I have this problem, and I have it bad.

At Cosmic I’m the bottleneck on more things than I should be. Work piles up behind me, approvals wait on me, momentum stalls because it has to pass through my hands first.

Some of that is right. I’m the founder, I lead strategy, clients hire us to work with me directly.

The problem is the rest, the work I hold onto because explaining it feels slower than just doing it. It’s due, I’m late, so I tell myself it’s just this one time. Then I look up and I’ve done that one time five times.

Jonathan doesn’t get stuck here as often, and he pushed me on why.

Subscribe now

For him it comes down to self-awareness: knowing exactly what only he can do, being honest about what his team does better than he does, and being good enough at failure to let someone stumble a few times on the way to owning something. I’m still working on all three.

The talent on your team usually isn’t the problem. We went back and forth on where the line actually sits, what should stop with the leader and what we cling to out of ego or perfectionism.

I don’t think there’s one clean answer. The questions I keep coming back to are simple: am I the only one who can do this, am I the best one who should, and is being the person it all runs through serving the mission or just protecting how I see myself.

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:05] The bottleneck problem, named out loud
[00:03:05] Why being the bottleneck feels so bad
[00:05:05] The real fear behind not letting go
[00:07:15] Perfectionism and the near enemy of high standards
[00:09:20] The capacity gap you build without meaning to
[00:12:08] Right sizing your role as the stakes rise
[00:16:10] The ego question every leader has to confront
[00:17:12] Getting good at failure as a leadership skill
[00:21:00] “Just this one time” and how it multiplies
[00:25:35] What EDs and CEOs should actually own
[00:30:20] The time audit that pulls it out of your head

Notable Quotes:

[00:02:35]: “I’m a big believer in hire people that are better and smarter than you, and then let them cook.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:03:50]: “We have high standards at Cosmic. The near enemy of that is everything must go through me personally to hit those standards.” Eric Ressler

[00:17:35]: “I think one of my superpowers is I’m good at failure. I’m good at knowing what failure is acceptable and what failure is not.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:21:00]: “Just this one time I’m going to do it. And then all of a sudden I’ve done that just this one time five times now.” Eric Ressler

[00:26:05]: “You hear stories of executive directors copy editing every single email that goes out. That is the most catastrophic failure of that organization.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:29:20]: “It almost comes down to self-awareness. Being really aware of what your strengths actually are.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Cosmic: Eric’s creative agency for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center

• Science Solutions Santa Cruz podcast

• Drafting Our Strategic Dream Team: Eric and Jonathan’s past episode on YouTube

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Eric Ressler [00:01:05]: All right, Jonathan, I’ve got a juicy one today. So the topic today is, how do we get EDs, executive directors, CEOs at social impact orgs, out of the bottleneck position?

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:25]: In the sense that we’re blocking stuff from getting done?

Eric Ressler [00:01:25]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:25]: Yeah. Okay. Man, there are so many reasons and so many opportunities. Let’s go.

Eric Ressler [00:01:35]: So this is something I see sometimes, not all the time. And let me just have a moment of vulnerability here. I have this problem and I have it bad. And some of that I think is actually not always wrong. There are certain things that at Cosmic I should be the bottleneck for. I should be the owner for. Probably the same for you. But also, I’m impressed with how you run the Seymour Center, how you empower and build up the team and not be the bottleneck on things that you shouldn’t be the bottleneck on.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:05]: Oh, thank you. Thank you.

Eric Ressler [00:02:10]: So tell me, spill all the secrets. How’d you do it?

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:10]: Oh, man. Okay. The thing that comes to mind first is a deep understanding of what I am personally good at, especially as it relates to the rest of my team. What am I uniquely capable of doing, both in my skillset and in the time that’s available? And the same goes for everybody on my team. What are they uniquely good at? I’m a big believer in hire people that are better and smarter than you, and then let them cook. So it’s being uniquely aware of what they’re good at, and trusting them to go. Setting guardrails on when I need to know about things and when I don’t, and making sure that’s really clear. I could keep going, but let me pause. What’s going through your head immediately?

Eric Ressler [00:03:00]: I’m speaking partly from my own experience at Cosmic and also observing a lot of executive directors who are the bottleneck. Let me just start by saying, when you are in a bottleneck state that is beyond what’s right, and you can sense that, it sucks. It feels bad. I can feel it when I’m in that position. And I can feel it when I work for people or with people who I can tell are in that position too. It leads to all these downstream problems where things pile up, they don’t get solved, momentum gets lost. Everything has to go through the executive director before it gets approved. And there’s parts of this that I struggle with. Part of it is because we have high fucking standards at Cosmic, and I’m proud of that. But the near enemy of that is everything must go through me personally to hit our standards. This is a nuanced thing, because we’re a small team. When you work with us, part of it is you work with me directly. I’m the founder. I lead a lot of our strategy work. So some of that’s not even wrong. But where I feel sensitive to it is where it’s like, I know I shouldn’t be doing this thing, but it’s easier for me to just do it than to work through it with someone on my team, because it’s due and I’m late on it. These are the excuses that go through my brain that even as I’m doing them, I’m like, this isn’t right, but I’ve just got to white knuckle it and get it done. And I think that happens a lot for people. So is it my perfectionism? Is it my lack of organization? Is it some of those things that hold me personally back here? Or is it deeper than that?

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:00]: Well, let me ask you a question. When you’re feeling that bottleneck thing, what is your fear? If you were to let somebody else on your team take it, what’s the fear there?

Eric Ressler [00:05:15]: First, there’s the caliber fear. When we’re doing work for clients, we want to come through on our promise that we’re going to deliver S-tier caliber work. And my team is capable of that, especially for the things they’re uniquely qualified for. There are things everyone on my team is way better at, at least ten things, than I am. And then there’s the stuff that doesn’t fit neatly into that box. You hire a team because you get more than one person. Even though we have specialty, the true value is in the collaborative nature of our entire team. Co-creation is a buzzword, but truly, oftentimes we’re unlocking the ideas through collaboration with our clients.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:10]: Yeah. Your team is incredible and they’re amazing at what they do, but clearly there’s still a disconnect. Because if that were plainly true, you wouldn’t have this problem. Which makes me think, are there certain skills that either you’re not hiring for or that you’re not developing within your team that’s creating this gap, where you’re the only one who holds that particular talent or scope?

Eric Ressler [00:06:40]: There are parts of the team structure where things do fall squarely on my plate to do the work for clients.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:50]: As they should.

Eric Ressler [00:06:50]: For clients is one flavor of that. Also, big picture strategy work for Cosmic, that’s my job. I don’t want to delegate that. I want to include the team, but that’s not something I’d ever ship off to one of our designers to figure out.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:10]: Business operations, whatever. You want them thinking about client work.

Eric Ressler [00:07:15]: So back to the core questions, why does this happen for me? One is, we’re delivering important client work and I want to come through on my promise to clients that I’m going to be part of that work. It’s not always easy to fully delegate. There’s stuff that absolutely I can and do delegate all the time, but there’s also stuff where I feel like I can add value and have an impetus to do that. So, full disclosure, some of this is my own perfectionism, my own care and passion and deep integrity. I want to make sure a client never feels like we aren’t coming through on the promises we made to them.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:50]: Well, what I’m hearing from you is that you see yourself as the holder of a certain type of integrity that nobody else is capable of meeting.

Eric Ressler [00:08:05]: I think that’s the dangerous place to get to, because I actually don’t think that’s true for our team. And I say that with pride, in the sense that I’m proud of the team that I’ve built.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:15]: I trust that too. I’ve worked with them. They’re amazing.

Eric Ressler [00:08:15]: It’s true to a degree that in my mind, as the founder of the agency, ultimately the buck stops with me, in the sense that any problem is my responsibility. Not necessarily to solve, but I own it. I’m never going to throw a teammate under the bus, because even if they did something quote unquote wrong or not to our standards, that’s still my problem as the founder of the firm. So there’s some element of that. But if you take it too far, it can go to a place of lack of trust, or perceived lack of trust, and that can be felt by the team, or by the client, or in the case of a social impact org, the supporter or the beneficiary or the partner. So I’ve been doing a lot of work on that. Some of it is training. Some of it honestly is systems. Some of it is permission. Some of it is my own letting go, my own self work of how much of this is imposter syndrome or whatever else.

Jonathan Hicken [00:09:20]: Let me put a positive spin on this. What you’ve done really well is define the roles and responsibilities of the people on your team so clearly that it enables them to be successful and creative. You’ve set them up for success in their particular role, and that’s laudable. That’s something leaders should do. But what you’ve unintentionally created for yourself is this gap of capacity to do the kinds of things you’re uniquely capable of doing. That doesn’t necessarily need to be true. Now we’re talking about bringing other people onto the team, and there’s, can we afford that, and a lot of other questions.

Eric Ressler [00:10:00]: This is exactly where it gets nuanced. I’ve made some strategic choices about who we are and what that means for my role as the founder. This is often also true for nonprofit executive directors or social impact CEOs. A lot of it is team size. We’re right now an eight person agency. By definition, all of us are going to wear more than one hat. We’re not big enough for each of us to have one singular role that’s 100% of our time. As you get bigger, you have more team support and maybe you start to delegate, shed, or reassign some of those roles to specialists. Think about even the two person new-idea nonprofit, you’re both doing everything all the time. That’s natural. So some of this is around strategic choices I’ve made to stay small. And another strategic choice is I want to stay deeply embedded in the work right now. I like doing the work. It keeps me motivated, keeps me grounded, keeps me real about how we position ourselves. Not as an academic or theoretical exercise, but grounded in the actual pain and problems our clients serve, because I’m in there in the trenches with them.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:30]: You realize you’ve created a pretty risky problem for yourself as Cosmic grows. And by grow, I don’t necessarily mean team size. In terms of impact, as you take on more and higher stakes work, the stress on you is going to continue to grow. That’s not going to get smaller in the structure you’ve built. And by the way, we’re using you as a case study here.

Eric Ressler [00:12:05]: A case study, unintentionally.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:05]: But the same goes for any executive director in the same position. You aspire for deeper impact, for more important work, and you as the executive director need to hold some of that. I do, in my own role. And what I’ve learned is, as those responsibilities scale for myself, you have to right size everything else going on in the organization. I can’t keep doing the thing I was doing last year, because I need to make space for this. So now I have a tough decision. Do I kill the thing I was doing and we’re just not going to do it anymore? Sometimes that is the case. Or do I delegate that to somebody else on the team, which puts them in a position where we need to kill something they’re doing. Ultimately, I think that’s how teams up-level over time, this cascade effect of taking on new things and killing other things. And sometimes we as executive directors get in the position where we don’t do the killing part. The result is we become that bottleneck, because it just builds up to the top and we have to hold onto it.

Eric Ressler [00:13:15]: Yeah. I’ve definitely experienced this, and I’ve seen other executive directors experience it too. Some of this, for me, is intentional choices I made. We were talking about this before we were recording. In our current trajectory, we’re positioned intentionally as a practitioner-led, bespoke design and brand strategy firm, which means people expect to work with the founder at a small agency. A downside of working with a big agency is you meet the founder, you get the pitch team, and then the work starts and you get handed off to the B team. That’s something I’m sensitive to. I never want that to be the experience. So I’ve made some choices that lead to me being involved in client work, which means I can’t also do X, Y, Z. And how we define growth is not only headcount. The way I think about growth is we do deeper, more impactful work for more impactful organizations. It does mean there’s more pressure on me, higher stakes on me, but for the whole team, so it gets distributed. But I still am the bottleneck in ways that are good and right, but also at times in ways that are bad and wrong. That’s a really important distinction. The easy way to think about it is, am I the only person who can do this? Maybe, maybe not. Is that right or wrong? Maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong. Am I the best person to do this? Maybe, maybe not. A very simple set of questions you can ask. What are the parts that energize me and light me up? And what are the parts that feel like a total brain drain? There are parts of the work I could do all day and you wouldn’t have to pay me. And there are parts that are just the necessary grind of being a business. Those are the things I reach for first to try and either hire up for or delegate. So that’s one way I’ve personally worked through this.

Eric Ressler [00:15:20]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode. I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose-built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy. But we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:10]: We have to confront ego in this conversation. And that’s not just for you, not just for me, but it’s part of the reality of carrying this title or this role in our organization. Is this something I’m doing because it validates my sense of who I am and what I can bring to the table? Or is this about what I think is best for the organization? And those two things don’t always align.

Eric Ressler [00:16:35]: They don’t always. They do sometimes though.

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:40]: They do sometimes though. And when you find that, that’s kind of the sweet spot. This is best for the organization and I love doing it and I’m good at it.

Eric Ressler [00:16:50]: That can be a sweet spot, but it also has, in my opinion, a limit. Because that can all be true and you could still be a bottleneck and way over capacity.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:00]: Well, that’s true. You may have hired the wrong team and so you create this condition where you really are the only person who can do that thing. But the fundamental thought here is there is ego in this.

Eric Ressler [00:17:10]: 100%.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:15]: I had a coworker here. We went on a walk for one of our check-ins and he said, “Jonathan, something that’s really unique about you is that you don’t take anything personally. And the rest of us do.” And he said, “You actually need to be careful about that.” One of the things I took away is that I think one of my superpowers is I’m good at failure, and I’m good at knowing what failure is acceptable and what failure is not. Especially in this role of delegating or trusting the team, I have a keen sense of, it’s actually okay if we fail on that, or it’s okay if we fail a couple times as part of that person’s learning process. I go into these conversations knowing, and often communicating very clearly, this probably is not going to go very well the first few times you do it. Eventually this is where we need to be, this is what success looks like, but it’s going to take some time to get there, and it’s okay if you fail. Now, the work we do is relatively low stakes in the big scheme of the world.

Eric Ressler [00:18:25]: At the Seymour Center?

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:25]: Yeah, yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:18:25]: To a degree, yeah. Compared to some other orgs.

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:30]: Compared to some other orgs, right. So there’s a certain degree of failure we can play with, and I want to acknowledge that. But my ability to not take things personally and accept failure in some situations, and maybe this gets me in trouble sometimes, is part of what allows me to create the space for the team to take on these new responsibilities.

Eric Ressler [00:18:55]: Yeah, I think that’s dead on, because I’ve definitely had times, and I’ve observed this in other executive directors too, where it’s like, well, it has to be me because I’m the only one I know isn’t going to screw this up. Sometimes that might be real. But if that’s always the case, and there’s a pattern there, it points to some potential problems. In the past, I’ve had that experience where I’m like, well, if that’s true, that’s actually a big problem for a model. That’s not scalable, that’s not sustainable. So why do people get stuck in these roles, this scenario where they become the bottleneck in perpetuity? This is something we frankly deal with sometimes, where we can’t get approvals on things because we can feel that executive directors are the bottleneck on other parts of the org, so they don’t have the time we need them to give us in order to do our work. So we see it from that purview. Why does this happen? Okay, failure’s not an option and they’re the only person who can do it. Or the cost of sitting still to create the new system or do the training always feels like it’s not worth it. This is something I run into sometimes, where it’s like, well, I could delegate this, but it’s actually faster for me to just do it, because I know what I want and I know I can do it. It’s faster than trying to explain it to someone, develop my thoughts, give it to them, have them do it, then review it. So you could come back at me and say, well, dude, you’re not actually delegating. You’re just overseeing. That’s a difference. True delegation means you hand it off and you trust it’s going to be taken care of.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:40]: Well, that’s a little oversimplification. You need to set people up for success, define what success looks like, all that stuff. But fundamentally, dude, you know it’s an investment, right? And investments take time. That is the cost of doing business in some cases.

Eric Ressler [00:21:00]: And here’s the trap. Just this time, just this one time I’m going to do it. Just one time. And then all of a sudden it’s like, well, I’ve done that just this one time five times now. And if I had just done it the first time, I wouldn’t have had to do it the other four times.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:10]: I want to talk about accountability in this too. One of the things that works in my team is that we’re very results oriented. Everybody on the team, regardless of role, has a clear sense of duties and a clear sense of measurable results they’re accountable to. Because we’re also a small team, ten full-time staff, there’s a lot of collaborating and sharing and wearing multiple hats, but everybody’s an owner of something specific. I’m often involved in the work in some way. But the reason delegation can work, and the reason I don’t get caught in the bottleneck trap as often, is because if I’m holding somebody accountable to a measurable result, and I am the reason they’re not hitting their result, they know they’re allowed to call me out on that. They’re allowed to hold me accountable to my role in helping them be successful. That clear set of expectations, clear roles, and a culture receptive to giving each other tough feedback in every direction, that unlocks my ability to make those decisions about where I should or shouldn’t be involved.

Eric Ressler [00:22:30]: So I’d love to hear from your perspective, clearly you’ve thought deeply about this. How do you make a choice about what is squarely your role and responsibility, the things that only you could or should do, versus the things you shed? For example, recently you’ve taken an intentional step into being much more of the PR arm of the Seymour Center, through the Science Solutions Santa Cruz podcast and other things. That’s a lot of time and energy. That time was being spent somewhere else. So have you had to shed some things? How do you think about balancing all of it?

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:15]: I was actually going to use the Science Solutions Santa Cruz podcast as an example. Every step of the way in this organization’s development since I’ve been here, I’m constantly asking myself, what does the organization need in order to reach the next step? What’s missing today that needs to exist a year from now? And how is that going to happen? Oftentimes my role here has been the initiator, starting the new thing, with a clear sense in my head of, if I start that new thing, what happens a year from now when I’m no longer doing it? I think about that with the podcast too. I knew coming into this year that my most important contribution to the Seymour Center’s success was going to be money and visibility. Funding and visibility. Those were the two things I needed to focus my personal attention on. The podcast was one of the ways we’re going to work on the visibility part. And I asked those same questions. Who is most uniquely capable of doing that particular role? At that time, that was me. I am the person most positioned to do that piece. But even coming into this venture, in my mind I’m already thinking about who’s going to be the next host, what’s the next show going to be, how are we going to grow this, so I don’t actually have to be that, but the quality and impact of that venture doesn’t decrease.

Eric Ressler [00:24:45]: Which doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll make that choice, but you’ve at least thought about, am I signing up for something in perpetuity here? And to a degree, you kind of don’t know until you try, but you’ve got a contingency plan in place.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:00]: Right. And look, I hope we don’t kill the podcast anytime soon. And if we do, that’s not the end of the world. We’re going to be fine. I continue to believe in it and I continue to spearhead it. But I’m already thinking about, what is required of the host or the producer to make it successful? And is there a world in which somebody else could do that? I actually think the answer’s yes.

Eric Ressler [00:25:25]: I think so too. So at a high level, maybe we could riff on, what should EDs and CEOs actually be responsible for, at large?

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:35]: I’m not sure there’s one answer to that. And I authentically say that, because every organization has a different composition of people and talent, problems, ecosystems. But what is required is that the executive director is keenly aware of their own skillset as it relates to everybody else’s around them. It’s your job to find that Venn diagram, that little slice where you’re like, I am going to accelerate our success or our impact if I take this role. You hear these stories of executive directors who are copy editing every single email that goes out, and I’m like, that is the most catastrophic failure of that organization, because there are a million people who can write a good email. Most people on your team can write a fine email. I’m not uniquely capable or positioned to do that work. But maybe some of us fall back to it because it’s safe, because it’s easy, because whatever. So to answer your question shortly, I really don’t believe there’s one thing.

Eric Ressler [00:26:45]: I think that’s fair. If there were one thing, and this also is maybe not this cut and dry, I think that for most orgs, the CEO or executive director should own vision for the org. And I don’t mean that vision should be only theirs, or that it shouldn’t be informed by others. We just did our fantasy drafting episode of your strategic team, which was super fun, and we talked about all the people who should be part of your strategy and your vision. But I do think at the end of the day, for most orgs, vision should squarely fall in the ownership of the CEO or the executive director. Maybe even deeply informed by many other stakeholders, but at the end of the day, who’s going to sign off on it and spearhead it or initiate it? Agree?

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:35]: No.

Eric Ressler [00:27:35]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:35]: I think in reality that’s probably 90% true for most organizations. I think that’s widely true.

Eric Ressler [00:27:40]: But not 100%.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:40]: But not 100%, right. Because you might have someone on your team who is an incredible storyteller and they can tell a fucking story. And you’re the executive director, you’ve got that title. Some executive directors would be like, okay, I’m going to be the one who stands up and tells the story, even though I’ve got this powerhouse on my team. But that’s where that awareness comes in. Where you’re like, actually, I’m more of a finance ED, or I’m more of a programs ED, but that person’s a hell of a storyteller. I want them really owning the articulation of where we’re headed.

Eric Ressler [00:28:15]: Yeah. That’s slightly different than what I was thinking of, but I hear what you’re saying. It actually maybe works for vision too. So I’m going to say I agree generally that there’s no every ED or every CEO must own these parts. So maybe the better way of thinking about it is, what are my unique strengths, even as an executive director or CEO? You talk about the finance CEO. That’s legit. I’ve worked with some CEOs and executive directors who are really weak on some of those other things that other CEOs are good at, but man, can they run the books. And because they’re so good at that, and because they have the rest of the team to support their deficits, that is the best thing they could possibly do. Then their org is greatly resourced. They’re not constrained. They don’t have the scarcity mindset.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:05]: Exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:29:05]: I don’t think there is even, and it’s so obvious in hindsight, there’s not any one flavor of a CEO or executive director. So the clear takeaway for me so far is, it almost comes down to self-awareness. We’ve been talking about that a lot on the show, because it is so important. Being really aware of what your strengths actually are. And the ego thing, which we touched on, I think is so true. And frankly, something I struggle with. Even as someone I think is pretty humble overall, there are things where I’m like, no, this should be me. And how much of that is ego versus truth? I don’t think those things are perfectly aligned.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:45]: I was just coaching someone on my team who recently got a promotion, who’s stepping into a leadership level she hadn’t been in before. I believe she has the skills to do it. One of the things we talked about is, hey, you’ve got a team of people who are really, really capable at X, Y, Z thing, and right now you’re still too involved in it. You actually need to step back. You need to define what success looks like, but the essence of the coaching was, what are you uniquely good at? What is your team uniquely good at? And it’s time to make space for both of those.

Eric Ressler [00:30:25]: I think that’s true. And in reflection, as we work toward wrapping this up, even in those moments where there may be some ego involved, maybe there is, maybe there isn’t, it just feels like crap to be the bottleneck. No one wants to be that. What I think about a lot is when I’ve found myself in that state, and it happens, it ebbs and flows. Luckily at this point it’s still a problem, but I’ve done a lot of work with the team to figure out how to release it. And it’s a constant thing, because it’s not static. We’re constantly moving and changing, adding new initiatives. Oftentimes, similar to you, I’m spearheading some of those. I’m trailblazing it, testing it, experimenting. And then at some point I need to delegate, hand off, operationalize it. So it’s this always fluid thing. But what I’ve found most helpful is, when I find myself in that state, I literally sit there throughout the week over the course of a couple weeks and write down everything that I do. And I score things. Love this, hate this, drains me, however you want to score it. Then you just look objectively back at how you’re spending your time, and is that the right way I should be spending it? That’s a good exercise, because it takes it out of the abstract, out of the conceptual, out of the emotional. It’s just, objectively, what did I do, and is that what I should be spending my time doing in my current role, in our current trajectory as a company?

Jonathan Hicken [00:31:55]: Yeah. And you could do that, obviously if you have a giant team this is less possible, but you could do that for the other people on your team. You should. Here’s what they’re doing, here’s what they’re succeeding at, here’s what they’re not. That’s the exercise when you do it for yourself and your team. Now you’re starting to see, oh, okay, here’s really the mosaic of the skills on this team, and that might unlock some insights about how you might move work differently.

Eric Ressler [00:32:20]: Yeah, I think that’s right. So hopefully some of these tips and this way of thinking about it leads to some of these bottlenecks going away, or at least getting a little bit wider, for some of our listeners. Thanks for sharing all your secret sauce, Jonathan.

Jonathan Hicken [00:32:35]: Yeah, thank you, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:32:35]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe, or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

Every social impact leader wants more people to know about their work.

Almost none of them want to be the one posting about it. Putting yourself in front of an audience feels like ego, or a distraction from the mission, or simply not something an executive director has time for.

The reasons leaders give are genuine: not a comms person, not trying to make it about themselves, afraid of getting it wrong. None of that explains why the work still isn’t reaching who it needs to reach.

In this episode, Saralynn Finn and I dig into what changes once someone gets past that resistance: story stems, a repeatable format for turning an ordinary moment into a post worth reading, and the difference between posting out of obligation and posting because something actually needs saying.

The approach holds up because it’s built on evidence: which patterns actually perform, why a personal page beats a brand page every time, and how long it really takes for a post to reach its full audience on LinkedIn’s slower-moving algorithm.

Saralynn brings real client stories into it, including a nonprofit CEO’s 90-day experiment that changed her mind entirely. I bring my own inconsistent LinkedIn habits too, admitting exactly where I’ve fallen off since the two of us last talked.

This is a second conversation, picking up where an earlier episode on visibility left off. By the end, it’s got me wanting to get back in the game.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:02:00] Why LinkedIn is the fastest-growing platform for anyone over 30
[00:04:00] Story stems: the copy-meme format built for LinkedIn posts
[00:06:30] Story stems get three times the engagement of posts without them
[00:10:00] Madeleine Ballard’s 90-day LinkedIn pilot, and what it actually delivered
[00:14:00] “Get over yourself”: why nobody’s presence is too small to matter
[00:16:00] Eric’s own LinkedIn burnout, and what caused it
[00:18:30] The three kinds of posts: keeping the lights on, building the muscle, and the ones you can’t not write
[00:20:30] How often should you actually post? (Not as often as you think)
[00:23:00] Personal pages vs. brand pages: where ideas actually travel
[00:26:00] The sector’s discomfort with admitting failure in public
[00:29:00] Authenticity, sanitized brand voice, and what political campaigns already figured out
[00:34:00] Why LinkedIn rewards patience: posts take three weeks to peak

Notable Quotes:

[00:06:25]: “Story stems, posts with familiar patterns, get three times the engagement of posts that don’t have a story stem.” Saralynn Finn

[00:16:05]: “I’m feeling a little burnt out by LinkedIn right now, and it’s my own fault.” Eric Ressler

[00:21:10]: “Anything you’ve done is better than doing nothing.” Saralynn Finn

[00:23:05]: “Personal pages have the highest likelihood of having your ideas travel far.” Saralynn Finn

[00:28:55]: “Authenticity, it matters. People can feel it instantly.” Saralynn Finn

[00:33:20]: “This humility does not require invisibility.” Saralynn Finn

Resources & Links:

• Community Health Impact Coalition — global coalition making professional community health workers standard practice.

• Dr. Madeleine Ballard — CEO of Community Health Impact Coalition and 2025 Skoll Award for Social Innovation recipient.

• The Sidebar — the Skoll World Forum fringe event in Oxford where Saralynn ran the workshop.

• Saralynn Finn — guest’s site and consulting practice.

• Visibility Beats Impact — Designing Tomorrow Podcast episode, April 2026

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: Saralynn Finn, welcome back to Designing Tomorrow and to Seymour Studios where we record. There was more to talk about, so I thought, let’s do another episode.

Saralynn Finn [00:00:55]: So much to talk about, Eric. I’ve really enjoyed getting to know you over the last few years, and especially these last couple of months as we prepared to go to the Forum together. I really appreciated your support with the workshop I ran at The Sidebar, and having you chime in with your experience on LinkedIn and growing your personal brand was amazing. I’m excited to share it with your audience here on the podcast.

Eric Ressler [00:01:25]: We thank you first of all for inviting me to just crash your awesome session and get to meet some amazing people in Oxford. And I do think there’s more to unpack here. So I’d like to first interview you a little bit and ask how you came up with this point of view, this framework, this way of showing up specifically on LinkedIn, but I think it applies outside of LinkedIn too. Let’s talk about that. Why LinkedIn?

Saralynn Finn [00:01:55]: Absolutely. Why LinkedIn? It’s the fastest-growing platform for really anyone if you’re over the age of 30.

Eric Ressler [00:02:05]: Which is many of us.

Saralynn Finn [00:02:05]: Yes. Okay, so we can’t compete with the TikToks. I don’t want to be dancing, at least professionally. But when I show up professionally, that’s the place, and there’s so much opportunity. But as we were talking about, it’s not all about LinkedIn, right? It’s about relationship building, and it’s about being willing to be visible and vulnerable. I loved the episode you dropped recently about visibility, and the connection it makes to this work we were already planning on doing, which I think was just, dare I say, cosmic?

Eric Ressler [00:02:45]: It was a little cosmic, yeah. What I’d say is visibility is this topic that everyone’s thinking about. So I’m excited to talk about this, because we did the episode about visibility, I made a case for why it matters and how to think about it the way I think about it, at least. And then another episode about point of view. I think those two things, especially where I think LinkedIn comes in, is: LinkedIn, in my opinion, is the platform where if you have a really strong point of view, a differentiated one, you can get visibility. And that’s always at the whim of the algorithms, we could get into all of that. But I think listeners are probably like, “okay, I’m interested in being visible, I know I want to do that, I’m working on developing a point of view, but I’m scared.”

I’m scared to go on LinkedIn. I don’t want to be vulnerable. I don’t want to be public in my work. And I’m happy to share my experiences with that, I’m sure you’ve experienced that to a degree as well. But let’s start, before we get into all that, by talking about this concept you call story stems, which is a nice way to get started if you’re first getting into LinkedIn, but also even if you’ve been there for a while, right?

Saralynn Finn [00:03:55]: Absolutely. What I want to bring to your audience today is a few hacks to make the threshold between never posting and occasionally posting feel way more achievable, something you could do on a Thursday afternoon before you wrap up your workday. Story stems is one of my favorites. I like to think of them as memes for professionals. We’re all familiar with memes. Why memes work is because it’s a format we’re familiar with, and then the creator adapts that format in some novel, creative way that connects to the moment. Maybe it’s Forrest Gump sitting on that bench, and it’s something witty about something you’ve been waiting to happen. We get it, we connect with it, it’s understandable. Story stems are like that, but for our copy. A lot of times people lead with a question or a pattern. I think our proliferation of AI LinkedIn posts has really leaned into the pattern, but it’s still a good story stem. And the one that [00:05:30] I like the most is “recently I met,” insert someone you met recently. And what we know from that story stem, that copy meme, is you’re going to get a post that likely celebrates the person the poster just met. You’re going to get a human moment where they interacted, and you’re probably going to get a reason why the poster is sharing that with their audience: why this matters, what resonates, what’s the insight this person gave that connects. So to me, the story stem is a very evidence-based option. These different options I laid out, the insight, the pattern, “I met someone.” Story stems, posts with familiar patterns, get three times the engagement of posts that don’t have a story stem.

Eric Ressler [00:06:35]: Interesting. Okay, let me make sure I’m understanding this correctly. First of all, I should say one of my favorite life cycles of me posting on LinkedIn was when I was very meme-heavy in my posting, and I’m feeling like I want to bring that back. They actually performed better than some of my more serious posts. Not totally surprising. But what I’m picking up from these story stems is that they’re a hack because they build in this human moment.

Saralynn Finn [00:07:05]: I’m going to correct you.

Eric Ressler [00:07:05]: Oh, go ahead.

Saralynn Finn [00:07:05]: Yeah. They’re a hack because they build in something the audience can expect. The audience knows what they’re going to get. There’s a format that’s familiar. And we love novelty, novelty is what we’re looking for, but we want a small amount of novelty.

Eric Ressler [00:07:30]: Okay.

Saralynn Finn [00:07:30]: And that’s what the algorithm is oriented toward, unfortunately: giving us something in packaging that’s familiar, but with just a little something new.

Eric Ressler [00:07:40]: Yeah, I resonate with that. I think there are these cycles. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what breaks through and why. Even just as I’ve been publishing for a long time, on and off LinkedIn, I’m happy to share my current, maybe not ideal, state of LinkedIn posting. What I’d say is there seem to be these ebbs and flows of patterns. You talk about story stems working and being evidence-based because there are these patterns. And what I’ve noticed is there’s a certain point where I think some patterns are durable, they’re going to work always, and I think that third example I picked up on, the human side, is maybe one of them, maybe not. But then there are these moments where the patterns get oversaturated, and there’s a new, totally novel pattern or approach that starts to break through, that’s literally a pattern interruption. And that pattern interruption is like, oh, I noticed that. If I’m scrolling my LinkedIn feed and all the posts look like AI slop, and then there’s one that’s just some dude who’s like, “Hey everybody,” that becomes a pattern interruption. So I’d be curious to hear, you have these hacks, these story stems that are tried and true, evidence-based. If we’re talking to listeners who just want to get started, I love that easy on-ramp. At what point, and how do you know how long to ride that, and when it might be time to think about inventing a new pattern or a new story stem?

Saralynn Finn [00:09:15]: I think that when you’ve achieved your goals for visibility is when you start to mix it up. But in terms of training the algorithm on who you are, who you want to reach, and who you want to be seen by, stick with what we know works. While you’re getting comfortable with posting and figuring out the posting cadence that actually works for your real life, on top of all your other responsibilities, I don’t want to minimize the impact posting on LinkedIn has. In fact, I’d love to share a story from Madeleine Ballard, who’s, I think her title is Executive Director of Community Health Impact Coalition, a 2025 Skoll Award recipient among other amazing accolades, and work that’s made it so that millions, potentially billions, of people all around the world have access to community health workers.

Eric Ressler [00:10:20]: Amazing.

Saralynn Finn [00:10:20]: She’s incredible. And she was really anti-posting on LinkedIn. I think her point of view is going to sound really familiar to a lot of your viewers and listeners. She felt like, “who am I to be posting on LinkedIn? I’m a white woman leading this global organization. The people doing the work should be the ones who are out in front, they should be the ones who are visible.” So that’s a common one. “I don’t have time to do this. This is not mission-oriented, this isn’t going to move the mission forward for the organization. It’s vanity, it’s ego, it feels promotional.” And then there’s also, “what if I get it wrong?” Which, yes, sometimes we get it wrong.

Eric Ressler [00:11:15]: Everybody gets it wrong.

Saralynn Finn [00:11:20]: Sometimes they’re going to come for you in the comments, and that’s the risk we take in being visible, so I don’t want to discount that. Madeleine didn’t want to post on LinkedIn, and she had a comms person who said, “what if we just did a 90-day pilot and tried it out and saw what the results were?” She was so angry, at the end of the 90-day pilot, to see how successful it was in growing her organization and her personal impact. After 90 days, she said she had more inbound press inquiries than they’d ever had. Her warm introductions were getting responses. A publication she’d submitted articles to multiple times reached out and said, “would you be willing to write an article for us?”

Eric Ressler [00:12:15]: The one she’d submitted to before, yeah.

Saralynn Finn [00:12:20]: Exactly. And there were funding doors opening. Look, Madeleine is a powerhouse, Chic is an incredible coalition built on an amazing strategy. So I’m not going to say everyone who posts on LinkedIn for 90 days is going to experience these incredible results, but what if? What could just doing it for 90 days, what could that impact be for you and your organization? And it doesn’t have to be original. You’re probably not a comms person. You’re probably feeling like creativity isn’t something you have the energy for in this realm, especially if you haven’t seen it deliver impact for you yet. I’ll tell you, once Madeleine saw the impact that posting regularly and with some intention delivered, she was on board. I highly recommend you follow her on LinkedIn if you don’t already, her posts are really great. Do what she’s doing.

Eric Ressler [00:13:30]: Yeah. This is making me feel guilty that I’m not running a better LinkedIn motion right now for myself and for Cosmic. All the reasons you outlined are common objections I hear and resonate with. I love doing our show, I love having a podcast, I love sharing ideas and getting feedback from listeners. And I still cringe when I hear my voice or see myself on camera. I have some worry about being public in my work. At the same time, I’ve also felt at times that people who have that point of view, there are lots of reasons you might come to that conclusion, but sometimes it’s also like, and I said this in a recent episode, it’s a little bit of a contrarian take, but it’s kind of like, get over yourself. You’re not that special. You can post on LinkedIn too. You’re not so special that you’re too good for it, but that doesn’t mean you don’t deserve to.

Saralynn Finn [00:14:40]: I’ve thought about the privilege we currently have of having LinkedIn. Imagine people trying to move social impact ahead in the 1800s. They would’ve given their left arm to reach as many people with their message as we can potentially reach in just three months.

Eric Ressler [00:15:00]: Huge point. Huge point.

Saralynn Finn [00:15:05]: Get over yourself.

Eric Ressler [00:15:05]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode. I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose-built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy. But we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back, we roll up our sleeves and help you bring ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

Let me reflect back some thoughts in real time, because I’m going to come out with an honest statement. I’m feeling a little burnt out by LinkedIn right now, and it’s my own fault, because I truly do believe you can complain about the algorithm, visibility, reach, the incentives of these companies, the attention economy in general, all of that, and at some level I believe there are real problems that need to be solved there. And at the same time, it’s such a gift if you approach it with the right intentions. There was a moment in time where I had this real focus around being dedicated to posting more regularly, getting clear about what my modality is going to be for posting and my vibe, and to learn and get data and work on that. I think there were a lot of really good lessons learned there. But if I can reflect on where I went too far, and what I’m hoping to change when I do come back in a more meaningful way, I felt like at a certain point I was posting out of obligation instead of inspiration. I think that’s what a lot of people feel once they get past the initial hump and start to say, “I need to do three days a week.” This is something we hear, we heard it in our session. There’s a kernel of truth to cadence, for sure. But what I found is that when I post because I feel inspired to, those posts tend to do better. My most successful posts, by every metric, reach, engagement, resonance, inbound, all the things you might measure, the posts I just typed out on a whim because something irked me, or because I had an idea with my thumbs, always perform way better than the ones I had a nice piece of art pre-scheduled and posted for. So what are your reflections on all that?

Saralynn Finn [00:14:55]: Okay, both matter, right? We have to do the KOL, the keeping-the-lights-on posts, putting ourselves out there for the building-the-muscle aspect of doing the thing, getting comfortable, and learning. The only way we learn what works for our audience is by experimenting. If you’re not giving your comms team the room to learn and experiment, that’s maybe a little aside. And when you do have the zeitgeist of the moment, or you see something you just can’t let go of and want to post about, that’s amazing. That practice of writing and posting is what will remind you, “oh, I have an idea, I should post that,” as opposed to just talking about it with your spouse over dinner, or kvetching about it to your colleague over Slack. We have a million ideas a day, most likely, and probably a handful of them could make great posts if we were oriented toward a channel.

Eric Ressler [00:19:15]: Yeah, let’s break that down a little more, because what I’m hearing is that you need a little bit of both. You need some amount of structure, because you used the word “practice,” and I think that’s a really good word. The other word I’d use is “muscle.” It is a muscle, and there’s a certain amount of it that’s just doing the reps: A, to get faster at it so it’s not as big an impact on your schedule as an executive, and B, because you’ll actually make better content doing it that way. Yes.

Saralynn Finn [00:19:45]: And I’m going to add a C.

Eric Ressler [00:19:45]: C.

Saralynn Finn [00:19:45]: C: to quiet the chatter, the “no” in your mind, to give you the confidence to be like, “shhh.”

Eric Ressler [00:19:55]: Yeah, totally. There’s science to back that up. One practice I’ve become familiar with is, upon waking, doing a stream-of-consciousness journaling to get the noise out of your brain. I think that’s a great hack or tip: when you’re like, “what should I post about,” have a scratchpad of idea seeds that live with you, whatever, your Apple Notes or an app, “this might be a podcast episode” or “this might be a post one day.” What usually happens is you come back to those ideas and you’re like, “wow, all of these are... except that one’s actually really good, still. Let’s do that one.”

Saralynn Finn [00:20:35]: Glad I didn’t post any of those. Absolutely.

Eric Ressler [00:20:40]: But let’s break this down: do you need to post three times a week, or every single day? What’s your point of view on that?

Saralynn Finn [00:20:45]: Heck no.

Eric Ressler [00:20:45]: Yeah, okay, good. Glad to hear that. I agree, by the way.

Saralynn Finn [00:20:50]: Yes, okay, good. I think, how often can I offer my audience something valuable? That’s going to vary, it’s going to vary by season, by where your organization is in its process, and by what’s going on in your personal life.

Eric Ressler [00:21:05]: Totally, yeah, I think that’s fair. That gives me a little permission to be less active than I have been in the past.

Saralynn Finn [00:21:10]: Anything you’ve done is better than doing nothing. And that’s a bar, maybe eventually you want to raise the bar for yourself. But I think who I’m speaking to is the executive director who puts all of their energy into their program, and has none left to cultivate their identity or reputation as a thought leader, or as someone who’s a connector publicly. And that’s why the encouragement of our workshop was to uplift other people’s ideas, because that’s the fastest way for both of you to become visible and then get that support.

Eric Ressler [00:22:10]: Yeah, I love that. One of the things I’m reflecting on as you say that is, we have our Spotlight series where we do interviews with social impact executive directors and leaders on this show. I love posting those because it’s like I get to post something that’s not about me, and the people I choose to interview are people I’m genuinely interested in learning from and sharing their perspective. Those posts are such a joy for me because they relieve that pressure. I have other posts I do as well, and I’ve been significantly less consistent than I have in the past, I can break down why in a bit. But I want to make something really important clear: a clear distinction between are we talking about brand pages on LinkedIn, or personal pages. Should it be the ED? Should it be the comms director? Who should be posting, and in what way?

Saralynn Finn [00:23:00]: That’s a great question. Personal pages have the highest likelihood of having your ideas travel far. Unfortunately, the brand page should be, I don’t know, an archive almost. I’d like to just turn them off, I don’t know what to call it. It’s not a place where you’re going to get as much dynamic interaction, which is just how it works, we’re relational beings and our algorithms can’t overcome that as much as we want them to. So it should definitely be on your individual page. If your comms team has the capacity to support this, that’s great, if not, go ahead and do it on your own. I think both your organization’s point of view and your own point of view can exist on your page, and that differentiation is important. Your perspective on the work of your organization is ultimately what people want to hear. It shouldn’t just be a copy-paste, “hey Claude, can you rearrange these words for me” of the post the brand did. It should really be, how are you connected to this? What are you celebrating, if you’re sharing a post from your organization?

Eric Ressler [00:24:35]: I think that makes a lot of sense. Whether it’s the algorithm, or human psychology, or a combination of the two, that’s the kind of stuff I’m personally more interested in, that I find myself engaging with. I don’t want to see the company line, that’s great, if I want to learn that I’ll go to your website and read it. I think it’s important to have a company page that’s accurate and shows it’s alive and real, maybe even reposting some staff content. That’s how we run the Cosmic page, probably not as consistently as we should, and the Designing Tomorrow page, we’re just not investing time or thought into those pages. Everything’s coming through my personal page on LinkedIn, because, to your point, it’s a personal platform. But I think the stories that feel the most raw and human, and I’m not talking about needing to know everything about your personal life -

Saralynn Finn [00:25:35]: Overshares.

Eric Ressler [00:25:35]: Overshares, or trauma dumping, or anything like that. But just give me the raw, uncut stuff that’s like, “hey, this is what we’re struggling with right now, anyone have any tips?” I’d love to see more of that content in the social impact space. “Hey, we tried this intervention and it didn’t go as well as we thought, here’s maybe why, has anyone done something similar?” That’s a tough thing to sell.

Saralynn Finn [00:26:00]: I wish our sector wasn’t as allergic to admitting failure as it feels like we are.

Eric Ressler [00:26:05]: It’s tough though, right, because then donors are like, “do these guys know what they’re doing?” Funders too. But I think that’s a bit of a trap, I don’t think it’s actually true that that’s a problem, as long as you’re smart about how you do it, and again, not oversharing.

Saralynn Finn [00:26:20]: Yes.

Eric Ressler [00:26:20]: Okay, so we’re talking to listeners here, they’re sold, they’re like, “yes, LinkedIn is the place for me.” The time thing is real, if you’re an executive director, let’s say you have a comms team, or even if you don’t. I think this has to be original content from the ED at some level, do you agree?

Saralynn Finn [00:26:40]: I agree. I agree. I think this taps into your point of view on having a point of view.

Eric Ressler [00:26:50]: Yeah, it does. Okay, we’re going real meta.

Saralynn Finn [00:26:50]: Going really meta. You have to be visible in the letters, the characters you’re writing, in the ideas you’re sharing. It can feel like, “oh, am I going to get feedback from my board for sharing something publicly that’s not exactly aligned with my organization?” Of course you’re aligned with your organization, you’re just also a human and have your own take on this, and can share your journey with this topic. You can share how you see this playing out in your day-to-day. Being visible in this is what’s going to move it forward with a broader audience than you might normally reach. That’s what makes it so that when someone gives you an introduction to someone else, and they check out your page, they see, “oh look, this is a human, not just a title.” And I trust that. We trust humans, we don’t just trust someone because they have a title. So the more you can bring who you are to your digital persona, the more that’s going to resonate.

Eric Ressler [00:28:15]: I think that’s a muscle too, because I feel like early in my LinkedIn posting, and even early in the podcast content we were doing, I felt this pressure of, “I need to be an expert, I need to share expert tips.” More and more, I think it’s really about, “here’s what I’m thinking about, here’s what’s interesting me, here’s observations and things I’ve learned,” not trying to make everything a teachable moment necessarily unless it really is one and I want to share that. What’s your take on that?

Saralynn Finn [00:28:50]: I’m going to use the word I think everyone’s tired of, but authenticity, it matters. People can feel it instantly.

Eric Ressler [00:29:00]: And you can feel it when you’re not being authentic. I’ve typed stuff and thought, “is this me?”

Saralynn Finn [00:29:05]: Cringe.

Eric Ressler [00:29:05]: And that’s always a bit of a struggle.

Saralynn Finn [00:29:10]: Yeah, and I think that’s probably the most time-consuming part, right? “Here’s my idea, this is what I want to share,” but then, how do I bring myself, my professional self, my personal self to it in a way that feels authentic? But that’s ultimately what thrives. I think the more folks in our space get used to this, the more we’re going to make our comms teams’ lives easier, because I see so often where the personality gets sanitized out of the brand voice, or we want to work with a collaborator, an influencer, a surrogate, and the process is painful to get to a yes on messaging that feels authentic for them and stays within the brand guardrails. The more executives get used to showing up visibly in their work, the more it’s going to ease the way for more successful communications, because diversity in voices, everyone singing in the choir at different levels, is what the future of successful communications looks like.

Eric Ressler [00:30:30]: Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. Like a lot of things in comms, I always feel individual political campaigns are a little bit ahead of trends in communications, sometimes in good ways, sometimes not. But there’s been this huge sector-wide learning coming out of the last election cycle, that candidates need to be real people, they can’t just be packaged versions of the party line. When you see candidates winning, we’ll throw out Mamdani, one of the reasons he’s been so successful is because, whether or not you agree with his politics, I believe that guy is legit. I believe he cares about the things he says he cares about, and he’s bringing his whole self into his campaign. Political campaigns and candidates are always a step ahead of social impact campaigns and comms, in my opinion, in my experience. I’m seeing a lot more of that start to happen for social impact organizations, that maybe for a long time were humming along just fine, the executive director wasn’t a household name, and funding was flowing. Now we’re in a very different ecosystem from a media standpoint, a digital standpoint, and a funding standpoint. I don’t think it’s going to fly anymore.

Saralynn Finn [00:31:50]: Absolutely not. I’m so excited to see the trend of executive directors really putting themselves out there and, beyond just the ED, program officers or impact leaders within specific issue areas are more and more putting some energy and thoughtfulness into how they show up on behalf of their organization, but also on behalf of their cause.

Eric Ressler [00:32:20]: Yeah, 100%. I think another thing I’d like to reflect on as we work toward wrapping this up, and I’m saying this out loud almost for myself, but also for our listeners: I think LinkedIn especially is a platform where you kind of get out of it what you put into it. Yes, there’s trash on LinkedIn, there’s AI slop, there’s negativity and hate, it’s not a perfect platform. But what you actually interact with and put out into the platform is what you’re going to get back. I’ve met incredible people because of being on LinkedIn who are dear friends of mine, colleagues, and collaborators, and that worked because I posted, I had things that resonated, and I slid into their DMs, and we got to actually meet, and then meet in person.

Saralynn Finn [00:33:15]: There are people out there looking for you. They want to find you, and you need to give them a signal to find. This humility does not require invisibility.

Eric Ressler [00:33:25]: Yes, that’s amazing. That’s our episode title right there.

