicked on a link were not reported as having opened the message.If 20% of the members who clicked on a link in the email were not counted as having opened the message, what does that imply about the people who open and read an email (without downloading any of the images) but who never click on a link?On average, we estimate that open rates are being under-reported by at least 20% for these three organizations. This may not be true of all organizations and may vary depending on the percentage of email providers specific to the make up an organization’s constituency base. For example, if a larger percentage of an organization’s email list uses Gmail, their open rates may be lower than an organization whose list members use primarily Yahoo and Hotmail.To test out this theory, we examined the combined messaging data by email provider. Gmail led the pack in the percentage of click-throughs that were not reported as having opened the emails. A whopping 37% of the clicks coming from Gmail users were not reported as having opened the email message. Emails with the .edu extension also seemed to have an unusually high percentage of click-throughs that were not reported as opens. Also note that only 2% of the clicks from AOL were not reported in the number of messages opened. This may be because this study only looked at all people with an AOL address extension, many of whom may be using older versions of AOL (anything earlier than 9.0) that do not automatically block images. Another reason why these AOL users do not exhibit a significant discrepancy between open and click-through or response rates is that GetActive, the email messaging vendor for many of the study participants, is whitelisted with AOL. If the sending email service provider is from a trusted sender on AOL’s enhanced whitelist, (as GetActive is) AOL overrides the image blocking default setting for users of 9.0 and above. Although end users can still set image blocking locally for AOL-whitelisted senders, few do.What Does This Mean for You? No matter how you cut the data, open rates are a flawed statistic. In addition to the significant under-reporting caused by image blocking, open rates have another much better-known limitation – the “plain text problem.” Because opens are tracked through the loading of a one-pixel image in the body of a recipient’s email, open rates can track only the HTML versions of a message. The exclusion of the plain text versions of the message makes open rates inherently limited and incomplete.While we’re not suggesting that you stop looking at open rates altogether, there are more reliable statistics that can provide a more accurate picture of your online communications. For example, if the email in question includes links, why not look at click-through rates? Click-through data tells us even more than an open rate can. When comparing messages A and B for example, you may see that message A has a higher click-through rate, but a lower open rate, than message B. Given that open rates are not always accurate, you’ll know to pay more attention to the click-through rate.Response rates are also far more telling than open rates. The ultimate goal of a fundraising or advocacy email is to motivate the recipients to take action or make a donation, so the response rates will better reflect how effective the message was.What Are Open Rates Good For? Despite their limitations, open rates can be useful as a comparative statistic. For instance, open rates can help you determine which of two or more mailings sent in the same rough time period was more successful. Open rates are also very useful for determining which subject line will be the most effective — you can test several subject lines with identical copies of the message on small, randomly chosen segments of your audience to see which subject line produces the best results prior to sending out the full mailing with the winning subject line.However, in both cases, we’d still suggest you consider the click-through and response rates for each version of the message in making your decision about which subject line to use. It’s possible that one subject line might provoke a higher open rate but result in less click-throughs and, therefore, less actions or donations or sign ups.In the case that you send out anemail message that does not include any links at all, such as a reminder, update or enewsletter, open rates can provide you with some limited information about the performance of your message. Overall, we’d recommend that you keep the limitations we’ve outlined above in mind when reviewing open rates. No need to abandon them so long as you take them with a grain of salt!Source: http://www.mrss.com/
Tiffany Meyer is president of Numa Marketing, and the author of Writing a Results-Driven Marketing Plan. Find more information about her nonprofit marketing services, register for her affordable nonprofit marketing e-courses, or sign up for her monthly e-zine The Smart Nonprofit at www.numamarketing.com. ©2007 Tiffany Meyer While the overall investment in marketing amid nonprofits has grown substantially over the years, the general comfort level with marketing among nonprofit executives has not yet caught up. Indeed, even next to its second cousin “public relations,” marketing can still carry a dirty connotation, sometimes difficult to justify to spendthrift board members and constituents.Conquering the Potato ChipFor many grassroots and cause-oriented nonprofits in particular, the term “marketing” can conjure up what I call the “potato chip syndrome”- people trying to sell me something I simply don’t need just for the sake of making money. The discomfort arises because it puts a nonprofit leader’s values in question: “I’m here to make a difference in the world, not to make money.”If you struggle obtaining buy-in for your marketing program budget, just sharing the cold hard facts about potential financial results may not be enough. It’s time to a take a different approach by putting these five keys to action. Buy-in begins with a shift in perception – starting with the potato chip.Key #1: Shift perception – Marketing is our friendThe first key to obtaining executive buy in is to help shift your board and administrators’ perception of what “marketing is.” The truth is this: Marketing is a nonprofit’s friend. To help shift perception, continually share these key concepts about the benefits of nonprofit marketing:Marketing helps us make a bigger difference – A strategic, results-oriented, well-planned marketing program will position our organization to make a difference to a greater number of people with the least amount of expenditure possible.Strategic marketing helps us stand out from the crowd – Marketing gives us the tools and messages to tell the public and our customers what we do exceptionally well.Strategic marketing equals efficiency – The truth is, most nonprofits ARE marketing their organization, products or services, but many are doing so reactively – without a plan in place. Strategic, formal marketing brings efficiency, focus, accountability, and cost-effectiveness to your effort. It helps you ensure that every dollar spent renders positive results.Key #2: Deliver efficiencyNothing can turn a marketing-phobe off more than a stack of seemingly useless marketing collateral materials that scream “expensive.” Yeah, they’re beautiful, but what will our constituents think? The second key to obtaining – and maintaining – executive buy-in for your marketing expenditure is to deliver efficiency with everything you do.Audit your publications and your program processes to see where you can streamline, eliminate waste, reduce printing or mailing costs, etc. Consider which publications will have more positive results by integrating budget-conscious designs (e.g. black and white or two color, recycled paper, etc.). Report your audit findings and the actions you take to executives to prove that you’re making every dollar count.Key #3: Start with needsYour organization exists to serve basic human needs, right? That’s where the passion to serve comes from, and that’s where your organization can make a difference. Perhaps it’s to educate at-risk youth, to provide essential resources for families affected by cancer, or to provide quality recreational spaces for the community. How will marketing help you maximize the number of people your organization is able to serve?The third key to landing executive buy-in is to “start with needs.” Work with your key leadership to identify measurable marketing objectives that are based on meeting the needs of your customers. In most cases, you will be able to set objectives that do double-duty – they meet the needs of your customers AND your financial needs (e.g., revenue) at the same time.For instance, let’s say that with little or no marketing you’re parent training programs reach 500 people each year. Sounds great doesn’t it? I mean that’s 500 people whose lives and families were changed by your training. But what is the context for measuring the value of that number? How many people really need what you’re offering? Is it 10,000 or 50,000? What is your potential market and what is your current share of that market?Let’s say your training programs are filling rooms each time, but so far you’ve only been successful reaching one of your two primary markets. In other words, you’re making a difference, but there’s another group out there that you haven’t helped yet. Yes, in reaching that second group there is definite potential to increase your revenue and your market share, but it also means helping make a difference in more people’s lives.Instead of an objective that simply reads, “increase revenue by 20% in 2006” you state “increase market share by 20% among Hispanic clientele in the southwest Washington region,” you not only have a very specific objective to work toward, but you’ll have a much easier time getting buy-in to fund that initiative.Key #4: Stay flexible, yet focusedWhen we sell the benefit of marketing by selling the potential impact of results, we often set our tactics up to be prematurely scrutinized by upper management. Take care to stay flexible but focused during your quarterly marketing plan evaluations. If some strategies simply aren’t doing the job it may be time to pull the plug on them. But do so with caution. Avoid quickly replacing one strategy with another, particularly mid-year.Before pulling the plug on a tactic, ask these questions: What is your evaluation telling you? Are you getting no response from your marketing tactic, or simply not the degree of response you’d like? Could your messaging be tweaked? Or is your messaging paying off, but your distribution simply isn’t finding enough of your target market? In other words, instead of pulling the plug entirely (and potentially losing your focus on reaching a specific market), stay flexible.When you facilitate a quarterly or semi-annual marketing report to your board, come prepared. Understand what your evaluation is telling you, and come with a game plan of recommendations. For instance, if your recommendation is to continue status quo with a tactic that hasn’t achieved the desired results by waiting it out another six months, be prepared to justify this choice. (e.g., Perhaps you’ve read a case study or consulted a colleague who has advised that your tactic takes longer to render results than you’d originally anticipated).Key #5: Communicate results as impact statementsLet’s face it; we’re not all numbers people. And reporting on marketing results can quite easily become a game of “fun with charts.” If you want to maintain buy-in on your marketing initiatives, report your results each quarter but take care in how you report. Remember pathos and logos? Appeal to your executives “emotional” and “logical” appeals by partnering the numbers with the personal impact your marketing program is having on the customers you serve. In other words, growing market share typically means your organization is bringing in more revenue. But it also means you’re making a bigger difference in the communities you serve. Period.