Saralynn Finn [00:33:30]: So you’re just there, being your little beacon of you.

Eric Ressler [00:33:35]: Yeah.

Saralynn Finn [00:33:35]: I’m thinking of sonar, boop. Boop. Boop. Okay, maybe sometimes your frequency goes boop, oop, that’s fine. But the LinkedIn algorithm has a longer cadence than all the other platforms. Your post doesn’t actually reach its maximum impressions or views until about three weeks. It takes a while to understand what signals are working, and your post has a pretty long lifespan. If people are commenting on other folks’ posts, or your friends are commenting on your post, that extends the timeline for the reach of your post up to, I’ve seen, about two months. Some posts that come up in my feed are about two months old, and I’m always like, “oh, hi, this is actually not topically relevant to the world we live in anymore, because we’re in a new war or something else,” or whatever tragedy is happening, or something else has happened. But, oh cool, okay, good to know. And then I see, oh my gosh, the comments are alive and happening, that’s why this has happened. LinkedIn absolutely prioritizes your profile based on your comment activity too. So if you’re afraid to get out there and put yourself out there at first, maybe just dip your toe into the comments.

Eric Ressler [00:35:00]: I think that’s a great place to start, and for the episode, I think a great place to end. Saralynn, this has been awesome. We could go on forever about posting on LinkedIn, but hopefully this inspires some people. It’s inspiring me to get back in the game a little bit.

Saralynn Finn [00:35:15]: Awesome. In a way, can I offer your viewers and your audience, we’re doing a LinkedIn peer support learning group that I’m leading and helping to facilitate, kind of based around the workshop we did at the Forum. Hopefully Eric can put it in the show notes or on the webpage or something, and I’m happy to have your folks jump in to get some support on this. We’ve all been boosting each other’s experiments.

Eric Ressler [00:35:30]: Awesome, very cool. That sounds like a great way for listeners to get started. Saralynn, thank you so much, it’s been awesome.

Saralynn Finn [00:33:40]: Thank you.

Eric Ressler [00:33:45]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe, or even leave us a comment, it really helps. [00:36:00] Thank you, and thank you for all that you do for your cause, and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

Every social impact leader believes in their mission.

Funders assume that too. What they actually want to know is why you, specifically, over the ten other orgs working the same issue, or the bigger name with more reach and a longer track record.

Most leaders answer with passion, good programs, being impactful. Genuine things that still don’t add up to a strategy.

Subscribe now

In this episode, Jonathan and I dig into a framework we use with clients constantly: naming your organization’s exact role inside a broader social impact ecosystem, specific enough to defend, credible enough to believe, and clear enough that funders, staff, and partners all describe your org the same way.

The framework itself is simple to describe and hard to actually do: map who else is working your exact issue, get honest about where you’re uniquely positioned inside that field, and build a story you can defend when someone pushes back on it.

Jonathan brings Seymour Center into it as a live example, working through the question in real time. You’ll probably recognize your own org somewhere in his answer.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:46] Why differentiation is the one thing social impact leaders don’t spend enough time on
[00:01:24] Every organization has a role to play in a broader social impact ecosystem
[00:02:28] What nonprofits can learn from how B2B and B2C startups think about differentiation
[00:03:25] Why “we do good work” isn’t enough to win over savvy funders
[00:04:45] Jonathan’s own evolving answer to what role Seymour Center plays in Santa Cruz
[00:06:38] The vague language and buzzwords that quietly sink an organization’s positioning
[00:09:24] Why believability matters more than boldness when claiming a role
[00:17:18] How passion becomes a brand story, and why that’s a trap
[00:19:44] Finding the “core durable truths” that define an organization’s identity
[00:21:24] Mapping the ecosystem: the first exercise Cosmic runs with every client
[00:22:14] Getting brutally honest about strengths, weaknesses, and what should stop [00:27:41] The moments that call for revisiting your role, from new leadership to ecosystem disruption

Notable Quotes:

[00:19:20]: “Passion is not a strategy. It’s not a position. It’s not a role. We can’t compete on being the most passionate, because who’s going to claim otherwise?” Eric Ressler

[00:04:55]: “One of the decisions I made pretty early was to align more with the environmental work in town, rather than the other museums, and position ourselves as an amplification force for the environmental work happening here.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:06:25]: “People get about 70% of the way there, but they don’t do the hard work of getting the rest of the way. It looks like vague language about describing who they are. It looks like buzzwords that sound good but confuse people.” Eric Ressler

[00:17:45]: “Someone’s like, I love the ocean, I want to save the ocean, so we’re going to create a museum to save the ocean. But that’s the vagueness we’re talking about.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:24:35]: “The better you can be about naming and claiming your role in the ecosystem, and doing that with conviction and clarity, the better you’re going to be at attracting the fundraising you need, the team you need, and the internal strategic clarity to make the right choices.” Eric Ressler

[00:23:00]: “That’s how organizations get stuck for decades. They’re usually aware of their ecosystem, they’re just not willing to act on it.” Jonathan Hicken

Resources & Links:

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center: Jonathan Hicken’s organization, used throughout as the working example

• The Nature Conservancy: mentioned as an example of a large, well-established environmental org

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Eric Ressler [00:00:35]: Jonathan, there’s something that I wish social impact leaders and social impact orgs spent a lot more time thinking about than they do. There’s actually a couple things, but for today’s episode there’s one thing I want to focus on, and that is, call it what you want, I’m going to call it differentiation. Let me go into some detail around that, and I’d love for you to grill me on this and poke holes in my thinking.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:00]: That’s my favorite thing to do.

Eric Ressler [00:01:00]: That’s like what the show is, right? So here’s how I think about this, and I have a better metaphor that I use that seems to make more intuitive sense to folks. I’m going to make a claim here: if you are doing work in the social impact space, especially if you’re doing work that is systems-level, big, intractable work, you are part of a social impact ecosystem. There are many players in this space, collaborators, maybe sometimes competitors. There are forces working against your issue at times, and it’s a complex, moving, fluid ecosystem. The way I think about this, and that I wish more people would think about it, is that you need to be able to clearly name and claim your role in that ecosystem.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:45]: For who?

Eric Ressler [00:01:45]: For yourself, as an organization, and this will connect the dots a little bit for the people you need to power your mission, whether that’s funders, staff, supporters, or volunteers.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:55]: I mean, I think this is something I actually think a lot about right now, with Seymour Center as a museum and sort of one of these public spaces, but also as an environmental organization. I think a lot about how we’re positioning ourselves within this whole ecosystem and the different categories we might fit into. So I think it’s a valid thing to dig into today.

Eric Ressler [00:02:15]: So I’m going to do something that I know nonprofit people love, and I’m going to compare them to not-nonprofit organizations. My background early on was working in Silicon Valley with B2B startups and B2C startups, and those folks think about this every day, right? Even before they go to market, it’s like, how are we going to differentiate within the market?

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:35]: Yeah, I was in B2B SaaS for years, and every executive meeting had that theme in it.

Eric Ressler [00:02:40]: So we’ve got two white dudes talking about B2B SaaS. I’m now bald, which is even better. Now we don’t just have a two-white-dude podcast, we’ve got one of them being bald. We’re just checking all the boxes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:50]: I have two podcasts.

Eric Ressler [00:02:50]: So you’ve got two. All right, okay. So all that to say, I still believe, and I wish more people would spend time in the social impact space thinking about this. The reason is, I think it’s too easy to gloss over. We get stuck in this mindset of, well, we’re doing good work, our programs are successful, we’re impactful, maybe even we’re doing pretty well from a fundraising standpoint. But I say, not enough. And I also say, usually if you haven’t done this work, those first few things are likely not to be true. So when you go into a potential funder meeting, one of the things the funder is going to be asking is, why support you? A lot of times folks in this space think about that as, why support me, what’s my credibility? But I actually think most, especially the savvy funders, are thinking about why you’re the right fit to solve this problem against other people also working on that problem.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:50]: This is interesting, because I do a lot of the fundraising, major donor and foundation work, and I often think about myself as a philanthropic matchmaker.

Eric Ressler [00:04:00]: Yeah. Exactly.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:00]: Where I’m like, I just want to match this funder with whoever’s going to do the work that delivers the most impact. There’s some genuine authenticity to that, where it doesn’t matter if it’s me. But also, if I don’t have a good answer to why their investment in me might have more of an impact, or the kind of impact they want, than somebody else in the ecosystem, then, brass tacks, I might lose out on that opportunity to bring in funding.

Eric Ressler [00:04:30]: Yep. Actually, I’d love to ask you: as you’ve been evolving your leadership and your position within the broader social impact ecosystem here in Santa Cruz, and in the environmental and climate space, how do you think about naming and claiming your role? Have you thought about it from that perspective before?

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:45]: Yeah. When I first started, Seymour Center was viewed as one of the museums.

Eric Ressler [00:04:50]: Yeah, one of the museums in Santa Cruz.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:55]: One of the museums in Santa Cruz. And one of the decisions I made pretty early was to align more with the environmental work in town, rather than with the other museums, to position myself as, hey, we are an amplification force for this environmental work happening here. Although lately I’ve been thinking about whether we should position ourselves more as a science communicator, as opposed to environmental work. So this is a question I’m actively toying with.

Eric Ressler [00:05:20]: And all of those are role-based questions. Are we playing the role of a museum? Are we playing the role of environmental org? Are we playing the role of a communications org?

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:35]: Well, I mean, there’s role, but I also say it’s sort of like our position in the ecosystem. Because in each of those ecosystems we could occupy or claim a particular spot within it. Within the museum space, we could be the science museum. Within the environmental space, we could be the storytellers. Within the science communication space, we could be the local solutions amplifier. So in each of those ecosystems, we would play a role. But yeah, this is a question I’m thinking about literally this week.

Eric Ressler [00:06:10]: The reason why I think this is so important to spend time thinking about, if you’re a leader in this space, is because it’s kind of this upstream unlock that makes all kinds of other decisions a lot easier. And here’s what I’ve noticed: people get 70% of the way there, but they don’t do the hard work of getting the rest of the 30% of the way there.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:30]: Well, what is that?

Eric Ressler [00:06:35]: What does that look like? It looks like vague language about describing who they are. It looks like glomming onto buzzwords that sound good but kind of confuse people. And what that means is you end up being able to justify all kinds of activities, investments, and partnerships that are not in your sweet spot. So another way to think about this is: what is our sweet spot as an organization? Where are we at our best? Where are we uniquely positioned to make the biggest impact, given the constraints, given the state of play, given our skill set, given our background? A lot of times when we’re helping orgs through this, we go all the way back to the origin story. What’s the core part of your DNA as an organization? Who even are the founding team? Because a lot of times, even for orgs that have been around for quite a while, that DNA carries through in the culture, in the skill set, and in who they hire into, and what the team members are actually well-versed and good at. I’m not saying you should never pivot, or grow, or upskill. But what I am saying is that you need to have a very clear sense of what your sweet spot is.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:40]: Let’s unpack the implications of doing this well versus doing this poorly. So, you alluded to one already: are you missing opportunities to bring in funding? Where my mind goes on that is, maybe if you don’t have a good sense of your spot in the ecosystem, you’re talking to the wrong funders.

Eric Ressler [00:08:00]: Might be talking to the wrong funders, yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:00]: They may be interested in a very specific piece of the work that you might actually do, but if you’re not able to articulate that that’s your role in it, then you might miss out on that partnership.

Eric Ressler [00:08:10]: So that’s one flavor.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:10]: Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:08:15]: Another flavor is you’re talking to the right funders, but they don’t know it, and you don’t know it, in the sense that you can see a potential there, but you don’t ever quite get over the finish line. You have a lot of conversations, and those feel good, but you never get the check, or you get a check that’s a third of what you wish it could be, because there’s not enough clarity around what funders want, which is confidence and clarity that their investment is going to lead to an impact, in the best case.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:40]: So one of the things that goes through my head, in my executive director role, is I have to find this balance between painting this big vision, painting this big reason why our work matters. The risk in doing that, of course, is that you go so big or so vague that you lose the clarity in what impact you’re actually delivering, and what your role in that ecosystem is. The risk of going too small is, well, that problem doesn’t sound like it matters too much. So for you, where do you draw the line, in terms of claiming your spot in the ecosystem, when it comes to the spectrum of the size of the problem?

Eric Ressler [00:09:20]: There’s a framing art there, I’d say. It needs to be rooted in truth, at just a baseline. I’m not suggesting listeners take away that they should go find the biggest, boldest way to tell their story and stake a claim, because there’s a believability element to this. This especially becomes relevant if you’re working on a complex, systems-level problem, where the solution or the desired future state is this major thing that’s going to require multiple organizations, public-private partnerships, sometimes even multiple states or communities coming together to solve. So what I’d say is, it needs to be rooted in truth, and the story can go something like this: hey, we envision this kind of world, don’t you also, funder, or whoever we’re talking to? Yes. Well, we see one problem in us getting there is this particular thing, and we tend to be really good at that. That’s our focus. We believe X, Y, Z, and this is the solution to that. There are other partners that matter in this, and by the way, we’re doing this cool initiative with that partner who’s really good at this thing. But this is the thing we’re uniquely positioned to do. And we need to make a case, and now we’re kind of coming off the dialogue here for our listeners, we need to be able to make a case that this part matters, it’s important, and it’s distinct enough that we can make a meaningful, believable claim that we’re positioned to do that part better than anyone else.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:45]: So it’s actually not, my framing of this, the size-of-problem spectrum is actually kind of a red herring. That’s not really the way you’re thinking about it. It’s that clarity in your role in the ecosystem actually delivers meaning, delivers weight, delivers a sense of real possibility in the impact.

Eric Ressler [00:11:05]: I think that’s right. And the scale of the problem is highly dependent on what kind of org you are. Even to use Seymour Center as an example, you’ve made a strategic choice to draw lines around Monterey Bay and Santa Cruz specifically, to a degree, the scope and scale of your focus as an organization.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:25]: On your shirt right there, that is literally the scope of what we’re doing.

Eric Ressler [00:11:30]: Science, Solutions, Santa Cruz. For people who are listening. So thanks for the shirt, by the way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:35]: You’re welcome. Looks good on you.

Eric Ressler [00:11:35]: So it kind of fits, right? We’re like, hey, okay. So in that way, though, you do have impact outside of this role you have here, but that’s part of your sweet spot. It’s one element, one ingredient in how you claim and name a role within a broader ecosystem. You’re saying part of that is our region, a regional focus, which can be totally legit.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:00]: You brought up this idea of, or alluded to a moment ago, the other players in the ecosystem. And I think what’s unique about social impact, versus the private sector, is that it’s actually important, I believe, to be in dialogue with the other people in the ecosystem. Because those funders are talking to everybody.

Eric Ressler [00:12:20]: Yep, 100%.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:20]: And if, in talking to everybody, they don’t actually put the pieces together for your role in it, you have this risk of being less credible, because you don’t exist in a vacuum in these funding conversations. So you need to make sure, in some ways, that your partners in that ecosystem are also bought in to your role in it all.

Eric Ressler [00:12:45]: Yeah, which I think is an interesting distinction between the private sector and the social impact sector: we’re not really competitors. Even if we’re competing for money, we’re all ideally working toward the same thing. There are exceptions to that, when you’re on different sides of an issue, anti-climate people or anti-whatever issue.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:05]: That’s a good point.

Eric Ressler [00:13:05]: But when you’re talking about allies, let’s use that term, I think a good heuristic is to ask: what if the funder I’m talking to also talks to everyone else in our space? What are we going to say that everyone else is also going to say? Great, might not even be wrong. But how can we help a potential funder or supporter make the best decision? That might even sometimes be, well, we need to fund the Seymour Center and this other org, because they’re intersectional, or because they’re collaborative, or whatever it is. But it’s a more compelling story, a more honest story, and a more persuasive story when you can say, this is the thing, this is the role we’re best at, we’re uniquely qualified for. It takes you out of this mode of trying to impress, talking yourself up. All that matters too. You want to be good at impact storytelling and having credible proof points. But if you have this framing of being clear and convicted about your particular role, and you can tell that story to a potential funder, I think it’s a way more powerful story.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:15]: I have some theories about why we don’t always—

Eric Ressler [00:14:15]: Always do that

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:20]: —do this. But from your seat, having talked to however many dozens of organizations you’ve worked with, why do you—

Eric Ressler [00:14:25]: Hundreds.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:25]: Yeah, why do you think that happens? Or what do you think is the main block for an organization going where it needs to go?

Eric Ressler [00:14:35]: What I’ll say is, this isn’t a universal problem, but it is a pretty persistent one. I see this pattern a lot, and I see it with orgs that are new, and with orgs that are, by many metrics, pretty successful and have been around for a long time. For the new orgs, I feel like it is, or maybe a new chapter of an org, it’s an uncertainty. It’s an unprovenness. We don’t actually know what our role is yet, we’re still figuring that out, here’s what we’ve done in the past, even maybe on different teams, we’re starting this new org, or the space is changing so we don’t quite know what our role should be, or maybe the role it was is no longer relevant. And for orgs that have been around a long time, what often happens is they start to see the full intersectional scope of the problem, and they try to solve more and more of it. I think that can sometimes work, if you’re a big enough org, and you break it down into divisions with multiple teams, where you’re almost like a federated, multidisciplinary org with unique teams for unique portions of the role. So you also have to have a litmus test: for the size org you are and the level of ambition you have, and the scale and scope of the problem, is it credible for you to claim that role? Because at some level, it has to pass that litmus test. A savvy funder is going to be like, okay, you’re an X-million-dollar-a-year org in this space saying this is your role. Does that pencil out? Does it pencil out for me? Do I believe you can do that?

Eric Ressler [00:16:20]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode: I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose-built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last fifteen years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy. But we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:05]: I have a theory, and it’s kind of the other side of the coin for what I think makes the social impact space special, which is that we, executive directors, all of us who work in this space, often approach the work because we care. It’s that passion piece. This is what makes it so powerful. And I also think the other side of that coin is that passion can sometimes become the brand story, where it’s like, just to use Seymour Center as an example again, and this isn’t speaking about me, but hypothetically, someone’s like, “I love the ocean. I want to save the ocean. So we’re going to create a museum to save the ocean.” But that’s the vagueness we’re talking about, right?

Eric Ressler [00:17:55]: Well, and also, believability is a factor. A low-millions-of-dollars-a-year org in Santa Cruz, positioned to save the ocean? No, no. No org is positioned to save the ocean. That’s a ridiculous claim. Now, you can have a vision for what the world looks like if you and other players in your ecosystem are wildly successful. Great, tell me about that. What could our ocean system be in ten years, instead of the doom-and-gloom narrative we hear? Okay, I’m on board with that, as a funder. I want that too. I care about the ocean, I want to save the ocean at large, I happen to live in Santa Cruz or have some connection to you. So, Jonathan, what’s your role in that? Exactly. That’s the next logical question. How do you create impact, and why are you the org I should fund instead of the Nature Conservancy, or some other big-name org more credibly suited to take on a bigger piece of that puzzle?

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:55]: But do you think this passion thing is maybe what takes us down the wrong path in our storytelling?

Eric Ressler [00:19:05]: Yeah, I think that’s a pervasive element in this space, and I think it’s a good thing overall, as long as we think about it in the right way. I think passion is a powerful force, and not one we should try to snub—

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:20]: —diminish. Or diminish.

Eric Ressler [00:19:20]: But passion is not a strategy. It’s not a position, it’s not a role. We can’t compete on being the most passionate, because who’s going to claim otherwise?

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:30]: Right. This exercise we’re doing now is essentially the exercise we invite listeners to go through. What is that passion? And then drill down through all these steps and answer all these questions.

Eric Ressler [00:19:45]: So, for listeners who are saying, okay, I buy your argument, Eric and Jonathan, I need to figure out what my role is, now what do I do? I’d encourage people to look at their core, depending on the size and stage of your org, caveat, caveat, but what are those core elements, those core durable truths about your identity, individually as a leader and at an org level, that will always be true? This is something I think about a lot as we do our own brand strategy work for Cosmic. I always come back to, what will always be true, no matter what we do, about our organization? There will always be some kind of design element to what we do, no matter how much deeper we go on strategy, no matter how we change our operating model, our engagement model with clients, design and design thinking. That mindset will always be part of, and true to the core of, how we do our work. So that’s one example for me. For you, it may be some of your beliefs around place-based change, or, based on past discussions we’ve had, what else comes to mind for you?

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:50]: Yeah. We have a beautiful building on the ocean. That will always be true. We exist in Santa Cruz. That will always be true. So these are just some of the things that would be the core truths for us.

Eric Ressler [00:21:00]: So distill down to some of your core truths about the elements of your identity and organization that are durable, that will always be true, or at least for the foreseeable future, will always be true. Start there and build off of that. Then be real honest. When we do this positioning and brand strategy work for clients, one of the first things we do is map the ecosystem. We ask, who are the other collaborators, credible players in your space? We like to look above and below in terms of size. We literally map this, on a four-quadrant, or x-y, axis. Part of it is, how do we frame even that axis, what’s the x and y lines on these graphs? That in itself is a strategic choice, because there are limitless ways to make a graph like this, and some of this becomes performative if you’re not careful. But map the ecosystem, and be willing to be brutally honest, because if you want this work to actually make a meaningful difference, and not just be an exercise you check the box on, you have to be willing to be brutally honest about your strengths and weaknesses.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:15]: And to be clear, when you talk about brutally honest, where my mind goes is, I have to look at my organization and identify what’s working, what’s not working, what are we uniquely good at, what are other people doing. And then the next thought, from an executive director’s chair, is, what does that mean for my people?

Eric Ressler [00:22:30]: What does that mean for my people?

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:30]: Yeah, honestly, that’s where it goes, because if I’m being brutally honest, what I’m thinking about is programs that should or shouldn’t exist.

Eric Ressler [00:22:40]: Sometimes it’s that—

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:40]: Right?

Eric Ressler [00:22:40]: —or people who need to be upskilled, or who maybe aren’t a good fit, once you have that clarity. But as much as that can be difficult from a leadership standpoint, avoiding it is not a good strategy long-term either.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:00]: Oh, absolutely not. No, that’s how organizations get stuck for decades on end, because they haven’t made those changes, maybe they’re aware of—

Eric Ressler [00:23:05]: They usually are.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:10]: Yeah, their ecosystem, but for whatever reason, they’re not willing to act on it.

Eric Ressler [00:23:15]: I’ve seen different versions of this, but back to the brutally honest example: is it the people, is it the programs? I think brutally honest really means being clear-eyed about where you’re actually, tangibly, measurably making an impact, and where it’s more aspirational, and where you are on the trajectory of your vision. Because usually you’re midstream on some strategic plan or growth plan, and you need to be brutally honest about what’s truly in your sweet spot and what’s starting to be on the outskirts of that. I’m not saying you need to focus down to doing one thing perfectly. Sometimes that’s a good strategy, sometimes it’s not. I think about it like a bullseye: what’s in the absolute middle, what’s in the first ring, the second ring, and what’s off the board. You need to make a choice as a leader around how big of a bullseye you draw, and how big of a board you’re drawing. But to me, mapping the ecosystem is the first step, so you can compare who else out there can make these claims, and whether that claim is more or less true or credible. Because often in this space, a lot of people are making the same kind of claims. You’ll know, if you’re in the space, what’s real and what’s not. Funders may hopefully get to that point too, but it’s not guaranteed. So the better you can be about naming and claiming this role in the ecosystem, and doing that with conviction and clarity, the better you’re going to be at attracting the fundraising you need, the team you need, and the internal strategic clarity to make the right choices around what moves you make as an org.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:55]: All right, so we’ve got being aware of and being brutally honest about your core strengths and weaknesses. We’ve got mapping the ecosystem. What’s left?

Eric Ressler [00:25:00]: So, if you have those two ingredients, you’ve got at least a pretty good start. Now you need to craft some kind of narrative that goes something like: because we have these core strengths, we can claim this role in the ecosystem, and because we can claim that role, that helps the cause at large, because X, Y, Z. That’s terrible messaging, but logically, you need to be able to tell some kind of story like that.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:30]: And I’d say then you actually need to go road-test that. This is where you’d go to the people in your ecosystem, and directly or indirectly, pressure-test it. Is this different from them? Does this accelerate what they’re doing, or does what they’re doing accelerate what I’m doing? Do we have that positive feedback loop?

Eric Ressler [00:25:50]: Yeah. So now let’s talk about how you know if you’ve chosen right, or if it’s working. How do we measure this when we do this work with clients? None of this is a breakthrough on its own, but it still leads to breakthroughs. What I mean is, we’ll literally interview, we do 360 interviews with leadership and stakeholders closely tied to the org, board members, partners, and ask, what is this org’s role in the space? We look at how much coherence there is in those answers. This data is going to be messy, some people are going to have a weird, zany answer influenced by their own perspective, no matter how good you’re doing as an org. But you start to see patterns emerge, either a coherent picture or a complete scattershot, or somewhere in between. When you start to map those, you should see some kind of pattern forming. We’ll also run basic surveys with supporters: how do you think about the org, what do they do, what’s their focus, why are they different than other people, we do this all the time. And the answers we get can be so insightful, because you can see how people are perceiving you as an organization. Here’s a caveat: if they’re not perceiving you well, is that because you haven’t done a good job strategically at naming and claiming a role in your ecosystem, or is your messaging, your communications, or your distribution of that story broken? Both can be true, or either can be true. So watch out for that, to our listeners.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:25]: How would you rank this, going back to our strategic tier ranking? When do I do this, and is there ever a good, better, or bad time to be doing this exercise?

Eric Ressler [00:27:40]: Anytime you’re making major strategic choices as an organization. Let’s talk about what some of those moments might be: a new executive director coming in, a major milestone, any kind of transformational or pivotal point, a new strategic plan, a strategic plan being sunset, a new one being built. Anytime you’re making big moves or big choices, it’s worth checking in on this. Is this still our role in the ecosystem? Should it be? The other thing I’d point to is, did the ecosystem get disrupted? Everyone in the world right now, in one way or another, if you’re in this space. Is the funding landscape different? Is the issue landscape different? Anytime there’s a disruption to the state of play, it’s worth double-checking, is this still the right role for us to play? You have to use your common sense and best judgment, because I don’t recommend you pivot this role all the time, or you’re never really claiming it. People get confused: wait, I thought you were this org, now you’re saying you’re this other org. You only get to do that so often—

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:30]: Because—

Eric Ressler [00:28:30]: —part of this is you have to build a reputation. So you have to use your best judgment about when to sit still on this, and when it’s the right time to make a pivot, and how big of a pivot you’re making. But I’d say any of those major strategic moments, either because of internal pressure or external state-of-play change, are worth revisiting this.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:00]: All right, so what did we miss?

Eric Ressler [00:29:00]: I’d say, if you’re a listener thinking about starting an org, this is, in my opinion, crucial.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:00]: Yeah, this is kind of step one, almost.

Eric Ressler [00:29:00]: Almost. Should I even start an org? Are there seven orgs already in this space that I should just be joining or supporting? There’s a lot of talk right now about mergers and acquisitions. This is one of the reasons why, there’s frankly a lot of redundancy in the space.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:30]: And you’re like, I go through that whole exercise and I don’t actually see the role I can claim. Great, okay, let’s merge, or let’s sunset, or whatever.

Eric Ressler [00:29:30]: So I’d say that would be another time, if you’re just starting an org, where you really need to look at this. I feel like this is really important, and you could describe it as positioning, you could describe it as differentiation. I’ve found that the metaphor of your role in the ecosystem is easier for folks in our space to grok, and I think it’s actually a better way of thinking about it. So I’m glad to riff on it with you today. There are other episodes we can link to around some of these topics. But Jonathan, this was fun. Thank you, man.

Jonathan Hicken [00:30:00]: Thank you, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:30:00]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe, or even leave us a comment, it really helps. Thank you, and thank you for all that you do for your cause, and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

Sarah Newkirk became executive director of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in the middle of a capital campaign. It was her first time leading a full organization, not just a conservation team.

Five years later, she has closed a $15 million farmland deal, opened a wildlife crossing that Caltrans is now replicating statewide, and taken flood-prone farmland out of production instead of walling nature off from the rising sea.

The Land Trust treats wildlife corridors, working farms, wetlands, and coastline as one overlapping mission instead of three separate fights, and that range is the model now.

None of it happened because a plan showed up fully formed. Newkirk’s method was to stop asking why something couldn’t get done and start asking what would have to be true for it to succeed.

Measure Q, the county fund now generating seven million dollars a year for climate resilience, exists because she ran that exact exercise with her board on a measure that had already failed twice.

The throughline across five years of land deals, a rebrand, and a ballot measure is relationships: the currency that actually buys land, wins ballot measures, and keeps stewardship funded for the long haul.

The return on all of it is joy: a staff that loves the work, a public that shows up for it, and a cycle where good conservation earns the kind of community support that funds the next project.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:30] Coming in as the new ED mid-capital-campaign, the same week Jonathan started at the Seymour Center

[00:03:00] Learning fundraising by leaning on friendship, not a fundraising department

[00:04:30] The unwritten rule that new EDs get a three-year window, then an expiration date

[00:05:30] Turning the honeymoon period into a five-year strategic plan built around coastal climate adaptation

[00:06:30] Beach Ranch: taking flood-prone farmland out of production to let marshland move inland

[00:07:30] Retiring 47-year-old branding and finally owning the “conservation incubator” identity

[00:09:30] Inside the Highway 17 wildlife crossing, now a model Caltrans is replicating statewide

[00:12:00] Why the land trust model runs on one tool: real estate

[00:16:00] The Land Trust’s three beneficiaries: wildlife, working agriculture, and people, together

[00:26:00] The “what would have to be true” method that turned a twice-failed ballot measure into Measure Q

[00:31:00] Relationships as business model: the Estrada ranch deal and the win-win test

[00:37:30] What disappears without public buy-in: money, momentum, and joy

Notable Quotes:

[00:02:35]: “You can’t even begin to understand the range of things that an executive director of a nonprofit does until you become an executive director of a nonprofit.” Sarah Newkirk

[00:17:15]: “Our third beneficiary is people. Public access is expressly built into our mission.” Sarah Newkirk

[00:24:30]: “Not ‘we need to do this or else,’ but ‘here’s what this could look like if we did it this way.’” Eric Ressler

[00:28:00]: “We made a list of what had to be true, and we made those things true.” Sarah Newkirk

[00:31:00]: “The foundational question is: can what I do as my business model serve you in some way?” Sarah Newkirk

[00:39:15]: “When you provide this kind of conservation work, this kind of climate adaptation work, to the broader public, the public loves it, and therefore they love you. And that is, I think, a beautiful, virtuous cycle.” Sarah Newkirk

[00:39:30]: “I love that the answer is joy. I think we need a lot more joy in how this work happens.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Land Trust of Santa Cruz County — Sarah’s organization

• Highway 17 Wildlife Crossing — the crossing project discussed at length

• Beach Ranch wetland restoration — the sea level rise adaptation project

• Conservation Blueprint for Santa Cruz County — the 2012 planning document Sarah references

• Learning the Land podcast — the Land Trust’s own show

• Watsonville Wetlands Watch — stewardship partner organization

• Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County — stewardship partner organization

• Central Coast Prescribed Burn Association — stewardship partner organization

• Measure Q — Santa Cruz County’s 2024 water and wildfire resilience tax measure

• Proposition 4 — California’s $10 billion 2024 climate bond

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:01:05]: Sarah Newkirk, welcome to Seymour Studios here.

Sarah Newkirk [00:01:10]: Thank you.

Eric Ressler [00:01:10]: So we are here for Designing Tomorrow, our show about social impact. And I’m really excited to dig in on all kinds of topics. A little bit of background for listeners who may not know you. You are the executive director of the Land Trust at Santa Cruz. And we worked together, full disclosure, on some branding work, and you came in as a new ED. I’d actually like to start there. I’d like to hear your story and your trajectory coming in, having deep expertise and knowledge around conservation and environmentalism, and you can speak to some of the other experiences that you’ve had. But you came in as a new ED to an organization that had rich history, had a lot of community, had a lot of community equity and ownership involved in it. Walk me through what that experience was like.

Sarah Newkirk [00:01:55]: Well, let’s just say that I came in unprepared. I have a rich background in conservation, but conservation practice. I’m a leader of sorts in the sense of building teams to accomplish difficult work. But this was my first experience being a leader of a whole comprehensive organization, including the aspects of the organization that go far beyond conservation: the fundraising aspects, administration and operational aspects, things like fleet management. You can’t even begin to understand the range of things that an executive director of a nonprofit does until you become an executive director of a nonprofit. And when I came in, which was in August of 2021, it was the exact same day that Jonathan became the ED of the Seymour Center.

Eric Ressler [00:02:50]: No way.

Sarah Newkirk [00:02:55]: Exact same day. We celebrate our anniversary every year.

Eric Ressler [00:02:55]: Amazing.

Sarah Newkirk [00:02:55]: And when I first came in, we were actually in the middle, believe it or not, of a capital campaign. My predecessor’s departure came, to some extent, at the expense of that capital campaign, which was well underway. And as you know, capital campaigns are based on relationships, and for the Land Trust, deep and authentic relationships. There’s no way to manufacture those. So the first thing I had to do was get my fundraising legs under me, and I leveraged my friendships to do that. I leveraged my friendship with Jonathan. He helped me write an appeal letter when I didn’t find myself with the staff necessary to do it. So it was definitely a trial by fire coming into that leadership position. But I will say that I was supported by some exceptional staff and some exceptional board members. Yeah, I came in unprepared, but I feel very well prepared now. Five years out, I feel as though I have a pretty clear sense of what I’m doing. They always say that program staff get to be the new guy for about a year, but EDs get to be the new guy for about five years.

Eric Ressler [00:04:20]: I love that. I’ve actually joked with Jonathan before on the show that I feel like a new ED has roughly a three-year window to really put a stake in the ground and prove themselves, so to speak. That’s a weird way of saying it. But I think when a new ED comes in, there’s usually some expectation that there’s going to be some change in the air. And I think there’s this window of opportunity: if you don’t make some of your biggest moves in those first three years, that’s a somewhat arbitrary number, but I’m going to stick with it, you lose your ability to do so. Again, not a strict rule, but I’d be curious to hear, did you think about that coming in, that tension, that balance between wanting to respect what was there and the way things were done, but also knowing that you have your own vision, your own set of opinions, priorities, theory of change? How did you balance all of that?

Sarah Newkirk [00:05:10]: That is absolutely true. And I would add, maybe for later, that I also think EDs have an expiration date. There is a period of time in which you’re going to be effective at making change, doing good conservation or whatever the issue is that the organization’s built around. And then you probably lose your luster after a little while. I don’t know what that period is for me, but I think you’re absolutely right that you have a honeymoon period where you’re this new shiny object that the board has recruited and they’re really proud of, and they’re willing to give you a really long lead. And yes, we took advantage of that, not in a bad way, but we stepped into the opportunity to make big changes, to do things like establish a new strategic plan. We’re working toward the end of a five-year strategic plan that we kicked off in 2022 that brought in entirely new aspects of conservation work the Land Trust had never really done before, including coastal climate adaptation.

Our Beach Ranch project is really the first of its kind, a sea level rise adaptation project where we’re taking marginal, flood-prone farmland out of production in order to accommodate the natural progression of marshland landward as the sea level rises. Doing that also protects farming in the community. That was new stuff. And when we first started talking about doing land deals, and when I say land deals, you have to understand that buying a 250-acre farm on the coast of Monterey Bay is a $15 million enterprise. So I’m not selling a small thing. It’s a big thing that we’re doing. That kind of long lead is absolutely essential. We built that strategy into our strategic plan, but not before we had started to socialize it internally.

Another thing is the branding work we did with you guys. The Land Trust had been represented by pretty much the same collateral since its inception, which was in 1978. It was lovely, but it was dated. We felt that the organization had really turned a corner and was ready to step out into the world as a newer, more modern enterprise doing really cutting-edge conservation. Part of the new perspective I brought to the Land Trust is owning what it already was, which was a conservation incubator. The Land Trust has been, for its entire almost 50-year life, doing really innovative conservation work, conservation work other land trusts don’t do: building trails near farmland, having farmland next to wetlands, doing this wetland regression project like we’re doing at Beach Ranch. And the wildlife crossing on Highway 17, really one of the first of its kind in the state of California. Now Caltrans is replicating that business model in other places to provide for wildlife connectivity around the state.

Eric Ressler [00:08:55]: Could you briefly, just for our listeners who might not be familiar with that project, give the two-minute elevator pitch of what that crossing actually is and why it matters?

Sarah Newkirk [00:09:00]: The wildlife crossing across Highway 17 was built in direct response to wildlife mortality at that exact location. We worked with scientists to find the place where wildlife were experiencing the greatest impact from colliding with vehicles, on the assumption that’s also a place where people are experiencing the most impact from colliding with wildlife. So we had to buy land, or buy an interest in land, on both sides of the highway in order to even get Caltrans started on the process of figuring out how we were going to permit, construct, and operate the wildlife crossing. But since we have, there have been hundreds of crossings: deer, mountain lions, bobcats, and lots of gray foxes. Go to our website at landtrustsantacruz.org and look at the wildlife videos. I know the eagle cams are cool, but the fox videos of those guys transiting, they actually go under there and they play. There are deer that go under there and they take a nap. It’s a fantastic amenity for our community, and an amenity our community contributed to. One of the tools we used to pay for the wildlife crossing was the first Measure D, a transportation bond measure for Santa Cruz County. That really helped spur the fundraising around the wildlife crossing.

Eric Ressler [00:10:40]: I’d like to hold on that a little bit and talk about how you guys think about different levers for creating change. Because working with you, and watching your org since working with you, one of the things that stuck with me is you say you’re an incubator, an innovation incubator, I think is the term you used, right? And what I’ve noticed is you’ve used various methodologies for creating change, whether those are legal interventions or political interventions, like passing Measure D, which gave us a bunch of state funding, or was it state funding that came in as a match? Measure D was local funding. It was all local funding. That’s right. So tell me, when you’re thinking about enabling or enacting your strategic plan, how do you look at all those different tools, those different levers, and choose: these are the ones we’re going to use, these are the ones we’re best fit for. Walk me through your thought process in doing that.

Sarah Newkirk [00:11:35]: Well, the Land Trust model is fundamentally about one tool, and that is real estate. Back in the ‘40s and ‘50s, when there wasn’t such a thing as a land trust, it was the Nature Conservancy that originated this idea: let’s not do the controversial legal stuff, let’s not sue anybody, let’s not do advocacy. Let’s do the thing that is going to be uncontroversial and that is going to protect the resource in the place it needs to be protected the most. And that is to purchase real estate. For years, TNC was receiving gifts of backyards in Connecticut, used to be the joke. The Land Trust of Santa Cruz County also had a similar period of time where what we were doing was basically taking donations. That was what we could afford: free real Estate.

Eric Ressler [00:12:30]: That’s not a bad deal here.

Sarah Newkirk [00:12:30]: And we still own some of those donations, and we kind of wish we didn’t own some of those, but that’s what young organizations tend to have to do. As we’ve grown and our ability to raise money has increased, we’ve been able to prioritize real estate that would really serve the resource best. That’s conservation planning. There’s a whole group of scientists and practitioners who are specialists in this, but the Land Trust was one of the conveners of the group that wrote the Conservation Blueprint for Santa Cruz County. That was written in 2012. It’s still the seminal document we all use for thinking about conservation. It doesn’t contain everything, and when we have to do things like sea level rise adaptation that document didn’t really consider, we have to do an additional plan, but it’s still a foundational document for doing conservation.

But when you get to the point about other tools, Eric, I think we prioritize using tools that will set us up for our other tool better. So obviously we need to raise money to buy land. We also grow relationships in order to buy land, whether it’s with a landowner, or with a partner, or with an elected official who can help direct funding to a project. Those relationships are critically, critically important. And then the other question is: what do we do with the land once we have it? That gets to the long tail of conservation. Everybody thinks about conservation as this discreet thing that happens. You buy the land, you put a fence around it, you stick a sign in, and it’s done. It’s conserved. But it’s not. Our job is to conserve land and then protect those wildlife values, those agricultural values, those public access values in perpetuity. And that’s a super long time. It’s an obligation we take really seriously. It’s a very long-term, noble occupation, the stewardship of land and the stewardship of conservation values. It’s expensive, so we have to raise more money for stewardship. It requires people, so we have to either have people on staff who can do it, or work with partners who can. And we do. We work very closely with organizations like the Watsonville Wetlands Watch, the Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County, even the Prescribed Burn Association, all of these partners that help us maximize the conservation value of a property.

Eric Ressler [00:15:25]: I’d be curious to hear your take on the state of play of the broader conservation movement right now. My sense, working with you and observing your work and just paying attention in general, is that there have been some pretty major shifts in how the sector at large thinks about conservation. I think specifically about this glass dome protect versus access, and the deeper meaning between the community and the community’s land and wildlife. What’s your point of view on all of that at this stage right now?

Sarah Newkirk [00:16:00]: It’s a super good question. And it has evolved. I’m fortunate to be old enough to remember how it was done in the early 2000s, and it was very much... I remember conversations at the Nature Conservancy when we were asking ourselves, and the CEO was going around the country asking various chapters, “Should we deal with this climate change thing?” It’s laughable now, right? Because of course it is the thing that is shaping all of our work. But what you’re asking about is something a little different: the role of people and the community in the conservation enterprise. The Land Trust of Santa Cruz County is fairly unique among conservation groups in California in that we serve three specific conservation beneficiaries. One is wildlife and natural resources. The second is agriculture, that our community in Santa Cruz County has a very robust, very progressive agricultural industry. And when I say agriculture, I mean ranching, I mean forestry, I mean row crop agriculture. Our working lands community are big partners. But our third beneficiary is people. Public access is expressly built into our mission. Even if it wasn’t expressly built into our mission, giving people access to beautiful land and nature is the most mind-opening thing you can possibly imagine. If you want to inspire future conservationists, you bring kids out to nature. If you want to inspire gifts to conservation enterprises, you bring donors out to nature. There is nothing more motivating than actually being out there and feeling it, just being quiet for a second and listening to the sounds, feeling the air. Every piece of property is different. It almost has a terroir, almost the experience of being at a conservation property. We are so fortunate to have such interesting places to bring people to. Your listeners should be encouraged to go and become members of the Land Trust. It costs five dollars. You can give whatever you want, but you don’t have to give much. And then you can be invited to all of these extraordinary opportunities to experience these extraordinary places. We have public offerings too, but members get a lot of special treatment.

Eric Ressler [00:18:40]: Well, and if you’re listening from anywhere in the world, a trip to Santa Cruz is never a bad idea.

Sarah Newkirk [00:18:45]: It’s a great idea.

Eric Ressler [00:18:45]: I think that’s something. In our community here in Santa Cruz, there seems to be a nearly universal appreciation, a care ethos around nature. I think it takes a certain type of person to want to live here, or if you were born here, to figure out how to get creative enough to afford to stay and live here. And I think everyone, and this is a bit of a generalization, but most people have some kind of connection to nature, whether it’s because you’re a surfer, or a mountain biker, or a hiker, or an equestrian, or you just like being surrounded by all of this. At the same time, there’s that local perspective that people here have, that I have, even though I’m not originally from Santa Cruz. And then I see these national, international, and global conversations around climate that feel so detached from that experience, where nature is a resource to be extracted, or nature is a thing that isn’t as relevant in our fully digital world. So to your point about getting people into nature: that’s how we create current donors, future conservationists, and even just a reconnection between our humanity and the environment that we all are in, as much as we try to remove ourselves from it. To me, it’s the most important thing to focus on right now. And there’s all kinds of research, I’m sure you’re even more familiar than I am, that the experience of being in nature, the awe you experience, literally changes your brainwaves, literally changes your physiology. Anyone who’s had experiences like that, it’s self-evident. You don’t need to be put in an MRI machine to know that’s true. So I guess my question, after all of this, is how do we connect local conservation and local and individual natural experiences all the way up to global climate change, when a lot of those decisions are being made by global and international climate policy decision-makers who feel like they might as well be as far removed from any individual as possible? I don’t have any access to the UN. On behalf of my clients I do, to some degree, but there’s that sense of: what can I do as an everyday citizen, an individual who cares passionately about this?

Sarah Newkirk [00:21:15]: While it’s a troubling time to be a person in the world right now, it’s not a troubling time to be a person in Santa Cruz County right now. It’s also not a troubling time to be a person in California right now. We live in a community that is really willing, that has an appetite for innovation and for pushing the boundaries of what’s possible on climate action. We live in a state that puts its money where its mouth is. In 2024, California passed Prop 4, the $10 billion climate bond. That bond is now generating revenue for conservation organizations like ours to do the work we do. There’s no place else in the world that supports conservation to the extent California does. Santa Cruz County in 2024 passed Measure Q, the water and fire resilience property tax measure, which is generating seven million dollars a year for public agencies, for nonprofits, for the grant program, so we can all do work that makes our community more resilient to climate change. So I have a lot of reason to hope. To your question of how we connect that to the national scene and the global scene: we need to lean into this kind of thing, to the local. We need to be talking about what we’re doing here, and we need to be convincing people that life is good here because of these investments we’re making.

Eric Ressler [00:23:15]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode. I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose-built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring your ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

I love that where you took that. We’ve been talking about this with various guests, and Jonathan and I have been talking about it in various episodes as well, that in the climate advocacy space, especially around climate change, there’s been so much messaging around the potential downsides, and now we’re getting to the point where it’s the realized downsides, right? Coastal erosion, rising sea levels, communities being impacted like today. There’s been very little discussion, narrative change, and visioning around what could be instead. Not “we need to do this or else,” but “here’s what this could look like if we did it this way.” I think that’s a real shame, because I think that’s actually more motivating for an issue like climate action. There are some issues where painting a picture about the downsides makes a lot of sense, maybe to a degree. Public health is a space where that sometimes works, like disease prevention, although that doesn’t seem to be working so well either right now. But for an issue like this, where it’s so easy to tip into apathy, where it’s just like, well, I can’t do anything. The metaphor I’ve used before is it feels sometimes like you’re an ant trying to push a glacier for an issue of this size. My sense is that if instead there was a “here’s what the world could look like, here’s what our community could look like if we were to make these changes, if we were to make these investments instead,” that would be a much more generative, constructive, inspirational, creative act. So why isn’t that happening?

Sarah Newkirk [00:25:30]: I think people get trapped by this “has never been done” mindset, and that leads to the “it can never be done” mindset. I prefer to ask the question of what would have to be true. When we first started talking about Measure Q, it was, one of my trustees came to me on my first day on the job and said, “You know what you need to do? You need to do a local conservation measure.” And I said, “Okay,” because I was too stupid to know—

Eric Ressler [00:26:15]: How hard that was going to be.

Sarah Newkirk [00:26:20]: And so, of course, we had years of conversations about it, and mostly the conversations I was having with stakeholders were conversations about how it couldn’t, that’s been tried before, it’s been tried two or three times before, and we think it can’t be done, it’s never going to happen here. So I had to have a come-to-Jesus moment with my board where I said, “I’m just not sure about this, but let’s brainstorm, because I think that if the following things were true, we might be able to succeed.” If we were able to get a simple majority threshold for victory, we might succeed. If we were able to couch this in terms of the natural world and risk reduction, climate risk reduction, nature protection and climate risk reduction are fundamentally the same thing, or can be accomplished using many of the same tools. And if we’re able to convey that message to the public, they might support something they might otherwise not support. So we did this exercise: what would have to be true in order to succeed, rather than why has this not succeeded? And we answered those questions and we took care of those relationships. Some of the things that needed to be true were that we needed a robust coalition. We needed the Farm Bureau on our side, and they were. We needed a lot of landowners on our side. We needed all of the supervisors on our side, and we got them. So we made a list of what had to be true, and we made those things true.

Eric Ressler [00:28:05]: I just want to underline that strategy to our listeners right now, because I feel like we do something similar when we’re doing visioning exercises on behalf of our clients. I think it’s such a powerful framework, because sometimes going from where you are and who you are as an organization to who you’re becoming, you see where you want to go and you see where you are, and that gap just looks like it might as well be the Grand Canyon. But if you start to break it down into, I’m going to use your words here, the “what would have to be true” for us to be able to get there, you start to tease out the mini steps that get you closer and closer, which can help you figure out: is this viable at all? Do we think we can get seven out of ten of these, or whatever the threshold might be, to get it over the finish line? Do we need to get all ten? So I want to underline that as a brilliant leadership and strategy framework in terms of feasibility of a major initiative, or even just how to break big ambitious problems down into their pieces to be more effective in general. So I want to point out that you talk about this coalition you had to build, all of these people you had to get on your side. I’d love to give you a chance to talk about, you’ve mentioned this a couple times already, relationship building. You talked about it through the lens of fundraising. Now you’re talking about it through the lens of advocacy or politics at a local level. Whose responsibility is that in an organization like yours? Is it the whole org? Is it the ED? How do you think about breaking that down into pragmatic steps that you take?

Sarah Newkirk [00:29:45]: What an interesting question. In our organization, relationships are held by different departments. We have relationships that are primarily about engaging with the public, and we have an engagement department that holds those relationships. We have relationships that are primarily about external, or government, affairs, and we have a department that does that. We have relationships with landowners, and our land protection department does that. We have relationships with scientists and other practitioner partners, and we have a department of conservation strategy and planning. But I think the importance of relationships, and the foundational power it gives an organization to have productive relationships in which each partner is experiencing significant benefit, those are the really useful, productive relationships.

Eric Ressler [00:30:45]: The win-win relationships.

Sarah Newkirk [00:30:45]: The win-win relationships, exactly. And it’s not transactional in the sense of I’m winning, you’re winning, and we’re all winning. It is truly an authentic relationship, because the foundational question is: can what I do as my business model serve you in some way? For landowners, often what they’re experiencing is a crisis of capital. So what we do in purchasing a conservation easement can really help them. We had a land deal recently with the Estrada family, who have a large historic ranch, and there were a number of different family members who owned different portions of the ranch. What needed to happen was it needed to be brought together under the unified ownership of the next generation that was going to operate the ranch. But what they really needed was some funding to operate it. So we were able to come in and purchase a conservation easement that protected the land from development in perpetuity, but also put it in the hands of some very capable and progressive land stewards who are doing an immaculate job of caring for it. We don’t have to do that. But that took a years-long process of building a relationship. What’s wonderful is that now we have that relationship, and we have those partners who are able to speak to their community on our behalf. And you don’t get that unless the relationship is really a productive, mutually beneficial, but also authentic, not strictly transactional, relationship.

Eric Ressler [00:32:40]: I want to spend a little time talking about the relationship with the public that you mentioned, because to me that feels like something I wouldn’t necessarily expect with a land trust. Maybe you tell me, is this a unique flavor of land trust that you are, that does this? Because I could imagine a version of you where this is all behind-the-scenes policy wonk work and real estate work, and the public doesn’t really need to know you exist. You’re just going to do good work behind the scenes for them. But you guys have taken a very different stance, where you’re a very well-known, almost household name in our community, a beloved brand. We experienced this in doing the rebrand, just how much equity and care people had for the Land Trust as an organization, as a brand. Why do you think it is that you’ve set it up that way? Is that intentional? Is that just culturally something you inherited? Why does the public need to know who the Land Trust is?

Sarah Newkirk [00:33:35]: The public doesn’t need to know, but they would get substantial joy from knowing and being engaged with us, because what we have to offer is incomparably beautiful and incomparably valuable. And just as you said, Eric, earlier in the interview, people in Santa Cruz County, on the whole, are here on purpose. The main purpose they’re here for is being able to connect with some component of the natural world, whether it’s the forests, the trails, the surf break, whatever. If you’re not out surfing, you’re at the downtown farmer’s market buying your strawberries for the week. People are here on purpose to take advantage of the resources this incredible county has to offer. So I think people should know about the Land Trust, because we are their representative in making sure that these resources, that make this county so incredible, are able to stay around for the long term and provide all the joy, all the nutrition, all the mental and physical health that comes with being outside, for generations to come. That is, in fact, our mission.

The other thing is that I work with the most incredible staff. We have a staff of about 32 people. They’re mostly about 20 years younger than me, and they are having such an amazing time. I strongly encourage anyone who wants to learn more about the atmosphere of our enterprise to visit our downtown office at 911 Center Street, and just come and talk, come and see what we’re up to, come and look at the map of our properties, come and talk to some of our conservation practitioners, and hear about the work we’re doing to conserve and give access to the public for all of these values we’re protecting. My team is part of what makes the Land Trust the Land Trust, and it’s part of what makes Santa Cruz Santa Cruz. Interacting with the public is something that brings me great joy. It brings my team great joy. And it really is part of the recipe for an organization that can create major conservation impact.

Eric Ressler [00:36:15]: So one of the questions we often ask when we’re doing case for support work for major donors is: what would happen if your organization were to disappear? I actually kind of want to flip that, and I want to press on this one more time, because I’d love you to connect the dots for our listeners. What would happen to the Land Trust and your impact if your public stakeholders were to disappear? I want to ask that through the lens of a belief I have, which is that too many climate action and conservation organizations don’t consider the general public a major stakeholder, especially if they’re grasstops, especially if they’re global advocacy. There’s this kind of, well, these decisions get made behind closed doors, so no one really needs to know who we are. And I don’t believe that’s true. So I’d like you to tell me your authentic answer, whether you agree or disagree with my point of view there. How would your work change if the general public here in Santa Cruz County and beyond were not a major stakeholder in the work you were doing?

Sarah Newkirk [00:37:20]: We would probably still have some lands. I think we would probably primarily be working with conservation easements, where we were able to buy cheap and incomplete. There’s nothing wrong with easements. Sometimes an easement is the right tool for the job. But we would probably be limited to those kinds of conservation agreements, because we wouldn’t be able to afford much else, and because we wouldn’t be able to generate a lot of interest or excitement in doing a full fee transaction. And I say that because, again, it’s these relationships within the community that are generating landowner interest, that let people know there’s an option for their property other than selling it to a developer. I think that if the public were not there, a big component of the vision we have for this county, which is of a thriving, economically viable, recreationally active population that supports conservation because it’s in their enlightened best interest, if you will... I think we would probably still exist. We would be less successful, and we would be fundamentally less joyful. I think the dissemination of hope that the Land Trust’s work brings to the community would also be kind of absent. And I think, Eric, that’s the real story. That’s what the other levels of organization of this country and the globe need to hear: when you provide this kind of conservation work, this kind of climate adaptation work, to the broader public, the public loves it, and therefore they love you. And that is, I think, again, a beautiful, virtuous cycle.

Eric Ressler [00:39:30]: I love that the answer is joy. I think we need a lot more joy in how this work happens. And to your point, that’s already going on right now. So Sarah, before we wrap up, this was so great. Thank you so much. I’d love for you to have a chance to plug anything and everything you’d like. How can people get involved who are here in Santa Cruz County or in California, and how can listeners who are elsewhere in the US or the world, who are listening, what would your advice to them be if they’re interested in conservation and wanting to get involved in their local communities?

Sarah Newkirk [00:40:00]: I encourage all of our local listeners to join up. We have a community, it’s an exciting community. We do all of these events where we’re bringing folks out onto the land to really experience lands that not everybody really gets to connect with. So go to our website, sign up, and become a member. It doesn’t cost very much at all, but obviously we’ll happily receive any contribution folks want to offer. For people outside of our community, take a look at what we’re doing, take a look at what we’re up to. Our website has dozens of videos showing our work in action. There are lots of articles showing our work in action.

Eric Ressler [00:40:55]: You have your own podcast.

Sarah Newkirk [00:40:55]: We have our own podcast, the Learning the Land podcast, that elaborates on the programmatic work we’re doing and the values it’s bringing and protecting for our community. And then tell your own local land trusts the story of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County: conservation incubator, coming up with new ideas, figuring out what would have to be true and making it happen, because it’s not impossible. There are just obstacles. And let us know what you find out. I would love for it to be an exchange of information, and I would love for our listeners elsewhere in the world and in the country to be able to bring this back home.

Eric Ressler [00:41:50]: Absolutely. So join up if you’re local, or if you’re not. If you are a generous donor and want to see your money go somewhere that’s going to make a real impact here in Santa Cruz, you would be at the top of my list personally. Sarah, this has been wonderful. Thanks so much for joining me today.

Sarah Newkirk [00:42:05]: Thanks, Eric. I appreciate the opportunity.

Subscribe now

There’s a push right now to democratize strategic planning, where organizations survey the community, poll the staff, and put the big calls to a vote, sometimes right down to the budget. The instinct behind it makes sense, but it goes too far.

Your community should have a lot of influence on your strategy. That still doesn’t mean putting your strategy out to a vote. Influence and decision-making power are two different things, and when leaders treat them as the same thing, good orgs freeze.

It plays out in a familiar way. An ED gets so worried about how the community or the staff will react that they can’t make a choice at all, and the whole org stalls waiting for a consensus that isn’t coming.

Subscribe now

All the inputs matter. The leadership team, the community, the data, the gut, a trusted outside voice, peers, the board, the funders. You gather all of it, you look for patterns, and then at some point you stop gathering and you decide, knowing you’ll never have perfect information.

If everyone walks away from that decision happy, the choice was probably too safe. The real wins are the ones where someone disagrees with the path you took and still can’t argue with the results.

Put to a board, it comes down to this: synthesizing all of it into a call only leadership can make, and then owning it, is the actual job. A plan you never execute is worth nothing. The only one that counts is the one you actually run.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:00] The premise: drafting fantasy strategic planning teams from ten possible inputs
[00:02:00] The ground rules and why every input is assumed to be trusted
[00:02:30] First picks: leadership team vs. the community you serve
[00:05:15] Influence vs. decision-making power, the distinction that runs through everything
[00:07:00] Why fully democratized strategic planning goes too far
[00:08:45] Gut and intuition as a legitimate strategic input
[00:10:45] Data beats opinions, and the difference between predictive and directional data
[00:13:45] The case for a trusted outside consultant or strategist
[00:15:45] Drafting the board, and why boards should support more than they decide
[00:20:15] Peer organizations as input and potential collaborators
[00:22:30] Major funders as another audience you have to serve
[00:25:30] Where frontline staff and public feedback land, and why
[00:28:30] How to actually synthesize all these inputs into a decision
[00:33:00] Win-win as a cheat code, and why pleasing everyone signals a weak choice
[00:31:30] Minimum viable strategy: the only plan that matters is the one you execute

Notable Quotes:

[00:05:35]: “The community should have a lot of influence, but I don’t think this work usually works when it’s truly democratic.” Eric Ressler

[00:11:05]: “We have a saying at Seymour Center here where data beats opinions 100% of the time.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:09:30]: “Sometimes gut level decisions get not as much credit as they should, because the body and the brain are actually really tuned to making complicated choices by intuition at a pretty good rate if you have the right inputs in your daily life.” Eric Ressler

[00:34:30]: “It’s not about finding emotional harmony. It’s a cheat code almost that’s going to unlock everybody’s success.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:33:35]: “If literally everyone is happy, maybe the decision was too obvious and weak and there should have been a little bit more of a bold choice made.” Eric Ressler

[00:32:10]: “You could plan forever, but the only plan that really matters is the one that you actually execute on.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Designing Tomorrow Spotlight interview with Rob Acton on designing effective nonprofit boards

• Cause Strategy Partners — Rob Acton’s firm, focused on nonprofit board placement and governance training

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:00]: All right, Eric. Here’s what we’re doing today. We are going to draft fantasy sports style draft of our ideal strategic planning teams. This comes from some questions that I often get from people in the community and funders and stuff, which is like, Jonathan, how did you come up with this strategy to be a collaborative center for coastal resilience? Where did that come from? And I’ve actually found that a pretty challenging question to answer because I really did collect a lot of input from a lot of different parties here. And so I thought it might be fun today to actually assemble our ideal teams of influencers when we come up with our strategy.

Eric Ressler [00:00:55]: Okay. Super excited for this. Building a little bit off of the energy of our tier ranking brand strategy video. So we have 10 that we’ve pre-selected, right? We’re assembling our teams. We get to pick one at a time. I guess it’s your episode so you get to go first? How’s this work?

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:15]: Yeah. Couple of ground rules before we get right in. So we’ve listed 10 potential inputs and I’m going to read them randomly so I don’t tip you off into my order here, but here are the 10 real quick. So a trusted consultant, frontline staff, your gut intuition as the ED or CEO, data, the community you serve, your leadership team, major funders and donors, your board, peer organizations, and frontline staff.

Eric Ressler [00:01:45]: I mean, just hearing this list makes me feel for EDs. I have to make these choices and it’s going to, I think, create a little bit more empathy when I get frustrated with clients where I’m like, “Could you just make a choice already?”

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:00]: Yeah, there’s a lot of people we got to listen to. There’s a lot of people.

Eric Ressler [00:02:00]: Okay. I’m excited. Let’s go.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:00]: So ground rules. First of all, we have to assume for the purposes of this conversation that all of these different parties are trusted people, right?

Eric Ressler [00:02:10]: Good inputs.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:10]: Good inputs, good relationships, et cetera. So obviously there’s going to be variation in reality. It’s a big leap.

Eric Ressler [00:02:15]: A big leap, but I’ll go with it.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:15]: That’s going to just be an assumption. And so we’re each going to be creating a team of five. So I will give you the honor of making the first pick. And then I will go and then we’ll go back and forth until we’ve selected all 10. And then if I’ve picked one, you can’t pick it. Off the board.

Eric Ressler [00:02:35]: And then we’re going to have our teams fight at the end or...

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:40]: Come up with the best strategic plan. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:02:40]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:45]: All right. So let’s get right into it.

Eric Ressler [00:02:45]: All right. So my first pick is leadership team.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:50]: Ooh, okay. All right.

Eric Ressler [00:02:50]: Was that yours?

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:50]: It was not. I’m not going to tip that off though.

Eric Ressler [00:02:55]: Okay. So my first pick is leadership team and that is because if I only had one team to assemble to make strategic choices, it would be that team. And I think that’s because if your team can’t be that team...

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:10]: You have the wrong team.

Eric Ressler [00:03:10]: You have the wrong team. And maybe you do have the wrong team and maybe you know that and so that shouldn’t be your first pick. But we’re working off this assumption that all these inputs are kind of where they should be. So in my opinion, at the end of the day, in terms of who actually influences and makes decisions around strategy, it better be your leadership team.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:25]: So in that, I sort of have some assumptions here, right? That having the right leadership team means they deeply understand your community, they deeply understand the business, they deeply understand operations, funding, budget, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Eric Ressler [00:03:45]: They’ve already probably been influenced by the other nine in their lived experience day in and day out, potentially for years. This gets a little complicated for that reason, but leadership team is my number one.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:50]: Solid pick right off the top. My first pick is going to be the community you serve.

Eric Ressler [00:03:55]: Ah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:00]: Yeah. That was your number two, wasn’t it?

Eric Ressler [00:04:00]: My number two. Yeah. My top three if you hadn’t taken them would have been solid, but okay. I’ll work with it.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:05]: Yeah. There has to be some signal from the community you serve. If you’re doing a strategic planning thing, that probably means that there’s something needs to change.

Eric Ressler [00:04:15]: Or it’s just three years are up so it’s time for a new strategic plan.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:20]: Don’t you even start with that.

Eric Ressler [00:04:20]: I’m just saying that’s how they usually happen.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:20]: Well, that’s too bad because really if you’ve got a great strategy, you keep rolling with it as long as it’s still working and as long as you’re getting results.

Eric Ressler [00:04:30]: I’m half jesting, but honestly, that is often why a new strategic plan happens. But yes, let’s say in the best case, it’s time for a new plan. There’s a pivot that’s needed or the world has changed so you need to rethink the strategy. So yes, continue.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:40]: Yeah. And look, we exist in this sector to deliver impact to somebody or something. And if we are not deeply in touch with their needs, their wants, their constraints, all of their factors, then why the hell are we doing a strategic plan to begin with? And your point about the leadership team is a good one. First off the board makes sense because hopefully your leadership team is plugged into...

Eric Ressler [00:05:10]: Doing that all the time.

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:10]: Is doing that all the time. Nevertheless, it was my top pick because I want to make sure that whatever change I’m making is going to be delivering better, faster, higher quality impact to that community.

Eric Ressler [00:05:20]: Okay. So you took my number two. Great. I think it’s important to talk about the difference between influence and decision making power. And I think that’s true actually for all of these. But for example, the community you serve, I think absolutely should have a major influence on your strategy, but I wouldn’t put it out to vote. I wouldn’t do a survey that’s like, “Hey community, should we be this type of org or this type of org?” I would do that in the way that we do this work when we are doing data work or survey work or qualitative interviews with the community or the beneficiaries, we are getting those inputs and then we are synthesizing them with other people in mind. We’re not asking those people to vote directly. In my opinion, some of the groups on this list should have more decision-making power. For example, I believe the leadership team should have a lot of decision-making power. The community should have a lot of influence, but I don’t think this work usually works when it’s truly democratic.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:30]: Yeah. There’s some pitfalls in even soliciting feedback from the community you serve. In my mind, I’m imagining a relatively large group of people, though there may be examples of smaller groups of beneficiaries, in which case the following won’t make much sense, but you got to make sure that you’re asking the right people, that you’re asking the right questions, that you’re going at the right time, that you’re even using the right techniques to get in front of people. There’s a lot buried in that in terms of getting the right input for the process. I agree with you. I’ve seen some pretty far outtakes recently about totally democratizing strategic planning, even down to things like budget spend. I think that’s too far.

Eric Ressler [00:07:15]: I would agree. And if you look at even how our country is built from a governance standpoint and a political standpoint, because it’s going swimmingly well right now, but nonetheless, we have a representative format. We don’t just give individual citizens pure decision making power. And I think there’s a balance there. Sometimes this gets to some of the most difficult parts about doing social impact work, which is like, who should hold the power in this work? And I could see a very valid counterargument to what I’m saying right now saying, “Well, why should EDs get to decide all of this stuff? Shouldn’t it really come down to the community who is benefiting, who’s getting the value out of this work?” And I would say yes to a degree, but also an individual’s vantage point is going to be different, not better, not worse than someone who talks to a hundred of those people all the time. And so all of this requires some level of interpretation and synthesis. I agree that it can get taken too far and I’ve seen this happen with orgs that we’ve worked with before where they’re almost afraid of their community, they’re almost afraid of their staff to the point where they can’t make decisions and just at some point make a choice, which to me feels like a not very effective way of being a leader.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:35]: Yeah. This is the fundamental problem that you said right at the top, right? There is all of these inputs and all of them are important to some degree and just like having the wherewithal to prioritize them in a way that we’re doing right now, which brings me, you’ve got your next pick.

Eric Ressler [00:08:50]: Yeah. Oh, it’s my turn. Okay. I’m going to do a sort of controversial one. I’m going with my gut intuition Is my next pick.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:55]: Ooh, okay. So you got leadership team and gut.

Eric Ressler [00:09:00]: So far all I’ve got is my leadership team and gut. I’m hoping to get some other folks on my team here, but I kind of looked at this wrong maybe from a game theory standpoint. I was like, man, if I could get my leadership team, the community in my gut, I’m solid. The rest, I’ll get along on my vision. If I literally only had my leadership team in my gut, hey, I’ll be honest, sometimes I am there in making decisions for Cosmic, right? I wouldn’t probably recommend that if you’re leading the Seymour Center or a community-based organization. I think sometimes gut level decisions get not as much credit as they should, because the body and the brain are actually really tuned to making complicated choices by intuition at a pretty good rate if you have the right inputs in your daily life. If you’re just kind of like the kind of person who’s going to listen to the last person you talk to, your gut’s probably not the right choice. But if you show up in the way that allows you to constantly be pulling and getting these inputs, and then at the end of the day, you kind of just let your brain do its thing almost like shower thought style, I think it’s actually really powerful. Some of my best ideas and my best choices have happened that way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:10]: There are levels to these decisions, right? I know that day to day I’m making sort of strategic level decisions from my intuition or with my leadership team and for the purpose of this exercise, we’re kind of thinking of that transformative new strategy here.

Eric Ressler [00:10:30]: Okay. I’m going to say one more thing on this. I think most people actually do use their gut to make these choices anyway.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:40]: And what? Don’t admit it?

Eric Ressler [00:10:40]: Aren’t even aware of it. And they use these other tools to reinforce the choice they already knew they wanted to make.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:45]: Sure.

Eric Ressler [00:10:50]: I don’t know. I’m putting the gut up high.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:50]: All right. My next one off the board is data. Yeah. Look, it almost actually directly counteracts the gut intuition one, right? We have a saying at Seymour Center here where data beats opinions 100% of the time.

Eric Ressler [00:11:10]: Yeah, makes sense for science.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:10]: Yeah. So I want to make sure that... I mean, you could break this down on all the levels. It could be financial implications, funding implications, staffing implications, community feedback, whatever. I need to have some evidence in quantitative format that where I’m going to head is going to build a stronger business and going to deliver more impact. And I need to see some evidence of that in some ways to almost activate my gut in a way. It’s that affirmation that my gut is real.

Eric Ressler [00:11:45]: That’s right. Well, and it’s what you need to be able to make good gut level decisions. Oddly, you need data to make gut level decisions. So I’m actually really deep in a data focused project for Cosmic right now where I’m building out this internal app and dashboard that gives me visibility into my business. And what’s been fascinating for me is that data is kind of like statistics where you can kind of mold and shape it in certain ways. And so you have to be careful because it’s like, how good is the data? Because sometimes the data is really solid. It’s been done by professional researchers or academics and other times the data is messy or incomplete or misleading. And so it can inform and influence you and steer you in the wrong way too, but you could say, well, the data says. And so all these things have a little bit of nuance, but I had data pretty high up there. I’m sad to see it go on my team.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:40]: I think that we as EDs and CEOs, we need to learn how to read data because there’s data that’s predictive and sort of empirical and so ironclad that it cannot be scrutinized really.

Eric Ressler [00:13:00]: It’s like self-evident.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:00]: Right. In other cases, there’s data that’s directional, data that can give you a sense that you’re within the bounds of the decision you want to make. And so when I talk about data, it’s really more that.

Eric Ressler [00:13:15]: Yeah. I think that’s a good way to think about it. That resonates with me when we’re looking at engagement data for websites that we build or for campaigns that we’ve been part of where it’s like you can get so lost in the nuance of like, well, the conversion rate did this one. And it’s like, let’s look at the trends, right? Let’s compare it. Is it up or down month over month? Is it within a healthy threshold or baseline or benchmark that we’re going for? So I agree that directional data is a lot more useful for these big decisions you have to make.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:45]: All right. Who’s next for you?

Eric Ressler [00:13:45]: Okay. So you took data from me. Although actually data wasn’t next for me, data was a trusted consultant or strategist. Slightly self-serving take. I’ll be the first to admit it. But again, let’s assume trusted is doing a lot of work here. I think having someone who’s not in the weeds all the time to give you that kind of fresh outside perspective is massive because if all you do is talk to your own team and even to a degree, talk to the community that you serve or talk to your board or peer organizations or people who are in this every day, you’re going to get a lot of reinforcement that happens around like, oh, whether it’s because this has been decided, this is the way or this is the intervention. And sometimes you just need someone to come in from a different perspective, an outside perspective who’s like, “Well, we’ve worked with these types of orgs and they do it this way. Have you ever considered doing that?” To just have some new fresh thinking and input. So far my team is my leadership team, my intuition and a trusted consultant, they better be a damn good one. Luckily I still have some picks on the table, but I think that a trusted consultant, trusted, high quality, let’s break down who might some of these people be: strategic planners or XEDs or people from, dare I say the business world, which is like this huge taboo in our space around listening to business advice, which you should be careful about. Design agencies like Cosmic. Who else would you put in this category that you’d be thinking about?

Jonathan Hicken [00:15:20]: Well, I would put you. I’ve had the pleasure of working with you on some strategic level projects and in that case, I think because you are trusted and because you produce quality work, that third party perspective was really influential and sort of in reality the way it played out became super influential in probably ways I didn’t even expect. Now I think where you’re coming from, correct me if I’m wrong, is really the value here of the trusted consultant is that they’re just third party. They’re distant. They have some emotional and just whatever daily distance from what you’re talking about and I think there’s an emotional importance to that. It’s for that same reason that I’m choosing my board off the table next.

Eric Ressler [00:16:10]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:15]: Now there are a lot of caveats I’m about to put on the table about this selection and it goes back to one of our ground rules. We have to assume that these are trusted people.

Eric Ressler [00:16:25]: You’re going to pick one of the 10 effective boards in the... No, I’m just joking.

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:30]: No, but honestly, right? I mean, we don’t have to shit on boards right now and we all know that there is a varying degree of trust in boards and effectiveness in boards. So for me, when I take board off the table, what I’m imagining is a small group of trusted advisors who know your work but aren’t too close to it and bring a variety of perspectives and a variety of talents to the table and serve as that sounding board.

Eric Ressler [00:17:00]: 100%. Real quick for listeners, definitely check out the spotlight interview we did with Rob Acton from Cause Strategy Partners who’s, in my opinion, one of the world leading experts around how to design an effective board for nonprofits. And Cause Strategy Partners was the client of ours, full disclosure, but we learned so much about... I remember in our kickoff, I was like, “Rob, tell me how we can help our clients design effective boards.” And he had really good answers for that and a lot of those are surfaced in the interview. The other thing I want to caveat around the board situation is back to that distinction around influence versus decision making power. Governance boards have a certain amount of decision making power that’s kind of built into the structure, right? We’re working with an org on a rename project right now. The board literally has to vote on that and will make a decision based on that vote.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:50]: That’s in their bylaws.

Eric Ressler [00:17:50]: That’s in their bylaws, right? But in my opinion, boards should generally be less of deciders and more of supporters to staff. Rob touches on that to a degree and I think a lot of times where boards go wrong is they come in in good faith trying to do their work, but they think the way to do that is to help teach or influence or decide for the staff or they just get really tied to their opinion and think that it should have more influence than it maybe should. And that can happen at the individual level, it can happen at the board chair level, it can happen at the board level more broadly. And then you get into this consensus driven design by committee situation that just waters everything down. So I think board in the best of cases can be a super invaluable asset for all the reasons that you said and especially if they’re there to support and guide, but are also able to detach and let go and trust staff and especially ED to make the final call.

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:50]: So for all of those caveats, that’s why when I take board for my team, it is assuming all of those positive things.

Eric Ressler [00:19:00]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:00]: And I don’t have a board.

Eric Ressler [00:19:00]: Right. Easy for you to stay here.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:05]: Easy for me to say. Yeah. But you literally are a de facto board member for me. It’s like you are the person I go to to talk about strategy and communications and messaging, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I picture you sort of like in this group.

Eric Ressler [00:19:20]: And you’ve got a collection of folks like me who are your unofficial board of directors basically, right? So you’ve got it kind of best of both worlds. You get all the free advice and none of the decision making.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:30]: Boom. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:20:20]: All right. I’m next, right?

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:20]: Yep.

Eric Ressler [00:20:25]: Okay. So I put peer organizations next. So far my team is my leadership team, my gut, a trusted consultant and some peer organizations. I’m starting to feel pretty good, but I do think that peer organizations, again, double edged sword, you have to be aware of the insider think here, but also I’ve learned a lot in my experience talking to other agency owners about like, “Hey, how do you track profitability by project? What’s your formula? Can we just talk shop for a little bit?” And that kind of stuff is so helpful in a way that I’ve had consultants come in and try and tell me to do it a certain way and it’s like, “Well, you’ve never run an agency, right?” That’s an opinion, great. It may be valid, it may not be. So especially if you could, luckily for our listeners, you don’t have to pick only five of these people, but if you could get that kind of peer level perspective of someone who’s been in a similar seat as you and have seen a lot of the same challenges and have maybe overcome some of them who could share their learnings, their failures, that is invaluable. And at the same time, having someone who’s a trusted consultant who maybe hasn’t had that lived experience, but has worked in an adjacent space that can kind of cross-pollinate ideas, all of those inputs are really helpful. But to me, having that peer organization perspective, especially from another leader, especially from one who’s maybe dealt with the challenge that you’re dealing with can be just so helpful.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:50]: There’s another good reason that they should be on your team and that is they can sometimes be operational partners or collaborators, right? And so deeply understanding the whole ecosystem of work, what role everybody plays, where you fit in, where they fit in, where is the overlap, is your strategy taking advantage of the niche that you might be trying to fit into, right? So all of that input from peer organizations can create this win-win strategy that helps them too.

Eric Ressler [00:22:20]: Helps them too. And like you said, you may go in asking for input on your strategy and you may walk out with that and like a deal to create exponential impact. Okay. So what’s your next pick?

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:30]: All right. Next off the board, just as a refresher, I have the community you serve, data, the board, and next off the board for me is major donors and funders. And there’s the obvious reason, which is like, “Hey, if I do this new strategy, will you fund me?” And that’s obvious, right? Obviously you’re looking for a yes in that. I also think of it as like market research a bit where it’s like, okay, I may have the most beautiful concept for a strategy, but if it’s not exciting, if it’s not solving problems that funders are trying to solve or that they care about, then this idea is dead in the water, right? This is dead before it even gets off the ground.

Eric Ressler [00:23:15]: If you are a social impact organization that relies on a lot of your funding to come from major donors or major funders, they are essentially another major audience of yours, another constituent that you need to serve at some level. We talked about this in a recent episode. There’s a tension there around who should have decision making power and some of the pitfalls of going too far in terms of being donor led in your strategy. But I agree, you could have the best strategy in the world until someone’s not willing to fund it, which honestly to a degree is usually because something’s not penciling out if you’re talking to savvy funders. Not always the case, but I think sometimes there’s a lot of people just kind of like trash talking funders as being out of touch, but good ones are doing a lot of this kind of work, listening to their partners, listening to the communities that are partners serving and they have the ability to synthesize all those inputs so they may see a problem with your strategy that they’ve seen three other orgs try and fail that you aren’t aware of yet, right? A grain of salt with all of that.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:15]: They play that third party perspective in a way, kind of like going back to the trusted consultant thing, right? It’s like they’ve got that perspective that they may be funding dozens of organizations and they’ve seen this before.

Eric Ressler [00:24:30]: Again, best of faith, these are like progressive trust-based funders. We’re not talking about all the bad funders out there who are just objectively horrible at their jobs. Those exist too. And I would say that in a situation where you came to a funder and you had a new strategy and they gave you feedback that was counter to the direction you were going, a really good one would say, “Hey, let me pair you up with this org that already tried that so you can learn from them. And by the way, I’ll fund an experiment in this direction instead.” So it’s not necessarily a no as much as it is again, like a support and there’s always a tension there too because sometimes they may just call it wrong and your idea was great and they just didn’t see it.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:05]: I want to call out that my team right now has the community you serve and major funders donors because I think that a good funder is going to ask, what do the people that you’re serving have to say about this? And they should be asking that question. So I got both of those on my team, baby.

Eric Ressler [00:25:25]: That’s a little sad for me.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:25]: All right, the last two on the board are frontline staff and public feedback.

Eric Ressler [00:25:30]: Okay. So if I’m interpreting public feedback as being not from the community that you serve, just kind of like general public feedback, I am definitely taking my frontline staff. And here’s why I have them kind of low on the list. Some people who maybe are staff might feel a little sad about that. So a couple things. One, if I’m part of the leadership team, I should be listening to these people all the time. So rather than bringing them in only for a strategic planning session, and also sometimes the staff actually doesn’t want to be part of these decisions, which I think is something that people don’t think or talk a lot about. There’s this movement to like be flat and democratic and everyone... And look, I’ve tried that a lot of times and we do that for certain things, but I’ve also learned sometimes that’s actually a burden you’re placing on someone who’s like, “I didn’t sign up for this, man.” If I wanted to be the executive director, I’d be working towards that right now.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:20]: Isn’t that your job, bro?

Eric Ressler [00:26:25]: Isn’t that your job? Why are you making me decide these things? This is above my pay grade and also maybe you’re not actually paying me enough to even be carrying the stress of a decision this big where maybe even lives are on the line. So again, you have to kind of consider all of the context around this, but I do think the staff can have some good input absolutely and it just needs to be interpreted correctly because there are also cases where staff have really strong opinions and the loudest voice is not always the most accurate one. And sometimes I’ve seen EDs feel like, again, even afraid of what their staff is going to think about these choices. To me, that’s a symptom of a deeper problem beyond just like you might be slightly off on your strategy.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:05]: At the Seymour Center, the frontline staff are interacting with our visitors that are coming in the door. And so for me, when I went through this exercise of ranking, I chose the community I serve first and when I go to my frontline staff for feedback on stuff, it’s to channel the voice of the visitor, right?

Eric Ressler [00:27:20]: You kind of cut in line.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:25]: Exactly. Went right to the source. What are you hearing on X? And we can get that quick feedback. So it’s not that I don’t value the frontline staff feedback, it’s that what I’m asking them for more often than not is what are you hearing from visitors? And I already took them off the board.

Eric Ressler [00:27:40]: Okay. So let’s go through our teams then. So I’ve got my leadership team, I’ve got my gut, I’ve got a trusted consultant who’s going to be a really good one, hopefully. I’ve got input from peer organizations and EDs and I’ve got my frontline staff. I feel pretty good about my team.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:55]: So that’s a pretty damn good team right there, dude. All right. So I’ve got the community you serve, my data, my board, my funders and public feedback, which we didn’t really define or talk about real quick. That was basically like online, right? I think of social media immediately of like, what do people online have to say about my brand or my work or whatever?

Eric Ressler [00:28:15]: Yeah. Okay. So like the Instagram comment section, the Reddit threads, the op-ed comments that come in.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:20]: That’s it. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:28:25]: Let’s put that down way low.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:25]: Yeah, I know. So I feel like they’re kind of dragging my team down a little bit more.

Eric Ressler [00:28:30]: Well, you got the community, so it’s only fair.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:30]: Yeah. And I mean, both of our teams at the end of the day, if we put your team up against my team and said, who’s going to come up with the best strategy for X, Y, Z organization, I think there’s an argument that both are positioned well.

Eric Ressler [00:28:45]: I think so too. And let’s take this back to our listeners who now are like, “Okay, well, I don’t have to only pick five people from my team, but I do need to figure out who do I listen to when I’m going to make big strategic choices? How much space or influence should I give them?” So I’d be curious to hear, how do you think about that when you’re making choices as an ED?

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:05]: Well, you alluded to this earlier around the inputs that inform you. There’s also the relationships that influence your thinking and of course then there’s the deciding part. And really at the end of the day, I feel like my job is so much about synthesis. It’s so much about understanding what’s happening around me and it’s about developing really trusting relationships that I can go and sort of make sense of the noise and that’s really truly the sequence that it goes in, right? It’s like, here’s what I’m seeing, here’s what I’m thinking, here’s what I’m hearing, what do you think about that? So it really does factor in all of these inputs, but there’s an element of, and part of it is just getting the reps in of knowing when a signal is a fit or not.

Eric Ressler [00:30:00]: Dare I say that you use your gut to make those choices. Isn’t it kind of that?

Jonathan Hicken [00:30:05]: Yeah, I mean honestly though, right? But also it’s the loudest voice in the room thing. You start to sort of pick up like, okay, hey, this is loud. And I want to understand if there’s an important reason behind the loud, but I’m not going to just overweight the loud because it’s loud.

Eric Ressler [00:30:25]: I think the other thing to acknowledge here is that sometimes there is just some politics, especially when it comes to the board or a major funder where it’s like you got to throw them a bone or you might know this is the right choice, but you have to just do a cost benefit of like, is it worth fighting this battle at this moment? And for big strategic decisions, I would argue it is. But for other things, pick your battles. And ultimately that’s maybe not the exact right language to use, but I would say that this is complicated work and I do think the way that we do this when we help guide strategy for clients is we do have an early inputs phase. Even when we’re bringing a new client on, there is no bad document for you to send me. I want everything. I want to see what are the raw ingredients we have to work with here. I want the data. I want to know if it’s good data. I want to know if it’s bad data. We do interviews. I want to do sessions with the board. I want to do sessions with the community. I’m going to do my own audits. I want to just get everything. But then you do have to start to look for patterns, look for trends, look for energy that’s like moving in a particular direction. And then towards the end, as you’re coming down to making a choice at some level, you do have to just make a choice as a leader. You have to take all of those things and know that you’re never going to make perfect choices, but you do need to take action. And that’s the thing that I would recommend and that I get frustrated about the space sometimes is like sometimes I feel like we’re actually really good at doing these input exercises and sometimes they’re authentic, sometimes they’re more performative, but we feel really good about that as a sector. But how much data do we really need before it’s just like back to one of our old concepts, MVS, minimum viable strategy. You could plan forever, but the only plan that really matters is the one that you actually execute on. And when you start to execute on it, then you learn, then you iterate, then you keep going. So hopefully that helps listeners who are like, “That’s a lot of inputs. What do I do with all of this?” I would say have discreet phases and containers for these things and be really clear with the people who you’re asking for their time and energy. “Here’s what I’d like from you and here’s how we’re going to use that.” Because I think a lot of times what happens here is people think they have more power to influence decisions than they actually do or than you want them to and then they feel disappointed or angry or insulted when their vote didn’t really count the way they thought it would.

Jonathan Hicken [00:32:50]: I think the power of finding a win-win is sort of underrated, frankly. When I get inputs from all of these sources, the way my brain is tuned is I’m constantly looking for that win-win, a decision or a direction or an action that’s going to accomplish multiple stakeholders’ goals at the same time. And that’s A, to deliver more impact more quickly, more effectively, but also it is a way to get a quicker yes. Where if I’m coming to the table with a partner or a funder or whatever and I can clearly articulate why this thing is good for you, that’s a quicker way to a yes.

Eric Ressler [00:33:30]: I think that’s true. I think the near enemy of that is the trying to please everyone. I kind of have an internal gauge for these types of decisions that if literally everyone is happy, maybe the decision was too obvious and weak and there should have been a little bit more of a bold choice made.

Jonathan Hicken [00:33:45]: Yeah, fair enough.

Eric Ressler [00:33:45]: I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. I just, for listeners, because I think honestly, what people often do is they do try to come to this situation where the board’s happy, the staff is happy, the community’s happy, everyone feels good. And usually that means you didn’t take a big enough swing.

Jonathan Hicken [00:34:00]: Yeah. Let me be a little more nuanced in my position on that because the outcome I’m looking for when I look for that win-win is not the happiness scale. What I’m looking for is results, like business results or organizational results or whatever where it’s like the funder and the partner, whatever decision I’m about to make is going to help them be successful as defined by their own organization’s goals.

Eric Ressler [00:34:25]: So they might even disagree with the way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:34:30]: Exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:34:30]: But at the end, they can’t argue with the...

Jonathan Hicken [00:34:30]: With the results, exactly. So it’s not about finding emotional harmony. It’s a cheat code almost that’s going to unlock everybody’s success. So anyway, for what it’s worth.

Eric Ressler [00:34:45]: I like that thinking and I like the idea of just honestly being pragmatic around people are going to be influenced by things that benefit them. And so I mean, that’s true for the community you serve. It’s true for your funders. We talked about this in a previous episode where it’s like understand your funder priorities and understand hopefully they’re transparent about those things and they’re consistent with them, which neither of those things are always true. But when you can get that, then you can figure out where is their authentic overlap and our mission and the things they care about funding, then you’re off to the races.

Jonathan Hicken [00:35:15]: Yeah. So going back to how I started the episode of like, how do I answer this question? Really what I answer is, “Hey, I got a lot of feedback from a lot of people and I tried to find the strategy that was going to fit with all of those inputs.”

Eric Ressler [00:35:30]: At the end of the day, what else can we do? This one was fun. We got to find more ways to do these tiering things.

Jonathan Hicken [00:35:35]: Yeah. We’d love to hear the listeners feedback on this too. You built a hell of a team, Eric, for your strategy input.

Eric Ressler [00:35:40]: Likewise.

Jonathan Hicken [00:35:40]: All right. Thanks so much.

Eric Ressler [00:35:40]: That was fun. If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

Most people who’ve heard of a community foundation think of it as a place to park charitable dollars. Kristin Todd would tell you that’s the least interesting thing it does.

Kristin is President and CEO of the NoCo Foundation, the community foundation serving Northern Colorado. She came to the role after years as executive vice president for the Daniels Fund, one of the largest private foundations in the Rocky Mountain West.

That path, from a national legacy fund to a place-based one, shapes how she sees the work: a community foundation isn’t just a philanthropic bank, it’s one of the few players that can get donors, nonprofits, and the wider community around the same table and actually move something forward.

Housing is the example she keeps coming back to. In a two-county region split between conservative ag country and a progressive university town, she’s the one who can pull mayors, developers, city planners, and nonprofits into the same room, because the foundation has no axe to grind and 50 years of trust to draw on. She calls it being Switzerland. It’s also a good description of the whole job.

She’s a pragmatist at heart. She’d rather get people in a room and move than run another study to be sure. Compromise, act, learn in the real world instead of the boardroom. And after thirty years in this work, what keeps her going isn’t that the sector’s had an easy run lately, it hasn’t, but what she watches people do when their community is on the line.

She and Eric get into why she’d rather call nonprofits businesses than charities, what a community foundation can do that a billion-dollar legacy fund can’t, and why local work beats national fights.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:00] Running a $1.5 billion legacy fund vs. a nimble community foundation
[00:04:30] The three buckets: the philanthropic bank, strengthening the sector, and the wicked community problems
[00:07:00] What nonprofits are actually facing right now, and why mergers stopped being a taboo word
[00:08:00] “What if the disruption is the new normal?”
[00:10:00] Fewer donors, bigger checks, and the rise of the donor-advised fund
[00:11:30] How NoCo doubled its grant-making by keeping money in motion
[00:12:30] The 5% floor that became a ceiling
[00:19:00] The narrative problem: “And you do all of that as a volunteer?”
[00:20:30] Stop calling them charities. They’re businesses with social impact.
[00:28:30] Becoming the Switzerland of a divided region to solve housing
[00:34:00] Punching above your weight locally instead of waiting on Washington
[00:36:00] What keeps an eternal optimist going

Notable Quotes:

[00:12:30]: “In the private foundation world, that 5% has become a ceiling, not a floor. It was intended to be a floor and it is a ceiling.” Kristin Todd

[00:11:30]: “We do not want to be a sponsor of DAFs that are warehousing dollars, and in fact we are not.” Kristin Todd

[00:08:10]: “What if this time of disruption is the new normal, and it’s not going to settle down?” Kristin Todd

[00:21:30]: “These are the hardest problems in the world that no one else has solved, and yet they’re not getting the same attention as the latest AI startup.” Eric Ressler

[00:13:10]: “It’s almost like a reverse anchor. You now have permission to only spend down that much.” Eric Ressler

[00:31:20]: “We can be Switzerland. We can get mayors and city planners and real estate developers and nonprofits all at the same table and say, we’ve got to work together.” Kristin Todd

Resources & Links:

• NoCo Foundation — the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado, where Kristin serves as President & CEO

• Daniels Fund — the private foundation where Kristin previously served as Executive Vice President

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:30:00]: I’m picking up on some just logical pragmatism that’s refreshing to hear because I think sometimes in this space every decision gets analyzed and picked apart. And at some point we just have to do our best here and then learn in the real world instead of in the boardroom. Kristin Todd, welcome to the show.

Kristin Todd [00:00:55]: Thanks so much, Eric. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Eric Ressler [00:00:55]: So I think where I’d like to start today is just to hear your perspective as you’ve transitioned from a much larger foundation where you are overseeing upwards of $50 million in annual giving to a community foundation where maybe the sheer amount of giving is a little bit less, but the impact hits in sort of a different way. So I’d love to just kick us off by understanding from your point of view, what is the difference in running a fund of those different sizes and those different trajectories?

Kristin Todd [00:01:25]: Yeah, I love that question because it’s been a journey for me and I have lots of thoughts on that. I came from working for two different private foundations where you’re working for the legacy of one single individual or one single family. In my case, neither of those parties were still living. And so I was part of a staff executing on someone’s vision. And while the resources were vast, I often felt like there was some level of disconnect between what the community needs here and now versus what someone’s thought and approach and legacy might have been decades before. And so being on the community foundation side where you are truly place-based and you are truly working in the moment, helping a community solve some of its biggest challenges, in my opinion, allows us to go deeper, be in partnership with the community and figure out the best way to invest those dollars in a way that is focused on the here and now, on what the issues are, in a way that you’re not able to do when you are executing someone’s vision that may have been identified many years earlier. And it’s not that that legacy is a bad thing. It’s just not as nimble as I believe we can be in the community foundation space where we can shift on a dime as the community needs are changing.

Eric Ressler [00:03:05]: You surfaced really early on an interesting tension from my point of view, and this starts to really bubble up to the contradiction of philanthropy in general, which is that for a lot of institutional philanthropy, wealth was gained through often private markets and the priorities are often shaped by whoever was in charge of that wealth and their priorities and what they care about in the world. And in the best of cases, they care about things in the world that are real problems that need to be solved and it all works out. And nonetheless, who gets to decide which problems are most important in the world? The pro-government crowd would say, well, that’s the purpose of government and your representatives and who you vote for. So it’s a tangled mess, this whole space. And so what I love about the frame of a community foundation, as you mentioned, is that it’s place-based, it’s nimble.

Kristin Todd [00:04:30]: Yep, you bet. So I answer that question with a little bit of a framework of how we organize our work, because to me it’s at the crux of what we do and how we try to be matchmakers between community need and donors. And so at the NoCo Foundation, and I don’t think this is dissimilar from other community foundations, maybe my bucket analogy will be different. People use different language, but I use three buckets to describe our work. One is sort of bread and butter community foundation work where we are aggregating dollars, we’re a philanthropic bank, if you will, we’re the philanthropic easy button. We’re helping donors and DAFs give responsibly. I think every community foundation does that. Our second bucket is working to strengthen the nonprofit sector. Our belief is that if we have a healthy, robust, vibrant nonprofit sector, philanthropic dollars go further, quality of life is enhanced, community wellbeing is enhanced. So what can we do from our position as a community foundation to work to strengthen the capacity and the health of our nonprofit sector? And then our third bucket is, what are the greatest needs in the community? How do we know that? So we are producing reports, we’re doing community indicator reports. We understand what the greatest needs are and we are bringing people together to solve big wicked societal issues. In our case, we’re working on water sustainability. We live in a high desert area in Northern Colorado. Water is a big issue. Affordable housing is arguably our largest complex challenge. So what are those issues that we as a region are facing and what’s our responsibility and our ability to convene and catalyze and move the community towards solution? So that framework is our three buckets of work. To answer your question, it’s how do we create continuity and crossover among those three buckets? So how do we educate our donors who are making grants out of their donor advised funds? How do we educate them on our bucket three work, which is what are the greatest community needs, making sure or at least encouraging them to give dollars toward those greatest needs, and better yet, are they willing to come alongside us in the work that we’re doing on affordable housing, water sustainability, and help support that work? Likewise, if we can play matchmaker between the nonprofits in bucket two with those donors, we again are doing the best service to the greater good and the community. And so how do we blend those three buckets is how I think we sit in a position to get at what you’re talking about.

Eric Ressler [00:07:20]: I want to focus for a minute on bucket two, strengthening the nonprofit community. It’s been a tough couple of years just at large for nonprofits in America especially, but I would say the social impact sector has been tumultuous with the funding ecosystem in rapid change right now. What are you seeing on the ground as surfacing as some of the greatest needs and some of the greatest challenges that nonprofits are facing right now?

Kristin Todd [00:07:45]: Yeah, I agree. It is certainly a time of chaos and disruption and a lot of nonprofits are feeling that, they’re feeling it daily. And from where we sit at the community foundation, I think we’re able to be a trusted resource and a trusted advisor to our nonprofit community. And some of the things that we’re seeing are, my observation would be, what if this time of disruption, we’re not waiting for the new normal to happen? What if this time of disruption is the new normal and it’s not going to settle down? And so how do we equip our nonprofit leaders to be resilient and to be bold and to be strategic and to figure out how to navigate if this disruption is the new normal? And I would borrow Churchill’s words to say, never let a good crisis go wasted. So what can this crisis teach us about being resilient and maybe being creative and doing things differently to allow us to come out stronger? Dare I say on the other side, because there may not be another side. It may be this may be the new normal. And so we’re brokering a lot of conversations right now about strategic alliances, mergers even, and taboo words in the nonprofit sector that have been very difficult in prior years are becoming more and more a reality. And thankfully, I feel honored that the community foundation is this trusted resource where nonprofits in our community are reaching out to us and saying, will you help us? Would you bring some of our stakeholders together and help have this conversation? And so we’re seeing things along that whole spectrum of people, organizations really looking at full mergers to the other end where maybe it’s just a strategic alliance or some kind of shared service model that will help them really get through these trying times.

Eric Ressler [00:10:05]: One of the things that we’ve heard over and over again on our show and just observing the space is that there actually is more money than ever before being poured into nonprofits, especially from private individuals. But the concentration of that money means that there’s less donors overall, but the donors who are giving overall are giving more. And I think what that’s leading to alongside the disruption in government funding is more and more nonprofits essentially competing for these resources and shifting their modalities of fundraising more towards high net worth individuals, donor advised funds, which have been this kind of standard thing for community foundations since the beginning, are now becoming this hot vehicle for giving in a way that I think is different than even a couple years ago, at least from my view. And there’s some criticism about DAFs too, right? DAFs are a great way to park your wealth and there’s not requirements around how much you spend down. And then the pro-DAF people will say, well, actually on average, DAFs spend down faster than private foundations. So how do you ensure as the broker of impact between boots on the ground social impact organizations and generous donors in the community who want to give back that those dollars are being spent not just wisely, but they’re actually spending down in this time of need?

Kristin Todd [00:11:25]: It’s a good question. And from where I sit in our community, we talk about money in motion. And so we do not want to be a sponsor of DAFs that are warehousing dollars and in fact we are not. And so in the five years that I’ve been here, we’ve been able to more than double the grant making that we are putting out through our DAFs into the community. And I would argue that that is largely because we are being more proactive in working with our donors, introducing them to nonprofits, getting nonprofits in front of our donors and playing matchmaker. And so we are very intentionally doing everything in our power to make those dollars move. And it’s been very successful here in our community. We went from granting $7 million annually pretty steadily and now we’re at about 16 and a half million annually and we continue to grow, and it’s simply because we are intentionally saying, here’s a need, here’s a project, and putting people together. And I would say in the private foundation world, that 5% has become a ceiling, not a floor. It was intended to be a floor and it is a ceiling. And in our community foundation, and I believe nationally, DAFs are putting out upwards of 15, 18% a year. And so I think if we put a percentage requirement for DAFs, we might end up in the same place where that becomes a ceiling and not a floor. I don’t know. That’s kind of been my experience coming from private foundation to community foundation and seeing the difference between the two.

Eric Ressler [00:13:10]: It’s almost like a reverse anchor. It’s like you have now permission to only spend down that much. Whereas now because there’s no minimum, it actually doesn’t anchor the DAFs to be there. I’ve never actually thought about it that way before, but it’s intriguing. I do wonder, one of the things that we hear even major private philanthropies say is like, well, we need to make sure that we are making investments so that our endowment and our funds can grow so that we’ll be here in 10 years when we’re still needed. And I think there’s some good truth to that to a degree, but I also think that we’re coming out of a time where those funds are gaining much more than 5% per year over the last five years on average. And we’ve seen even some admirable commitments to six, seven, 8%, sometimes even more. We’ve interviewed folks on the show who have become a spend down philanthropy where they’re spending their money down as fast as they possibly can. I’m not here to judge one way or another. I have my own beliefs on this, but I’d be curious to hear from your view how you think about that spending down, accelerating, getting money into the community and also ensuring that there is coffers for the next need that happen the year after and the year after that. How do you think about that balance?

Kristin Todd [00:14:25]: I guess I would say I don’t think there’s one single answer to that. It’s complicated and I think probably a balanced approach is what will serve us best. I do believe that there is an argument to be made for endowing funds for the future and to maintain those sources of funding for future generations. And also I recognize that the needs are great today and we shouldn’t not spend today. And so I do believe that there are so many different types of philanthropists. There are different values, there are different approaches that my hope is that the tent is big enough to bring all philanthropists together and embrace whatever feels right to them. And then in the aggregate, we’ve got some that are spending down, we’ve got some that favor spending today and some that favor spending in the long term, but on the whole, we’ve got a balanced approach.

Eric Ressler [00:15:30]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode, I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose built for nonprofits and mission driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com.

All right, back to today’s conversation. From the point of view of a community foundation, you have a unique setup compared to some private foundations where the initial investment is there and the only way for it to grow is through future investments of that initial capital. Whereas from a community foundation standpoint, there’s constantly new sources of capital being invested year after year. So in the best case scenario, every year more and more money is coming in and more and more money is going out.

Kristin Todd [00:16:45]: Yeah, 100%. And I think again, that speaks to the versatility and the nimbleness of a community foundation, that we can meet the moment and we can meet donors and philanthropists’ desires today and we can also meet donors and philanthropists’ desire for building a legacy for the future. And as long as we’re doing both and filling both coffers, I feel like it’s the best of both worlds. At the end of the day, we consider one of our core values and at the core of our mission is to inspire more philanthropy and to bring in all kinds of philanthropy and meet people where they are and help them think through what’s important to them and why, and how do you factor in the needs of the community so that community needs are also part of the mix. But the more philanthropy we can bring to bear, the better off we all are. And so we do a lot of listening for new donors and new folks that are coming into our world to say, what do you want to accomplish? What is meaningful to you and how do we help build a vehicle and a plan that achieves that?

Eric Ressler [00:18:00]: One of the things that I’m particularly interested in as we work with our clients and just as a curious person about this space and how social change happens is, how do we build a more resilient social impact and nonprofit sector? And I think that’s a really big question that we’re certainly not going to answer in our show here today, but I like to poke and prod at it and get my guests’ thoughts on those things. And one of the things that I think clearly isn’t working is when nonprofits are under-resourced for the scope and the scale of the missions that they’re set out to create. And so we’ve seen a lot more sector-wide pontificating about trust-based philanthropy and multi-year general operating support and trying to get away from measurement of success being measured only by overhead percentage. So I see those conversations happening in my professional life and then in my personal life, talking to friends, talking to family, it feels like those conversations are just not breaking through to the public. And if anything, there almost seems to be more skepticism of nonprofits and social impact organizations being scams or tax write-offs. What are you seeing out there in this space? Is this just internet talk happening?

Kristin Todd [00:19:15]: I am an eternal optimist and I have spent my entire career, so now more than 30 years in the nonprofit sector, in the social impact sector. I picked up that you’re calling it social impact sector and I think that’s part of the issue, right? I think we’ve got a narrative problem and I think that people hear about, oh, these cute little nonprofits, these cute little charities, that they’re not doing real work. And I think about this story, a dear friend of mine who’s been a nonprofit CEO of a major, major social impact organization and was on a flight sitting next to someone, had a two hour conversation talking about all of the great work that they do, the significant deep work that they do, and the woman who herself was an executive said, and you do all of that as a volunteer?

Eric Ressler [00:20:10]: Right.

Kristin Todd [00:20:15]: There’s just this complete disconnect and lack of understanding. I think part of it is our own nomenclature of calling it the nonprofit sector and the charitable sector, which somehow to me feels less than. How do we change the narrative to say these are businesses, they are businesses that have social impact, and how do we educate the general public about the importance of these organizations to our society, civil society?

Eric Ressler [00:20:45]: 100%. I mean, preach it. I so agree with you. And that’s one of the reasons that I’ve deliberately always used social impact to describe this sector, A, because it’s not just nonprofits, right? It is public-private partnerships, governments in the mix, funders are in the mix, some of which are nonprofits, some of which are not. And I believe that’s what it’s going to take. And I do think there is this kind of like, oh, isn’t that cute, you’re doing good work and you’re passionate about it, but we know this isn’t as serious as working for a tech company for some reason. But when you’re in this space and if you’ve been in the seat as an executive director or a funder or even like my point of view, supporting and being inspired by these organizations, you realize these are the hardest problems in the world that no one else has solved or is willing or able to solve, and yet they are not getting the same amount of time, energy, resources or attention as the latest AI startup. And so there is this contradiction and I don’t know if this is because we’re so motivated by profit here in America and globally to a degree as well, or because there are some examples of organizations that can’t break past that like, well, it’s a good cause but the impact frankly isn’t really meaningful. And that does happen too, because going from zero to one as a social impact organization is really difficult, and when it’s being funded by generosity, there’s this extra scrutiny that’s attached to it. Whereas if a billionaire investor loses all of their investment on a new tech startup, no one’s shedding any tears over that, which I think is right overall.

Kristin Todd [00:22:25]: There’s this total double standard and lack of understanding that we should not fund capacity and infrastructure of a social impact organization and startup and capital and investment in the same way that we do in the private sector. I don’t know what that is, but I hear you and it is a complete disconnect. And until we can really, I think, genuinely treat the social impact sector as essential and not this nice to have and invest in the infrastructure of those organizations in the same way, we’re not going to get there. But I, again, I’m an eternal optimist and I feel like there’s a little bit of a shift happening. And to bring it back to this disruptive time we’re in right now, what opportunity, I guess, is what I would ask is how can we use this time of disruption to further that cause that it sounds like you and I are both a part of?

Eric Ressler [00:23:30]: Yeah. And I feel like we’re up here in the clouds and I can hang out here all day, trust me, but how do we bring this back to, if there is a nonprofit executive listening to the show right now, they’re well aware of the pain of this problem, and maybe they haven’t thought about it in exactly this way, but most likely they have, and yet they’ve got payroll to make next week, right? They’ve got a program that just got spun down because what used to be a government grant just disappeared overnight last year. So what do we do about it? What are the practical things that, and I have my point of view on this and it comes really from communications and brand building and identity and the things that I specialize in that I do believe are a huge lever that’s underutilized for all the reasons we were just talking about.

Kristin Todd [00:24:25]: I would say like any nonprofit exec that is listening, if you’re not already connected in a peer network, that’s a place to start. And to reach out to your local community foundation, or if there is a private foundation that you have a relationship with, see if they can partner with you to be a convener or an intermediary, for instance. So we do several things here in Northern Colorado. We have created a peer network of nonprofit execs. They get together monthly, and on one hand they are each other’s support system and they can share challenges and good news and highlights, and we can listen and mine for common challenges that are surfacing in the group, and then we have gone and created programming to bring back to them. And so we’ve created a training, or we contract and bring experts in on branding, communication strategy, advocacy, board relations. And so we can bring resources to the sector, to this peer network. And the luxury we have is that we’re not leaving those peer network meetings and going back to be in our jobs where you’re worried about making payroll and you’re worried about running the nonprofit and all of the things. We can continue to look at it from the 30,000 foot level and hear what the needs are and bring resources and continue to convene and create partnership and peer networks. That is at least a start. So nonprofit execs know that they’re not in this alone and there is power in numbers, and there are these intermediary organizations like a community foundation that can serve that role.

Eric Ressler [00:26:20]: Yeah. And I think that from my point of view, before I was in this space, I had maybe tangentially heard of the community foundation here in Santa Cruz where I am, but I didn’t really know exactly what they did. And I actually didn’t realize similarly how much a community foundation is an important element of gluing the community together, especially in times of true disasters. So environmental disasters, like a community foundation is one of the first places to activate support networks, money, funds, whatever it takes. Do you think there’s a similar thing that happens for nonprofits as well where they’re just not aware of the benefits of being in network with the community foundation?

Kristin Todd [00:27:05]: I think for sure. And again, I think that there’s 900 community foundations around the country. We often laugh and say, you’ve met one community foundation, you’ve met one community foundation. So we’re all different, but it’s certainly a place to start. And more and more I’m seeing community foundations lean into their role of exactly what we’ve been talking about. Getting outside of just being that philanthropic bank, getting outside of just servicing the donors and the donor advised funds, and really leaning into community and leaning into the health and wellbeing of the nonprofit sector. So I think it’s a great place to start as a nonprofit social impact ED. If you’re not connected with your local community foundation, it’s a great place to reach out and figure out if there is something happening there that you could be a part of.

Eric Ressler [00:28:00]: Let’s talk a little bit about, you mentioned at the top of this episode, one of the things that you’re doing is listening and unearthing what the greatest needs of a community are. That sounds like difficult work to me when there’s so many competing priorities, when things are becoming polarized and divisive. Let’s even just take the example of housing. Huge issue here in California, even very directly here in Santa Cruz where I am, but becoming more and more of an issue across the United States, and I know it’s an issue in Colorado as well. How do you as an organization figure out how to assess the need, how to prioritize and stack rank the needs? That’s messy work. What’s your process like there?

Kristin Todd [00:28:40]: So it is messy work and I would say it’s evolving and I’m not sure that we’ve got it all figured out, but what we have done is we often start with data. And so I live in a region, Northern Colorado, and it is primarily a two county region that we serve and the two counties are very different. One is like ag, oil, very much more conservative. The other county is much more progressive university town, et cetera. So very different politically, geographically, industry across the board. Yet the issues don’t change when you go across the border. Housing is still the number one issue. And so we started with data, and there had never been a two county regional community needs assessment or a community indicator report that had ever been done. So we thought, well, that’s a value add that the community foundation could do. And I would also add that we are this trusted institution. We’ve been around 50 years. We’re very careful to say neutral in the sense that we can bring lots of different perspectives to the table, not neutral in that we don’t have an opinion, but people will come to the table when we invite them. So first we start with data, and right now housing is one that no one can argue with right now. It is our number one issue and we are on this trajectory that is just untenable for our region. And so the data bears that out. And so then we are able to say, okay, let’s start working on this together. Let’s get out of our silos. Let’s get our municipal leaders to the table. Let’s get our developers to the table. And two sides that don’t always see eye to eye. And so the developers often point fingers at the city planners and vice versa, and you’ve got the narrative of the greedy developers. Well, really none and all of that is true at the same time, but if we don’t come together at the same table and try to figure it out, we won’t get anywhere. And so I think because it’s an acute issue and people know that and they’re willing to say, okay, everything’s got to be on the table because we can’t continue in the way we’re continuing. And then if we invite them, they will come. And we have had really rich conversations over the last year with all facets and all perspectives of the issue, and we’re starting to get somewhere. But I think it’s this unique role that a community foundation can play and does play in many, many communities around the country, that we can be Switzerland. We don’t have geographic borders and we can get mayors and city planners and real estate developers and nonprofits all at the same table and say, we’ve got to work together.

Eric Ressler [00:31:35]: Yeah. I’m picking up on some just logical pragmatism that’s refreshing to hear because I think sometimes in this space, and I think it’s exacerbated by this media environment that we’re in where every decision gets analyzed and picked apart and agendaized if that’s a word. And at some point we just have to do our best here. We have to take the inputs and we want to be diligent and we want to be rigorous around how we do that, but we’ve seen that diligence and rigor progress to a fault where we could spend years running studies and reports and doing listening sessions and community convenings. And at a certain point some stakeholders just need to make a call and do what they think is best and execute and then learn in the real world instead of in the boardroom. And I think that striking that balance is a really tough position to be in as a leader, especially when positions that used to be kind of insulated from too much public opinion, maybe you’d get a bad op-ed, now suddenly people can show up outside your house and stalk you on social media. And so the stakes are a lot harder. And what I worry about is we’re seeing, or I’m observing, less people being willing to engage in quote unquote politics or even just civic engagement in general for fear of just being ostracized or just the exposure of being a public figure at all. And I think that’s a bad trajectory.

Kristin Todd [00:33:00]: Yeah. I mean, what I see here, and knock on wood, is those two counties that I described could not be more different, but there’s a level of pragmatism where, and I don’t know that this is everywhere, but here in Northern Colorado, leaders are willing to come together and put differences aside for the good of the community and will find that there is often more common ground than they would think. And so it just sometimes takes somebody to get everybody together and go through an exercise and talk about values and what do we want for our community and what do we want our community to be for our kids and our grandkids? And then we see that we’re really pretty well aligned on that visioning. And so then we just have to figure out what are we going to compromise on and what are we going to do to move this forward? But there is a level of pragmatism that I feel like is baked into at least this region, which is helpful.

Eric Ressler [00:34:00]: Yeah. And to almost argue with my last question to myself, how much of that is just the internet and let’s go touch grass. And when I’m in these rooms where sure, there’s divisive meetings and there’s organizing and some of that’s just like healthy politics, right? We should have strong opinions on these things, but at the end of the day, I think we need to just be in action, right? That is the main thing, because if we don’t move, we’ll never fix these issues. And we have to be willing to move and fail sometimes.

Kristin Todd [00:34:30]: Yes. My experience in working at the local level is there is far less divisive vitriol than there is at the national level. And I think if we can just focus on our local communities, we’d be so much better off.

Eric Ressler [00:34:50]: I think that’s really good advice in general and something I’ve been thinking about a lot and feeling the urge to get more involved in not even just like local politics, but just like local community in general and civic service and the issues that I care about and supporting some of the nonprofits that are doing good work around education or advocacy or infrastructure or whatever the things are. Transportation has been on my mind a lot as something that, coming back from a trip in Europe and coming back to America and saying, being reminded we’ve got a lot of work to do on transportation even in our own community here, and feeling the urge to be part of that. So I think that’s a really good thing to consider, like what is your sphere of influence? And you can usually punch above your weight locally compared to national issues. National issues matter. We can’t solve everything at a local level, but there’s a lot that we can solve there.

Kristin Todd [00:35:40]: I think that’s true, totally. We can’t put blinders on and pretend like the national dialogue is not happening and there’s not that context, but I’m filled with gratitude and optimism every day seeing what is happening at the local level.

Eric Ressler [00:36:00]: So as we move to wrap up, I’d actually like to end there. You describe yourself as an eternal optimist. I love asking this question to our guests on the show. What is it that keeps you in that space and keeps you going even when it does get tough, either personally or in the moment in your community? What keeps you in that eternal optimist mindset?

Kristin Todd [00:36:15]: I think seeing how deeply people care about their community and how they are willing to show up and give back and solve problems and do hard things. People really care about their community, and when something is at risk for the future of their community, people show up. And so I see that every day and it gives me hope and fills me with optimism. But seeing how people show up is really what gives me that sense.

Eric Ressler [00:36:50]: Amazing. Kristin, I think that’s a beautiful place to end. Thank you so much today for your time and sharing your point of view on this work. It was really inspiring and hopefully have you on the show again at some point in the future.

Kristin Todd [00:37:05]: Sounds great. Thanks so much for the opportunity.

Eric Ressler [00:37:10]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

There is a comfortable story going around right now. Social ate the web. Then AI ate search. So the website barely matters anymore. I don’t buy it.

Your website is the one channel you actually own. It is the one place you control the narrative and the experience, instead of renting attention from an algorithm. Everything else is borrowed ground.

That is what I mean by durable. Social and email keep shifting under you. The reach, the filters, what people actually see. You control almost none of it.

A website does not churn that way. It compounds. Someone clicks a link or follows a warm intro, and they land somewhere you built on purpose. Then they start sizing up how legit you are, based on what they find.

Subscribe now

The money is where it gets real. A six-figure overhaul is a hard sell when the current site works. It takes ticket sales. It processes donations. So a redo is not always the right call.

What tells you it is worth it is the gap. The gap between how the site portrays you and who you actually are. Small gap? Put your energy elsewhere. Wide gap? The site is holding you back, and you probably will not see it in your numbers.

Here is how I’d put it to a board. Your website is a player on your team. You would never let an employee coast on the bare minimum.

A website that is merely good enough is doing exactly that. Treat it like a real member of the team, one that shapes how people see you more than most. The question of whether to invest gets a lot easier to answer.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:00] The website as your most durable, most controllable brand asset
[00:03:00] The identity impact gap, and when a redo is actually the wrong call
[00:04:30] Why “websites are dead” has been wrong for 20 years
[00:09:00] Transactional, informational, and storytelling: the competing flavors of a site
[00:10:30] The 10-second homepage test 90% of nonprofit sites fail
[00:12:00] Connecting the digital space to the physical space
[00:13:00] Brand as coherence: the Apple experience, and your version of it
[00:15:30] Getting to the brass tacks on a $100K investment
[00:17:30] What happens the moment a funder leaves your meeting
[00:23:30] What funders actually look for: financials, team bios, clear impact
[00:26:00] Your website should be your best fundraiser, not your only one
[00:28:00] The underperforming employee analogy, and the player on your team
[00:30:30] The garden: why a site needs pruning, not autopilot

Notable Quotes:

[00:05:20]: “I still believe that your website is your most important and your most durable asset as a brand.” Eric Ressler

[00:11:05]: “Most of those also aren’t very clear and they’re full of buzzwords. 90% of nonprofit websites fail that test, and that’s not even an exaggeration.” Eric Ressler

[00:12:20]: “We’re interacting with tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people online and they can’t all come here. So what is that warm, welcoming, inviting place that I’m sending everybody to?” Jonathan Hicken

[00:18:30]: “No one cares that you’re a nonprofit when they’re trying to buy a ticket. They just want to buy the ticket and they expect it to work just as well as checking out on Amazon.” Eric Ressler

[00:26:20]: “Your website should be your best fundraiser, not your only fundraiser.” Eric Ressler

[00:29:10]: “Website is almost the wrong word. It’s a player on your team.” Jonathan Hicken

Resources & Links:

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center — Jonathan’s organization, part of UC Santa Cruz

• Candid — nonprofit transparency and data platform, formerly part of what was Charity Navigator’s ecosystem

• Charity Navigator — charity watchdog and ratings organization referenced in the funder research discussion

• “Are Websites Dead?” — earlier Designing Tomorrow episode.

• Joel Breakstone interview — earlier Designing Tomorrow episode.

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Eric Ressler [00:00:00]: I still believe that your website is your most important and your most durable asset as a brand. Your website, you do have full control over. If someone visits your website because they clicked a link or got a text message, you control the narrative, you control the experience. They are grading not only your website, but they are also subconsciously or consciously grading how effective and legit you are as an organization.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:25]: I draw a correlation between the physical space that I have and the digital space that I have. And so one of the biggest arguments for me about investing in our website is we’re interacting with tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people online and they can’t all come here. So what is that warm, welcoming, inviting, exciting place that I’m sending everybody to go have that experience at?

Eric Ressler [00:00:45]: I’m Eric Ressler.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:50]: I’m Jonathan Hicken.

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: And this is Designing Tomorrow.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:55]: Eric, I have a confession. I haven’t updated my website in five years. Now to be clear, I don’t mean updates. Obviously we’re changing events and stuff like that.

Eric Ressler [00:01:10]: Okay. My heart skipped a beat there.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:10]: But we haven’t done shit with our website in five years. And every so often it comes back to my desk, “Hey, let’s update our website. Hey, let’s update our website.” And I keep kicking the can down the road. And so I want to spend today asking you some tough questions about why the heck I should spend the time and the money to redo the website.

Eric Ressler [00:01:35]: Okay. This could get spicy. Full disclosure, I sell websites for a living to some degree. So we’re at Cosmic, a design agency, a brand strategy agency, and a lot of times that work includes bringing the brand identity into digital experiences, the website, social, et cetera. So I’ve got a little bit of bias in this discussion, but I also believe really strongly that the website is still very important. I’m happy to dig into it.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:00]: And full disclosure, I would love to find a way to hire you to do our website. So this is kind of like an informal interview on whether or not we should do this.

Eric Ressler [00:02:10]: Since we’re there, I’d love to read your website, man. Let’s go. So what’s stopping you? I want to hear why do you keep kicking the can down the road? You’ve got some structural issues, I think, but I want to hear it from you.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:20]: At the end of the day, our website needs to inform people about when we’re open, which Google Business does for us most of the time. It needs to be a place where people can sign up for our programs and it needs to be a place where people can make financial transactions, buy tickets, become a member, donate, et cetera. It’s doing those things and it’s doing those things decently well. So why should I spend the six figure investment to make it world-class? Ultimately it’s kind of like I got more important shit to work on.

Eric Ressler [00:02:55]: What’s the ROI? Well, I guess what I would say is to put your particular situation aside just for a second, I don’t always think redoing a website is the right call. When people come to us, it usually is, but that’s because people are coming to us usually in some kind of transformative moment for the organization, some kind of pivotal moment. Either they’re starting a new org or there’s a new ED or there’s a new vision or a new strategic plan. And basically there’s this, well, we named it on the show a couple weeks ago, this identity impact gap, where their true identity as an organization and who they are and who they’re becoming and how they are representing themselves, how they are communicating, how are they perceived by their audience, there’s a gap there and that gap is a major problem. So if you’re in a situation where that gap isn’t very big, you should not redo your website. You should be focusing your efforts somewhere else. But if you’re in a situation where whether it’s the website or any other touchpoint for the brand is not aligned with who you are and who you’re becoming, then it is actually actively holding you back.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:05]: Take us back a couple of years because we actually did an episode called Our Website’s Dead in 2024. So let’s set the scene a little bit. Set the stage on what you have seen the role websites playing back then versus now, how it’s changed, et cetera.

Eric Ressler [00:04:25]: So I think when I did that episode, that was actually season one when it was just me on the show.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:25]: Oh damn. We’ve talked about website enough.

Eric Ressler [00:04:30]: We’ve talked about it before too, but the one you’re referring to, Our Website’s Dead. I was at the time thinking about that more because there was this narrative at the time that everything happens on social now and websites don’t matter, which I think is not true, first of all. I don’t think it was true then. Now there’s kind of this newer narrative being formed around like, well, everything’s AI now and people don’t even go to your website anymore, which also is not true, but it is a factor that now there’s a new technological shift and both those things are still happening. And despite all of those things being true to a degree, yes, a lot of brand expression happens through social or through email or other channels or in person. And yes, AI is eating up a lot of organic search, so less people are maybe coming to your website through Google, although that’s all changing, which I’m sure we’ll touch on. I still believe that your website is your most important and your most durable asset as a brand.

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:25]: What do you mean by durable?

Eric Ressler [00:05:25]: What I mean by durable is like social media and email to a degree even. They’re constantly changing. What’s in the algorithm? Who gets attention? Why? What’s popular? How are you perceived? You lack a lot of control. They’re not these owned channels. And email used to be kind of considered an owned channel and it’s becoming less and less of one as even emails have new filters and promotions tab. And just because you send an email to someone, certainly if it’s a promotional email, there’s no guarantee people are going to see that email anymore. Your website, you do have full control over. If someone visits your website because they clicked a link or got a text message, you control the narrative, you control the experience and that in a good faith way should be used responsibly to be authentic about who you are. It also means that anyone can spin up a website and spin a narrative that could be completely false, which we learned about when we interviewed Joel from Civic Online Reasoning recently. And one of the things he pointed to is people trust websites that look good. They trust websites that have an EDU or a .org domain, even though they might be a shell of a propaganda machine or something like that. So you can use that benefit responsibly. And I would argue that when people come to a website, they are grading not only your website, but they are also subconsciously or consciously grading how effective and legit you are as an organization. People come to the website and it’s a total mess. It doesn’t make sense. It looks poorly designed. It feels like some cousin’s second project. People start to wonder, rightfully so, is this org even legit? If they don’t care about how they present themselves in their most important asset, are they also kind of lame when it comes to their impact? So these are some of the things that I would think about. I’m happy to go more into true ROI on websites when done well, but even just at a base level, we just have to be pragmatic about if your website doesn’t look legit, people are going to judge you based on that, rightfully or not.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:25]: So durability for you is about weathering time and you’re making a bet that websites are going to continue to have value no matter how the internet changes.

Eric Ressler [00:07:35]: People have been saying the website is going to die for like 20 years. Now lots of things are changing about the web and the internet and technology and websites have made major changes. A lot of people are experiencing websites on a phone instead of a computer now or they’re finding your website because they were researching something online and your organization got cited. So they might not even go to the website, but that website is still informing people about you and your work. And we have people coming to us right now who search for the best social impact design agencies and we come to the top of that search and they find us that way, not because they Google searched. Now I’d like to think that most of them go visit the website and look at our work and learn more about us, but some of them maybe don’t and they just book a call right away. The website still serves value in that situation because if the website didn’t exist and it wasn’t well designed and reputable, and by well designed, I don’t just mean visually well designed, but structurally well designed. The data was there for the AI search agent to find and to consume properly, then it wouldn’t have ever surfaced you in the results. So there’s all these intangible benefits to the website too.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:45]: I wonder what you think about the sort of frame of mind, and probably every organization’s a little different here, so it might be hard for you to broad swath answer this question, but do your best. So there’s a frame of mind when we think about how we’re interacting with organizations online, we’re either watching a video on YouTube or seeing a post or a reel on social or now on AI we’re learning about it by asking questions of ChatGPT or Claude or whatever. What’s the mentality of somebody when they’re visiting a website that’s different from one of those interaction modes?

Eric Ressler [00:09:20]: So I think people come to websites for very different reasons. I think that’s one of the things that’s so hard about designing websites well is that especially in the social impact space, there’s usually multiple competing priorities. And then from your audiences that you’re serving, but even from your own team around what you want the website to do and what it should do. I have this kind of paradigm that I think about. Websites usually have some kind of flavor or series of flavors. So there are some websites that need to have some kind of transactional element. So for the Seymour Center, you need to sell tickets and that transactional element might be the only reason someone’s coming to the website and their experience of the website is going to be majorly influenced by how intuitive and frictionless that process was. And even that experience can have a major influence on their overall brand experience with the Seymour Center. But beyond that, in the best case, someone maybe comes in for a transactional experience but gets the best websites, you spend 20 minutes on it and you only meant to spend one minute on it, because you enter this experience and you find yourself wandering the halls of this digital space that’s so beautiful and so inspiring that you lose a sense of yourself and your time. And I think that’s what we aim for when we’re translating brand strategy into websites. There’s these transactional needs, there’s these informational needs, we have reports, we have resources, et cetera. There’s storytelling needs. I need people within 10 seconds to clearly understand my organization, who we’re for, how we help people, what we do. 90% of nonprofit websites fail that test. That’s not even an exaggeration at all. When people come to us, they might have their mission statement, they might have their vision statement. Most of those also aren’t very clear and they’re full of buzzwords. So we have a test that we run on website homepages, not that we hope people do this or expect people to, but if someone came only to your homepage and read only the first section of your homepage, they should be able to understand who you are and what you do and who you do it for. If they scroll through the whole homepage, they should be able to understand what other opportunities they have on the website and they should be able to understand a little bit more depth around the ethos of the organization, what you believe, what you stand for, your point of view so that if all they do is see the homepage and you test them, they basically get it. Again, most nonprofit websites and social impact websites egregiously fail that test.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:50]: I draw a correlation between the physical space that I have and the digital space that I have on this. And sort of setting aside the integration of the digital and the physical for a second. When I think of people walking in our front doors, or actually even before they even enter the building, what they’re seeing on the outside, I want them to feel a certain sense of belonging or a certain sense of excitement about entering the space. And so one of the biggest arguments for me about investing in our website is we’re interacting with tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people online and they can’t all come here. So what is that warm, welcoming, inviting, exciting place that I’m sending everybody to go have that experience at? And for us, because we have a physical space too, even more power if we can get those two things sort of feeling the same.

Eric Ressler [00:12:45]: Right. And I think what you’re touching on there is something that I would basically just call brand experience. And when I think about building brands, there’s all these different places that your brand shows up. People think about brands as like your logo and your colors and those things are part of your brand, but really at the end of the day, your brand is, how did people feel interacting with your organization however they were doing it. If it was on your Google page, if it was on your website, if it was on your social feed, if it was in person, if it was at a closed door funder meeting, all of those are brand moments. And I think that in the best case and what you should be striving for is that there’s a coherence between all of those. And the best brands in the world do this amazingly well. A common example would be Apple. Apple is highly regarded as one of the best branded organizations in the world and you can criticize Apple and some of the moves they’ve made have been bad for sure, but you kind of know when you’re going to do anything with Apple, you’re going to get an Apple experience. And what does that mean? It means premium, it means effortless, it means beautiful, it means modern. Those are just the first four words that pop into my brain when I think about Apple as a brand, but it’s not because of their design in an aesthetic standpoint. It’s because of their human design. It’s what does it feel like to interact with an Apple product compared to a non-Apple product? I have my qualms, but for the most part, there’s a reason why they’re one of the most successful companies in the world. Social impact organizations are not Apple. They shouldn’t try to be Apple, but you need to figure out what your version of that is. What’s the Seymour Center brand? What’s the Seymour Center experience and how is it coherent between seeing you online on your website, coming into the front door and experiencing the center, looking at the latest Science Solutions Santa Cruz YouTube video. All of that should be a coherent experience that all works synergistically together.

Eric Ressler [00:14:40]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode. I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose built for nonprofits and mission driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

Jonathan Hicken [00:15:25]: The brand part of this, honestly, this is a strong argument. I instantly see the value of creating this consistent brand experience online and in person for us. To me, that makes a ton of sense. I think where I really start to get a little nervous is when I think about the actual dollars and cents of it all. So for me, I’m thinking about, okay, we need to convert X number more ticket sales in order to make the investment worth it, or we need to convert X number of members or somehow attribute a donor experience to actually closing a gift.

Eric Ressler [00:16:05]: Let’s get to the brass tacks here.

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:05]: Let’s get right into that because-

Eric Ressler [00:16:10]: Let’s pick a somewhat arbitrary number and let’s say a major website overhaul for an established organization is $100,000. It’s not always going to be that. Sometimes it’s more, sometimes it’s less, but just to make the math easy and somewhat realistic. So the obvious way to think about this is not as a cost, but as an investment. And so when you make any kind of investment, you are not expecting instantaneous returns. Unless you are buying a company or something and then you might get some short term wins no matter what the investment is. But some investments, like you think about stocks, you may lose your shirt on a stock for 10 years and then make it all back and then some 20 years later. A website should not be that, but the way that I think about websites, and again, when I think about the ROI and when the right time is, if you’re generally in a place of stability, a non-growth year, a subtle consolidation style year, it’s probably not a good investment for you, but the bigger that gap is between how your website is portraying you as an organization and who you actually are and who you’re becoming, that is a major, major, major problem that has all kinds of insidious and invisible issues. So it may not be something that you’re even aware of that it’s hurting you. Let’s make this real. You have a funder meeting, it goes great, you’ve been introduced, you’ve got a warm intro. What’s the very first thing that funder does after the meeting? Almost certainly.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:40]: They’re going to go to your website.

Eric Ressler [00:17:40]: They’re going to go to your website. What do you want that experience to be for them? You want it to not just confirm the things they already know about you. You definitely don’t want it to be like, whoa, this is the same org that I just talked to that I was really excited about. This looks pretty janky. They don’t talk about any of the things on here we just talked about. Am I even on the right website? This literally happens sometimes. But really we want the website to help be this kind of always on asset for you that’s constantly working for you so that anytime someone comes there, it’s not only reinforcing the brand experience that they have in the real world, but it’s this whole other set of reinforcing experiences. So for the Seymour Center, let’s try and make this real. Yes, frictionless ticket buying experience. Those transactional elements need to be best in class, modern. No one cares that you’re a nonprofit when they’re trying to buy a ticket. They just want to buy the ticket and they expect it to work just as well as checking out on Amazon. When they search your website, they expect it to work just as well when they’re searching on Google. So you don’t get a pass just because you’re a small org. People have standards and bars that for better or for worse have been set by the world’s biggest tech companies that have hundreds of people working on making these experiences frictionless. So that’s the transactional side. But for the Seymour Center, now you have Science Solutions Santa Cruz. This is an amazing asset and it’s wildly successful already so early on. Why isn’t that on your website right now? Why isn’t that one of the first things I can learn about? Let’s say I’m searching here, I’m here for the weekend, I want to do something fun with my kids. I land on your Google page, I come to your website, I buy a ticket, I’m done. I’m not doing anything else in there. But what if I come and like, whoa, I didn’t know this about the Seymour Center. Holy crap, they’re doing all this stuff. Whoa, they have a whole podcast, and now you’re starting to build relationships with people. So yes, websites absolutely can hold you back, but often there’s also this kind of like, it’s good enough to do the job, which is kind of what I heard you say at the beginning.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:35]: Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

Eric Ressler [00:19:35]: And that’s true. And so you need to decide at some point, whether it’s with us or someone else or whatever, when is the right time for you to make that not just good enough, but part of propelling you forward in the mission? And when you have all the right ingredients together, which to me would be like major growth or pivot opportunity or reinvention of who you are, new assets to work with like Science Solutions Santa Cruz that aren’t being utilized or just some kind of dissonance between how you are perceived through the website and who you actually are. To me, those are strong cases where yes, it’s a big investment of not just money, but also time and thought, but once you make that investment and you do it well, it compounds over time just like investing in any solid investment really.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:20]: I’ll peel back the curtain a little bit and just be like, one of the reasons I have hesitated on moving to revamp the website is that the strategy that we have been developing and that we’re about to launch in a really big way here soon, I wanted to make sure that it was sticky. I wanted to make sure it was road tested. I wanted to make sure that what we were doing was going to fit, was going to deliver within our niche and I didn’t want to do a major transformation of the digital assets until I knew that that would stick.

Eric Ressler [00:20:55]: I think that’s a smart pragmatic move. And there’s a tension there because you don’t want it to be so late that you’re out there having those conversations right now. You got people excited about it and there’s probably people who you’ve met with who have heard about this who’ve come to the website and been like, wait, where’s the Science Solutions Santa Cruz stuff? Wait, this isn’t what Jonathan was just telling me about in the donor meeting we just had. So I could pick a pretty strong case that it is probably holding you back more than you realize. You’re still obviously doing great. We should also, since we’re just trying to be transparent here, you’re locked into a university system. And this happens sometimes with academic nonprofits and not only in that case where your hands are tied, you can’t revamp the website. There’s some creative things you can do around that to build alongside the main website and cross-pollinate. We’ve run into this before where orgs come to us and they’re like, hey, we want to build a really cool immersive impact report, but we can’t touch the website. What do we do? So what we usually do is we’ll spin up a microsite that sits on top of it or beside it in a subdomain or something. So there’s ways around some of those constraints, but that’s not really the true solution. The true solution is when possible to own the infrastructure and to not ever have tech be a reason why you can’t put your best foot forward as a brand. I understand in your situation and others, that’s a nice to have. It’s not something that you can always have full control over, but that’s a factor too.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:20]: And I tip my cap to the university in a way because they’ve locked all of their entities into a certain set of templates because they’re trying to build a brand too.

Eric Ressler [00:22:30]: They’re doing their own brand building.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:35]: Totally. And so now we have to respect that. We need to work within those constraints. But yes, that is a constraint that may be unique to my situation that others may have, but I don’t have totally free unbounded ability to build whatever I want, at least not in the way I’m thinking about it. And maybe that’s part of the reason why I’m hesitating.

Eric Ressler [00:22:55]: My gut level tells me that’s a big part of it because you’re just like, can I even do it? And feeling like, oh, there’s not only just the financial investment and the time and energy, but possibly even a political fight with the university or even just a straight up like, you can’t do it, man. I want to go back to this ROI conversation a little bit though, because I want to just even share for our listeners, we’ve had the privilege, I guess, or the opportunity to work directly with major funders and program officers and pick their brain around, hey, when you’re assessing an org, specifically on the website, what do you need? And we heard that across the board with everyone we’ve ever asked is like, how do you do research on orgs? And yes, they ask their peer funders and yes, they ask their network, but they also do their own research and they usually do it starting on your website. And we ask, what are the things that you want? And what we heard is a couple things. One, transparent financials, 100% needs to be there, easy to find. So we often will build out a section of websites that’s specifically for major funders that’s just like, here’s the checklist of everything you want. So they want financials and they want history of at least the last five years of those financials because what they’re doing is they’re saying, can this org absorb a gift of this size? Are they operationally ready and able to take this and turn it into impact? Do they have the right leadership team? What’s the pay structure? All that kind of stuff, their inputs for their decision making. So you want those financials to be super accessible, well presented, easy to find right off the bat. Some of these charity watchdog style organizations like what used to be Charity Navigator is now Candid, those can be nice signals as well that showcase some credibility and some transparency too, but you don’t need them as long as you are being transparent in how you communicate your things. So that’s one. The other thing is team bios, which I know can be kind of. We’ve been working with more and more orgs, especially in this state of play where people are concerned about even their staff being heckled or targeted in some way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:10]: Targeted in some way.

Eric Ressler [00:25:10]: Who are leaning away from full name or even photos on their team bios, which I completely respect. But in general, funders want to know who the team is and want to know who they’re investing in. And so when you feel like that’s a responsible move, I would highly recommend not just only having the leadership team and then just like everyone else goes away. Other things that we heard from some of those meetings is like, if you can’t articulate your impact clearly, if you can’t articulate your theory of change clearly, which does not mean a schematic diagram, but just like, here’s how we do the work and why your intervention is another way of thinking about that. What’s the way that you actually create impact? If you can’t clearly articulate in a way that makes sense in English who you are, who you do your work for that doesn’t require some kind of Rubik’s cube to solve, all those things are just creating friction and lacking confidence in an organization that actually knows those things and has clarity around it. So those are just some high level tips. I don’t want to diverge too much because I think we could do a full episode on this, but when we’re talking about ROI, to sum this up, your website should sell things for you. And what I mean by that is your website should be your best fundraiser, not your only fundraiser. Jonathan, for you, you’re out there having meetings and your website is your number two, because that’s the very first thing that people are going to do after having those meetings with you or even before in order to get the meeting in the first place.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:30]: You know what’s funny is you helped me do this case for support and so what I’m trying to do is I’m trying to make that case for support the second place.

Eric Ressler [00:26:45]: It has to be.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:45]: For us because the website’s not where it needs to be. So I’m like aggressively being, look at this first, this is the thing that’s going to bring home the deal or whatever.

Eric Ressler [00:26:55]: I think that makes sense. And I think in the best case you would have the case for support and then also the website would just reinforce all of the things you saw in there.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:05]: What’s sort of occurring to me now is that there’s this hidden cost to having a website, which is for those donor experiences and they’re going to the website as a second place. I’m not seeing their drop off. I’m not seeing their thought process. That’s not getting back to me really in any way. I guess you could make the argument that I could probably track rate of closed deals and maybe attribute some of it to the website, but-

Eric Ressler [00:27:35]: But how would you know that’s the thing?

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:35]: There’s a million reasons why that could be the thing. So I think part of what I’m walking away with is paying attention to these hidden costs of this asset that is not where it needs to be.

Eric Ressler [00:27:45]: Have you ever had an underperforming employee who you know. So this is a good analogy. You’ve maybe had an employee or a coworker who’s clearly not pulling their weight. You know that feeling of just like, someone’s not pulling their weight, like they’re bringing the whole team down because of their energy or their lack of performance. Sometimes that’s the website, but the sort of more dangerous one is the employee who’s just kind of like checking the boxes who could be someone who’s doing so much more than that. And it sounds to me like your situation is more the latter.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:25]: For sure.

Eric Ressler [00:28:25]: A lot of people come to us where they’re like, we know this thing is actively hurting us, help.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:30]: Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:28:30]: And maybe that’s right at some level. I would personally advise against waiting till it’s that bad, but you do have to have some kind of pain for it to be worthwhile. And I would say if you’ve ever had an experience with an employee like that who then gets replaced by someone who’s not just phoning it in, but who’s excellent and then you’re like, I could have had this the whole time. That’s kind of the experience we hear from clients we work with on websites where it’s just like, I had no idea.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:00]: I actually think that’s a brilliant analogy and if you’re not using that with clients in your sales processes, you should because-

Eric Ressler [00:29:05]: I will now.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:05]: Yeah. Because actually as you were telling that story, I was like, website is almost the wrong word. I know it describes the asset, but it’s a player on your team. And if you have a subpar player on your team, how do you as a leader deal with that? And a website is like doing work.

Eric Ressler [00:29:30]: And has almost an outsized influence compared to any one person on your team depending on the type of org that you are. We build websites all the time that have hundreds of thousands of unique impressions per month, per year. Very few staff members have that much influence over the perception of your brand. I’m not saying websites are more important than people, I’m just saying that they have a bigger influence on your brand perception sometimes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:55]: And just in my seat as executive director, that framing is like, this is a player on your team and how do you deal with average or low performers on your team? That’s kind of an aha moment for me.

Eric Ressler [00:30:05]: I think it’s a huge unlock in terms of how you think about it and I’d recommend to listeners they do think about it that way. And look, it’s a big move to do a major website overhaul and we really try to build sites in a way that you don’t do that over and over and over again. We actually had a client come back to us recently who we built their site over 10 years ago. They came back last year and we decided, you know what? We got to build it over. We very rarely do that because we are very intentional about we’re building it in a way that we can always be iterating on it. Another analogy I would use for the website is like a garden. There are times where you need to build the garden and there are times where you need to prune and a garden is only as fruitful as the effort and the time and the care that you put into it every day. If you build the most amazing garden in the world and you don’t water it and it doesn’t get sunshine or there’s disease or whatever, it will eventually fester and just become full of weeds and overgrown and eaten by critters, et cetera. And we see that basically same thing happen with websites. There’s a big moment, everyone rallies, they build the new thing. Sometimes it’s done well, often it’s not, and then it just kind of gets put on autopilot. You would never manage an employee that way. You can’t manage a website that way either. And the other thing I’ll just point to that’s another kind of intangible value about going through a website process is that it’s going to force you to make some tough decisions. And I would say this is true for any kind of brand, any serious brand effort. In order to build a good website, you have to know who you are, you have to have solid messaging, you have to have solid understanding of who the website’s for, who the audience is, what their needs are. All of that work either has to be done before or as part of a website overhaul in order for you to build something that’s going to actually be durable and serve the community and really be an asset for you. So hard work, but also work well done that’s going to serve you outside of just the outputs of the website itself.

Jonathan Hicken [00:32:05]: And that’s the fundamental premise of Cosmic’s work, right? Is that you enter at these moments of transformation and going through the process of building a website or a strategic plan or a case for support or whatever, you’re going to get into these hard hitting self-evaluative questions.

Eric Ressler [00:32:20]: Yeah. And look, I’m biased in that and that’s our approach, which is a great fit for some people and not a good fit for others. And frankly, I think a lot of times people are sort of scared away from websites is they’ve had one, two, three bad experiences. Unfortunately, many people who come to us come to us almost with past website traumas. And so we’re also part therapist who’s like, we will heal. It’s going to be okay. We’re going to get through this. And we know why that happened and we have a process to get around it, but there are absolutely people out there, agencies out there who are going to be happy to just do a tactical thing. Sometimes that’s what you need. I don’t think that I would usually recommend that approach unless there’s just something so fundamentally broken. You can’t get the budget to do it right and you got to just do an emergency stop gap. Every once in a while you got to do something like that.

Jonathan Hicken [00:33:10]: All right. Well, now you got me thinking about redoing our website here, buddy. So thanks for letting me grill you on it.

Eric Ressler [00:33:20]: I know a guy.

Jonathan Hicken [00:33:25]: All right. Thanks, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:33:25]: All right, man, this is fun. If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

For the last 50 years or so, we’ve operated under a single dominant idea: the purpose of business is to maximize shareholder value. We live and die by the quarterly earnings, and everything else is basically secondary. And most of us have accepted this as just the natural order, as though business has always worked this way. But it hasn’t.

Before the 1970s, businesses were embedded in their communities. They created jobs. They built trust. They contributed to the places they operated in. And profit was an outcome of doing those things well, not the singular obsession. So what happened? And more importantly, what if this whole era of extraction and short-termism isn’t actually the norm at all? What if it’s just a blip?

I’ve been sitting with this question a lot lately, especially as I watched the social impact sector struggle with funding cuts and political turmoil, and just a broader cultural retreat from purpose. We spent a lot of time on this show talking to nonprofits and philanthropies, but what about the largest and most powerful force shaping our society? What about business itself?

Sarah Gillard is the CEO of A Blueprint for Better Business, a UK charity working with some of the biggest companies in the world to help them rethink what they’re actually for. Before that, she spent 25 years inside major corporations, including leading purpose strategy at the John Lewis Partnership.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:56] Why Eric calls “business as a force for good” an underrepresented voice in social impact
[00:02:42] Two very different business models: profit maximization vs. employee ownership, from inside the same industry
[00:05:17] Business as the most powerful force shaping the future — and what it means to point that power toward solving complex problems
[00:06:37] The ESG rollback in context: what the data actually shows about corporate commitments
[00:09:03] The forces of gravity that act on companies as they scale, and why purpose requires active, structural defense
[00:12:17] The 70% problem: why intangible assets dominate organizational value but get almost no attention
[00:15:27] Rethinking the social contract: why government, business, and civil society can no longer afford separate swim lanes
[00:20:48] What the theory of change actually looks like: narrative, regulation, culture, or something else?
[00:22:00] Why imagining a better future matters as much as warning about a worse one
[00:27:07] AI as a force for good or fragility: the questions businesses aren’t asking but should be
[00:37:58] The two foundational ideas behind Blueprint for Better Business, and why neither is as radical as it sounds
[00:40:08] Why good intentions aren’t enough: the case for legal and governance structures that protect purpose under pressure

Notable Quotes:

[00:14:20]: “The first one-person billion-dollar company: great for shareholders, but horrible for society.” Eric Ressler

[00:24:05]: “Trying to hold off dystopia is not particularly energizing. A yearning for a better future is what’s actually going to help move the dial.” Sarah Gillard

[00:25:20]: “We need more in culture imagining what that future could and should be, instead of constantly only warning about what it’s looking like it’s going to be.” Eric Ressler

[00:38:40]: “Historically we will see these last 50-odd years as an odd blip. How do we take the most powerful shaper of our societies and just go: just focus on the money? Just weird.” Sarah Gillard

[00:39:00]: “Ideas are first ignored, then ridiculed, then accepted as common sense.” Sarah Gillard

[00:40:00]: “If you can attract investors who believe what you believe, you won’t have that conflict later on.” Sarah Gillard

[00:40:20]: “Good intentions are necessary, but not sufficient. You need legal and governance mechanisms that keep you on track even when there is significant pressure to move.” Sarah Gillard

Resources & Links:

• Blueprint for Better Business — Sarah’s organization; the one-page AI framework for boardrooms is available on their website

• John Lewis Partnership — The UK’s largest employee-owned business, where Sarah led purpose strategy

• The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson

• Dear Alice: Utopian anime yogurt commercial — mentioned by Eric as a rare example of positive future imagery

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:01:35]: Sarah Gillard, welcome to the show.

Sarah Gillard [00:01:40]: Thank you very much for having me.

Eric Ressler [00:01:40]: So I think what I’d like to start today is you have an interesting and unique vantage point on this work, and I think that you’re actually our first guest on the show that specifically focused on business as a force for good, which I feel like is an underrepresented voice and topic, and one that I’m actually quite overall a big proponent of in the social impact space. Even describing the space that way versus the charity space or the nonprofit space is a really intentional choice that we’ve always made at Cosmic in supporting social enterprises, government organizations that aren’t necessarily nonprofits. I’d like to hear from you in this moment: what do you feel like is the general state of play of business as a force for good?

Sarah Gillard [00:02:25]: That’s a good question. Well, just to take a brief step back, before I got into this sort of work, I spent 25 years in retail. And in it I experienced two very different business models.

I experienced the business as a machine for profit maximization model, and I saw the impact on people and it wasn’t good. Employees crying in the toilets and suppliers having their trust undermined and communities not feeling great about the retailer being there. I saw the impact on the business itself — the brands became a lot less valuable, and eventually in the particular retailer I was in, the multi-billion pound empire was sold for £1.20 years later. So it was not good for business and it was not good for society. I could see business operating in this extractive, short-term, profit-maximizing way was not a good outcome for society.

But I ended up in the retail industry working for the UK’s largest co-owned business, the John Lewis Partnership. It’s department stores and grocery stores, and it had at the time 80,000 employees who all owned the business. And it was the same industry, same amount of disruption from the internet and intermediation of the high street and all the rest of it. But I could see that the impact on people was very different. There were not people crying in the toilets. There was a ukulele orchestra in the foyer when you walked into the head office. I thought, this is different.

The impact on the business itself was really evident. It was able to adapt to changing circumstances way better because it had the trust of the stakeholders, so employees wanted to help it change. The suppliers wanted to. The customers did. There was a general sense that it would be useful if this business survived because it was mutually beneficial to all the stakeholders. And I could see the society business was genuinely acting as a force for good. The founder’s intent was 120-odd years ago. It was founded as an experiment in whether business could be a force for good.

Up until that point, I hadn’t seen a huge amount of evidence in my career that it was possible. I’d seen businesses as very extractive, competitive, financially focused — seeing people as walking wallets, or if they’re employees, as assets or resources, or in the worst cases, liabilities. A very dehumanizing way of seeing business, a very financially focused way. But then I’d experienced what it was like to work in a company that genuinely saw things differently. Hence my exploration in the business as a force for good movement as a whole, because I thought not only would this be quite useful for people if more businesses thought this way, but it would be good for businesses and it would be good for society.

At the time, which was four or five years ago, I was thinking it would be quite useful if business, which is arguably now the most powerful force that we have in the world for shaping the future — if business thought in this way, that our primary role is to create value for society and make money as a result of doing that. We’re not a charity, but make money in that way. It would be quite useful if business turned its attention to solving some of the most complex, interconnected, wicked problems that we are now facing. And to do that as an intended design outcome, rather than a hoped-for byproduct through some ESG strategy or a bit of CSR on the side.

So having experienced what it’s like to not be in business as a force for good, it’s strongly reinforced my belief that it’s possible and that it would be better if there was more of it.

So having said all that, I think the last couple of years have been challenging for that movement in general. And yet I’m going to give you my optimistic version. The overarching narrative has been that there’s been this huge rollback in the corporate world, particularly around ESG commitments, DEI commitments. And to some extent, that was true. Some big global studies published in the last six months or so said about 10% of the top 150 global companies had rolled back on climate commitments or DEI commitments because of the direct pressure they were under, either political pressure or investor pressure.

However, about 60% of companies that had been reviewed were carrying on as before. They may change the language in order to not attract attention. They may have reframed what they’re doing, but they were recognizing that this is not a sort of nice-to-have. It is a fundamental of how to do business well in a changing world. This is going to be good for your long-term business resilience. So they might be calling it different things, but they were still really committed to those businesses as force for good strategies. And then about 30% of businesses were actually doubling down, because they could recognize the strategic advantage it was giving them in a changing world.

So the businesses as force for good hushing that we’ve seen over the past couple of years has not been useful. It’s not neutral. It has reduced the momentum and the sense of social contagion that was beginning to happen. A lot of coalitions have broken down. So none of that is good. However, on the positive side, what we are seeing is an integration of this way of thinking into just strategy. It’s not called sustainability. It’s not called ESG. This is just strategy. This is now, in a changing world, how is it that your business is relevant and resilient and adaptable? And it turns out that if you know how you’re useful and you’re building trust with stakeholders, which is basically what businesses as a force for good means, it’s more likely that you’re going to be able to adapt and change in the world. So this is now becoming a matter of strategic necessity, rather than just a kind of moral ambition or a regulatory one. It’s a strategic must-have.

Eric Ressler [00:09:00]: I love it, so many good threads to pull on there. I want to start with a fundamental one, which is that at its core — and this is my point of view, even from my early days running Cosmic, working with a lot of startup organizations in Silicon Valley — when I work with organizations that are in that early stage, that founder-led stage, almost all businesses start because a founder sees a problem and they think they have a solution to that problem. And I would go a step further: for it to be an effective business, that is a marketable problem. It is a problem that a business owner thinks is valuable enough to solve that they can market it, they can sell it, they can make a profit on it.

So I think a lot of business starts that way. And then as businesses become more successful and measure success around quarterly earnings, especially by the time you get to a public company, that’s where I think we start to stray away from that core truth around what even is the value proposition of the business — what is the original problem or scope of problems that it set out to solve? And are we providing a net benefit to society and holding ourselves to the standard of are we creating value for the world and for our customers, versus are we creating value for our shareholders and for our investors?

And I think that is where I see, even to take it back to my Silicon Valley corollary, this tension that startups in the Valley face where they have a direction, but they’ve brought on Series A, Series B funding, they have a series of funders who are pushing them to figure out how can you 10x this now. And then you start to see these cycles where no longer is the priority around serving the customer or value to the world at large — it’s about maximizing profits at all costs.

Sarah Gillard [00:11:00]: Yeah, I agree. And I think the forces of gravity that act on a company as it scales are very hard to defy. When there’s just ten of you and you can share a pizza and you’ve all got a common mission, and you share the purpose of the organization, and the human relational aspect is there in the room. But when there are 10,000 of you and you’re relying on processes and procedures and rulebooks and KPIs and measurable objectives, it can be much harder to retain that unifying goal of what are we actually here to achieve. It all becomes broken down into measurable things. So as you scale, you have to acknowledge it and fight it by intentionally reminding everybody about what the actual point of the organization is and why we’re here.

Having a purpose statement that is flat on the wall is not sufficient. It has to be lived, and it has to be experienced by people in how decisions are made, how success is reported, what’s valued, what’s tolerated, what’s not tolerated, and the partnerships that are created. Is the company actually living the original founder’s intent about how we want to show up in the world and the value that we want to have?

I think the other problem is that so much of this is intangible, and when you’re short on time or you’re trying to communicate to a lot of people or you’re talking to investors, it’s a lot easier to focus on the measurable metrics, which tend to be the financial ones. And yet we know that a vast proportion of the value now of large organizations is in intangible assets. It’s their reputation. It’s the motivation of their employees, the trust that they have with their supply chain. In some estimates, that’s now 70% of an organization’s value. So it seems odd that we spend all of this time looking at the 30% that you can actually quantify.

And I think some investors are much more attuned to this. They ask different questions about culture, about impact, about purpose, about how decisions are made, about how value is thought about inside the organization, because they understand that those things relate to long-term business success. And that’s demonstrated through all of the academic research on this. But the market is not rational.

Eric Ressler [00:13:35]: It certainly seems that way these days. I would also argue that there’s always going to be some tension from the investor point of view between value creation for the world and value creation for the company and for the investors themselves. And I’m a little skeptical that those things are ever going to be fully aligned.

For example, I would argue that some of the biggest value that large companies can create for society at large is just jobs. And at a certain level, an investor wants as few jobs as possible to make as much money as possible, especially in this age of AI, where there seems to be a trend of smaller companies punching above their weight in terms of revenue generation. You hear stories in Silicon Valley about the first one-person billion-dollar company. That’s great for shareholders, but it’s horrible for society, where we need people who have the opportunity to make a living and to do good work.

I think that leads me to a devil’s advocate take, which is that I’m skeptical that business should be the first solution we reach for on certain societal issues. What is the business case for solving malaria in the Global South? You can argue there’s a net economic benefit, but that’s where government should be measuring against those outcomes, and community-based organizations and charities. There are just certain issues where there is no marketable value for solving. So how do you think about where business is the right lever for creating social change versus government organizations versus social impact organizations?

Sarah Gillard [00:15:25]: I think this points to the fact that we are going to have to rethink the social contract. For 70 years or so, longer probably, we’ve operated broadly with government, business, and civil society swimming in their own separate swim lanes. Government sets the rules. Business operates within the rules to maximize profit. Civil society picks up the pieces and tries to mitigate any of the externalities.

And that worked for a long time. It created growth and innovation and prosperity and lifted billions out of poverty. It was appropriate for the conditions at the time — post-World War Two, growing population, need to feed them, productivity was a big thing. But we’re in a different situation now. It’s 2026. We have climate change. We have massive social inequality. We have massive health challenges as a human race. We have AI promising probably the broadest spectrum of anything ever, all the way from abundant utopia to the end of humanity.

That old model of government does this and business does that and civil society does this is just insufficient to solving these challenges. No one of those actors can solve these big challenges. So my question is: if you imagine that in 50 years’ time we are thriving as a human race on a healthy planet, it’s probably because we’ve worked out how to design the economy, including the roles of government, business, and civil society, such that flourishing humanity on a healthy planet is the desired outcome, not a hoped-for byproduct of maximizing GDP growth.

We’re just struggling with a bit of a design fault with the way we’ve thought about the economy and society. And we have an opportunity now, with AI creating these paradigm shifts, to ask: how might we redesign this? This is a once-in-a-humanity opportunity to say, we have the ability to intentionally decide the collective outcomes that are going to help us as a species. What role do we want business to play? Is it simply economic output? Or does business have a different role? Does it create structure and purpose? Does it allow us to contribute to society and feel interconnected as citizens? These are non-quantifiable things that are probably quite fundamental to us as human beings.

Eric Ressler [00:19:50]: I love this thought experiment, and I want to tease out how we get there. Because if I look at the trend lines and the way that business at large is acting, what is the intervention? What is the theory of change around how we convince business leaders that this is the right long-term approach and to get out of the short-term, quarterly review mindset around profit maximization? Is it narrative change? Is it government regulation? Is it culture? Is it just that at a certain point the numbers don’t add up when no one can afford to buy the products these companies are creating?

Sarah Gillard [00:21:05]: If a silver bullet existed, hopefully it would have been discovered by now. System change is difficult, but it’s possible. If you look over just the last 500 years in Western societies, there has been a fair amount of system change — none of which was designed by a committee.

I think the first thing is to remind ourselves that change is possible, and that’s just part of the human condition. We are one moment of time in a long history. And this will change again, possible if not inevitable.

I think the second thing is that it starts with mindset and what you believe is possible. One of the challenges we currently have is a lack of hope in a positive future. We may be the first generation in humanity that believes we are handing to the next generation a worse inheritance, environmentally, culturally, socially. And I don’t know what that does to us psychologically, but it can’t be good.

When people imagine the future as pretty dystopian, and there’s a lack of hope and optimism, that’s not helped often by our culture. I ask audiences to give me some films about the future, and it’s Big Brother, Mad Max, Terminator, Waterworld. I asked AI for an example of a film about the future that’s positive, and it gave me The Jetsons, which is from the 1950s. We had to go back to the 50s to find it.

So one of the things that’s going to be critical is helping people imagine a better future that feels possible: societal trust and cohesion, communities thriving, we’ve got green nature around us, we feel fulfilled in our work, people feel they’ve got a chance to develop their own potential. These are common features across all cultures of what it takes to live a life well. But our grasp on it is loose at the moment. Trying to hold off dystopia is not particularly energizing, and it doesn’t inspire innovation and creativity. A yearning for a better future is what actually is going to help move the dial.

Eric Ressler [00:24:15]: It’s funny that you mention that, and I completely agree. It reframes because we actually have not only the technology but the ability to create that future today. The resources exist. The technology exists. Sure, there are big problems, and we should have solved some of these issues, especially as it relates to climate, 30-plus years ago. But it’s not too late.

I personally mostly watch and read sci-fi as my form of entertainment, and I would say it’s 95-5 dystopian versus utopian. I saw something the other day — I’ll try to track it down and put it in the show notes, but it turns out it was actually for like a yogurt commercial. It was this utopian anime series of clips that painted this picture of a clean energy, societal utopia. And that was the first time I’ve seen something that was like, oh, this is what the future could be. That wasn’t dystopian. And why I introduced narrative change is we need more in culture imagining what that future could and should be, instead of constantly only warning about what it’s looking like it’s going to be. Otherwise people don’t have a north star they’re working towards.

Sarah Gillard [00:25:35]: I completely agree. What lifted me out of a spiral I was beginning to go into in terms of climate was Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future, because it laid out what seemed to me an improbable but plausible path for the next 20 years of how we actually navigate toward a better future. And for the first time in a long time, I thought, well, that seems doable. Seems possible. And that was very energizing. Despair is not a good place for action. You’ve got to have hope, but it has to be grounded.

Eric Ressler [00:26:35]: So we touched on this a little bit, but I think we should go a little bit deeper around AI specifically, and how it’s a huge lever for change, positive and negative. How are you seeing that shape and influence the work that you’re doing, and the way that organizations are thinking about AI?

Sarah Gillard [00:27:05]: It is fascinating, if nothing else, because of the speed at which this is happening. There are no experts. There are AI experts, and there are people thinking deeply about what that means for economics and for work. But when you think about it at a system level, nobody has got a vision of, okay, this is how it’s all going to connect and pan out. There’s a lot of uncertainty. And in that uncertainty, corporates in general are focusing on what they can control: what are our competitors doing, how quickly are they moving, what’s the ROI, how does this enhance our efficiency and productivity metrics, and in many cases, how much can we reduce our workforce by.

That is understandable given the paradigm that business is operating in. But our hypothesis at Blueprint for Better Business is that that is going to create fragile businesses, as well as broader societal implications for work, for youth, for societal cohesion, and inequality.

If at this point, when norms are being shaped, businesses are able to ask broader questions around what are we actually using this technology in service of, how is it supporting our purpose, how are we contributing to society, how does this technology help us do that even more effectively, how does it unleash human potential, how does it enable us to reach communities we hadn’t reached before, how does it enable us to create new products and services that hadn’t been imagined before, rather than this efficiency focus, which is only going to go one way and has a limited floor — once you cut, you can’t cut much more. So our question is, what does this unlock for society in general? And how does business use this to amplify its force for good?

Our hypothesis is those businesses that are asking that now are likely to be more resilient, more adaptive, more trusted, more innovative. But it’s not common. The race mentality and the lack of feeling of expertise and confidence means the financial focus is dominant. And we believe very strongly that it’s important to change that narrative quickly, because the norms are being shaped right now. We have an opportunity to say, how do we use this technology in service of the common good, with business as a key instrument in that?

Eric Ressler [00:30:10]: The early narratives of AI were all about promise: think about what this could mean for society, we’ll solve healthcare, cure disease, universal basic income because of the economic impacts. And these narratives are still playing out to a degree. But now, as we’re seeing AI actually reaching adoption across a lot of industries and companies, especially in tech, it seems that the way businesses are actually using AI are far less altruistic and far more extractive, far more driven by cutting the bottom line and being more profitable with less and less overhead.

I know there are awesome use cases for AI that are being developed right now that maybe aren’t getting as much spotlight. But there’s a similar lack of imagination still about what we could and should be using AI for. As we start to consider how we use AI at Cosmic for our work, I’m really trying not to fall into those traps, which are very enticing. How can we punch above our weight as a small agency? That’s something I’m absolutely interested in, of course. And I’m also trying to ground that in an ethical framework. Even the way AI is being developed, even the companies that are providing it, even the impacts on climate, this is not all rosy.

I’m also trying to ground our use of AI in: is this actually helping further the social impact of the organizations we’re working with? Is it a tool that’s being leveraged that way? And sometimes what I find is that it is and it can, and that’s really exciting. And other times I find no, actually it’s not, and this is not the right tool for the job.

And I think early on the discussion was we need to slow down, make sure this is safe, make sure there’s regulation. And then all of a sudden it was well, we can’t because China is going to anyway. So all guardrails off, which is kind of silly when you think about other technologies that have the potential for literal human extinction, such as nuclear technology, which is highly regulated and has international treaties around it. We have models for how to be responsible.

I’d like to see the social impact sector play a major role in shaping what that future looks like, so that it’s not only up to business and not only up to government, because I’m not sure government is equipped to deal with the pace of this technology.

Sarah Gillard [00:34:00]: I think partly this is about broadening the lens. How AI will be deployed will be a result of human decisions of people in boardrooms right now. Those human beings have the opportunity to ask broader questions that they don’t have the answers to. And that’s a frightening thing when you’re an executive director, to ask a question you don’t know the answer to. But the acknowledgment that we’re all going to have to work it out together is important.

But it would be quite useful if the guiding principle was: how do we use this to serve humanity in general? What might be some of the unintended implications? If we scoot back 20 years and social media companies were able to ask more of those broad long-term questions, it might have meant that the social media industry moved in a different direction, instead of creating this kind of outrage engagement machine, which was probably not intended at the beginning, but the forces of the market took it there.

We’re at the beginning of that now. Asking different questions now really is likely to have quite a significant effect on the trajectory of where we’ll end up in five, ten, 15 years. And our website, Blueprint for Better Business, has a one-page framework that helps scaffold these conversations within boardrooms, because we recognize it’s very hard to make the bridge between the things that you’re worried about at three in the morning as a human being, and then walking into that room and feeling able to raise some of these concerns. We’ve developed some questions that elevate the conversation and bring in things that we know every single one of those human beings will be thinking about, that haven’t yet found a way to make it into corporate speak.

As this develops, when we get case studies and evidence of organizations that are thinking differently about this being more resilient and more trusted, I think the momentum could grow. But right now we’re in the early days. And that does mean that you get to shape it, which is both a responsibility and a massive opportunity.

The more that responsible leaders, whether in business or in social impact organizations, are able to talk about how they’re thinking about AI in a responsible way, the more that becomes the norm of how you run a good organization nowadays.

Eric Ressler [00:37:00]: As we move to wrap up, I have two things. One, a thread I’d like to go on with you, and then an ending question about your optimism. For our listeners who are maybe at a point where they’re starting something new or thinking about a major pivot, maybe they lead a nonprofit and they’re looking at how to restructure with some kind of market-based approach, or maybe a listener is at the beginning of trying to solve a wicked social problem through a market-based approach: what’s the mental model? What are some of the more pragmatic takeaways for people in that position?

Sarah Gillard [00:37:55]: Well, the charity was founded with two foundational beliefs, neither of which sound very radical when you say them out loud, but they are not common in the business world.

The first not-very-radical idea is that if you see business not as a profit-maximizing machine, but instead as a group of human beings coming together to create value for society that makes profit as a result, that changes the underlying assumptions. You begin to see it as a relational thing rather than a transactional machine type thing.

Eric Ressler [00:38:30]: I hear that and it’s like, yeah, I remember now, that’s what business used to be and was supposed to be. And now look where we are.

Sarah Gillard [00:38:40]: Historically we will see these last 50-odd years as an odd blip. How do we take the most powerful shaper of our societies and our future and just go: just focus on the money? Just weird. We’re living in the end days of it, I hope.

And one of my favorite quotes is that ideas are first ignored, then ridiculed, and then accepted as common sense. So I’m assuming we’re in the end stages of the ridiculed bit, moving into the common sense.

The second not-at-all-radical idea is that people are human beings with inherent dignity and worth and value, and they should always be seen as that, not as instrumentalist resources to be deployed in service of some financial goal. Any organization ought to be able to retain that idea, whether they’re thinking about employees or customers or suppliers or future generations or community members. So common good and human dignity are the two foundational things.

As you begin to build or scale a business, or bring on investment, making those explicit is critical. It will attract the investors who believe what you believe, which is fundamental, because if you can attract those investors to begin with, you’re not going to have this conflict later on.

Critically, also creating the legal and governance mechanisms that allow you to sustain that purpose, even when under pressure and economic conditions are difficult, is an important part of this. Good intentions are necessary, but not sufficient. We have learned, particularly over the past couple of years, that you need reinforcing legal and governance mechanisms that keep you on track even when there is significant pressure to move. Coding that into your business right at the start is a great way of ensuring that as you scale, it’s in the DNA of the organization. It’s not a veneer that you as a founder were able to contribute, and that disappears as soon as you leave. If this really matters to you, design it in.

Eric Ressler [00:41:00]: My question then is, we’re talking about a lot of heavy topics here. You’re an internal optimist. What keeps you in that space even when things look bleak?

Sarah Gillard [00:41:15]: I think the first thing is that reminder that change is inevitable. We are constantly changing societal norms, and we have agency. We have the ability to shape the future. It’s not inevitable, no matter what big organizations want to tell us.

And again, human nature is on a broad spectrum. Economic theory would have had us believe for about 50 years that we are rational, self-interested utility maximizers who only act in terms of extrinsic motivation. And every other study of human nature doesn’t demonstrate that at all. We are multi-dimensional, complex beings who are of course motivated by money and status and power, but also by intrinsic motivators. We want to belong. We want to feel like we’re contributing to something bigger than ourselves. We want to feel a relational connection to other people. And my hope is that that side of our humanity is crying out for expression.

You can see it in the loneliness epidemic or the mental health crisis or people’s search for meaning. We want to feel like there is meaning, and that we’re contributing to something positive. And that needs to show up in businesses. Otherwise they are not going to be environments where we flourish, and that is not good for business in the long term. So I’m optimistic because I do think we have the ability within ourselves to make this change happen and to bend it in a positive direction. Rediscovering our agency, I think, is the moment we’re in right now.

Eric Ressler [00:43:20]: Awesome. I think that’s a beautiful place to wrap up. Sarah, thank you so much for the conversation today and for joining me on Designing Tomorrow. This was a blast.

Sarah Gillard [00:43:30]: Thank you Eric.

Subscribe now

Jonathan recently learned that the Seymour Center is about to absorb a permanent new expense in the $150,000 to $200,000 range. On a $2.2 million operating budget, that’s roughly 10% of the whole thing, and it’s not a one-time hit. This is a structural cost that will be there every year going forward. The instinct for most leaders in that situation is to pull back: tighten the budget, pause the big swings, and try to right-size the organization around this new reality.

The problem is that the Seymour Center is in the middle of what Jonathan describes as a liftoff moment. The initiatives are fundable, the visibility is growing, and the conversations he’s having with donors right now are some of the strongest he’s ever had. Contracting wouldn’t just save money. It would change the story he can walk into those rooms and tell.

Subscribe now

There’s a saying Eric brings up from the business world: never need a deal. Funders are wired to pick up on desperation, and even if contraction doesn’t make you desperate, it moves you one step closer to that energy. Organizations in motion attract investment. Organizations explaining why they pulled back are playing a different game entirely.

Eric shares his own version of this tension from running Cosmic through the pandemic and the USAID funding fallout, periods where he faced the same question about layoffs and pay cuts. He’s never done either in 16 years, partly because rebuilding a team costs more than carrying one through a rough stretch. But some of those calls were risky.

The conversation also gets into the ego side of these decisions. Jonathan admits he’s constantly checking whether the urge to push forward is serving the Seymour Center’s mission or serving his own ambitions as a leader. They explore when contraction genuinely is the right call, what nonprofit mergers look like in a shrinking funding landscape, and why Eric remains underwhelmed by how the philanthropic sector has responded to the structural challenges hitting organizations across the country right now.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:30] Contract or keep pushing? The fundamental question.
[00:02:00] The outdated overhead myth and why it makes budget shocks worse
[00:04:00] Building reserves as a moral question, not just a financial one
[00:05:30] The power of flexibility that reserves actually buy you
[00:08:00] Eric’s pandemic-era decisions at Cosmic: no layoffs, no pay cuts in 16 years
[00:11:00] What contraction would actually look like at the Seymour Center
[00:12:00] Why liftoff windows are sacred and rarely repeat on your timeline
[00:14:00] Funding the gap: earned income, price increases, and philanthropic bridge funding
[00:17:00] The story you can tell funders when you’re in motion vs. when you’ve pulled back
[00:20:00] Does the upside of the risk outweigh the downside of contraction?
[00:20:30] Separating ego from mission in high-stakes financial decisions
[00:22:30] The case for nonprofit mergers in a shrinking funding landscape
[00:27:00] A call to funders: pivot funding and why philanthropy is still falling short

Notable Quotes:

[00:12:30]: “I think we’re in one of those times right now, and I don’t know if the external conditions will ever quite look like this in terms of where we’re positioning ourselves and the promise that we’re making.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:13:05]: “Energy is magnetic. You can feel it, and when you have it, use the lever, man. When you have it, focus that energy because you never know when that’s going to happen in the same way.” Eric Ressler

[00:17:00]: “I can go to those meetings right now and sit down at the table and look at these people in the eye and both confidently and authentically tell the story of this liftoff story. If I start to contract, I can’t do that.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:18:10]: “There’s a saying in the business world: never need a deal. I think we’re wired as humans to just be super attuned to desperation.” Eric Ressler

[00:20:50]: “You got to be ultra clear as a leader about who is this for and how much of this is your own ego versus how much of this is what’s best for the organization.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:28:55]: “We’re in a moment right now where because of this situation, we have an opportunity at a global scale to reimagine what the sector looks like and that’s exciting.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center — Jonathan Hicken’s ocean science center at UC Santa Cruz

• Visibility Beats Impact — Designing Tomorrow podcast episode

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:00]: Eric, recently I learned that the Seymour Center is going to be facing a new expense that makes up 10% of my annual budget.

Eric Ressler [00:00:10]: Fun.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:10]: And it’s coming out of nowhere.

Eric Ressler [00:00:10]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:15]: And I have this really big fundamental question right now, which I think many of our listeners are probably also thinking about, which is do I contract or do I keep pushing forward on my current pace? And so I want to dig in to this fundamental question with you today.

Eric Ressler [00:00:30]: Okay. Let’s do it, man.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:40]: All right, let’s go. So Seymour Center, we run about a $2.2 million operating budget and we’ve got this new expense that’s going to be in the 150 to 200,000 a year range. And it’s coming out of nowhere. I’m not going to get into where it’s coming from or why it’s happening, but the fact of the matter is it’s coming. And at the same time, we are at this inflection point as an organization where I think we are on the proverbial launchpad and the rocket engines are firing up and we’re about to take off. And so there’s this tension I have, which is do I contract to quickly absorb this new expense or do I start dipping into a healthy reserve? We have a healthy reserve. Do I start dipping into that to achieve liftoff and build the business that will sustain this new expense?

Eric Ressler [00:01:35]: Yeah. I think first of all, I love the topic. I think so many people in our space in our sector are dealing with various forms of budget cuts and contractions and challenges that hit finances at the top line. So really excited to dig into your specific situation and hopefully walk away with some actionable tips and even more than tips, mindset around how to navigate something like this as a leader. So my first question is, is this a one time budget cut? This is one year or this is in perpetuity for you?

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:05]: This is in perpetuity and it’s a systematic new expense, right? So it’s an expense. It’s not a loss of funding. And so this expense is going to persist. Fundamentally, I need to now build a business that can sustain that expense. So I’m faced with this question of, do I contract as the immediate response or do we keep the pedal to the metal?

Eric Ressler [00:02:30]: The first thing that’s coming to mind for me that reinforces one of my beliefs is that there’s this model or this benchmark that’s really, in my opinion, way outdated and needs to change culturally, which is, “Oh, well, you should be running maybe 10 to 15% overhead and 85 to 90% direct program expenses.” What happens now? So now you just have zero overhead or 5% overhead. Not that those are your exact numbers probably, but so now there’s this pretty substantial expense that comes in that’s in perpetuity, that’s just going to have to be cost of doing business for you. And it’s been cool to watch as a partner, as a friend, as a colleague, this moment of momentum and expansion. I think it’s worth noting that you are in a unique position and that you have some reserves. And that’s not uncommon, but it’s not guaranteed either.

So some of our listeners may be facing a similar situation with zero reserves or very little reserves. So I think we should acknowledge that that gives you a position that gives you more choices than if you had no reserves. If you had no reserves, there really wouldn’t be a choice, right? Other than trying to rapidly build a new model or find some additional pivot funding or sustaining funding to keep going in the new model.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:45]: One other factor here that might be unique to us is that we also have earned income because we’re a science center and aquarium, right? We can sell tickets, we can rent the facility. So there is this option of raising prices. Now that has a bunch of other implications about who can and can’t access our space, which might be something we want to talk about in a minute. But to the point of reserves, we did make it a priority to build those reserves over the last few years to build this rainy day fund. For us, it actually came from a place of a COVID fear because we knew if COVID happened again, that was so detrimental to the budget we needed to have that nest egg. Thankfully that hasn’t happened, but now we have this reserve sitting there. And so there’s also this moral question of, is this impact money that needs to be deployed anyway?

And so there’s this pull in that direction to say, well, we should mobilize that money because it’s there. It’s not delivering impact right now. On the other hand, if we spend it down, now I’ve just risked the organization by pulling that nest egg away.

Eric Ressler [00:05:00]: What comes to mind for me listening to all this is a couple things. One, the power of having reserves and I know that it’s easy to say, we’ll build some reserves. It’s another thing to actually be able to do that, but it’s coming up as an example of the power of that flexibility that it gives you. And I think that there’s a lot of orgs that don’t have those reserves and then they face these challenges that suddenly become existential. So that’s one point that I think is important to acknowledge. And then the second point is that I really like the way that you frame that, this money here that’s not delivering impact. And what it’s making me think about as a leader is there’s always these risks that you have to think about responsibly stewarding for your mission. I think there’s a risk balance that’s good to strike as a leader where if you’re too risk averse all the time, you’re basically guaranteed to never grow and never improve in my opinion.

But if you’re too risky, there’s a threshold at which you’re just literally playing it fast and loose and it could have potential negative downstream effects to the staff that you owe a responsibility to, to the impact, to the community that you serve. So my initial reaction to this is that you have this rainy day fund, these reserves that you’ve built up and you had earmarked it specifically for another COVID. But I wonder if maybe it should have been thought about, and maybe you did think about it this way, as just a reserve for unexpected setbacks at different scales, right? Another COVID-like situation would be really challenging for a place-based organization, but this is another form of that challenge. What comes to mind for me is that the rainy day or the reserves are not a long-term solution and I don’t think that you’re proposing that they are, but it could be used strategically to help you get through to the next level and reimagine or reinvent the business model with this new expense in mind without losing the momentum that you’re building up right now.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:05]: If we don’t mobilize that money, I mean this is the other side of the risk, right? You just laid out what happens if we go too far with the riskiness, right? If we get fast and loose, we’re totally out of money, now we put ourselves in a vulnerable position, another unexpected setback could happen and now we’re screwed. But then there’s this other side of, okay, what’s the implication of contracting now and what does that mean in terms of the promise we’ve made our community and the impact that we have promised we’re going to deliver if we pull back now, how many years is it going to be before we can get back to this moment again?

Eric Ressler [00:07:55]: I think about this a lot. So I’ll share a similar example from running Cosmic, which is early in the pandemic we had a similar challenge. Everyone went through some kind of challenge there where anytime in our space in the work that we do that there’s some kind of period of major uncertainty, and we saw this in the pandemic, we saw it again with Trump’s reelection and the USAID cuts and just all the DOGE stuff. When orgs in our sector understandably contract or wait and see and it’s difficult for them to plan, that has a direct impact on our bottom line at Cosmic because the kind of work that we do requires people to make big moves and have some level of certainty about their path and their future. And so we’ve had periods where we’ve had to pull from reserves or have similar existential questions, do we do layoffs? Do we do pay cuts? How do we manage this? And the thing that I’ve always struggled with there is, first of all, I’ve never laid anyone off. I’ve never done pay cuts in 16 years and I’m proud of that. And also one of the reasons I’ve made some risky moves, just to be frank about it, is because I’ve spent so much time building up the people on my team that have deep expertise and knowledge in our work and I just have so much that I value about that and I know how expensive it is to recover from turnover or to recover from having to... It’s like you take a step back, but it takes three steps to get back to where you were or to where you’re trying to go as an organization. So sometimes that’s the responsible move, sometimes that’s the necessary move.

I don’t judge when organizations make those calls. And in certain ways, I sometimes respect leaders that do it because especially in our space, when you’re doing that, we’re not talking about tech layoffs here, right? We’re talking about people who have passion for this work, leaders who have passion and respect for their team, having to make really difficult decisions. And I do have respect for leaders who make those choices boldly and intentionally and in a human way that acknowledges the strife that causes on individuals in the community. But I think it’s a riskier move in certain ways if you have the ability to reach into deep pockets or into reserves that you have or to find a creative pivot funder or something or even an emergency fund or something like that that allows you to keep that momentum going. That’s usually my personal instinct, but I know that that’s not always what’s happened and we can talk about what I’m seeing at the sector level too. But I want to keep hearing a little bit more about what would contraction look like for you?

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:40]: Contraction would look like basically hunkering down and focusing on some core programs and turning our attention away from some of these big swings like Seymour Studios, right here, right now. We could pull back from this and move the investment to core programming. Just for example, that is a viable option for us. We could say, “Hey, look, now’s not the time to achieve liftoff. Let’s right size the budget with this new expense and maybe it’s two or three years down the road, let’s try again.” And that’s our eyes on the prize a few years down the road. And there is a fair question to be asked right there, which is, all right, bro, so what, three more years? The ocean’s not going anywhere, the community’s not going anywhere. What’s the problem?

Eric Ressler [00:11:35]: Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:35]: You look like you are...

Eric Ressler [00:11:40]: I’m cringing here a little bit and the reason I’m cringing is because it’s just like I feel like moments of potential liftoff are sacred and getting all of the conditions in place for that to happen can be really, really hard and some of that stuff’s not even fully in your control. So when there’s this liftoff potential, this window of opportunity to turn it off, it just feels so hard to do that because it might be three years from now, but maybe three years from now, there’s a whole new set of challenges that you could never plan for.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:15]: And this is, I think the timeliness of it is, I think in business of any kind, there’s a certain amount of luck, right?

Eric Ressler [00:12:20]: Absolutely.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:25]: And being at the right place at the right time with factors that are totally out of your control. And I think we’re in one of those times right now and I don’t know if the external conditions will ever quite look like this in terms of where we’re positioning ourselves and the promise that we’re making. It’s almost like the other side of me, right, in contrast with the “chill bro, three years is no big deal.” The devil, so to speak, on this shoulder is being like, “Dude, this opportunity’s never going to come again.” You got to go now and you got to go hard. And if you get it, that flywheel starts turning and you will right size the budget.

Eric Ressler [00:13:05]: My other point of view on this is that energy is magnetic. You can feel it and when you have it, use the lever, man. When you have it, focus that energy because you never know when that’s going to happen in the same way. And I do think we need to be careful about, there’s a lot of limiting beliefs or you can go too far the other way around like, “Oh, this might never ever happen again. And this is all luck.” And I know that’s not what you’re saying, but just trying to put myself and our listeners’ shoes here for a second. So this all comes down to at some level just making the best choice that you can as a leader and acknowledging that these decisions are difficult. I guess my question would be, let’s tease out the trajectory where you draw from the reserves and you plow ahead and you use this energy. How are you thinking about solving this new structural deficit that you have or this new structural expense that’s basically asking you to increase your overhead or your operating budget by at least 10%, if not more, to cover this new expense? What are your ideas around how to fund that long term?

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:20]: First is some of that growth or some of that transformation that can occur is going to happen within the space. And so we’re going to be delivering more value in the space to visitors, which will justify a price increase. And so I think in our market there is room for some price adjustments. I don’t think we could make those price adjustments now before we’re delivering that additional value. So part of it is achieving liftoff, delivering that value in the space and that justifies the price increase. So that’s part of it.

B is that I think some of these big swing initiatives are highly fundable particularly from private foundations and major donors and we would build into those financial proposals, be transparent about where we are with our budget and what we’re trying to make up and work with the funder, work with the partner to be able to right size that budget, just being very open about it. And I have some leads on that and these are conversations I’m planning to have, but part of it would be buoyed by philanthropy or be bridged by philanthropy.

Eric Ressler [00:15:35]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode, I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose built for nonprofits and mission driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

I think the other thing that comes to mind for me is we just did an episode recently about how important visibility is and a lot of these big swing moves that you’re making right now are building massive visibility for the Seymour Center, which will also in theory, and I think you’re starting to see some of this potentially, you tell me, higher visitation, right?

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:40]: Exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:16:45]: So it’s not even just about raising prices, but filling capacity and making sure that you always have the right number of people coming in every day.

Jonathan Hicken [00:16:45]: It’s hard. I mean, I’m having conversations with funding decision makers right now in a variety of sectors that I can go to those meetings right now and I can sit down at the table and look at these people in the eye and both confidently and authentically tell the story of this liftoff story. And I can tell that story because I believe it and it’s happening and it’s now. If I start to contract, I can’t do that. That wouldn’t be true to what we’re doing, right? It would be a different story.

Eric Ressler [00:17:25]: That’s a really interesting, but I think important point, which is that so much of your success in growth and fundraising is being able to have a true story that you believe that you can tell the story with full transparency and excitement that we are building something here and we are in motion. That’s what funders want to see. They don’t want you to come in and say, “We’re stuck and we need your help.” I mean, really forward looking progressive funders that you maybe already have a relationship might come in and help you pull you out of a pickle. But there’s these downstream, even maybe subconscious problems that I know this is true for me. There’s a saying in the business world that never need a deal. I think we’re wired as humans to just be super attuned to desperation. I’m not saying you would be desperate if you were to contract, but you would be one step closer to desperation, right?

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:25]: Yeah, it would be a different tone for sure.

Eric Ressler [00:18:25]: It’d be a different tone and people get excited about organizations in motion who have energy. And so there’s this flywheel we talk about a lot. And so I guess maybe one thing that comes to mind for me is, and I have some thoughts on this, but I’d like to hear yours first, when is a contraction or maybe another version of that that I’d like to introduce to this conversation, a merger with another organization because of a contraction, when is that the right call? When is that actually the responsible thing to do or maybe even the most impactful thing to do?

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:00]: Well, I think the scenario, and this is where there’s probably variation in the circumstances, because there may be times where right now we’re sitting talking about the Seymour Center’s position at the moment and there’s these two extremes, right, opportunity that’s big and exciting and then there’s this contraction piece. I think there are going to be some people who are in a situation where maybe they don’t have that big opportunity in front of them at that moment and so a big swing doesn’t make any sense.

Eric Ressler [00:19:30]: So in that situation would be business as usual or contraction.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:30]: Correct. And in that case, it’s an easier and maybe the wiser choice to say, “Hey, look, the upside on just plowing through isn’t clear, doesn’t have such a payoff that we need to really put ourselves at risk.”

Eric Ressler [00:19:45]: So one way listeners can think about this is, does the upside of the risk paying off outweigh the downside of a contraction?

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:55]: I think that’s the simplest version of this. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:20:00]: So you have to have some kind of case to make that the risk has a potential outsized payoff.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:05]: Yeah. And I think as leaders, and this is one of the things that I’m scrutinizing for myself on a regular basis, is my own personal stake in this decision and making sure I’m deliberately separating what Jonathan wants to do versus what is best for Seymour Center. And those things aren’t always perfectly aligned if I’m being totally honest, right?

Eric Ressler [00:20:35]: Yeah, that’s fair. I resonate with that.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:40]: And so that is a question that I’m constantly asking myself. And so to the point of this simple calculation, does the upside outweigh the risk of de-risking, you got to be ultra clear as a leader about who is this for and how much of this is your own ego versus how much of this is what’s best for the organization?

Eric Ressler [00:21:05]: I think another way to think about that would be putting yourself in the shoes of the beneficiary, right? So the people that you serve. What choice is going to serve them best, which I think you’re always thinking about intuitively as a leader in the social impact space. But when you’re talking about deficits and budget cuts and loss of funding, it’s pretty easy to get into the operational mindset of just, how are we going to make the budget work? Who are we going to have to lay off or what programs do we need to contract to make this work or how do we change the nuts and bolts of the org chart? That’s immediately where your mind starts to go. And I think maybe thinking about it from the point of view of the beneficiary or whoever it is that you’re delivering value or impact for could be another important lens to consider.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:50]: There’s no question about that. And that is ultimately, in my opinion, just speaking personally here, in the position I’m in right now, I really do believe that this liftoff will deliver more value to the people that we’re trying to serve.

Eric Ressler [00:22:10]: Which is why you were doing it in the first place.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:10]: Right, exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:22:10]: Everything you do should be working towards that anyway. In one way or another. But it’s just interesting to think about it from those different points of view. So should we talk about mergers and...

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:20]: Yeah, this one’s fascinating.

Eric Ressler [00:22:20]: So this comes from me just observing, well, a couple points, honestly. So as we all know, there’s been massive changes to the funding landscape and ecosystem in the social impact space over the last couple of years. And what I’ve observed is that there are a number of orgs who basically faced a decision to either spin it down and wrap up shop or have some kind of major fundraising miracle happen, which hasn’t been happening as much as it had in the past, or to merge. And I am intrigued by this trajectory of merging and partly because I do frankly think there’s too much redundancy in the space in some cases, not in all cases, and that sometimes that call might be the right call and sometimes these challenging scenarios create a little bit of truth and clarity in what maybe always was the right choice.

Now when resources start to evaporate unexpectedly, you can see more clearly, this makes sense, even maybe would’ve made sense before anyway. And so now we can combine forces, have our resources less distributed across different orgs all working on the same issue. Now I also want to say mergers often also don’t make any sense and sometimes these are explored simply because the finances pencil out better, but the impact wouldn’t actually be any better than if the two orgs existed separately. So I don’t know, I’m on the sidelines on this. I’m not involved in any mergers or anything.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:00]: So I actually tried to architect one.

Eric Ressler [00:24:05]: Oh, really?

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:05]: Yeah. Not at Seymour Center. I was the chair of the board of another environmental organization in town. And for one reason or another, there was actually market saturation as a part of it where environmental education in this region, there are a ton of people doing marine and environmental education. And I pitched a merger with another organization, the other board chair and we started moving down the path a little bit on that. We ultimately ended up not doing it, which in hindsight was probably the right decision not to do it. But there’s something powerful about that concept that is, I think as a leader, this is probably in large part where ego comes into play.

Eric Ressler [00:24:50]: Oh, absolutely.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:55]: And even when it comes to marketing and branding and positioning and stuff.

Eric Ressler [00:24:55]: Totally.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:00]: Now you’ve got this struggle between whose message, whose brand comes out on top, because this is not an acquisition.

Eric Ressler [00:25:10]: Right. Well, and that’s another form of it though. But I think about that. We’ve had opportunities to either be bought out or to merge and I feel like absolutely my ego has come into those decisions, “Hey, I’m used to being the founder. I’m used to being the face of the org. I have a certain amount of pride of what I’ve built that now gets diffused a little bit.” I think it’s a little different if you are a nonprofit, but there’s a lot of those same issues that I think come into play and I do think that mergers can absolutely backfire too. So I’m not here being the pro merger guy, but I’ve seen more of them happen because of the funding landscape. I think I wanted to include it in the conversation because I’m thinking about our listeners who are facing similar challenges, but from either lack of funding versus extra expenses.

So I think that’s something to consider if you’re in this situation. “Hey, can you partner up with someone else?” Or even not for the whole org, can you take a program that, if you’re really honest, isn’t your sweet spot and eating up a certain percentage of your budget, can you retire that and double down on the thing that is your sweet spot? That’s another thing I would be considering in this situation.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:20]: Interesting. And even in our situation, I think that’s a fair question and a fair path to explore. I think in my current situation, each program here is a fundamental piece of the puzzle. And so the thought crossed my mind that that option I don’t think is... It’s the third of the three. But I think for some organizations it needs to be on the table. Anything from the sector, is there anything, I mean, maybe mergers and acquisitions is what you’re seeing. Is there anything else that you see that we haven’t touched on?

Eric Ressler [00:27:00]: I think one thing I would say is that, and we’ve talked about this before on the show, a call to action for the philanthropic sector, the funding element of this is there are a lot of orgs out there that need pivot funding. That’s something I’ve seen a lot of also, orgs who are being forced to pivot because of the funding landscape or the environmental landscape or the political landscape where the work still needs to be done, but the way we used to do it isn’t going to work anymore. So how do we pivot? So there’s these moments in the life cycle of any social impact org where there’s moments of growth, moments of pivot and that usually requires extra capacity from a funding side of things. I would like funders to be more open to funding that kind of work than I think I’ve seen them be.

And I will say there are some progressive funders who are doing this right now. There are pivot funds that got spun up in this moment. I will continue to feel underwhelmed by the philanthropic sector in this moment. I’m waiting for my mind to change on that. It is in certain cases, but I’m still largely underwhelmed by how philanthropy has stepped up in this moment or hasn’t stepped up in this moment. There’s a lot of orgs that need this kind of funding right now. So any funders who are listening, I would like to think any funders listening to our show are already on this path, but tell your friends at the next foundation meeting that they need to up their payout limits. They need to be willing to fund these pivots. They need to be willing to connect and network people in their portfolios or people asking for funding because there’s a lot of folks who are facing new structural barriers who’ve been doing good work for a long time that are systemic in nature.

It is not because they did anything wrong. Really tried and true models that used to work that were best practices aren’t flying anymore and we need to as a sector rethink that. To end on a slightly more positive note, I do think we’re in a moment right now where because of this situation, we have an opportunity at a global scale to reimagine what the sector looks like and that’s exciting. It’s going to take all of us coming together. It’s going to take building trust back with government partners. It’s going to take the philanthropic sector stepping up. It’s going to take social impact leaders, the practitioners, the nonprofits to come in more imaginatively, more innovatively, et cetera. But it is an exciting moment to frame it that way. It’s like, “Hey, we know there’s problems with how the sector runs. Let’s not let these problems go to waste. Let’s come together and rethink how we can do this more sustainably and more equitably as we reinvent the sector.”

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:35]: Hear, hear, man. Appreciate it, brother. All right. Well, thank you for helping me think through this one, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:29:40]: Yeah, man. Hopefully this is helpful. All right. If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

Most social impact campaigns are built on two ingredients: information and emotion. The data makes the case. The storytelling makes people care. But caring, on its own, has a shelf life.

Saralynn Finn, founder of Sett & Sley Consulting, joins Eric in the studio fresh off a packed breakout session at Skoll World Forum to argue that the third ingredient, what she calls “the hands”, is where campaigns succeed or quietly die. “the hands” are the actionable, attainable pathways that turn an informed, emotionally engaged audience into people who actually do something.

The conversation unpacks why “the hands” piece is so consistently missing, even in well-resourced organizations. Saralynn shares stories from her time at Represent Us, where a celebrity collaboration drove 30K new subscribers but didn’t directly move the needle on healthcare reform, and a separate end-of-year fundraising campaign 5X’d year-over-year revenue by combining SMS reengagement, handwritten holiday cards, and a hope-driven impact reel. The pattern she keeps returning to: the campaigns that worked best had a finite window, a specific audience, and a clear action that wasn’t just “join our list.”

The conversation shifts toward what organizations can actually do differently. Together they land on reverse-engineering campaigns from the desired outcome, treating campaign tactics like experiments with real timelines, and resisting the urge to dump the entire “hands” problem on the comms team. Saralynn is emphatic that action planning needs to involve leadership, not just the person managing the content calendar. Comms needs a seat at the strategy table, and strategy needs to produce goals that are realistic, funded, and tied to mission.

The episode closes with a shared conviction that the social impact sector doesn’t lack ambition or heart. What it lacks is the willingness to get specific about what audiences should do, fund the infrastructure to make those actions possible, and then communicate progress transparently enough to keep people invested. “the hands” work is harder than the head work or the heart work. That’s exactly why most organizations skip it.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:01] The head, heart, and hands framework for social impact campaigns
[00:02:30] What the “head” really is: the 25-page white paper your program officer wants on the website
[00:03:30] “Heart” as emotional storytelling, and the line between impact and poverty porn
[00:05:00] “The hands”: actionable, attainable pathways that create real impact
[00:06:00] Why “the hands” breakout at Skoll World Forum was the most well-attended
[00:07:30] A leader who spent six years figuring out his audience before he could move the needle
[00:10:00] The celebrity collaboration that drove 30K subscribers but didn’t change healthcare
[00:15:00] Vote by mail in 2020: same message, radically different messengers at national vs. local scale
[00:19:00] Why documentary films end when the curtains close and nothing changes
[00:22:00] Climate messaging, renewable energy, and making people feel like they can do something
[00:26:00] The end-of-year fundraising campaign that 5X’d revenue through SMS, holiday cards, and impact reels
[00:29:00] Reverse-engineering campaigns from the desired outcome
[00:33:00] Treating campaign tactics like scientific experiments
[00:34:00] Why action planning can’t be a comms-only job

Notable Quotes:

[00:06:00]: “It’s the piece of most campaigns that’s missing, that people are trying to break the nut of and figure out: how do I create a pathway?” Saralynn Finn

[00:12:10]: “Awareness and then what? You have half a million followers now. Amazing. What do you want them to do?” Saralynn Finn

[00:12:30]: “Once we understand the problem and then we have an emotion about it, we have to use our hands to do something. Otherwise, I think it’s not a great outcome.” Saralynn Finn

[00:13:00]: “Campaigns need their own little mini theory of change.” Eric Ressler

[00:30:10]: “I see ambition that is unmatched by scale and funding, capacity and funding. I see just playing it real small and just sticking to what’s worked before without imagining how we could adapt.” Saralynn Finn

[00:31:25]: “True supporters aren’t going to hold you to account unless you’re coming out with promises. They just want to see movement. They just want to see positive momentum.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Skoll World Forum — where Eric and Saralynn co-hosted panels and “the hands” breakout session

• Represent Us — organization where Saralynn ran campaigns including the Sia collaboration and end-of-year fundraising

• Saralynn’s LinkedIn article about the AI documentary in Rural America.

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:00:35]: So today we have a very special guest, Saralynn Finn, in the studio in Seymour Studios. I think you are our first non-Jonathan Designing Tomorrow podcast in the studio. Welcome, Saralynn.

Saralynn Finn [00:00:45]: Thank you so much. I’m really happy to be here. It’s a beautiful day in Santa Cruz.

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: It really is. So we have a really exciting topic today. A little background for our listeners. Saralynn and I just got back from Skoll World Forum. Ideas are buzzing. Saralynn co-hosted panels with me and others and came to me with this topic that I instantly gravitated towards. So today we’re going to talk about why feelings don’t drive change. Pretty controversial take, Saralynn. Can you back it up?

Saralynn Finn [00:01:15]: You don’t shy away from these.

Eric Ressler [00:01:20]: So tell me a little bit about yourself and what drove you to this point of view and then we can break it down for our listeners.

Saralynn Finn [00:01:25]: Thank you. My career has spanned a number of different issue areas in mission-driven work. And one of the things that I got the opportunity to do at the forum was to speak on a panel about driving narrative change. The format that we chose as our metaphor for that discussion was the head, the heart, and “the hands” as aspects of driving campaigns. They’re all important, right? A lot of campaigns tend to over-index on the head and the heart and instead we need to focus more on “the hands”, which is action.

Eric Ressler [00:02:00]: Let’s break that down. I love this metaphor, the head, the heart, and “the hands”. And I have ideas around how I think about those different parts and how they relate to comms work and how they relate to brand. But let’s try and break down what are the things that fit into those buckets a little bit. So let’s start maybe with the head. What’s in the head? Are we talking about stats? Are we talking about facts and figures? Is this the logical part? Is that what the head represents?

Saralynn Finn [00:02:25]: Yeah, the head is the logical part. It’s probably your program officer who gives you a 25-page white paper and is like, “Could you put this on our website?”

Eric Ressler [00:02:35]: As a PDF you can download.

Saralynn Finn [00:02:40]: As a PDF. And of course that 25-page impact report or summary of activities is really important. It backs up the work that you’re doing. It demonstrates that this is effective and is the grist of the work, but facts aren’t enough to drive change.

Eric Ressler [00:03:10]: Yeah, right. So the head metaphor here is mostly about information, facts, statistics, even the scientific element of it. Let’s talk about the heart. So the heart is the feeling organ, right? This is where the emotional element comes in. Is this where impact storytelling fits? Tell me about how you think about the heart.

Saralynn Finn [00:03:30]: Absolutely. The heart is the filmmaker who comes to you with an incredible piece of content about your issue area and says, “I think this is aligned and I’d love to do work like this with you to get information out about either the toll of your impact on communities or the opportunity to create the outcomes that we’re all looking for.”

Eric Ressler [00:04:00]: What about the emotional toll? For example, the worst part of this in social impact comms is, “Oh, look at these poor people we have to save,” the poverty porn.

Saralynn Finn [00:04:10]: Yes. Or see turtles with soda can things around their neck.

Eric Ressler [00:04:15]: So when we’re tugging on people’s heartstrings, that’s what we’re talking about here.

Saralynn Finn [00:04:15]: Yes. And there’s many methodologies that we use. Sometimes those are used responsibly, sometimes maybe overused or not used responsibly, but that’s the second bucket. So what are “the hands”?

Saralynn Finn [00:04:30]: “the hands” are giving your audience, whoever your audience might be, and we can get into that more a little later, actual actionable pathways that create impact. So what is actionable? Attainable actions that can then create real impact in the issue area that you have. And so your audience may be broad. It could be asking a whole group of legislative constituents to contact their lawmaker to drive an action, or it could be much smaller. It could be a small group of donors who have the power to make an impact to act.

Eric Ressler [00:05:25]: So what I’m hearing here is that this is where the action actually happens. This is the modality or the methodology that will actually create the change in the world, which so many times does happen through government programs or change, but not always. You mentioned a dinner with 10 donors who might fund a new initiative could be the outcome. So when you did this panel, you shared with me that you did a breakout session afterwards and it broke into these three, and “the hands”, which you led, was by far the most well attended. Why do you think that is?

Saralynn Finn [00:06:00]: I think that it’s the piece of most campaigns that’s missing, that people are trying to break the nut of and figure out: how do I create a pathway? Because this is going to be unique to your organization and its size and its influence. It’s going to be unique to your overall organizational budget, but also to specifically this campaign or this issue area’s budget. And we need the facts, we need the emotion, and those are somewhat written into the fabric of what most social impact organizations are already doing. They understand those pieces because they’re often programmatic. But then it’s the action, and how does the communications team and the communications functions fit into driving the action?

Eric Ressler [00:06:55]: So your point of view at the end of the day is that the head and the heart are known entities and people are mostly doing that, maybe not always well, but they expect that that’s going to be part of a campaign. But “the hands” is where people are falling the most short in the space, generally speaking.

Saralynn Finn [00:07:10]: Yes. And have so many questions and failures, frankly. It was really humbling. I felt really moved and humbled by the fact that people were willing to share their failures. One leader shared that he finally, after six years, figured out that his organization needed to get really clear on his audience so that then he could target them with the action. And he said he spent six years struggling to figure out how to move the needle ultimately.

Eric Ressler [00:07:50]: I hear a lot of orgs say they need to make their communications better. And what does that mean? Communications or marketing, choose your term, but your organization’s ability to have some narrative, create some change, run some campaign, reach the people that you need to reach with your story. And what I’d like to spend a little bit of time talking about, because I think you have a unique vantage point on this. You’ve worked at a number of different orgs in the social impact space and outside of the social impact space, but always in some communications seat. So you have a vantage point that I don’t have in that you’ve been the insider working with agencies or just working with the internal team to try and figure out, okay, leadership wants this, but we have to at some point actually turn that into a campaign, into an action that we’re accountable for.

So give me a glimpse into your vantage point from various organizations and how does that happen on the inside? Give me some stories, give me some examples.

Saralynn Finn [00:09:05]: Well, I think there’s always the evergreen, “We should do some socials about this.”

Eric Ressler [00:09:10]: Yes.

Saralynn Finn [00:09:10]: I think you’ve probably been approached by brands who have had that as the answer to why they’re engaging you, right?

Eric Ressler [00:09:20]: Yeah, all the time. “Oh, we want to just boost our social presence.” Or oftentimes because we do so many identity and branding projects that then of course should inform the social plan, and we find that so much it’s just so reactive. “Oh, this thing’s happening. Make sure that goes out on socials too.” And I’m actually not a huge fan of just super dialed editorial calendar style socials. I think it’s good to have some play and opportunistic approach to social. But if it’s always reactive all the time, there’s no coherent strategy. And again, to your point, there’s no “what’s the point of this even?” Is it awareness? Is it vanity metrics, more followers, more engagement? There’s some value in that inherently, but at the end of the day, for what point, what’s the reason?

Saralynn Finn [00:10:10]: I think back to some of my work at Represent Us. I was brought on to help launch a short film with the pop icon Sia, which was a really exciting opportunity. And the goal for that campaign was to use healthcare and people’s experience with the broken healthcare system in the United States as an entry point to fighting corruption and demanding that we get money out of politics, which I think we can all agree is necessary. But at the time the organization didn’t have a real strong call to action beyond “just join our list.”

And we had a really exciting campaign. We had the organization’s best-performing post in Instagram history up to that point because we did the first collab post with someone who has a lot of followers. Huge platform. I don’t keep numbers in my brain, but I want to say at least 14 million. And it was super exciting. We ended up getting 30K new to list, which I think most organizations would be thrilled about as an outcome. And it was successful. That was a successful campaign in terms of it had an impact in growing the audience, growing awareness. But it wasn’t helping healthcare in America. Not directly. And not at that point.

Eric Ressler [00:11:50]: So we just did an episode a couple episodes back about me making a case for visibility being really important. And I don’t think you’re saying visibility isn’t important here, but are you saying awareness campaigns are just bullshit?

Saralynn Finn [00:12:00]: No, no, no. Awareness campaigns are so important. But once you get awareness, what are you doing with it?

Eric Ressler [00:12:10]: Then what? Awareness and then what?

Saralynn Finn [00:12:10]: Awareness and then what? Okay. So you have half a million followers now. Amazing. What do you want them to do? What did you do with that? Why are they there? Are they there to get angry about a topic? Are they there to get excited about a topic? And then what are they doing with those emotions? So we can’t stop at the ... Once we understand the problem and then we have an emotion about it, we have to use our hands to do something. Otherwise, I think it’s not a great outcome.

Eric Ressler [00:12:45]: I think that’s fair. And I do see this a lot of times when people approach us and they’re like, “Hey, we want to make our comms better or we want to do a campaign about this.” And I’m always like, “Great, let’s hear about it. Tell me about what are the outcomes that you’re hoping for in this campaign?” It’s almost like campaigns need their own little mini theory of change.

Saralynn Finn [00:13:00]: Absolutely.

Eric Ressler [00:13:00]: And I think oftentimes that is very lacking. I’ve been very lucky to work on campaigns and alongside campaigns that have had incredible outcomes where bills have been passed, real social impact has happened. And unfortunately, I’ve also been part of campaigns where we get to do really cool creative and strategic work, even foundational work, but because our focus as an agency is not on running campaigns and the nuts and bolts that really are important, “the hands” work, even sometimes, and I don’t think these are exactly the same, I call it the lever-pulling work. There are levers that have to be pulled and there’s strategy that those levers need to lead to, and all this time, energy, effort, money goes into these campaigns and there was never a clear outcome or goal in the first place. Or the goal is there, it’s very aspirational, but there’s no logical plan to get there.

Saralynn Finn [00:14:00]: Right. There’s no logical plan. And what I see fail in the logical plan often is either the budget is approximately 50% what it should be to reach that goal, and that can be an organic budget. It doesn’t have to be a paid budget. And I am someone who believes in the power of organic social and I’ve seen incredible things happen with absolutely zero ad spend. Or there is a misunderstanding of where the influence actually lies to create that lever to pull.

Eric Ressler [00:14:35]: That part I think is really important. One thing that I’ve noticed is that certain types of orgs are well fit or have the right conditions for the mix of luck and skill and all of that to come together for a campaign to be successful. And some orgs want to do a type of campaign that they’re just not very well suited for. So I’m curious to hear, you’ve been in a number of different situations, number of different types of orgs from very grassroots to grasstops to behind-the-scenes advocacy. Is there a right-sized or right approach campaign for different types of orgs? How do you think about that when you’re consulting or when you’re in house? What are the conditions and the raw ingredients that you’re looking for to put together?

Saralynn Finn [00:15:25]: Oh my gosh, there’s so many options here. And I’m thinking about the 2020 election because at that time I was both running a national social campaign, organic social campaign, to get the word out about the integrity of vote by mail. And I was also working with election officials in local jurisdictions to run their own campaigns and advising them about best practices in reaching voters. So we had really different scales and scopes of those campaigns and really different tactics worked.

At the national level, we worked with coalitions who were engaging celebrities. That wasn’t our role. Our role was to be the nerds and the wonks of, “Yeah, vote by mail has been happening since the 1800s, the Pony Express. This is not a new thing. Trust us. We know how to do this.” And then it was the same message, but with really different messengers at the local level.

Saralynn Finn [00:16:30]: So folks at the local level wanted to see their election official that they had known for a long time. She’d probably been doing that job for 15, 20 years. They wanted her to say, “Folks, come on, I’ve been doing this for a long time. I know how to get your ballot and I know how to count it and everything’s going to be safe.” So I think of that as an example of it’s the same message, but with really different types of narratives around it and different ingredients. We didn’t have a US Postmaster come out and talk about vote by mail. We had some snazzy national 2020 hip graphics. And then for the election officials, it was really important that that person be someone that they recognize from their community, from church, from the grocery store, right out in front and representing that message.

Eric Ressler [00:18:15]: So the messenger specifically matters a lot.

Saralynn Finn [00:18:20]: Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:18:20]: And so when we’re talking about hands here, this is in “the hands” category at some level. What I’m hearing you say is that to take it back to our metaphor at a high level, we’re not saying head and heart don’t matter at all. Those things are actually probably really crucial to get well. But if all you have is a strong head, then all it is is just facts, facts, facts, and facts don’t change minds. They don’t move people. If all you have is emotion, you can get people to feel something, but then they just go back to their everyday lives and no change happens. If you combine both of those things, now they’re informed and emotive and still not doing anything. So “the hands” part really matters.

And I think you mentioned at one point early in our conversation documentary films. This is a proven way to inform and engage people emotionally on a topic, to get them to have empathy for someone who’s not like them or someone who is like them going through something, and to get people to really even be heavily primed to take action. But then so many documentary films end when the curtains close and you go back home and nothing changes.

Saralynn Finn [00:19:25]: Yeah. Or I saw a documentary film in the theaters recently and I wrote a LinkedIn article about it. It ended with a QR code that took you to a website to join a list to eventually take an action.

Eric Ressler [00:19:40]: Have you gotten an action email yet?

Saralynn Finn [00:19:45]: I have gotten an email. There was not action.

Eric Ressler [00:19:45]: Oh no.

Saralynn Finn [00:19:50]: Which we all need to grow our base. We all need to grow our list. But I just see so many times that I want to do something about what is messed up in this world and I love that I get to do that with my job, but I want to do more. My neighbors want to do more, my friends want to do more. And I think climate’s the best example of this. I mean, you’ve worked with some organizations that are really trying to move the needle on climate with their brands. Can you tell me about how you’ve seen that go and are they moving towards action, actionable, impactful action for their audiences?

Eric Ressler [00:20:30]: Well, I would say any systems-level issue, climate being a classic case, this is hard, right? Because change happens in decades or centuries even at times. That’s incremental, and incremental change isn’t sexy. People don’t want to fund it. And with climate specifically, this is starting to change, but it’s this “first of all” looming thing that’s not here yet. That’s the meta narrative around climate. It’s coming, it’s coming. Trust us, it’s coming. But now we’re starting to see, no, it’s here. Natural disasters. The data and the science is not just theoretical and hasn’t been for quite a while. More and more people are feeling the lived negative consequences and impacts of climate change. So maybe that’s going to change things.

And we’re talking right now in the midst, not to make this political, of a major geopolitical event where the world’s oil supply is held up between two regimes. I was actually just talking with someone in the climate space today who’s like, “That sucks.” And there’s a window of opportunity to remind people why renewable energy and clean energy and clean tech is so important. It’s not even just about climate change, it’s also about resiliency and about affordability. And the good news, and it’s unfortunate we had to get here, is that the economics are going to win here and it’s going to happen.

Saralynn Finn [00:22:00]: Quickly.

Eric Ressler [00:22:00]: Quickly. It’s just a shame that it got to this point. And I’m a climate optimist amongst all, and I say that knowing that there’s still a lot of work to do and a lot of people are going to suffer before we’re on the other side of this, whatever that even looks like. To answer your question directly though, yes, I’ve worked on many brands in the climate space and helped them with identity work, with messaging work, with campaign work as well. And I think the thing that can be hard, and I feel this as a major supporter of climate, is what can I as Eric do for climate? I can sign petitions, I can vote blue in California. I can choose who I vote for. So it’s like, what agency do we have? And I think part of the job of a campaign, especially for an issue like climate, is to make people feel like they can do something and it’s going to actually matter. And can we even just start there?

Saralynn Finn [00:23:00]: Yes. I think that’s true for any of these big systemic issues that we’re facing: our crisis in democracy and the fact that our government doesn’t feel representative for most people, healthcare and a myriad of health issues where people feel like their healthcare isn’t really working in their benefit, international development. I would add economic equity, having opportunity be equally available to people. So do we think there are actions people can take? I mean, I’ve designed some pathways that feel important. You’ve probably been a part of being a thought partner on some pathways that feel important.

Eric Ressler [00:23:50]: Yeah. I mean, I’d say sometimes, and I’m speaking now from the vantage point of a creative partner, not an individual. Because I actually feel the way that I contribute back most to the world is through my clients. I’m very grateful to be able to say that and do that. I don’t do as much individual action and activism. I do a little bit, but not as much as I would if I didn’t already work in this space. The times that I’ve felt our work has made the biggest difference on an issue is when a bill has been passed or a meaningful bill has even been co-sponsored or introduced when we’re talking about politics. But also even when fundraising is more successful is huge, because most of the clients we work with are not funded at the cost that they need to be to truly make a difference.

Saralynn Finn [00:24:40]: Absolutely.

Eric Ressler [00:24:40]: And so for me, a lot of our work is focused on identity and clarity and strategy and these really fundamental upstream things that make comms better, make fundraising better. But often the outcomes that I’m looking for, and this is just one way of thinking about hands work and making change, is my clients can afford a comms person for the first time, or their comms team of one, which is a bit of a fallacy we can get into, is now a team of three, or their annual budget is up 30% that year instead of 10% and they’ve been stuck. Those are leading signs of success for me. And does that directly create change? Not in that moment, but I know that it is creating a ripple effect of change. So those are the things. It’s a weird way of answering the question, but that’s how I think about it.

Saralynn Finn [00:25:30]: Okay. So your answers made me realize a pattern in my work, that the campaigns that have been, I think, the most effective in “the hands” and the calls to action have been extraordinarily timely. So the vote by mail campaign during the 2020 election had a very finite end date of success, of whether or not people felt safe to vote by mail, that their vote was going to be counted and all of that.

And then when I worked with Represent Us, I also did an end-of-year fundraising campaign, and that was a really exciting thing to be a part of because democracy was not being well funded leading up to 2024, and I got to be a part of making sure that the organization had the reserves that it needed to do the coalition work that it had set up to do. And so we ended up 5Xing year-over-year revenue from that campaign, which was really exciting. And we did it in a few ways. It was a really broad integrated campaign. We tried things that failed.

Eric Ressler [00:26:50]: As you should.

Saralynn Finn [00:26:50]: Facebook fundraisers were not happening at that time for this topic with our audience. It was our first go. But the SMS campaign was wildly successful. It reengaged a crazy amount of lapsed supporters, I think around 11,000, became people who opened our emails and texts and obviously had a big impact on the fundraising revenue. We also did holiday cards, which was so much fun. It was a thank you for your support this year. It was to some high-touch folks and we divided the labor amongst all of the staff, which was really fun that everyone got the opportunity to participate in thanking the donors for their contribution.

And then we did a really snazzy impact reel for what we had accomplished that year. And then another reel. I had been building up the content for this for quite a while. We did a reel about what was giving democracy leaders all over the country hope for the future.

Eric Ressler [00:28:10]: Love that.

Saralynn Finn [00:28:10]: And wrapped that up into what the 2024 goals were, with the ask implicit in that: we need your help to accomplish these goals and to fuel this hope, right? Because we know that hope is not a strategy.

Eric Ressler [00:28:30]: But it can be part of one. And should be.

Saralynn Finn [00:28:30]: It can be part of one.

Eric Ressler [00:28:30]: Okay. So a couple threads I want to pick up on there. I want to try and wrap this up for our listeners and give them some good takeaways who are like, “Okay, I’m convinced Eric and Saralynn, I need to pay attention to “the hands” in my campaigns, but aren’t I already doing that? I’m asking people to donate all the time. Isn’t that a hand movement?”

What are your thoughts around what, and this is obviously going to be really context dependent, if you’re an advocacy-based org, you have a whole set of motions that make sense that don’t make sense if you’re not an advocacy-based org. But I’m wondering if we can maybe spend a little bit of time trying to clarify, if someone’s walking away from our episode and saying, “Okay, I understand that all these parts are important, but what do I need to do to make “the hands” work better?”

Let’s break that down a little bit. Maybe let me start with one and have you confirm or deny it. I think we need to be thinking about this in a reverse engineering or reverse design motion. What I mean by that is, let’s define success for this campaign. What is the desired state? This campaign would be successful if ... And let’s write a page out and start big picture and even throw away constraints for a second, and we can rein them in. Is that a good approach? Does that make sense for you?

Saralynn Finn [00:29:45]: Yes, absolutely. Reverse engineer. And reverse engineering for your audience is a really great idea. Here is the future that is possible with your action.

Eric Ressler [00:30:00]: Yes. So it’s very visioning.

Saralynn Finn [00:30:00]: Right.

Eric Ressler [00:30:00]: There’s a shortage of vision in this space.

Saralynn Finn [00:30:00]: There is. And a belief that it is possible to attain our vision. I see both things. I see ambition that is unmatched by scale and funding, capacity and funding. I see just playing it real small and just sticking to what’s worked before without imagining, well, how could we adapt this now? What’s this message that this moment and this audience wants to hear, and what’s possible when we give them an action?

Eric Ressler [00:30:45]: Let’s talk about the imagination part just for a minute because I think it’s really important. What you said about ambition not being matched with action I think is true and a real problem. And I think it really comes down to, it’s almost the Boy Who Cried Wolf story at the end of the day. You keep saying we can do this and we keep trying things, but I don’t see any evidence that anything’s actually happening. Maybe that’s just bad comms. Things are actually happening, no one knows about it. But sometimes things aren’t actually happening. So we have to be real about that.

At the same time, I would encourage people to think big, to have a bold vision. And I think that true supporters aren’t going to hold you to account on, unless you’re coming out with promises. They just want to see movement. They just want to see positive momentum. If you can have, in my opinion, a strong, ambitious, magnetic vision that makes people feel like they can do something and there’s some proof that you’re getting there, I think that’s enough.

Saralynn Finn [00:31:45]: And this is the place where you and I really agree, that there is a lack of transparency. There is a hesitancy to share information that doesn’t feel important enough or isn’t verifiable enough. There’s so many reasons that organizations decide to delay or ultimately not communicate things that are real opportunities to help their constituents, their audience, to feel invested and supported by your organization. “My dreams and values and goals are being supported. And I see that in these little updates that I get.” Instead, we sanitize a lot of the facts, a lot of the stories out of our communications. So I think that it just goes back to being really specific about what is happening.

Eric Ressler [00:32:45]: I would say one other thing to leave listeners with before we wrap up, and we’ve talked about this before on the show, but it’s worth repeating. I look at this work as almost science in the sense that we do need to experiment. We need to have a hypothesis. Let’s start there. And I think what’s hard about this work and why it’s so important to have seasoned comms people on your team is it’s hard to know when to end experiments, because you might start an experiment in good faith and then set an arbitrary “we’re going to review in three months” and kill something that in month four was just primed for takeoff.

Saralynn Finn [00:33:20]: Yes.

Eric Ressler [00:33:20]: Maybe a good takeaway is think about it like experiments. Work with seasoned comms people, either in-house when you can and/or as consultants who can help you figure out how do you run experiments. What experiments do you run? What’s the budget look like? How much is organic versus paid? All those fundamental handsy questions. But that you do need to try and that there is no playbook that you can just copy and paste, right?

Saralynn Finn [00:33:50]: If only there were. It’s also context and audience specific. So I’m not saying that this is an easy nut to crack. Obviously that’s why that aspect of the panel was so well attended, because so many people are struggling with this. And my message would be to vision with all of your leaders and don’t ask comms to create this on their own, but to collaborate on how people can take action.

Eric Ressler [00:34:20]: Huge point as we wrap up. This should not be a comms-only job to determine what “the hands” or the actions are. It needs to bubble up all the way to deep strategic planning.

Saralynn Finn [00:34:35]: And comms needs to have a seat at that table in a meaningful way, which I see so often. I’ve been handed a campaign with outcomes that are maybe not tying back to what our mission is.

Eric Ressler [00:34:50]: Having goals is great, but not if they’re the wrong goals or unattainable. So you have to be realistic about this. Well, Saralynn, we could go on forever about this. I’m sure we will have you back on the pod at some time to dig into all things comms and brand and social impact. But this has been a pleasure. Thank you for joining me today.

Saralynn Finn [00:35:05]: Thank you, Eric. It was great.

Subscribe now

Most social impact leaders got into this work because they care deeply about the mission, not because they wanted to be public figures with opinions. But that instinct to stay quiet and let the work speak for itself may be doing more harm than good.

Developing and sharing a strong point of view isn’t a nice-to-have; it’s a moral obligation for leaders in this space. And there’s a concept at the center of this episode that puts a name to a problem most organizations feel but can’t articulate: the “identity impact gap,” the distance between who an organization truly is and how it’s perceived by the people it needs to reach. The bigger that gap, the bigger every downstream problem becomes.

• But is the gap always a bad thing?

• Can it sometimes be a useful pull, especially during moments of transformation?

• And does the real work start at the personal level, not the organizational one?

Subscribe now

What emerges is a conversation about why the leaders who get remembered aren’t necessarily the ones with the most compelling cause areas. They’re the ones who’ve done the deep, sometimes uncomfortable work of figuring out what they actually believe and then said it out loud.

Eric and Jonathan explore what separates a genuine point of view from a manufactured one, why time in the trenches matters, and why conflicting perspectives within the sector are a feature, not a bug.

The episode also doubles as a live demonstration: Eric road-tests his own evolving point of view in real time, with Jonathan playing both collaborator and devil’s advocate. It’s a rare look at the messy middle of idea development, and a challenge to every leader who’s been sitting on observations they haven’t yet turned into convictions.

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:00] The hesitancy Eric keeps seeing in leaders who won’t go public with their thinking

[00:02:00] Jonathan’s honest reaction: “Am I the right leader for my organization?”

[00:04:00] Defining “point of view” as a pattern of lived experience, not expertise

[00:08:00] Eric’s origin story: from attention economy manifesto to a new framework

[00:10:30] Introducing the identity impact gap

[00:12:00] Jonathan pushes back: can the gap sometimes be useful?

[00:15:00] The fitness metaphor: faking it till you make it and identity shifts

[00:18:00] Why therapy made Jonathan a better leader (and what that has to do with point of view)

[00:20:30] The Skull World Forum test: who stuck and who didn’t

[00:24:00] Devil’s advocate: what about pure open-mindedness as a leadership philosophy?

[00:26:30] Shoutout to Kevin L. Brown and the “findable and fundable” framework

[00:28:00] Why conflicting points of view are healthy for the sector

Notable Quotes:

[00:01:35]: “It’s a moral obligation to be transparent and communicative about not only the work that we’re doing, but what we’re learning about the work that we’re doing and having a point of view about the work that we’re doing.” Eric Ressler

[00:04:20]: “There may be a fear that if I put my point of view out there too strongly, maybe one of my collaborators isn’t going to agree and that’s going to threaten the relationship.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:11:05]: “The bigger the difference between who you actually are and how you are perceived by the people that you care about reaching, the bigger all of your problems are going to be.” Eric Ressler

[00:21:25]: “I’ve always loved just being with people who were passionate about something and it didn’t matter what they were passionate about.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:29:35]: “People need to do research, they need to develop hypotheses, they need to publish those, not just think about them in their brains. I would like to see a lot more people doing that.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center — Jonathan Hicken’s organization at UC Santa Cruz

• Kevin L. Brown — Mighty Ally

• Glen Galaich — Stupski Foundation

• Kevin Starr — Mulago Foundation

• Skull World Forum

• Strategy Tier ranking episode - “Most of Your Brand Strategy is a Waste of Time”

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Eric Ressler [00:00:00]: It’s a moral obligation to be transparent and communicative about not only the work that we’re doing, but what we’re learning about the work that we’re doing and having a point of view about the work that we’re doing.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:15]: One of my core beliefs is that science centers, museums, aquarium zoos, these public spaces have an obligation to be more than passive places for learning and need to be proactive players in solving real problems in their community.

Eric Ressler [00:00:35]: Okay, Jonathan, I am so excited for our episode today, partly because I’m a little bit nervous and partly because I want to hear your thoughts about it. I’ve been spinning my brain around something that’s been coming up for me and it’s showing up in a few different ways. One is that in working with clients, something that I’ve noticed sometimes, and I’ve noticed this over the years and it’s something that’s coming up more and more and it’s starting to irk me. And what it is is that sometimes we work with leaders and founders who have this hesitancy to feel like their voice should be heard in the work that they do. It’s somewhat related to this, I just want to hunker down and do good work. I don’t want to be public. I don’t want to share what we’re doing.

I just want to do the good work. And it’s like, that’s good enough. I just don’t buy that anymore, man. I just don’t buy it anymore. I don’t think it’s right. And I think we in this space have, I’ll even make a point that it’s a moral obligation to be transparent and communicative about not only the work that we’re doing, but what we’re learning about the work that we’re doing. And this is the focus of our episode today, having a point of view about the work that we’re doing. What’s that unlock for you when I say it that way? I just want to hear, what’s your initial response?

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:55]: I mean, I’m like, am I the right leader for my organization? Because sometimes I feel that. I feel that is my voice really and my point of view really worth putting out into the world.

Eric Ressler [00:02:10]: So here’s what I would say. I don’t want this to come across as a judgmental thing. And the other thing I’ll say is let’s define point of view in a second, but I think that sounds a little bit scary. And even this is, I come into this episode saying, “I’m a little bit nervous.” And the reason I’m nervous is because I’m going to put out a new point of view right now today. And that scariness, that fear, to me, that’s a signal that you’re onto something because if it’s not a little scary to say something, it’s probably kind of boring.

So here’s what I would say. I’m going to make a case for this. I’m going to make a case that if you are a leader, especially at a social impact organization, if you’re an executive director, but really if you’re anywhere in the leadership team after a certain amount of time, if you’ve been doing this work and you’re doing it in good faith and you’re doing it fully, you should start to develop a point of view about how the work should be done and you should be willing to share that and you should be willing to be wrong and you should be willing to listen to the community about how you’re wrong because that is going to make you better as a leader and it’s going to make your organization more effective.

And I think sometimes what I hear from clients that I work with or people that we’re talking to is like, “Well, why would anyone care what I have to say about this thing?” Or, “I’m not an expert at this thing.” And here’s an important distinction in my mind. You don’t have to be an expert to have a point of view. Now, should we listen to experts? Yes, I believe strongly that we should. At the same time, if you do this work in any way for any amount of time, you do have a unique vantage point. You have a series of lived experiences that over time you can start to see some patterns.

You start to see things happen over and over again. Oh, when we do this, this happens. Oh, we noticed that these people have these problems in this space. So these are things that I’m sure you have some lived experiences doing this work, let’s just even say at the Seymour Center over the last few years. What are some of the things that come to mind for you about what you’ve noticed in being an executive director?

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:10]: Some things are coming to mind. I’m going to put them on the table and then I want to understand if it fits within your definition of point of view.

Eric Ressler [00:04:15]: Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:15]: I probably would’ve used the word core belief here. But for example, I would say one of my core beliefs is that science centers, museums, aquariums, zoos, these public spaces have an obligation to be more than passive places for learning and need to be proactive players in solving real problems in their community. That’s one. The other is that I believe that spaces like ours, physical spaces, have power and that there’s energy. And maybe this is woo-woo, but I even think of an extreme example, like the Roman Coliseum or a modern sports stadium. You go in and you feel something, right? You feel energy in there and I believe spaces have power. Two of my beliefs are, we have an obligation to be proactive players and we should use our spaces to solve those problems.

Eric Ressler [00:05:10]: Perfect. Both of those, in my opinion, are good examples of strong points of view. Now let’s get into the definition a little bit. I’m not going to give you a textbook definition. I don’t have one. But to me it’s like if you have a point of view in the simplest version of this, and this is I think where our listeners should start, because I think at this point our listeners are probably like, “Wait, do I have one of these things?” And in prepping for this episode and as I’ve been thinking about this, I always think about, “Wait, am I doing this thing that I’m saying our leaders should be doing?”

And I’ll share that in a second. But the way that I think about this is at the most basic version of this, your point of view is a pattern of lived experiences that you’ve observed. They could start at their base level as observations even. And your observations are going to be unique to your position in your social impact ecosystem that can build and build and build to beliefs and opinions. To me, I think the pinnacle keystone that you should be working towards is an overarching point of view that all your other beliefs and points of views can branch off from.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:15]: The grand unifying theory.

Eric Ressler [00:06:20]: The unifying theory. Yes, exactly. And that’s what I’ve been working towards and what I’m going to share with you. So let’s not get hung up on specific semantics. It’s just at some level it’s the observations, the beliefs, the opinions and the theory of how this work should be done based on your lived experiences.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:35]: We did an episode recently called Strategy Tier Rankings and we broke down theory of change and tagline and mission and vision, all these things. I think what I’m hearing you say is that the difference between point of view and all of those things we went over in that episode is that point of view is a very individual thing. It is not necessarily a reflection of the organization. It is me, the individual and my life experience being at least part of the equation of what my organization is doing. Is that fair?

Eric Ressler [00:07:10]: I think that’s fair. I do think the origin story of a point of view is from individuals and they’re not even only leaders, but individuals within the organization. I think probably the closest thing to an organizational point of view would be a theory of change, although those are often a little bit too dry for it to truly be a point of view. However, what I would say is that the point of view from especially a leader at an organization or a series of leaders should have major influence in how you do your work.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:40]: Okay. Got it. All right. Then let’s move on and start hearing about, are you ready to peel back the curtain here?

Eric Ressler [00:07:50]: Sure. So I’ll share in an effort to just be candid about where I’m at with this. This is something that I’ve believed in for a long time and I’ve been developing individual observations and lived experience doing this work over 16 years. So I have points of view about brand, points of view about how to build websites and what technology we should use, points of view about communication, points of view about how the social impact space at large should work. So I’ve had this collection of evolving points of view.

And I think it was 2022, I could be wrong, I sat down and I wrote a manifesto. And at that point my entire framing of this work was through a concept called the attention economy. And at the time, that was something that people didn’t really talk about a lot. And I feel like it’s become much more common and almost a household term that as there’s more and more forces vying for our attention, you have to get better and better about playing within that attention economy. And my thesis at the time was basically social impact organizations need to A, understand this attention economy that we’re playing in. It’s a paradigm shift in how we communicate through digital channels and we need to get really good at playing in that ecosystem and probably think and act more like digital media companies than the traditional charity or nonprofit. That was the stake in the ground that I released in 2022-ish.

And for a long time, that was very central to how I thought about this work. I still think that the attention economy is real, but I think it’s shifting and I think that everyone is playing in that attention economy and the sector at large has gotten better about realizing that. And I think we’re in a moment right now where there’s another major paradigm shift happening from not just a technology standpoint, but a saturation standpoint where pumping out more and more content and just becoming visible isn’t enough.

And now we’re in this moment where we hear words like authenticity and we hear words like vibe. And I started to think about that and as my brain was racking on this, I was like, what is upstream of all of that? What is upstream of authenticity? What does it even mean to be authentic? Is it about founder-led brands? Is it about influencers? Is it about being on TikTok?

And what I came to, and the aha moment that I’m about to reveal here is a little bit funny coming from a brand standpoint. To me, everything really at its core comes down to identity. And what I mean by identity is deeply truly knowing who you are as an individual and as an organization, deeply truly knowing who you are becoming as an organization and living in alignment with that.

And what that led to, and hey, I’m road testing this here, just to be candid, I have this concept that I’m developing that I’m calling the identity impact gap. And what that gap is is that the bigger the differences between who you actually are, whether you know it or not, and how you present yourself and more importantly, how you are perceived by the people that you care about reaching, the bigger that gap is, the bigger all of your problems are going to be. And the smaller that gap is, the better you’re going to be at fundraising, the better you’re going to be at retaining and attracting staff, the better that you’re going to be at knowing what your strategy should be.

So to me, there’s this identity impact gap that is this unnamed, unknown problem that maybe you feel but you haven’t named. And my mission right now is to figure out how to help organizations get really clear about this actual true state of that gap and to close it as much as we can.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:50]: That’s awesome. Okay. So the identity impact gap, I love it. It’s really easy to understand. And I wonder if that identity impact gap is sometimes necessary and helpful. And I think about moments of transformation for an organization, moments where you’re pivoting, moments where you are becoming something else and part of becoming that thing is stepping into and living that identity before you’re really actually there. And so I wonder if applying the identity impact gap thinking is largely contextual. Are you an established scaled organization? Are you small and scrappy? Are you undergoing a transformation? But I wonder if sometimes that gap is actually a helpful pull.

Eric Ressler [00:12:50]: I love this dialogue. Thank you. I think I hear what you’re saying and I agree. And I think maybe to break this down a little bit further, there’s actually different levels of identity, right? There’s core, core, core identity. These are the things that will never change about you. To take me as an example, creativity is core to my identity. I don’t think I could not be creative if I tried really hard in an identity level. I can certainly have days where I’m not creative or productive, but I couldn’t stop being that even if I tried. It’s in my DNA or something.

And I think that’s true also at some level for organizations too and for leaders at organizations. So there’s these durable elements of identity and then there are these more transferable, fluid elements of identity and probably even more so how your identity is expressed or explored.

And so yes, I do think there are moments where you have to stretch, where you have to not abandon your true identity but become something new as an organization and step into a new identity. And I think that happens at the personal level too in major moments of life, like becoming a parent. Both of us in becoming parents stepped into a major identity shift and yet there are parts of your identity that you’ve never lost in that transition that are core to you and your being. So I think that’s a good metaphor to think about when we use the word identity, what are we talking about?

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:25]: And actually the point I brought up a moment ago about that gap being helpful sometimes, it’s interesting. My mind went immediately to organizational identity and not individual identity and you brought it back to individual again. And so I think we’re teasing out something important about your point of view here.

This really is an individual exercise and yet my point still applies because I’m thinking about my fitness journey and I convinced myself that I was a CrossFitter before I was a CrossFitter and I lived it and I did it. And now today I actually do identify that way. Health and fitness is core now. There was a moment where I had to fake it till I made it. So there is this moment of stretch.

Eric Ressler [00:16:15]: Yeah, I love that and I think it’s true and I don’t think that the gap is necessarily a problem as long as you acknowledge that it’s a transition. Where the gap becomes a problem is really largely a perception gap and I think that’s an important point to make in my point of view here is if you have an identity about who you are or who you are becoming, it’s one thing for the gap in terms of growth. There’s a growth gap there of who we are and who we want to be that is part of identity. But the one that I’m pointing to is actually more a perception gap. Either an internal knowing if you are something and you think you’re something else, that’s a big problem, or you’re not clear about who you are, that’s a big problem. So those are versions of that perception gap.

But even more so I’m talking about a gap between who you do know you are once you get clear on that and who people think you are or just don’t understand who you are. This shows up in a couple different ways. “Oh, there’s this org. They’re in this space that I don’t really know what they do.” Or, “I thought that org did that thing, but it turns out they do something else.” Or, “I just don’t really understand how they make an impact.” Or a common one that we’ll hear is, “I thought you only did work in this area.” So some of it might even just be lack of awareness, but I think that almost always stems from an identity problem or a perception problem and that could be because messaging is weak, it can be because of visibility or awareness is weak, but upstream of all of that, in my opinion, is identity.

Jonathan Hicken [00:78:45]: Okay. And I actually think that last bit when you brought it to organizational identity and external perception at the organizational level, that was actually less compelling to me than this very individual focus that to me I think is super powerful because it brings me actually to, I see a therapist and I’m doing a lot of this foundational work and not even realizing it, that work I’m doing in that environment is strengthening who I am as a leader. I didn’t go to therapy for work, but it is playing out because in large part I am becoming more in touch with who I am and my identity and what matters to me and that is helping me show up better. And so I almost feel like the call to action here is, leaders need to do that work.

Eric Ressler [00:18:40]: Yes. They need to do the deep identity work individually and that could be personal and/or professional and organizationally.

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:50]: You need to be conscious about applying that to work. But for me, the thing that’s resonating most from your point of view is there is actually deep personal work that you need to do to uncover and unearth that point of view that you have.

Eric Ressler [00:19:05]: Yes. And like therapy, it can be really hard to do on your own. And I think that’s honestly one of the major unexpected values that people get when they work with us, that they think they’re getting a visual aesthetic brand or a website overhaul or a campaign, but because of this belief that I’ve had trouble articulating, and if you actually look back at the last eight Designing Tomorrow Jonathan and Eric episodes, I’ve been building this subconsciously towards this point, poking, exploring.

And I want to bring it back to the point of view. I’ve been teasing out these points of views and again, publishing them, articulating them, not just spinning on them in my brain, being exposed to pushback. And I’ve had some. Being exposed, especially on some of our strategy episodes. “What do you mean, strategy is conviction?” Hey, fair point. I still believe it. And so to bring it back to our listeners, I’ve shared my point of view.

I’m happy to keep going on it and thank you for the feedback on it. Point of view is an active thing that you develop that you should be working towards. And there is a point in time where it gets a little long in the tooth.

I want to share one more thing. So I just got back this week from Skull World Forum. I had an amazing time, amazing opportunity to meet some of the most awesome human beings in the world doing incredible impact work. But you know what stood out to me out of everyone that I met? The ones who had a strong point of view are the ones that stuck into my brain. And it almost didn’t matter how much personal interest I had in their ecosystem or impact area or their issue. And there were some people that I met who I cared a lot about their issue, but I don’t really remember how they did their work because their point of view was a little bit weaker. And there’s some people who I met with who had really strong points of view on things that I didn’t have a lot of exposure or interest in that nonetheless still stuck with me.

So developing a strong point of view is a really durable asset and it has really big downstream impacts on how sticky your work is going to be.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:20]: Two things. One, what you just described to me is almost like an idea of magnetism and I’ve always, even in my personal life, I’ve always loved just being with people who were passionate about something and it didn’t matter what they were passionate about. I have a friend who’s really into knives and he’ll sit there and tell me about sharpening knives for two hours and I love it because the dude is just so into it and it’s magnetic and I want to be around him and I want to be a part of it. And every time I look at my knife rack now, I think of my friend.

And I think part of what you’re describing, even your experience at the Skull World Forum, is the people who are sticking with you, there’s a magnetism there. And part of that comes from that point of view, this passion and this clear sense of self and this clear position and purpose in the world.

Eric Ressler [00:22:15]: I think I agree. And I think what it comes from is in order to have a strong differentiated point of view, it’s almost required that you do deep work for a long time. Otherwise, you could try and do a shortcut and just speed run a point of view. It’s probably almost never going to work.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:40]: Something that’s been rolling in the back of my head that I wasn’t sure I was going to bring up was this: I wonder if part of what we’re saying is unintentionally saying younger leaders are less positioned to have a strong point of view simply by their lifespan.

Eric Ressler [00:23:00]: I think that’s true. You think about the 10,000 hour rule to become a true master of any craft, you have to put in 10,000 practiced hours to get there. I think there’s some corollary with point of view. In order to develop a strong and differentiated one that is actually rooted in truth, you have to do deep work for a long time. You have to test and tease and see what works and experiment and tinker and to develop something truly unique that no one else has that exact same point of view, it’s really hard.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:30]: Time is a factor in this, in the development of this.

Eric Ressler [00:23:35]: Yeah. Time and hours in the trenches at some level and deep thinking and reflection too.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:40]: Okay, just to help tease out this concept some more, I want to put on the full devil’s advocate for a second.

Eric Ressler [00:23:50]: Yeah, do it, please.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:50]: Where I’m like, okay, what is the antithesis of a strong point of view and what would be the benefit of having that? So the opposite that comes to mind for me would be one of pure open-mindedness, pure receptiveness to the world, to the community, to your constituents and channeling what it is that you’re hearing rather than having that singular flag in the sand. So for someone, and I know leaders like this, and I think that there’s virtue in that and I think that there’s power in that. What would you say to somebody who’s like, “Wait a second, Eric, my core belief is it’s not my voice. It’s everybody else’s voice.”

Eric Ressler [00:24:40]: That’s a point of view, right? You can’t escape it. And how did you get to that point? You’ve done the deep work. I’d say that slightly in jest, but I actually really struggle with this. I have the kind of brain that is a little bit unsure of my ideas and constantly rethinking, overthinking, what’s the other side think? Honestly, sometimes I think to a fault where it’s just like, “Dude, form an opinion and stick with it.”

And I’ve actually been working on this, not just because I think it’s smart to do that, but because I think it comes from a place of lack of self-confidence. There’s always a balance there. If you take it too far, you’re just the confident person that has no self-reflection or thought or can’t possibly entertain other ideas. The pinnacle of this is literal narcissism, not what I’m suggesting.

So I don’t think those two things are actually as in tension as you’re presenting them. And what I mean by that is you can have a really strong point of view and be open to other people’s points of view. It’s not about a zero sum game where you either win or lose, but I do think that it’s good to develop it or to have that be a goal that you’re working towards even if you’re not there.

And I’m feeling pretty good about where I’m landing trying to create this overarching point of view and my test for it is: is this in resonance with what I truly believe in the work that I do and what I’ve learned doing this work? And I can check that box, no problem. Is it differentiated? I think so. Are there other people that probably believe that too? Yes, who are in my space and maybe even direct competitors to me. Are they articulating it in that way? Not quite. And they’ve developed their own point of view in how they do that.

So straight up inspiration for me on this that is in my space who I’ll shout out is Kevin L. Brown, who is the founder of Mighty Ally. We’re not exactly the same. I actually saw Kevin and met him in person at Skull World, which is awesome. And he knew who I was. And he has a really strong and well-articulated point of view, which is that in order to be a successful organization in the social impact space, you need to be findable and you need to be fundable. That’s his rallying cry. And he has a whole system built around that. And I also agree with that. I’m in complete agreement with him, but I didn’t articulate it that way. So some of this comes down to articulation.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:10]: And those things are complimentary and there’s a lot of overlap and so these things can complement each other and there might be some people in the universe that resonate more with Findable and Fundable as a framework and there are others who are going to resonate more with the identity impact gap, and both of those can exist.

Eric Ressler [00:27:30]: And I’ll take it a step further. I think it’s good to have conflicting points of view. I’ll shout one out that came up recently for me, two people who I follow and respect a lot, Glen Galich of the Stepski Foundation and Kevin Starr who runs Mulago. Both very outspoken, convicted, strong points of view. And Glen recently wrote a book called Control. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I do follow Glen and his org in general and Kevin actually wrote a little bit of a counterpoint of view. He had some criticisms. He challenged it. And what’s really cool is Kevin’s going to go on Glen’s podcast called Break Fake Rules and they’re going to talk about it.

I think that’s healthy. I think that’s healthy in this space, especially if it’s done in good faith, if it’s done because we care about these issues and we want to come up with the best solutions or multiple good solutions to these problems. So I think we have to get over the, oh, we all have to live in harmony. Strong, differentiated, even conflicting points of view. I want as many good ideas about how to solve these issues as possible and I don’t think that there’s any one right answer to them. So I really appreciate when leaders come out and say, “Hey, this is the work that we do and here’s how we think we should do it and here’s why we think this is best,” and be willing to be challenged on those points.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:55]: I think that’s really important because in the space we often want to collaborate and for good reason. And I think there may be a fear that, “Hey, if I put my point of view out there too strongly, maybe one of my collaborators isn’t going to agree and that’s going to threaten the relationship.” And fair, but also maybe this, you have called on our sector to change and to grow and to get better. And maybe this is one of the ways we need to do that.

Eric Ressler [00:29:20]: I think this is a really important way we do that because we need to learn from each other. This should be approached to some degree like science, right? And take it back to the work that you do. One of the beautiful things about science is people need to do research, they need to develop hypotheses, they need to publish those, not just think about them in their brains. I would like to see a lot more people doing that. And this is why to take it back to the top, it irks me when people say, “I don’t have a point of view on that.” And my answer to you is, “Well, you should have one then.”

Jonathan Hicken [00:29:50]: Or you do and you haven’t done the work to articulate it yet.

Eric Ressler [00:29:55]: And I don’t think that means that you need to have an opinion about everything that happens in the world, even in your space. And I do think it’s worth it to have some humility and be like, look, I’m not an expert on this topic. And sometimes the right choice for me is to just say nothing about it. I do that all the time. But there’s something that you should have a point of view on. I believe if you run a social impact organization, especially at the leadership level, you should either have or should be actively developing a strong and differentiated point of view on the work that you do.

Jonathan Hicken [00:30:25]: Here, here, man, preach. I’m really glad that you’re a voice in the space because I think I personally am feeling motivated by this call.

Eric Ressler [00:30:35]: And I mean, hey, even reflecting, that is a meta point of view. One of my points of view is you should have one. So yeah, I think hopefully this is at least a good thought experiment for people to be like, “Hey, what are the elements?” Even start at the base level. What have I observed doing this work? What are the patterns that I see? What are some of the opinions that I’m maybe starting to form about doing that work? And start to think about how might I package that all up into some overarching point of view, even if you don’t publish it out there as a manifesto or a podcast. I think it’s an important thing to be keeping in mind.

Jonathan Hicken [00:31:10]: Cool. Well, dude, thank you for bearing it all today and working through it chicken dinner style.

Eric Ressler [00:31:15]: Yeah, this is fun, man. Thank you.

Jonathan Hicken [00:31:15]: Thanks, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:31:20]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

There’s an unspoken rule that governs how the social impact sector operates. We don’t lie. We don’t manipulate and we follow the science. We tell the truth. We play fair and it’s a good rule. It’s the right rule, but it’s also increasingly a losing one because the industries we’re up against figured out a long time ago that they don’t have to win the argument.

They just have to muddy it. If they manufacture enough doubt, if they fund enough counter research, if they sponsor enough music festivals, then the truth just becomes one option on a menu of multiple options. And meanwhile, our side hedges and qualifies and we refuse to overclaim. We bring evidence to a fight that isn’t really about evidence anymore.

So here’s the question. How do we win without losing our integrity? And can a values-led sector beat opponents who have no values to slow them down?

To explore what that looks like in practice, I wanted to talk with someone who has spent her entire career inside this exact tension. My guest today is Joelle Lester, executive director of the Public Health Law Center. For 25 years, her organization has studied how the tobacco industry manufactures doubt. And what they learned is that that same playbook is used to hold back progress on climate and on food and beyond.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:02:00] The “Cooking with Smoke” report and why gas stoves share more with cigarettes than most people realize

[00:04:00] Merchants of doubt: how the tobacco industry wrote the playbook for manufacturing scientific uncertainty

[00:07:00] What happens when government shifts from public health partner to public health barrier

[00:09:00] Why philanthropy needs to step up right now, and which foundations are leading

[00:11:00] Staying grounded in values during sustained attacks on equity and inclusion work

[00:15:00] The strategic calculus of when to resist publicly versus when to go underground

[00:24:00] Funded research designed to look independent, and why scientists with integrity are at a structural disadvantage

[00:29:30] Celebrity chefs, slick cartoons, and the gas industry’s marketing campaign for your kitchen

[00:33:00] “Cultural engineering” — Alessandra Orofino: why culture is always upstream of public policy, and why the social impact sector is terrible at it

[00:36:00] The ethical dilemma of fighting manipulation without becoming manipulative

[00:40:30] Why public health groups need to get better at storytelling and soundbites

[00:42:00] What keeps Joelle going: live music, meaningful work, and raising teenagers who believe good people are doing good work

Notable Quotes:

[00:05:00]: “The art of it is that they don’t try to disprove it. They just try to raise doubt in people’s minds about how believable the science is.” Joelle Lester

[00:20:05]: “If we’re really, really effective, people don’t experience anything bad. So if you’re doing your job, people don’t think about you and they don’t really understand and it’s kind of invisible.” Joelle Lester

[00:24:40]: “Scientists have integrity about how they talk about their work and they will only say what they can demonstrate. And then on the other side, you have people without integrity who are making much bigger claims than any research supports.” Joelle Lester

[00:37:10]: “If we change the culture, it’s upstream of policy and that it builds political will and exposure to elected officials to have to act in the interest of the greater good and the public will.” Eric Ressler

[00:41:05]: “Having all the evidence and having the legal authority and being right is not getting us where we need to go. We need to be able to communicate with folks in communities in a way that resonates with them.” Joelle Lester

[00:43:05]: “Even when it’s hard, I know I’m on the right team.” Joelle Lester

Resources & Links:

• Public Health Law Center — Joelle Lester’s organization, a nonprofit affiliate of Mitchell Hamline School of Law providing legal technical assistance for public health policy change

• Cooking with Smoke: How the Gas Industry Used Tobacco Tactics to Cover Up Harms from Gas Stoves — The Public Health Law Center report discussed at the top of the episode (and Video)

• Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway — The book (and 2014 documentary film) on how a small group of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco to climate change

• The McKnight Foundation — Minnesota-based family foundation mentioned by Joelle as an example of philanthropy stepping up in this moment

• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — National health philanthropy highlighted as a funder that has evolved its approach to meet the current crisis

• African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council — Black-led organization leading advocacy against menthol cigarettes and predatory tobacco marketing

• Center for Black Health & Equity — National nonprofit facilitating public health programs and services benefiting communities of African descent

• Dr Valerie Yerger at UCSF

• YouTube episode with Joel Breakstone

• Skoll World Forum presenter who I couldn’t remember in the podcast: Alessandra Orofino

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:01:30]: Joelle Lester, thank you so much for joining me today.

Joelle Lester [00:01:30]: Thanks for having me.

Eric Ressler [00:01:30]: So I’m really excited for our conversation and I think where I’d like to start is to rewind a little bit in the work that you’re doing and talk specifically about a report that you and your org came out with called Cooking with Smoke. And the reason I want to start there is because I think it’s a really interesting case story about how public policy work happens and also the behind the scenes that just everyday people or even people in this space maybe aren’t aware of what’s going on behind the scenes that creates tension and backlash and doubt in public policy work.

Joelle Lester [00:02:10]: Yeah, definitely. So actually I will take a step further back from that report to explain why we ended up approaching the issue of clean indoor air the way we did. We were founded more than 25 years ago to work on the issue of commercial tobacco product use. And in our work over 25 years, we have learned a lot about how the tobacco industry operates, both how they have information, conduct their own research, what they share publicly and what they lie about. And what we have realized is that our understanding of that industry helps us also understand how other industries operate because many industries take a page out of Big Tobacco’s playbook and how they approach science and research and public perceptions of harm. And so we had done all of this work on the problems of commercial tobacco product use and the health harms and we were studying the clean indoor air and other things that cause problems with clean indoor air.

And what we realized was not only are the health harms from appliances like gas stoves very similar to the health harms caused by cigarettes, but the industry behavior is also very similar of trying to obscure the science and mislead consumers and avoid really directly confronting the health consequences of the products that they’re selling.

Eric Ressler [00:03:30]: So we’ve talked about this before and you had actually introduced me to the term merchants of doubt. Can you tell me about who are these merchants of doubt? It sounds like some conspiratorial cabal and it seems like that’s actually partially true. So can you help educate me and our listeners about this element of doing the work?

Joelle Lester [00:03:50]: Absolutely. And I cannot take credit for that term. It’s the name of a book and a documentary film, which I totally recommend to everyone. It’s fascinating, but it’s describing the industry approach of knowing the science behind the products and the consequences of their products and then trying to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the science. And so for example, in tobacco products, when the first Surgeon General’s report came out and then a few subsequent ones came out, the industry kept saying that it wasn’t clear whether smoking caused these different cancers and they also said they didn’t believe that nicotine was addictive. And they kept swearing that they didn’t believe it was addictive, including a famous photo at a congressional hearing in the ‘90s where all of the CEOs of the big cigarette companies said that they didn’t believe it was addictive. And then of course we know from the litigation and the discovery and the industry’s own documents that they knew way before everybody else knew not only that nicotine was addictive, but that the products were causing all kinds of health problems, including many kinds of cancer.

And so the art of it is that they don’t try to disprove it. They just try to raise doubt in people’s minds about how believable the science is. And we have seen that same tactic used over and over, most prominently I think in people’s minds right now is about climate change where people say you can’t be sure that that’s what’s causing it. We’re not positive. There are probably other causes. And it’s enough for the public to feel like the question is unresolved. That is an open question of research and it’s not. It’s not in climate change, it’s not in tobacco use, but it’s an industry tactic to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of their behavior and their products.

Eric Ressler [00:05:40]: So to me, the other parallel that comes to mind is with social media and algorithms. I think we see this also with some of the data and research and whistleblowing that happened out of Meta and Facebook around clear data and proof basically that those technologies can create major harm to people’s mental wellbeing, especially for young people. And so there’s always this conflict between science and what’s best for society and health and wellbeing for our culture and the financial incentives of big industry. How do we as a sector approach this problem, problems like these problems at scale, especially when a lot of times the theory of change at large for creating social good is philanthropy coming in, creating interventions and then partnering with the government to scale. And I think that that’s still overall a very valid strategy, but now government as a partner in especially public health in America but also across the globe is becoming less durable and reliable as a partner, more fickle funding cycles, funding disappearing all of a sudden.

So for organizations like yours that are primarily grant funded, and my understanding is primarily, or maybe not primarily, but traditionally a lot of those grants traditionally coming from state or federal government, how are you navigating that tension right now as a leader?

Joelle Lester [00:07:10]: Well, it’s really hard. I won’t sugarcoat it. It’s been an incredibly difficult year and a half especially where in public health government has not only been a partner, but been a critical partner in protecting community health and funding research and bringing partners together across sectors. And now we have a federal government anyway that is a barrier to improving health in communities around the US. So it’s been very difficult. I do think that it’s overwhelming to think about all the things that have to happen to advance public health and environmental health and health justice, but it helps me to think about it in terms of everybody doing their part. The government is going to continue to need to play a role at some point. It will have to reengage because it’s really important to make sure that the health protections through policies and programs are reaching every member in every community in the US for equity and fairness sake and the federal government is the best vehicle for that.

But I think philanthropy does have a role to play. Nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, companies, some private companies can also have an important role to play in funding research, providing grants. I think there’s not one solution to the problems we are facing and the particular challenge of our current political situation, but there are a lot of things we can do and everybody has to do their part in order for us to get through this difficult time and be ready to make bigger strides to protect health once there’s more opportunity for that going forward.

I do think that just on the funding point in particular, I think it’s really important that philanthropy step up to this moment. This is not normal. The federal funding has supported state health departments in all 50 states and many programs led by nonprofit organizations. And so the absence of huge amounts of federal funding or the new restrictions on the federal funding means other funders have to step up. And I think that has been challenging in philanthropy because there’s been a way of doing business and they have their own culture and systems in place and some of them are huge organizations themselves.

And I really appreciate and admire the foundations that have dramatically adjusted. The McKnight Foundation here in Minnesota is a good example. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has been undergoing a whole evolution in how they do their funding anyway and has been more ready to meet this moment I think than some. But we really, those of us doing the work in the field, we need the funders to step up right now and bridge this difficult time until we can get to sturdier firmer ground.

Eric Ressler [00:10:10]: Yeah. And that’s a theme that we’ve definitely been trying to surface and spotlight on our show even here on Designing Tomorrow. We’ve done some really awesome interviews with the Stupski Foundation, Jen Wynn, who there it’s been down philanthropy and they’re really pushing I think with a strong conviction and good data to challenge the philanthropic sector to step up at least temporarily. And we’ll put some links in the show notes for listeners who are interested in this topic and to go a little bit further. I’d like to ask you though more from a personal level, given all of these challenges, especially as it relates to public health, especially as it relates to durability and reliance of funding and federal grants and even state grants in this moment, how have you thought about and how are you actively pivoting to continue your mission despite these barriers?

Joelle Lester [00:11:05]: I think we’ve done a lot of different things to keep the work moving forward despite all the barriers, but first and foremost, we have grounded ourselves in our values and in community with our partners. And I think that has been really important to keeping things steady here at our organization and also providing support where we can to partners who are also struggling and dealing with the same challenges. But I think the only way through this kind of broad sustained attack on the work that we’re doing and the values that we hold dear is to stand together in solidarity and to do everything we can to keep our partners going as well as our own organization.

We have continued to focus on equity and justice in public health. There is no improving health for all if you don’t figure out why health disparities are persisting and take specific actions to address those health disparities so we aren’t shying away from that. Racism has caused poor outcomes for certain folks in communities and you can’t fix that if you aren’t talking about racism in systems and in communities. So like everyone, I think we were knocked back on our heels at first with all of the attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as well as on belief in science and in experts, but we have really stayed true to those values.

And another thing that I think is important in how we’ve conducted ourselves is I’m white and so we’re not a Black-led or a BIPOC-led organization and our name is general. And so there is protection in that. And what’s important to me as an ally is to ensure that I’m doing everything to stand shoulder to shoulder with the folks who can’t avoid the risk and to take that risk together. I do think there’s so much strength and solidarity that when there’s hundreds of organizations standing together to resist changes in federal grant making or prohibitions on research related to LGBTQ+ community, that solidarity is so strong and that’s where we win in court and where we win in arguments with the administration.

Eric Ressler [00:13:30]: Yeah, I think that’s a really good point. And let me say that back to you to make sure I’m understanding what you’re saying. I think anyone in this sector doing this work right now in the current situation has a certain amount of exposure to extra scrutiny, funding cuts, pick your barrier. And what I’m hearing you say is that we need to be self-reflective and clear-eyed about where is our exposure and where are our strengths as an organization because of leadership, because of the type of work that we’re doing. We’ve been navigating this a lot in our portfolio of client partners where some we have client partners who are Black-led working on DEI issues, working on diversity, really core to their programming who are significantly more exposed in this moment, even in their positioning and their messaging. And then we have other clients who are doing similar work from a slightly safer point of view.

And so I’ve been really trying to work with our clients to help them figure out how to navigate when does it make sense to be doubling down on that mission publicly in almost a resistance style versus when does it make sense to go a little bit more underground and to hunker down strategically so that when the conditions are better, we can come back strong and not actually go under even potentially in this moment.

Joelle Lester [00:15:00]: Yeah. These are the kinds of conversations we’ve been having a lot of with our partners and I don’t judge any organization for doing what they need to do to get through this time. I will say that it’s important for organizations with resources and with privilege to make sure that they’re not sinking into that and doing less than they could. And so we aren’t trying to lose any funding. We’re following all of the rules for our federally funded projects and we’re doing our very best within those constraints, but we absolutely comply with all of the requirements of the federal grants.

And as an organization, we think equity and anti-racism is central to public health work. And so we have other funding and we can continue to talk about that and be bold about that. And I also think I just feel a real responsibility as an ally to make sure I’m saying the words and demonstrating to people that these values remain at the Public Health Law Center. We are here for our partners. We are constantly trying to think about what else we can do that we maybe haven’t done before, but right now is an unusual time and we need to extend ourselves in those ways.

And I think that I feel a huge responsibility to my staff and I’m sure everyone you talk to says this. I know that they rely on this income. These aren’t a bunch of independently wealthy people who work here. They work here because they care about the mission and they need these jobs and I need to be responsible with how I conduct myself so we sustain our funding and sustain our staff. And this is a terrible time and I want to conduct myself and I want my organization to conduct itself in a way that we are proud of later, in a way that we point back and say, we did everything we could to protect people. We did everything we could to maintain public health systems and policies and to be ready for the opportunity when it arises again at some point in the future for bold policy change that dramatically improves health outcomes and reduces disparities.

Eric Ressler [00:17:15]: I think public health is an interesting proxy for a number of other systemic social change issue areas. And in a minute, I’m going to try and connect it to climate action, which I know you guys do a lot of work on as well. And to me, it’s the kind of work that does, to your earlier point, require all sectors to come together and to work together. We need public health education. We need individuals to be informed by the right people, by the experts around the choices that they make so they can show up with agency. We also need activism. We need nonprofits. We need, of course, a strong set of government policies that are built to protect people. And I think the thing that’s making this work challenging, looking at it from the outside, working with clients who we’ve done some work in public health and with climate, is that a number of those pillars are currently degraded and actively moving against what’s in the best interest of most people.

And so let’s even talk a little bit about this erosion of trust and expertise, especially around public health. And I think this is something that was already in motion but was exacerbated by some of the public health, I don’t even want to say missteps because that seems overcritical of our public health systems, but the chaos during that period of time. And to me, looking from the outside, that was a moment where trust in institutions in public health took a major nosedive and I don’t feel like it’s even come close to recovering. So I’d be curious to hear how you see the durability of these important systems and what your current read on them is and how you think we could work to either reclaim or reimagine them to be more durable in the future.

Joelle Lester [00:19:00]: That’s a great question. I agree that the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health response has been really harmful and even catastrophic for public trust in government institutions and competence and ability to respond. I will say I think that problem was seeded much earlier. The disinvestment in public health systems and institutions over a long period of time and accelerating immediately before the pandemic is directly related to the ability of the agency to respond quickly to an emerging and scary and confusing virus and that isn’t an accident. The same forces that oppose government as a helpful institution in people’s lives now, that was why they didn’t want to fund the institutions then.

And I think public health is tough because if we’re really, really effective, people don’t experience anything bad. So I think that if you’re doing your job, people don’t think about you and they don’t really understand and it’s invisible. And then it became really visible, not just the importance of public health, but the lack of investment in the infrastructure that’s necessary to sustain health in an ongoing way, but also to be ready in an emergency situation to respond effectively on all fronts because the public health response is at the community level, it’s at the individual level, it’s about policies around behavior, it’s the information environment and it’s also development of a vaccine and delivery of that vaccine effectively. And so it’s a comprehensive and huge effort to scale that kind of response up and it can’t happen on a dime if you don’t have a trained public health workforce with resources in place to do that response. I think there were missteps by public health, but I also think that they were not set up to succeed by policymakers and decision makers for the years leading up to the pandemic.

Eric Ressler [00:22:15]: So we’re talking about merchants of doubt as part of this broader equation. We’ve talked about how that has shown up for tobacco and the report that you wrote, which we started with that I’d actually like to revisit for a little bit and get a little bit deeper on. It’s also being applied to these other social issues like climate justice and climate action and climate resilience, to public health, to mis and disinformation in general in our ecosystems. We just did a spotlight interview with Joelle from Civic Online Reasoning and they’re doing a lot of work around trying to improve our digital literacy from a young age that are working in school systems because these new modes of communication and technology have a lot of upsides, but unfortunately we’re seeing in real time they have a lot of downsides too into shaping public perception and these fracturing information silos.

And so I want to revisit this idea of the merchants of doubt and maybe tell me a little bit more about how they showed up when it came to big tobacco and how some of those same tools around sewing doubt and confusion intentionally are showing up as it relates now to climate change.

Joelle Lester [00:23:30]: Yeah, absolutely. I do want to correct one thing. I did not write the report. I was involved with it, but I have amazing colleagues and I don’t want to take credit for their outstanding work.

But yes, the parallels are really uncanny. And I think in the big tobacco space, merchants of doubt, it was a huge coordinated effort among the big tobacco companies to fund research that looked independent. So they had their own tobacco research centers that they funded to produce favorable papers and then they also would fund researchers at academic institutions to produce favorable research for them and they would use that to counter the research produced by CDC-funded academic institutions or NIH and then the CDC and NIH themselves.

And then I think it was also just the constant questioning of the science and saying, here’s one problem, is that scientists have integrity about how they talk about their work and they will only say what they can demonstrate. So they’ll say, “Well, these are the limitations of this study and we know this from it, but I won’t make the leap to these other things that seem likely because all I know is this.” And then on the other side, you have people without integrity who are making much bigger claims than any research supports. And so it’s an uneven playing field because of the limitations of the scientists with integrity being unwilling to extrapolate irresponsibly. So that’s also part of the problem. And that’s something we deal with all the time still is that so many researchers are so careful in their language and what claims they think they can support. And then you have people who are not scientists on the other side who don’t feel restrained in any similar way.

And then I think also there were things like they put an ad in the papers across the US. It was called the Frank Statement where it was a full page ad where they said that tobacco wasn’t addictive and harmful and that actually was used against them, that kind of affirmative claim of protection when they knew at that time all of the harms of tobacco. When all of that came out in the US v. Philip Morris case, that kind of overtly lying to the public actually was harmful for them, which is good that they were held accountable in that case.

But I think that those are just some examples. I think we definitely see that in the climate space also as funding research to cast doubt on other research. And research, if you’re really just trying to answer a question, you have to accept whatever the result is of the research. And you try to replicate it, you try to make sure your methods are as strong as they can be. You use different methodology to see if you’re finding different results. But to try to design a research product to show a specific thing is not the same as scientific research that’s conducted at many institutions, which is just trying to learn and understand about health outcomes and to connect, to understand what’s causing things.

And that’s the other thing I think is that the tobacco industry would be like, a lot of things cause lung cancer. What about cars? What about inhaling smoke from a campfire? Just trying to diffuse responsibility so they didn’t have to take responsibility. And that is true, if you stood by a campfire 10 times a day and inhaled from it, that would be very bad for your lungs too, but it’s not really an honest comparison because that doesn’t happen. People don’t stand by the campfire that way. But trying to take something that seems innocuous and then say it’s no worse than these products that we’re targeting and making as addictive as possible is so disingenuous.

But those are just some of the tactics that are used. And I think there’s also shaping social norms and promoting the idea that people are making a free choice when really we know a lot about marketing and how it works and the social media and influencers. That’s all related to this too, but it’s refusing to take responsibility when you know that you’re able to shape people’s opinions through marketing campaigns, but you’re telling them that any restriction on the product takes away their freedom to choose that product.

So it’s all very manipulative and disingenuous. And another example of how this played out in the big tobacco context is there were all these lawsuits against the tobacco companies for personal injury claims where people were sick or dying because of tobacco use and they’re like, “You knew that this was harmful and this is what’s harming me.” And they were like, “You can’t prove it. There’s no evidence.” And everybody lost those cases. And then as soon as it shifted, then they said, “It is harmful, but everyone knows it’s harmful now.” And so it was an immediate pivot from, “No, it’s not harmful” to “Not only is it harmful, but it’s your fault that you did it, even though it’s harmful because you should have known.” So it’s basically saying anything to avoid taking responsibility for their industry behavior.

Eric Ressler [00:29:05]: So let’s now try and connect that to what’s going on in the climate action space and with climate change specifically around, I think the example in the report is around electrification of replacing gas stoves with induction or electric stoves. Tell us about how some of these similar tactics are being used.

Joelle Lester [00:29:25]: Well, we have some very funny examples of marketing campaigns about how great it is to cook with gas. And so it’s not an accident that people think that cooking with gas is what real chefs do because the companies get celebrity chef endorsements. They produce really sometimes very slick videos. In one case, it’s a hilarious video, it’s a cartoon about cooking with gas, but promoting this idea that it’s the classy way to cook, it’s the home chef, the foodie thing to do. So that’s all just about promoting a social norm of this is what people who care about cooking good food use. And then also either quashing research that would demonstrate to the contrary or funding research that minimizes the consequences.

And then you said something earlier that I haven’t touched on, but it’s really important. It’s just the money in politics part of this problem, which is the fact that any elected official in federal government at this point would question climate change as an actual thing happening can only happen because they’re getting huge donations from companies. It’s basically, we’re giving you this money and you need to keep this doubt going because the science is very clear. There isn’t an actual dispute about causes of these things.

And so the money and politics piece is a thread that cuts across all the industries who behave this way. It’s very much related to sowing the doubt that you have been talking about and it’s very hard to deal with. And so you have people working in climate justice, you have people working in public health and other very important areas and you’re trying to prove something based on evidence and convince people based on facts and on the other side they are purchasing the opposition to what you’re trying to do. And so none of what we are doing happens if we don’t protect the integrity of our democracy by getting bigger money out of politics and protecting access to voting.

Eric Ressler [00:31:45]: So there’s so many good threads I want to pull on there. I think one that I’ve been particularly thinking about lately and partly because I was just at the Skoll World Forum and saw a presentation about another parallel happening specifically around deforestation in the Amazon. And what’s happening there is that these large ag groups and caucuses are creating a narrative, a cultural narrative, trying to create and balloon an identity around agriculture in the Amazon. And the way that they’re doing it is by basically infusing that point of view and that cultural narrative into dramas in culture, which are extremely popular in Brazil and to music. And they’ve created an entire musical genre about this constructed identity.

And the speaker whose name I’m unfortunately forgetting, but I will find and put in the show notes, was so compelling because what she said and what I... First of all, she called this phenomenon cultural engineering, which is the first time I’ve heard it described that way. And her thesis on this, her point of view was that culture is always upstream of public policy and that these interest groups and these big corporate interest groups are so good at cultural engineering and their theory of change is basically if they sew enough doubt or if they have a strong enough counterargument to these beneficial public policies that run counter to their financial interests, they’re going to win the fight basically every time. And this is a tale as old as time. We’re basically talking about propaganda here and yet I feel like our sector, the social impact sector at large, consistently under-indexes on or is unable to play as effectively at cultural engineering. And I’d be curious to just hear, do you agree with that? And if so, or if not, why do you think that is?

Joelle Lester [00:33:45]: I think that is so interesting. I love that framing, the cultural engineering. I haven’t heard that either, but as you were talking about it, I’m immediately thinking of all these examples of how that has happened. And to use the tobacco example again, tobacco product placement in movies is still a huge problem. And then with the rise of influencers, there’s a whole marketing of tobacco products to young people using celebrities and influencers on social media channels that I don’t know about because I’m too old. So I don’t even see a lot of that. And so they are way ahead.

And another really important illustration of this is menthol cigarettes, which the tobacco companies have predatorily targeted towards the Black community in the US for many, many years. And it’s the Newport Jazz Festival. It’s about sponsoring music festivals. It’s about taking Black cultural iconography and using it in marketing, in advertisements, in packaging. It’s so comprehensive and trying to make it seem like smoking a menthol cigarette is part of the Black American experience, which it is not. It’s engineered exactly as that speaker is describing, but it’s so insidious how that happens.

And what it does too, it sows doubt and it also enlists people as the advocates for their own harm. Then you have people saying prohibiting this kind of cigarette is racist because you’re taking away a product that Black people like more. But the reason the Black community has a higher prevalence rate for use of menthol cigarettes is because the industry has worked for decades to get them to have it.

So it’s very, very insidious. But I think we’re terrible at cultural engineering as a community and public health is for sure. And I think part of it is it feels gross. And I think that people who are doing public health work or environmental justice work have values. The thing that’s keeping me going is staying grounded in our values and the idea of manipulating people to believe something about themselves and to behave in a certain way is appalling, I think, to most of us. So we are bad at it.

Eric Ressler [00:36:05]: Interesting.

Joelle Lester [00:36:05]: I’m not sure it’s terrible that we’re bad at it, but I think we have to be better at exposing it where it’s happening.

Eric Ressler [00:36:15]: That’s interesting because I agree it feels manipulative. It feels bad faith even if... It’s like, do the ends even justify the means to do things that way? I think that’s a real ethical dilemma, frankly, because to spin it a little bit more positively, the thing that it changed in my brain a little bit is I’m a major advocate for positive climate action and I feel less individually empowered than I ever have around me being able to contribute positively to that movement. I’ve basically landed on this is a systemic public policy issue and my actions do matter, but no individual action is going to matter enough. This is going to require collective action, policy change, regulation, things that are outside of my personal control.

And yet this cultural engineering actually points to a very different story, which is that if we change the culture, it’s upstream of policy and that it builds political will and exposure to elected officials to have to act in the interest of the greater good and the public will. How did that land for you? Do you agree with my thesis there and how do we do that in a way that isn’t manipulative in an information ecosystem where everyone’s being manipulated already?

Joelle Lester [00:37:40]: Well, what you’re saying makes sense, but I don’t know how you could do it with integrity, which I don’t know if I’ve ever said integrity as many times in one hour as I have in this conversation, but it is really important I think that we remain values led.

But I think what has worked is to pull back that curtain on the industry behavior, the social engineering and everything. And so just to continue with the menthol cigarettes example, what’s been really effective is Black-led organizations, chiefly the African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council based in California and the Center for Black Health and Equity based in North Carolina and Georgia, really doing the research on the industry’s behavior and the predatory marketing and how they really talk about the Black community to each other versus how they’re marketing the products and sharing that information with communities.

Dr. Valerie Yerger at UCSF was one of the original tobacco documents archive researchers where all the documents went after the litigation and she has amazing presentations that she shares with community members and young people are especially, I think, receptive to the information and enraged by the predation. And so I think it’s not so much that we do the same thing, but people should trust us because we have a good result in mind. It’s more that we expose what’s happening and empower people with the information they need to form their own opinion about things and apply the pressure to policymakers there. But I think there’s probably something about the cultural engineering that could be done with integrity, but I would have to think more about that.

Eric Ressler [00:39:30]: I mean, the first thing that comes to mind for me is that we’re also, for better or for worse, in an ecosystem where everyone loves a good conspiracy and here’s one that’s actually real. So maybe that expose style truth sharing might feed into the zeitgeist in a positive way and maybe it’s just about how do we, going back to the topic of trust and there’s less trust than ever in institutions. Nonprofits are still generally higher than other institutions despite also taking a bit of a hit based on the research that I’ve seen.

So do we need to get pragmatic as a sector sometimes without losing our integrity, but partnering with people who do have platforms that influence, potentially celebrities as has been done before for public health campaigns, in a way that either exposes or motivates or shares truth to people and doing cultural engineering in a positive way that we can feel good about. And when we look back in a decade and say, “Yeah, that was a good move and I can sleep at night.”

Joelle Lester [00:40:25]: Yeah, I think so. I think one thing that public health and environmental justice groups aren’t great at is short soundbite bits of information that are persuasive to people and we’re not that great at storytelling. And I’m a lawyer and so I 100% include myself and the people who are not great at this because we always want to use a lot of words to tell people things and that’s not the information environment we exist in right now. And so I do think we need to approach it with humility that we have not been able to connect with audiences the way we need to and we need to think differently about how we’re delivering our information. Having all the evidence and having the legal authority and being right is not getting us where we need to go. We need to be able to communicate with folks in communities in a way that resonates with them.

Eric Ressler [00:41:15]: Yeah. So Joelle, before we wrap up, I’d like to ask, despite everything going on and all of these challenges that we’ve talked about, and this has been a fascinating conversation, so thank you. How are you getting through this as a leader, especially when things are hard? You’re in Minneapolis, so I imagine, and we’ve talked a little bit in the pre-recording about your experience there, there’s a lot of pressure. You have a lot of weight on your shoulders as a leader. You mentioned having to keep your staff protected and supported. What are you doing for yourself to stay motivated and to stay balanced? I’m not expecting that you’re doing that every day. I don’t think anyone is. But for listeners who are in similar situations, any tips, any thoughts? What’s keeping you motivated? What’s keeping you engaged in this work despite all of these setbacks and challenges?

Joelle Lester [00:42:05]: Yeah, it has been really hard and I’m actually based in St. Paul, the lesser known of the twin cities, but it’s been a brutal stretch here and it has been really difficult to see the way forward as an organizational leader and just a human being. So I think I do a lot of little things. I work out regularly. I go to a lot of live music, which is like church for me. And then I also feel really lucky that I’m doing work that is meaningful and important right now. And if I weren’t, I would feel, I think, more hopeless. But instead, I spend my day with people who care so much about each other and our communities and who have devoted their careers to making people healthier and that’s an amazing gift to be in that space every single day. So even when it’s hard, I know I’m on the right team.

And then the other thing for me is I am a single parent of two teenagers and I think it’s been a tough stretch to be a teen with the COVID-19 impact on youth and gun violence in schools. I think there is a real loss of faith that adults are going to do the right thing. And so I feel very motivated as a mother to do everything I can to turn things around because I want my kids to see that good people are doing good work and we’re trying to make things better all the time for our own families and for people we will never meet. That’s the lesson I want them to take from this.

Eric Ressler [00:43:45]: I think that’s a beautiful place to wrap up. Thank you so much for your time today, Joelle, and yeah, looking forward to seeing what you guys do next as an org and as you do as an individual.

Joelle Lester [00:43:55]: Thanks so much. It was great to talk to you, Eric.

Subscribe now

There’s a trend called looksmaxxing that says appearance is everything, and optimizing it is just pragmatism. Apply that same logic to nonprofits and you get an interesting thought experiment: what happens when an organization goes all in on brand? And what happens when one deliberately strips brand away entirely?

This episode explores the spectrum between “brandmaxxing” and “debranding,” two extremes that most organizations will never fully inhabit but that reveal something important about how the sector thinks about visibility. Brandmaxxing means pouring maximum resources, attention, and intention into becoming the authority on your issue. Debranding means stepping back entirely, taking no credit, and letting the work dissolve into the ecosystem. The social impact sector has been structurally imbalanced toward the debranding end for decades, and the reluctance to invest in brand often masquerades as virtue. But humans are influenced by brand the same way they’re influenced by appearance, and refusing to play the game doesn’t make the game go away.

Subscribe now

Then there’s the question of who carries the brand. Institutional trust is in decline, and people increasingly follow people rather than logos. That creates real opportunity for individual-led storytelling, but it also creates a single point of failure. When a charismatic executive director leaves, they can take the organization’s identity with them. The key distinction is that the individual should be the channel for the message, not the brand itself. You still need to be yourself, you can’t be a shell spokesperson reading the company line, but the story you’re telling belongs to the mission, not to you personally.

The episode concludes that the instinct to stay behind the scenes, to say “I don’t want to add to the noise,” often feels like humility but is actually its own kind of arrogance. It’s the belief that you’re somehow above the game, that your work is too important for self-promotion. But if the work matters, it deserves to be seen. And opting out of visibility has real consequences that too many leaders aren’t honest with themselves about.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:00] The looksmaxxing trend as a lens for brand strategy
[00:01:00] Defining brandmaxxing vs. debranding as a spectrum
[00:04:25] Where brand investment crosses into unhealthy territory
[00:06:25] Why brand is a game you have to play, even in social impact
[00:07:00] Debranding to make space for partners: noble or misguided?
[00:08:50] Trust through depth vs. trust through visibility
[00:11:00] “Putting ourselves out of business” and why that’s oversimplified
[00:14:00] People follow people, not logos: the Amanda Litman insight
[00:16:50] Truth and clarity over presentation and performance
[00:17:50] The single point of failure problem with individual-led brands
[00:22:00] The sector’s historical imbalance toward invisibility
[00:23:00] False humility and the arrogance of staying behind the scenes

Notable Quotes

[00:06:30]: “Humans are influenced by brand. You can be humble about it, but at some level, you got to realize you have to play the game.” Eric Ressler

[00:07:30]: “Is there valor in debranding to make space for others versus brandmaxxing, which would be like, take as much of that pie as you can?” Jonathan Hicken

[00:10:10]: “I would consider a meeting with a funder in a one-on-one situation an act of brand, because either you are going to show up in coherence with your stated brand values or not.” Eric Ressler

[00:10:45]: “Is there valor in debranding to make space for others, especially if we’re working with underserved communities?” Jonathan Hicken

[00:23:15]: “Get over yourself, because that is actually kind of a pretentious point of view. You’re not saying you’re not good enough. You’re saying you’re too good to put yourself out there.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run for Something — Prior Spotlight episode.

• Amanda Litman’s Substack

• Run for Something

• Science, Solutions, Santa Cruz

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:00]: Eric, a couple weeks ago there was this SNL video going around where one of the SNL cast members was parodying a looksmaxxer.

Eric Ressler [00:00:10]: Oh yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:10]: Did you see this?

Eric Ressler [00:00:10]: The looksmaxxing.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:10]: I instantly started thinking about our work and I was like, “Is there such a thing as brandmaxxing?” And then I was like, Eric Ressler is definitely a brand maxxer.

Eric Ressler [00:00:20]: I’m not even going to argue with that one. I think I should update my LinkedIn profile, Brandmaxxing for Social Impact.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:25]: Please do that. So today I want to put you on the hot seat a little bit and I want to ask you some tough questions about brandmaxxing and see where we land at the end of it.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:45]: So just to start things off, when I say brandmaxxing, I’m talking about an organization, its leadership, its board in some cases, going all in on brand. It’s almost like the Eric Ressler method, taking everything you say and implementing it a thousand percent. And being the best of the best at branding in every way that you and I have talked about on the show and more. Max resources, max attention, everything. And then the opposite end of the spectrum is debranding. So this is deliberately going out of your way to remove all elements of brand from your organization. Almost like a total decentralized play where you as the organization are taking zero credit for your work.

Eric Ressler [00:01:35]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:35]: Now, I actually don’t know that that exists in reality, but just as a thought experiment. This is what I mean by brandmaxxing and debranding. And so when I started to dig into the implications of these two ends of the spectrum, I came up with a whole list of questions for you. So the first is if you think about core philosophy of these two ends of the spectrum. One is humility. And we’ve talked about this in past episodes, not being visible could actually just come from this moral place of being humble and not wanting to get into it. And so success is really measured by just how embedded you are in the ecosystem of impact that you’re working on quietly.

Eric Ressler [00:02:25]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:25]: The opposite end of the spectrum is brandmaxxing where dominance and distinction is really the goal, where success is measured by becoming the authority on some particular kind of work. Do you see any reason when it comes to core philosophy not to be a brandmaxxer?

Eric Ressler [00:02:50]: So I love this, first of all. I just want to say that. I’m not a deep student of looksmaxxing, so I should get that out of the way. It keeps coming up on my feeds. So my understanding, please correct me if you have a different understanding about this. I’ve seen this SNL skit, but I haven’t actually watched it. Looksmaxxing from my understanding is this philosophy that appearance matters so much in modern culture, especially if you’re a young person, and that it’s a good strategy to become as attractive as you possibly can by any means necessary. I think the main dude, is it Clavakar or whatever? Something like that. He literally smashes his face with a hammer to restructure his jawbone.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:40]: I haven’t actually witnessed that, but that’s the claim.

Eric Ressler [00:03:40]: So to me, that is clearly unhealthy from not just a physical standpoint, but it’s an unhealthy philosophy. So that’s where I would say, can you get there from a branding standpoint? Whereas getting close to that, but not quite that far, let’s take diet, exercise, sleep, things that will have a positive impact on your appearance, maybe even self-care and your apparel and things that matter and that are by any normal standpoint a good thing to do. I think there’s a version of brand that I advocate for. So I want to just put it on the table. I don’t want to say I’m a brand maxxer to the point where it’s like brand is the only thing that matters. Impact doesn’t matter at all. All you need to do is become the authority. You shouldn’t be humble about your work. So I think there is a version of brandmaxxing that, just like looksmaxxing or my understanding of looksmaxxing, can go too far.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:45]: Okay. So there’s an unhealthy version of investment in brand. And so for you, what’s the line?

Eric Ressler [00:04:50]: So first of all, I would say I can’t think of a single example of that in the social impact space. Examples that I might think about would be maybe some personal brands where people have built up a brand about themselves that is so powerful that they basically become audience captured where they stand for something and they have so much financial incentive and audience incentive that they’re even maybe sometimes going against their own self-interest or going against their true core beliefs or identity. That would be an example of brandmaxxing gone too far. There might be some examples in the social impact space of orgs that, maybe in the political space where there’s so much investment in donor acquisition and just spamming people and you might consider that in the purview of brand or under the brand umbrella at some level, communication certainly, where as soon as it starts to be at odds with your identity and your beliefs and your values as an organization, however that shows up, to me that would go from strategically sound brandmaxxing to unhealthy short-term thinking brandmaxxing.

And I want to say one more thing that’s interesting in this thought experiment around brandmaxxing. There is, I think in the looksmaxxing community, this pragmatism element to it that I think it’s taken too far, but is rooted in some truth, which is that humans are influenced by appearance. And I think there’s a parallel in brand and in social impact, which is that humans are influenced by brand.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:35]: And stories.

Eric Ressler [00:06:35]: And stories. And so when you talk about the other side, this humility side, you can do that, but at some level, you got to realize you have to play the game at some level. And I think there is a way to play the game in a healthy values-aligned way that is just a net positive.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:50]: Okay. Let’s talk about debranding and brandmaxxing in the context of an ecosystem of work. So in the debranding example, when you’re a minimalist, maybe it creates more room for your partners to be more visible. So imagining visibility as almost this zero sum game. And so if you’re debranded, you’re creating more space for partners who are doing similar work to be seen or to be uplifted, especially if we’re working with underserved communities, communities of color, et cetera. Is there valor in debranding to make space for others versus brandmaxxing, which would be like, take as much of that pie as you can, even if it means that other people in your space are getting less attention?

Eric Ressler [00:07:40]: Well, I don’t think it’s a zero sum game. So in that example, I think it’s a good example. Let’s say there is an org that has a lot of attention already, go-to org for any given issue or community, and they want to debrand to make more space for other people. I think that is a worse strategy than leveraging their platform and their power and their brand prowess to uplift those other people and to give them a platform that they don’t have yet. And so you are still in that case as that parent organization or that more known organization, still brandmaxxing at some level, but you are sharing the power of your brand to uplift someone else in the ecosystem.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:30]: Fair enough. So let’s move on to this idea of trust building. Because I think a lot of what we end up talking about in storytelling and positioning and messaging is building trust, building credibility. And so there’s a version of debranding where you are earning trust from the depths of your relationships that are happening in the 3D world and the real world, where brandmaxxing is almost more of a breadth play, a breadth of social proof where you are earning trust through scale of visibility and almost celebrity. Is there any qualitative difference in how we’re building trust on these two hypothetical ends of the spectrum?

Eric Ressler [00:09:20]: Well, I would push back a little bit on the idea that doing things in the 3D world is not brandmaxxing. I think that we think about the word brand and sometimes we think about your logo or your content, but brand is really how you show up in the world at large. And to me, when I think about building a brand, it’s about having clarity about who you actually are, self-awareness around that, a conviction about who you’re becoming. We’ve talked about these concepts recently a lot and they’re top of mind for me, and a consistent set of actions and truth to reinforce those things. And so to me, yes, that’s your brand identity system and your website and your messaging and your communications, but it’s just as much, if not more, important that your real world actions, small or large, reinforce your brand too.

I would consider a meeting with a funder in a one-on-one situation an act of brand in one way or another, because either you are going to show up in coherence with your stated brand values and your stated conviction as an organization or not. So to your point about breadth versus depth, or visibility versus those 3D actions, to me, those are just different strategies. And some orgs might need to go breadth first, some orgs might need to go depth first, but to me, that all fits into my new favorite brandmaxxing bandwagon.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:50]: So in this work, we often talk about success looking like making our organizations obsolete. We’ve solved this big problem, so the world no longer needs us, high fives, we did it. And so I feel like in a debranding world, that goal is more achievable because you’re integrated systematically and if your brand never really existed, you can just disappear and the world goes on. Whereas in brandmaxxing, we’re almost looking for a more capitalistic market leadership. And so can you just disappear and say that you’ve solved the problem, now your brand no longer exists? Are you caught in needing to sustain your brand?

Eric Ressler [00:11:40]: That’s a good question. To me, I think about brand as a critical pillar for an organization. So I could ask that same question about if you’re operations maxing or if you’re culture maxing, does that mean you can’t spin down? To me, this is just a good sound business investment. And if not done well, you probably won’t ever get to the point where you can spin down because you haven’t been able to make that impact. Now, of course there’s going to be some exceptions to this, but I also think that paradigm of “we’re putting ourselves out of business” is a bit of a misnomer or oversimplification because usually the problems that we are solving are fluid, they’re not fixed, and usually they’re big wicked problems. And so you might solve one part of it, but there’s certainly another aligned problem that you are probably going to be well fit to solve as well.

And now you have momentum, you have experience, you have a team of people who are aligned, who are already in motion. So you’re probably better fit to go pivot as an organization than to spin down and hope someone else spins up for that next problem. Again, probably some caveats, probably some examples where, “Oh, we fixed that one problem and that one community and now we’re shutting down, it was great.” But I think that’s pretty uncommon too.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:00]: Yeah, I think that’s fair enough. And I also think that some of these problems, I think of a bell curve and if your organization’s successful, maybe you’re just shifting that bell curve, but there’s still ends of the bell curve that you can continue to work on.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:05]: The other theme that comes up for me when I think about debranding and brandmaxxing is this idea of something that I think came up in an interview you had with Amanda, forgive me, I’m forgetting her last name.

Eric Ressler [00:14:15]: Oh Amanda Litman

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:15] About people not following brands, but following people. So okay, if we cross reference brandmaxxing with individual-led brands rather than organizational-led brands, is there a world in which you’re building up an individual so much that it actually becomes a fragile point of risk for the organization?

Eric Ressler [00:14:45]: Absolutely. Yes. I think this is actually a really important point because Amanda’s totally right, first of all, and she comes from politics and so a lot of her point of view, she has a really interesting point of view, which is why I was so excited to have her on the show because she is often talking about individual political candidates and politics at large in America, and she’s also the executive director of Run for Something, which is a brand that helps young people and everyday people run for office. And so she has a unique vantage point in that she is both building a brand, she’s building a personal brand, and she’s helping. She has thoughts, ideas, and opinions, and recommendations around how to run successful political campaigns and what the next generation of political candidates needs to look like. And I think her point that you reference is that newer generations especially, but just culture at large right now doesn’t have the same relationship that we used to to brands.

And especially Fortune 500 brands or big corporate brands, even institutions as brands. You see this so much in the academy or science or political institutions where there’s such a degradation of trust that has happened in those institutions that used to just be like, “Of course we’re going to do what the CDC does.” And now it’s like, “Well, what does my Instagram influencer think about vaccine schedules?” That’s a huge cultural shift, not probably for the best in many cases. So what does that mean in terms of brandmaxxing versus debranding to take it back to our conversation? I think it just means the nature of how brands show up in culture has changed a lot. I think that in a positive light, it means that brands need to be more, I’ll use some buzzwords here to point at a concept, human, authentic, these are the things you hear, less polished, more just straight up and real and less of a PR-based play and more of just... I think it’s less about presentation and performance and more about truth and clarity.

Those are the words that I’m really thinking about a lot right now when I’m thinking about how we brand organizations, helping them deeply understand who they are way, way, way past surface level. That’s becoming more and more important, crystallizing that vision and being really good at communicating that in a way that people can get instantly. And then yes, also having some people-powered stories behind that or people representation so that it’s not your PR spokesperson getting a press release out. It’s often the executive director or your development director or a staff person who’s now responsible for that message.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:35]: The risk I see, if you take these two concepts of brandmaxxing and individual-led brands, the risk I see is that you get the single point of failure where, especially if the individual who’s most visible is the executive director or CEO, because one mistake and that whole brand comes crashing down. If you have invested a lot of brand equity and time into this individual and they leave or they make a mistake, you’re toast.

Eric Ressler [00:18:10]: Totally agree. And I’ve seen this happen over and over again. Even before personal brand building was the hot topic where even just a super charismatic leader or board chair or executive director who was responsible for telling the story, who was really good with people, who had a good network, who was really good at fundraising, all of a sudden they’re onto the next thing and the org’s got the rug pulled out from underneath them. So I think we have to be careful about that. And I still believe strongly that as much as we should have more of that human, authentic, focused storytelling and yes, more coming from executive directors or CEOs and staff, we do have to be careful not to over-index on that to the point that there’s no support behind it as the brand. You can do both at the same time.

And Amanda’s doing a really good job of that. She’s building a really strong personal brand. She’s an author also. She has her own personal Substack. She talks about her work, she talks about her life, she talks about parenthood, and she’s at the same time building up the Run for Something brand too. If Amanda were to leave, it would be a big thing for their brand probably, but she wouldn’t be leaving behind an empty shell either. So I think there is some pragmatic balance that you have to strike there.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:25]: Yeah. I mean, obviously we want to tell human stories and I think all of the listeners can agree that’s important. But there’s this nuanced distinction between telling human stories and centering your brand on an individual that works there.

Eric Ressler [00:19:40]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:40]: Frankly, I’m thinking about it in my own work because now I’m hosting a podcast for the Seymour Center that is arguably the most visible thing that we’re doing that’s outside of our building. And so I think about that. I’m like, I don’t want to put my organization in a risky spot because now so much of the attention’s on me. At the same time, I know that raising money, people give to people, and I want donors to get to know me. So there’s this dance.

Eric Ressler [00:20:15]: It’s a dance. It’s a healthy tension, I would say, when done right, where people want to give to people, people want to follow people. I don’t think that means you can’t also build a strong brand, but I do think it means you have to be intentional about that. So you’ve built this studio, you’ve built this strategy and this workflow around creating content. If you were to leave or God forbid, get hit by a car or something and disappear all of a sudden, it would be a transition, but you’ve also built some infrastructure out that someone else on the team could come in and take over. And I think also the distinction is the story is not about the person. The story is delivered through the person in a personal human way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:00]: That’s a cool distinction there, that the individual is the channel by which the message of the organization is delivered. That’s a cool way to think about it.

Eric Ressler [00:21:10]: But the challenge there is not at the expense of your personality and your humanity, right?

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:15]: Like I still need to be Jonathan.

Eric Ressler [00:21:20]: You still need to be Jonathan, right? You can’t just be a shell spokesperson. I think that’s the thing that doesn’t work anymore where you’re just like, “I’m going to put on my suit and tie and say the company line.” That’s not personal brand building. That’s not the kind of message or story or delivery method that’s working in our current media environment.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:40]: Ultimately, all of this is about balance, right? I mean, debranding and brandmaxxing, we set up the premise with these two extremes, right? So by nature, we’re going to fall somewhere in the middle, but also that’s really the reality of it. And from my executive director perspective, that’s just running a business. You got to balance all of the levers. And so obviously debranding and brandmaxxing to the extreme are really not even feasible, but the sector at large has been unbalanced or imbalanced, excuse me, for decades or maybe even since the beginning. And so your voice in this sector, I think is really important because you’re advocating for a particular version of running social impact, which prioritizes brand really heavily, but I think you’re pulling the whole sector to become more balanced, which I think is ultimately healthy.

Eric Ressler [00:22:30]: Yeah. And one thing I would share as I’ve become more public in this work and through this podcast and other efforts is, I don’t want to diminish that. I also, I’m an introvert. I don’t love being on camera. I hate speaking in front of large audiences, et cetera. And I think sometimes we have almost this, we talk about this a lot, this pride of being behind the scenes. Or sometimes I see this with clients, and I think we’re going to do an episode more on this, but I want to tease it out a little bit, where there’s this, “Well, I don’t want to add to the noise. I’m not important enough. I don’t have a strong enough point of view.” And honestly, I’ve started to come around to: get over yourself, because that is actually a pretentious point of view when you think about it, because you’re saying it’s not really that I’m not good enough. It’s almost like I’m too good to put myself out there in that way and I don’t want the attention. So it’s this weird... And this is a transition that I’ve had where it’s just like, you’re not so special that you can’t also do this. I don’t know if I’m making any sense.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:40]: You’re totally making sense. The way I would interpret that is this hubris that if all of a sudden I add my voice to the mix, everybody’s going to be focused on me.

Eric Ressler [00:23:55]: Right. And that’s the thing, no one really cares that much. Your stuff is not so special that it can’t also be in the fray. And I think the way that I would just think about this is that you need to be out there telling stories. You need to be out there. If you’re doing this work, it deserves to get its message out into the world and you are doing a disservice, and this idea that I don’t have anything to say or that we’re going to bring too much attention to our mission. There’s just a certain amount of this that’s like, look, if you’re going to be in the game, you got to play by the rules and the rules are dictated by human psychology and just get over it and just do it. That’s something I’ve been learning a lot more because I was that person. I was like, “I don’t want to get in front of a camera. I don’t want to have attention on me. I don’t want to be in the spotlight.” And when I really started to unpack that more deeply and do some self-reflection, it was that, yes, I had imposter syndrome, I was worried about flubbing something, but also I was like, “I’m better than that. I’m too good to play this game. I don’t need to.” And it’s just like, you don’t need to, but be clear about the consequences in our current world about what you’re giving up by not doing that.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:05]: Well, look, I hope that you do change your LinkedIn profile to Chief Brand Maxxer of the Social Impact Sector. No, but I really, really appreciate it. And I think that frankly, you’re pulling the sector in a really important direction and I’m glad to be a part of it. So thanks for unpacking this brandmaxxing concept with me today, Eric. Anything else?

Eric Ressler [00:25:25]: Thank you for giving me my new LinkedIn profile.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:30]: All right, that does it.

Eric Ressler [00:25:30]: Thanks, man.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:30]: Thanks.

Subscribe now

Every major technological paradigm shift has broken society before it fixed it. The printing press gave us the scientific revolution, but it also gave us witch hunt pamphlets. Radio connected millions of people, but it also let demagogues broadcast hate into our living rooms. The television brought the world closer, but it also turned politics into performance. And now we have the internet and social media and AI, and the pattern is repeating, but the speed is meaningfully different.

Now one person can fabricate a story and reach hundreds of thousands of people in mere hours or minutes. AI can generate video that’s basically indistinguishable from reality. And all of the platforms that are delivering all of this to us, they’re basically engineered to reward whatever makes us the most outraged, angry, and divided. For leaders in the social impact space, I believe this is an existential problem. If the people you’re trying to reach don’t believe anything is real anymore, your message can’t land and your brand doesn’t matter and your mission falls flat.

So what do we do about it? To explore that question, I wanted to talk with Joel Breakstone. Joel is the co-founder and executive director of the Digital Inquiry Group. They’re a nonprofit that spun out of Stanford to tackle one of the most urgent problems of our time. How do we help people tell fact from fiction online? His civic online reasoning curriculum has been downloaded millions of times across all 50 states, and it’s built on a deceptively simple insight borrowed from professional fact checkers.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:55] Was the internet a huge mistake?
[00:05:15] How algorithms and human psychology feed each other
[00:06:50] Is the internet fundamentally different from past paradigm shifts?
[00:08:30] From Stanford History Education Group to the Civic Online Reasoning curriculum
[00:12:35] Fact checkers vs. PhDs vs. Stanford freshmen: who evaluates sources best?
[00:15:20] Lateral reading: the counterintuitive skill that changes everything
[00:16:40] Why digital literacy mandates keep failing without materials
[00:22:40] What a “driver’s license for the internet” might look like
[00:26:20] The collapse of institutional trust and rise of influencer trust
[00:31:05] AI as both threat and tool for digital literacy
[00:38:35] The “.org means trustworthy” myth and why evidence-based guidance matters
[00:41:50] What keeps Joel optimistic despite the scale of the challenge

Notable Quotes:

[00:11:25]: “The myth of the digital native is very much a myth. Young people, like the rest of us, need help making sense of the unbelievably crowded and confusing landscape that we encounter when we go online.” Joel Breakstone

[00:27:30]: “It can become really easy to just throw your hands up in the air and say, ‘Nothing’s real. I don’t know what to trust.’ And that is a really dangerous place for us to end up because it plays into the hands of authoritarians. They want people not to know what to believe.” Joel Breakstone

[00:24:30]: “This is not just a couple of skills. It’s an orientation to how you make sense of new sources.” Joel Breakstone

[00:35:50]: “Early arbiters of truth were often religious bodies. In modern history, that became media organizations and institutions and the academy. With the dawn of the internet and social media, arbiters of truth became algorithms. And now AI is just a new form of a new arbiter of truth that we have to question just like we questioned all of those others.” Eric Ressler

[00:32:50]: “AI is not an oracle. AI is drawing information from somewhere. Students need to understand that information comes from somewhere. It’s not free floating.” Joel Breakstone

Resources & Links:

• Digital Inquiry Group — Joel’s nonprofit, spun out of Stanford, developing free digital literacy curriculum and research

• Civic Online Reasoning (COR) Curriculum — Free curriculum teaching lateral reading and source evaluation skills, available to anyone with a free account

• Verified: How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online — Book by Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg (University of Chicago Press, 2023)

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:01:40]: Okay, Joel Breakstone, thank you so much for joining me today.

Joel Breakstone [00:01:45]: Oh, it’s my pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Eric Ressler [00:01:45]: So lots to talk about today. Really a big fan of your work and when we worked together on civic online reasoning, I actually learned a lot about how to be a good digital citizen, something that I’ve been since I was really young. The first question I want to ask you is half in jest, but also not totally. Was the internet a huge mistake, Joel?

Joel Breakstone [00:02:05]: No, I definitely don’t think so. I think it’s an incredibly powerful tool and we are better for having access to it, but certainly our work shows that we need to help people, and our work focuses particularly on young people, to understand how to use that incredibly powerful technology well.

Eric Ressler [00:02:30]: Yeah. So I asked that question half in jest because I do actually think deeply about this at times where so much of my life has been shaped positively because of technology and specifically the internet to the point that I run basically a creative agency, a digital agency that maybe wouldn’t exist without the internet in one form or another. We build a lot of digital tools and websites as well as brands and strategy. And yet I’ve seen in real time, the internet, maybe a little bit more so specifically social media, really negatively impact society in pretty meaningful ways to the point that it’s influencing elections, it’s influencing dialogue around really big picture things, even war. Can you talk to me a little bit about how the internet went from this really good faith, incredible experiment where we could suddenly be connected instantly to where we are today?

Joel Breakstone [00:03:30]: I don’t know if we can trace the entire history briefly. I think that what has happened is that there has been a proliferation of deeply problematic content online and we have an information ecosystem that rewards people who can capture attention and that within that attention economy, bad behavior is often rewarded. That ranges from the ways in which algorithms are tuned to hold us on platforms and to make us pay attention to whatever it is, even if it’s not good for us or if it’s harmful for young people, and to spread deeply problematic content and dangerous and damaging content as well. And that has only intensified in recent years. And so without a doubt, there are fundamental issues that we need to address to ensure the wellbeing of young people and all of us, as well as to strengthen the democratic systems at the heart of our country and nations all around the world.

And so for sure, the stakes are very high and the need to address this threat is very significant and it needs to be a whole of society approach. Not one sector is going to be able to take on the set of ills that we are being confronted with. Instead, we all need to be figuring out ways to try to address the problems that have become all too apparent.

Eric Ressler [00:05:15]: So I want to hold a little bit on this. Specifically, you mentioned that the algorithms reward bad behavior. And I think that I’ve been curious about, and I don’t think this is probably an either or situation, but how much of that is intentional because of algorithmic tuning from big tech companies to reward engagement basically at all costs versus how much of that is just a negativity bias in human psychology?

Joel Breakstone [00:05:45]: I think there’s certainly some of both. And those two things feed into one another to create a landscape in which people get rewarded for that bad behavior and they can grow their following and their clout online by propagating problematic content, by being rage merchants. That is, as you note, a fundamental piece of human psychology, that we have that innate reaction and we engage, and that engagement is what platforms want. They want people to spend time there and to be engaged. And so people have responded to those incentives and we’re all worse for it.

Eric Ressler [00:06:40]: Yeah. So I want to kind of... Your background is actually as a historian originally, if I’m getting my notes right here, working out of Stanford and Dartmouth before that. Is the internet uniquely different than other major paradigm shifts in technology and communications? For example, when the printing press came out, there was all kinds of mis and disinformation in pamphlets and the witch trials. And this was also a problem even before that technology. So is the internet unique in that it’s just at scale and at a speed that is meaningfully different than past paradigm shifts?

Joel Breakstone [00:07:20]: Well, I think you’ve noted something that’s important. That this is not a new phenomenon in terms of people spreading inaccurate, misleading, and dangerous content. That has been around for a very long time. But I do think that in the present moment, the speed of dissemination and the ease of dissemination is fundamentally different. When the printing press came out, everybody didn’t have a printing press in their pocket that could reach across the world in moments. That presents a fundamentally different reality. And with the advent and rise of AI and the power of those tools now, anybody can create incredibly lifelike images and videos that can be spread all across the world. And that also is fundamentally different. The power of the technology is hard to get our heads around.

Eric Ressler [00:08:25]: Yeah. And I definitely want to spend some time on AI in a little bit, but before we get there, I’d love if you can tell our listeners a little bit about how your work with Stanford History Education Group led to the creation of COR, or civic online reasoning, which is essentially free curriculum to help combat this issue of mis and disinformation, but more broadly digital literacy. So can you at a high level outline, how did that come to be? What was the research showing? What did you learn from that? And what’s the intervention that you guys have created to try and combat the negative downstream effects of what you found?

Joel Breakstone [00:09:05]: Yeah, absolutely. So as you noted, our organization was called the Stanford History Education Group, and we were based at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education. And our focus was primarily on history education. I’m a former high school history teacher and my colleagues all had backgrounds in history education. We were making document-based history lessons and assessments and giving them away for free online. And just over 10 years ago, we were approached by a foundation, the McCormick Foundation based out of Illinois, and they wondered if we could do some similar work to what we had been doing around history assessments, making short tasks that asked students to evaluate real sources and do the same thing in the area of digital literacy, that they were funding projects that focused on helping students to navigate online spaces. And they wanted to have better evidence about whether or not those programs were effective in helping students to be more discerning.

And so we began to make short tasks that asked students to evaluate unfamiliar online sources, native ads, unfamiliar social media posts, websites that were created by public relations firms and asked students to make sense of them. And we gave these tasks to students ranging from middle school to college all across the country. And we saw a really disturbing result, which was that across the board students struggled with even the most basic tasks. They couldn’t distinguish sponsored content from a news story. They didn’t know that a PR firm was behind a website that was purporting to provide nonpartisan research-based evidence about public policy issues. They were easily misled by social media videos. And so this idea that because young people have grown up with digital devices, that they are better equipped to make sense of the information that those devices provide just really did not hold up. That myth of the digital native is very much a myth. Young people, like the rest of us, need help making sense of the unbelievably crowded and confusing landscape that we encounter when we go online.

And so yeah, our research revealed deep problems for students in making sense of digital content. And we released our findings, more than 7,000 student responses we collected, in November of 2016, shortly after Donald Trump was first elected president. And there was an enormous amount of interest in the question of misinformation and how to be a little wiser on the internet. And so we heard many, many inquiries about, well, what do we do about this problem? Your research shows that students are struggling. How do we help them do better? And so we wanted to try to identify expert practice. What are more skilled approaches to evaluating online sources? And so we did a research project led by my colleague, Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew, where we asked three groups of people to evaluate unfamiliar sources.

And we thought each group might be particularly well suited to evaluate sources that they hadn’t seen before. And those three groups were Stanford University freshmen, young people in the heart of Silicon Valley who are online all the time, and many of whom will go on to found and work at tech companies, and then historians, people who have PhDs and are evaluating sources for a living. And then finally, fact checkers from the nation’s leading news outlets, people who are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information that those organizations publish. And what we did was to present them with online sources and to record their screens as they showed us what they would do to try to decide whether or not to trust those sources. And there were some really striking differences across those three groups. The professional fact checkers were way better than the students or the academics at evaluating unfamiliar sources.

And the thing that distinguished them more than anything else was when they came across an unfamiliar source, they almost immediately left it. They didn’t read it carefully or closely. That’s what the students and the academics did. They did what helped them to be successful as students and as researchers. They read carefully and closely. But on the internet, that often could lead you astray. One of the tasks we had people complete was to evaluate an article from the website, minimumwage.com. And it says that it’s a project of the Employment Policies Institute. And the Employment Policies Institute has a .org website and it says that it engages in nonpartisan research and that it’s a nonprofit organization. All these things that sound good and that the students and the academics read carefully and closely. In contrast, the fact checkers did something fundamentally different. They didn’t read the article carefully.

They left it and they turned to the broader internet and opened a new tab in their browsers and searched for information. And by doing that, they found out that this is a website that is a front group for a public relations firm that’s working on the behalf of people who want to keep minimum wages lower, and that this is not a nonpartisan effort. In fact, it’s a very concerted effort to influence public policy. That information is readily available if you go looking for it. And that’s what the fact checkers did. And what we did was to try to distill down their strategies. That move of getting off an unfamiliar page we refer to as lateral reading, of leaving an unfamiliar source and opening up new tabs and reading across them rather than staying on a single page and reading vertically, which often works well in a print environment, which is why it helps students get into Stanford and academics get their PhDs, but is not nearly as useful in online spaces.

And so what we’ve tried to do is to distill those strategies that we saw the fact checkers deploy effectively into a set of tools to teach students. And that’s at the heart of the civic online reasoning curriculum, which is a set of resources that teach these skills like lateral reading to students and provide them opportunities to practice them with real sources from the spaces that we know students are spending their time, TikTok and Instagram, so that they have opportunities to practice and to build their capacity to sort fact from fiction when they are on their devices.

Eric Ressler [00:16:35]: So to me, this skill, let’s say broadly under the umbrella of digital literacy, seems like the single most important skill to teach young people in the world in this moment. And yet you guys have free curriculum that you’re providing. There’s more and more tools out there. There are these checklist tools that you have, I think, rightfully called out as being inadequate or flawed, even if the intention is right. There’s now a bunch of state legislation across multiple states in America. There’s other legislation in other countries attempting to solve this problem, but it’s not working, at least at the scale and the depth that we need it to work. And I don’t mean that as a criticism of your organization. Obviously, as you mentioned at the beginning, this is going to take everyone coming together to solve this problem, but what isn’t working about this intervention? Because my sense is that we have the tools, the methodology, the technology. We understand how to solve this problem practically, but it’s not being solved nearly quickly enough. So what’s getting in the way from your perspective?

Joel Breakstone [00:17:45]: No, I think that’s exactly right. We have evidence that these approaches can work. Our studies have shown that by teaching these skills to students, we see them improve. We’ve engaged in research ranging from studies across an entire urban school district to interventions in college classrooms. And those results have been replicated by other researchers, both in the United States and abroad in Canada and in Italy and Sweden. So yeah, there is clear evidence that this is not an intractable problem. We can move the needle and improve students’ ability to discern, and the public at large, that this isn’t just restricted to young people. I think the key problem is, especially when we think about educational settings, is that there is not a school subject called digital literacy. There is not a home for this work in the school day. And so we can create new legislation that calls for the teaching of digital literacy, but until there is a way to make it a meaningful part of students’ education, we’re not going to see much progress.

This isn’t something that can be solved for in a single workshop. Students need practice and opportunities to reflect with their classmates and their teachers about how to do these strategies effectively. And so we believe that the way forward is to find ways to build this kind of instruction into the existing curriculum. So not trying to create a brand new version of the school day, but instead find ways to work within the curriculum as it exists. So for instance, if we’re thinking about the history curriculum, how might we have students investigate a TikTok about an issue related to reconstruction? For instance, the origins of the term grandfather clause. You can find very interesting sets of videos about that online, and we could teach about that video quickly in a broader lesson on a topic that teachers are already spending time on. Everybody in US history is teaching reconstruction.

We could spend a little bit of time by doing a quick activity at the end of a lesson and provide opportunities to practice. So really finding ways to weave these materials into the existing curriculum. And that speaks to what I would say is also the broader problem, which is that there have not been parallel efforts to create the resources and professional development for educators to implement these mandates. By and large, these legislative mandates have been mandates without materials. And teachers and schools and districts are being left to try to figure out how to address this incredibly challenging problem on their own. And so if you believe that this is a very pressing problem for young people and our society as a whole, we need to invest in developing materials that will make it as easy as possible for educators to enact this important type of work in their classrooms and to support educators in doing so.

This is new for everybody. This is not the kind of instruction that most teachers learned about when they were preparing to become teachers. And so we need to ensure that we are not just loading another responsibility on the back of teachers without giving them the support to do that well. So both finding ways to build this kind of instruction into the school curriculum and then making the materials to do that well.

Eric Ressler [00:22:35]: There’s so many ways I think we could approach this, and I appreciate your pragmatism and always have in terms of realizing creating an entirely new school day is going to be difficult. And yet at the same time, we have done that for other really important topics. And even something like if we think about a parallel of getting a driver’s license in the United States, everyone doesn’t get to just start driving all of a sudden. You have to actually get a license, take a test, do practical application, and that can happen through high schools, but you can also do it third party. You don’t have to do it through the school system. If you could wave a magic wand and redesign how this all worked and put aside all the barriers of changing the school system and the academy, what would the absolute right way to do this look like in your opinion?

Joel Breakstone [00:23:30]: I think that the elements that we’ve seen from our work is this kind of effort has to be ongoing, that this is not a simple, here is a small set of strategies, we told them to you and now you are ready to be a much more discerning consumer of online information. No, it’s like anything else, any skilled practice, you need opportunities to try it out and to make mistakes and to learn. And importantly, you need to have a way in which to build that capacity over time. And so we need to think about how to make that a long-term strategy so that it’s not just, “Oh, I learned that once and now I’m done with it.” Instead, it’s a disposition towards information. I think that’s a key understanding. This is not just a couple of skills. It’s an orientation to how you make sense of new sources.

It’s asking, “What is this thing? Do I know what it is?” And even if you aren’t able to track down exactly what it is, just having that question of saying, “I’m not sure,” allows you to have a very different engagement with online sources. Just that pause can make a huge difference rather than just accepting at face value, which is what we’ve seen so often. Seeing is believing.

Eric Ressler [00:25:10]: Yeah. And I think that I can relate to that. I think through our work together, I have learned to practice lateral reading. And so whenever an unfamiliar source or claim is presented to me, the very first thing that I do is go to Wikipedia or do a web search. And I know that’s not an infallible strategy, but what I’ve found is that even people who I’m close friends with or in my family who should know better, and I fall into this too, I think everyone has fallen for some version of mis or disinformation, even probably all the time without even realizing it. But I noticed that most people just go by vibes more than anything. Does it reinforce a belief that I already have, I think, is something that we all need to be wary of.

And does it just feel legit even if it’s not? And I think one thing I’d love to tie in that I think is relevant to anyone doing this work in the social impact space, whether you’re focused on digital literacy or just any kind of social change, is the relationship between information, disinformation, attention, trust and credibility, that whole ecosystem. And I think that the thing that I’ve noticed is that especially in the last five-plus years, there’s been a massive shift in the general public away from trusting institutions, trusting organizations, trusting the government, and a lot of that trust has been reallocated towards individual people, either people directly in their lives or more and more individual influencers on the internet. I’d be curious to hear how you think about that problem and whether you think that is just an inevitable shift in our modern media ecosystem, or if there’s something that we should be resetting back to trust in some of these broader institutions that needs to be taught as a skill.

Joel Breakstone [00:27:15]: Yeah. I think it’s absolutely a shift of increasing distrust in institutions and more broadly, a distrust in everything, that as problematic content has spread and as AI slop has proliferated, it can become really easy to just throw your hands up in the air and say, “Nothing’s real. I don’t know what to trust. There’s nothing there.” And that is a really dangerous place for us to end up because it plays into the hands of authoritarians. They want people not to know what to believe. And then they say, “The only thing you can trust is me or my organization.” And that’s a problem. We want people to be empowered to make decisions that are based on evidence and are in the interests of them and their communities. And so it’s crucially important that people have the tools to seek out information so that they can make good decisions.

If we end up in a place where people don’t think they can do that, it’s a pretty bleak future. So without a doubt, it’s really important for us to make clear that there are strategies for finding better information and that you can use them. And that, as you note, it’s not infallible. This is not a foolproof effort, but if you practice some of these ways of reasoning, you generally end up in a better place rather than just accepting information at face value and certainly in a better place than saying, “I can’t know.” And so it’s impossible to know because then you’re not informed and you aren’t going to be empowered to be a civic actor in our shared democracy. And so it’s really important to be able to both make that reality apparent to people and then to equip them with tools to help them to find the information that will allow them to make decisions that are aligned with their own interests.

Eric Ressler [00:29:30]: Yeah. I mean, I think the result of this that I think we’re all becoming more aware of and hopefully are working as a culture, as a society to shift, is that now we all live in these siloed ecosystems from an information standpoint. You used to have the three TV channels or your local news, and that’s how you got your information and your facts, or you talk to your friends at the school board or at the bar or wherever. And if you had a really weird, wacky idea, you’d bring that to a social situation and someone might be like, “Hey, Eric, that’s a weird idea. Where’d you get that from?” And now you can find an entire community who’s like, “Yes, that idea is exactly right.” And so these weird, unhealthy, not evidence-based ideas are able to proliferate and flourish in a way that before this ecosystem and the ease at which we could all connect existed, basically we just get shut down by normal human culture.

And so with all of that in mind, I think the thing that I struggle with is we get into this situation where it’s like, okay, well, I don’t know who to trust. I can’t trust anyone. You hear that a lot, but then you see the behavior and people go to, “So I’m going to trust this Instagram influencer,” which to me seems like the exact opposite conclusion that you should draw from that ecosystem. So I want to bring this into a couple threads before we wrap up here. One, we should definitely go and talk more about AI because AI is, in my opinion, a double-edged sword around all of this because I think it has potential in an optimistic way to solve some of these issues, but it also has potential in a much more pessimistic way to just proliferate them even further. So let me ask you one question I have.

I mentioned earlier that my version of lateral reading used to be Wikipedia web search. My new version of lateral reading is to do deep research on a topic and have AI essentially do that for me. And I’m aware of the potential issues there. And I’ve watched one of the things that I use Claude to do a lot of research and it will show you citations. And I always check who are they actually referencing. And what’s interesting is they will reference, or the tool will reference, sometimes partisan sources. But if I were to go do a web search, I would also likely find partisan sources and would need to get into this lateral reading, never-ending spiral where it’s like, “Well, I’m going to go do another search and find another source, but now that source is also potentially unfamiliar.” So I guess the question really is, how do you see AI affecting this? What are the ways that AI might be a helpful tool to counter some of this mis and disinformation and just digital literacy in general and what are the ways that it’s going to probably be very problematic against this issue as well?

Joel Breakstone [00:32:30]: So the first thing is that it would be easy to say, well, your whole approach to lateral reading is irrelevant now because who’s on a web browser anyway, who’s doing a search? But the reality of it all is that it still is important to think about where information comes from because AI is not an oracle. AI is drawing information from somewhere. And as we think about how to move forward with teaching these ways of reasoning to students, that’s at the heart of it. Students need to understand that information comes from somewhere. It’s not free floating. And when we are encountering AI generated content, whether that is the AI summary when you use a search engine or if you are going directly to a chatbot, we want to know where the information is coming from. We should just not accept an AI generated response because it is polished and seems convincing.

We need to think about exactly what you said, which is what are the sources that they are providing. And that is lateral reading ultimately, of using other sources to become better informed about a claim or a person or an organization. That has to be part of the process. And sure, many of them are going to be partisan. That’s fine. That’s the nature of the beast. We just need to take into account what is the perspective of those sources and to be thinking about what are higher quality sources also. And that comes back to the issue about influencers and who to believe online, is to think about the authority of a source. Why is this person in a position to know on a given topic? And there are a variety of ways to think about that. And also, what was the process that was used to create this information?

Were there processes that helped to improve that ultimate product? Were there editors involved? Are there experts who were consulted? Are there checks to correct mistakes if they happen? Why is it important to have a correction policy if you’re a news organization or if you are an academic press to think about the review of something before it’s published or peer review? Again, none of these things are infallible. There are deep problems with news organizations and with academia, but it’s better to have processes to ensure the quality of information than not. And so to really think about what kinds of sources would you want to use is a part of consulting and using AI for these purposes. It just needs to be addressed that we can’t just think, “Well, it’s a good result,” without saying, “Well, what are those sources?” And if they’re not linked, to ask for them, and also to think about prompts that push the models to provide sources from particular types of organizations or people. Those are all tools that can lead to better results.

Eric Ressler [00:35:45]: Yeah. And I think about this in the sense of, again, these paradigm shifts. So early arbiters of truth were often religious bodies, if we go back far enough in history. In modern history, that became media organizations and institutions and the academy. With the dawn of the internet and social media, arbiters of truth became algorithms. And now AI is just a new form of a new arbiter of truth that we have to question just like we questioned all of those others as well. But I am optimistic with, again, the right skills that AI can actually be a really good force for good for this. And I’ve, again, learning through you all, have been trained on lateral reading and click restraint and some of these other core disciplines and skills. And I’ve been able to translate that into AI tools in I think a positive way where often even just to your point around prompting, when I’m learning about an issue that I’m confused about and I hear different partisan opinions, it’s like, “Hey, I’m interested in learning about this issue. What are the different opinions about this? Is there consensus about this at this point? Who are the sources that I should be looking at to learn more about this?” And it gives me a really good starting point very rapidly, whereas before I would’ve had to do all of that research on my own. Often in these deep research, either through Perplexity or Claude or ChatGPT or any of the big players, they’re looking at three, four hundred sources. I don’t have time to do that. Now you could say, is 400 sources any meaningfully better than the top 20? I don’t know. That’s an open question for me, but I’ve found that with intentional thought and using the tools wisely, they could potentially really help with this. Do you find that to be true or are you more skeptical about the technology?

Joel Breakstone [00:37:35]: I think there’s real potential. And I think that we’re in a moment where we need to do careful research in classrooms. For us as an educational nonprofit, we want to have evidence about what are practices that work. We think that there is real potential for being able to use these tools to verify viral claims on social media and to quickly surface fact checks, that these tools can potentially work very well in that regard. But just as we set out to initially identify what are best practices for verifying content in a space when we’re primarily just using search engines, we need to do the same now. And we need to make sure that we are providing guidance that is grounded in evidence. I think one of the shortcomings of our approach to teaching students to navigate the internet was too often the guidance wasn’t based in good evidence and there were really negative consequences.

Countless students learned that .org websites are more reliable ones, even though there is no evidence for that whatsoever, but it became just a bromide that everybody learned. So going forward, as we think about this new technology, we need to make sure that our educational approaches have some real backing for them. But without a doubt, there’s real potential. And I think your phrase was how to use AI wisely. And I think that’s what we need to be working towards, is to prepare people to understand how the technology works and what are strategies that will help them to find information. And importantly, that they as individuals are part of that process. It comes back to that same idea of empowering people to find information, not to simply say, “Well, in ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude, I trust.” Instead, it’s, how can I use this tool to become better informed?

And there’s incredible power there and we should think about how we can harness it well.

Eric Ressler [00:39:50]: Yeah. And I think a lot of the same foundational principles can be applied to AI use responsibly. It’s just not blindly trusting things, especially because AI is great at confidently being wrong. And honestly, in my use, I find that the newer models are getting better at that. And you see them in the benchmarks, what they call hallucinations are dropping, but they’re still there and they can be not only confidently wrong, but very convincingly confidently wrong too, because they can articulate things in a way that sounds intuitively right and evidence-based, but then will make up citations. You see this tragically showing up in scientific reports. You see it tragically showing up in government-funded research. And so there are real risks, not to mention all of the ability to create AI slop and propaganda at scale more rapidly than ever before, obviously deepfakes and AI-generated video.

So we’re getting into a very sci-fi moment as a society where it’s going to be more and more difficult to know what is truth and what is real, especially within our own information silos and our fragmented ecosystem. And so to me, these skills are becoming existential for society in a way that I applaud Digital Inquiry Group and you and your team for doing the work that you’re doing and providing the curriculum for free, which by the way, I should mention to listeners, you don’t have to be a student in high school to use the curriculum. It’s fully accessible online. All you need is a Digital Inquiry Group account, which is free to create. And my hope is that more people start to pay more and more attention to this. I think there’s a lot of discussion around the downsides of the internet and the downsides of social media and the downsides of AI that I wish some of that energy were translated into funding, resources, efforts, policy, regulation, the things that we’ve been able to do for other major issues in society.

So I applaud you and your team for doing the good work and I want to leave you with one last question that will hopefully be a little bit more optimistic since there’s been some existential discussion in this episode. What are you excited about? What’s keeping you lit up and what are you optimistic about despite all of the challenges that we’re seeing with all of this?

Joel Breakstone [00:42:10]: I would say that we believe that this is a problem we can tackle. It’s not an easy one, but we’ve seen over and over again that there are approaches that can be used to help people to become better informed online and that students and educators want to take these issues up. We’re privileged to have the opportunity to work with teachers all across the country and they are hungry for resources and for support. And their students want to learn meaningful strategies for engaging with the content that streams across their devices. And so I see it as a landscape of opportunity in that regard, that there are people who care deeply about this issue and are ready to take it up. We just need to, as a society, make sure that we’re equipping them with the tools to be successful in addressing this crucial issue for us as a society going forward.

Eric Ressler [00:43:15]: Wonderful. Any listeners who are also funders, please consider hitting up Joel and his team. They have spun out of Stanford and are now Digital Inquiry Group, their own 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and we need to fund these efforts. So anyone with big wallets and opportunities to make meaningful gifts, please consider that. Also, any listeners who can make even a small gift to Joel and his team, would also recommend doing that. Very much worth supporting this work. Joel, thank you so much for joining me today. This was great.

Joel Breakstone [00:43:45]: Thank you so much. It was my pleasure.

Subscribe now

There’s a quiet belief running through the social impact space that being too visible somehow cheapens the work. That good organizations should let their impact speak for itself. That humility is a virtue worth protecting, even at the cost of funding, talent, and reach. This episode makes the case that it’s a belief most orgs can no longer afford.

The provocative claim at the center of the conversation: organizations that are consistently good at visibility outperform those that are really good at impact. Not because impact doesn’t matter, but because without visibility, there’s no flywheel of attention, trust, and resources to sustain the work at scale. The most funded organizations aren’t necessarily the most effective ones. They’re the most visible, and that visibility was almost always deliberate.

Subscribe now

So what counts as visibility, and who actually needs to see you? For some orgs, it’s a national audience. For others, it’s 10 donors over dinner. The answer depends entirely on who you’re trying to reach, but there’s a simple test: ask your board, your funders, and the people on your periphery what you do and what impact you have. If the answers are vague or inconsistent, you’re looking at a visibility problem, a messaging problem, or both. And if you had to pick one to solve first, visibility wins, because at least it opens a door.

The practical path forward doesn’t require a massive budget or a media team. It can start with two articles a month, a single newsletter, or being deliberately visible to one person who represents the audience you care about most. One organization launched a video podcast four weeks ago and already has 15,000 views, guests receiving donations, and a three-month booking waitlist. The flywheel builds from the smallest possible action, but only if you take it.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:00] Eric’s claim: visible orgs outperform high-impact orgs
[00:02:30] The humility trap and the “scrappy org” fallacy
[00:03:30] Why the most funded orgs are the most visible, not the most effective
[00:04:00] The Obamacare vs. Affordable Care Act branding lesson
[00:08:30] Visibility as the most underleveraged strategy in social impact
[00:10:00] The visibility test: can people describe what you do?
[00:14:00] If you had to pick one: visibility or messaging?
[00:17:00] Building visibility into every program from the start
[00:22:00] Starting from zero: one client’s two-articles-a-month breakthrough
[00:25:00] Jonathan’s journey from skeptic to podcast host
[00:27:00] 15,000 views in four weeks and guests receiving donations
[00:31:30] Using media to scale your face time with future donors

Notable Quotes:

[00:01:05]: “Orgs who are consistently good at visibility outperform and are more successful, generally speaking, than orgs who are really good at impact.” Eric Ressler

[00:02:25]: “There is just some sort of moral objection to maybe if we’re too visible that devalues the sincerity or the authenticity of the impact. There’s a sort of humility thing in there.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:02:50]: “I think that era is over. I would not bet on that strategy if I were you.” Eric Ressler

[00:14:00]: “Visibility, man. At least you get the chance. You’re opening a door and people could maybe dig in on their own. If you have no visibility, you don’t even have a chance.” Eric Ressler

[00:24:35]: “Literally be visible to one person. Pick one person that you think represents the kind of people that you want to be visible to and be visible to that one person.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:32:30]: “You’re almost certainly under-indexing on it. Take it seriously and reap the benefits.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center — Jonathan Hicken’s organization at UC Santa Cruz

• Science Solutions Santa Cruz — Jonathan’s new video podcast.

• Gallup Poll: What’s in a Name? Affordable Care Act vs. Obamacare

• Obamacare/ACA polling data — Measures of public opinion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Eric Ressler [00:00:00]: Sometimes the nature of your work is complex. It’s nuanced. It’s behind the scenes. The impact that you do might take years or even decades to really show up. We’ve talked about this before on the show. Not an excuse. You still have to figure out how to make your work visible.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:15]: The biggest question in there is who are you visible to?

Eric Ressler [00:00:20]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:20]: That’s a question I’m asking myself right now at Seymour Center is who are we visible to and why? And what is the result that I need to see as downstream [00:00:30] of being visible today?

Eric Ressler [00:00:30]: I’m Eric Ressler.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:30]: I’m Jonathan Hicken.

Eric Ressler [00:00:35]: And this is Designing Tomorrow. So Jonathan, lately I’ve been working with clients and this happens to me, I feel like in fits and starts a little bit, where sometimes the clients are a little bit reluctant to be visible about their work. There’s a couple different reasons why this shows up, which we’ll get into. But it irked me enough that I felt like I’m going to bring this into the pod for this week and I’m going to make maybe a little bit of a provocative claim here, which is that orgs who are consistently good at visibility outperform and are more successful, generally speaking, than orgs who are really good at impact.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:15]: Spicy. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately at Seymour Center.

Eric Ressler [00:01:20]: And just to be clear, I’m not saying you shouldn’t be good at impact. What I am saying and my claim here is that you also have to be equally good, if not better, at figuring out how do you make your work visible.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:30]: Let’s break this down.

Eric Ressler [00:01:30]: So a couple things. There are good reasons why visibility is hard in our space, and I do want to acknowledge some of those reasons. So sometimes the nature of your work is complex, it’s nuanced, it’s behind the scenes. The impact that you do might take years or even decades to really show up. We’ve talked about this before on the show. Not an excuse. You still have to figure out how to make your work visible. Sometimes it’s capacity. We don’t have the staff. We don’t have the time. We’re so busy doing this. Not an excuse. You have to figure out how to make your work visible. So I hear all of these reasons, and they’re valid reasons, but I am going to passionately defend. I don’t care about those reasons. This is so important. You have to figure it out. You have to figure it out just the same way you have to figure out and get creative and get scrappy or whatever word you want to use to actually make an impact as an org too.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:20]: I think you’ve missed one of the reasons why some of us in the space might avoid being visible. And that is just some sort of moral objection to maybe if we’re too visible that devalues the sincerity or the authenticity of the impact. There’s a sort of humility thing in there.

Eric Ressler [00:02:40]: That’s a big one. The we’re a scrappy org doing good work behind the scenes fallacy.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:45]: Yeah. I don’t-

Eric Ressler [00:02:45]: No, not an excuse.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:50]: It’s not good enough. I agree. Not good enough. I agree.

Eric Ressler [00:02:50]: I think that era is over. I think that there used to be, and maybe there’s still some corners of the social impact ecosystem where you can get away with that, but I would not bet on that strategy if I were you.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:00]: Now, when you say that an organization that is better at being visible than one that’s not outperforms, what does that mean? What do you mean by that?

Eric Ressler [00:03:10]: That’s a good question because by what metric, right? Largely resources. And so resources matter in this space. One of the biggest barriers of impact work is not having the proper resources to match the scale and the ambition of your mission, especially when your mission is really ambitious or big. So what I’ve noticed is that a lot of orgs who get the attention, who get the funding, who attract the right teams and the staff to do their work, there are also the orgs that are the most visible. Begs the question, what came first the chicken or the egg? Are they visible because they are so good at their impact that they naturally become visible? And I don’t think so.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:50]: No, no, I don’t think. I mean, maybe there are a few cases of that being accidental, but I think in the vast majority of visible organizations [00:04:00] were deliberate about it.

Eric Ressler [00:04:00]: Yeah. So let’s talk about, I have a sort of weird political parallel here that I think is interesting. So you know Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act, right?

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:10]: I certainly do.

Eric Ressler [00:04:10]: So even at a national politics level, when we’re talking about reaching everyday citizens for an issue that matters to basically everyone, healthcare, they did polling and they, I don’t know, we’ll look it up and put it in the show notes, but I distinctly remember this, where people pulled very positively overall for the Affordable Care Act. And those same people pulled very negatively for Obamacare.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:40]: The branding of Obamacare.

Eric Ressler [00:04:40]: Yes. Just the name, just even Obama. And there’s political polarization and whatever in the mix there for sure. But my reflection here is that Democrats have traditionally been not very good at making their work as visible as they could or should. And that is one of the problems that they are facing as a political party and movement right now, just at large. There’s obviously a huge, there’s lots of disagreement and differences in the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership and whatnot, especially in this moment. On the contrary, Trump is very good at making his work visible even when, and maybe especially when it’s awful. And maybe that’s because it’s like bull in a China shop style visibility where it’s just like you can’t look away or a slow motion car wreck. But even when you think about what’s going on with a lot of his policies, it’s almost like spectacle as policy. I think I probably stole that from Ezra Klein. But the point being that we need to make our work visible at every scope and scale from the national level all the way down to community level. Because if the work isn’t visible, then you can’t build that flywheel of getting attention, educating people, creating behavior change, getting the resources that you need, reaching the right people who are either partners or funders to get that flywheel going and get the resources you need to actually have your mission scale and make the impact that you want to.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:10]: In the political sphere, there’s this New York mayor, right? He’s a Democrat and he’s getting good at making his work in New York visible. And that I think that probably explains a lot of this attraction across the country for him. Mahmdani, I think is his name.

Eric Ressler [00:06:25]: That’s right.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:25]: But I have to ask you, right? In that example, would you then say Trump is more effective than Obama because he’s more visible?

Eric Ressler [00:06:40]: Well, again, by what measure, right? Trump, for all of his faults, I’m obviously not a supporter of Trump. One thing he is really good at is getting media attention and media visibility. And so by that metric, I think he beats pretty much every politician ever. Is he more effective, was the question?

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:00]: You used the word outperform.

Eric Ressler [00:07:00]: Outperform. Right, right, right. Well, if you look even, and I don’t know how much we can really attribute success around fundraising to his visibility only, et cetera. But yeah, I mean, he’s been extremely successful with fundraising as well. So if you want to look at it from that metric. And if he were also competent, he would be able, he would have the resources and the setting and the scenario to actually take that visibility, take those resources and apply them in a strategic way. And you can argue that in certain cases he has whether you are for or against his policies. But yes, I do think he’s been very effective at harnessing attention and being able to turn that into at least directional policy action, even if he’s incompetent at actually creating change in a meaningful way, because he’s essentially sidestepping all the legislative processes that will make his change durable over time.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:55]: That’s one of the world’s biggest stages. And the point carries over to one person, tiny little nonprofits too, right? Even if you’re at the smallest of scales, being visible is a critical component to you being able to deliver impact. That’s the argument I think I’m hearing you put forward.

Eric Ressler [00:08:15]: Yeah. Let’s bring this back to our listeners here and our audience to your point. And I do agree that yes, this matters if you are a two person nonprofit or a 50 person social enterprise. If you’re doing work in the social impact space, visibility is what I’ve noticed, probably the single most underleveraged strategy for creating social change. And I’m passionate about this. I have an agency built to solve this problem to some degree, but I think maybe what we should do next is talk about what do we mean exactly when we say visibility? Because I think that’s a word that can connote different types of things. And I think probably the first thing people are going to think about is media attention, being written up in media or having large social followings or getting lots of likes and comments on your social posts or having a big newsletter, that’s a form of visibility. And I actually think that’s quite important because so much information and so much relationship building does happen through digital channels these days. But another opposite form of visibility that could actually in certain cases, depending on the type of org that you are, be even more effective or successful would be a dinner with 10 people who matter and making sure that they understand who you are and what you do and the impact that you’ve had too. So there’s not a one size fits all. So there’s maybe a little bit of a test that you can do as an organization to say, “Hey, do we have a visibility problem here?” So here’s a test you might be able to run, ask a couple different cohorts, what do we do and what impact do we have in the world? And let’s say maybe you should ask your internal team this, you should ask your board of directors, you should ask aligned funders who you’ve worked with before. It’d be great to, if you could, pull people who have tangential understanding but aren’t deeply in your world yet. And if you notice that there’s not a cohesive, somewhat consistent, clarified answer to those questions, more often than not, you have two problems, a visibility problem and a messaging problem, they go hand in hand, which we can break down in a little bit more detail, but that’s a good way to test, do I have a visibility problem at my organization?

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:35]: The biggest question in there is who are you visible to?

Eric Ressler [00:10:35]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:40]: I think that’s a question I’m asking myself right now at Seymour Center is who are we visible to and why? And what is the result that I need to see as downstream of being visible to them? And so in your example, maybe there’s an organization out there that wants to be state or nationally visible for whatever reason. For us, Seymour Center, we care about being visible within Santa Cruz County, right? We’re a very local and regional organization, so I care about that, but another organization might not care about that at all and they may care about those 10 donors or the 10 most important policymakers or whatever, but the point is you got to make sure that those people you care about most can answer these two questions consistently.

Eric Ressler [00:11:25]: Exactly. So to your point, you don’t need to be visible to everybody depending on the type of org that you are. If you’re a grassroots advocacy org, yeah, the more visibility, the better, right? But if you are, for example, one of our clients works only with state legislators. And I remember in our listening session that we did with them recently, they were very explicit about we do not need to be a household name in America for everyday people because those aren’t the people that we’re trying to reach here. We are upstream of that. So that’s one example. Or to your example, you might care a lot about being visible in a particular region or a particular community. You probably don’t care what people in Kansas think about the Seymour Center as much as people right here in our community. Now, could national visibility be a net benefit to you?

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:15]: Sure,

Eric Ressler [00:12:20]: Sure. But if you’re going to have to prioritize, yeah, I do think it’s worth thinking about who are the most important for me to be visible to as an organization.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:25]: I wonder though, you said if we’re talking to donors, we’re talking to funders, maybe we’re talking to several, we do your exercise, we do your test, right? And we talk to all these different groups and they’re giving us different answers. There’s nuance in interpreting those answers. And I don’t know if we want to do that right now, but you kind of expect these different groups to give you slightly different answers.

Eric Ressler [00:12:45]: I think that’s true. Are we expecting those different groups to recite your elevator pitch and your perfectly crafted mission and vision statements? No. But if they can’t answer, maybe here’s a good way to think about it with enough specificity where they’re like, “Well, I know Jonathan’s doing something in the Marine space, but I don’t know if it’s conservation or advocacy or I think you can go see a whale there or something.” That is a sign that you’re not doing a good job with either your visibility and/or your messaging. So maybe let’s actually, if you don’t mind, let’s break down that distinction because I think I’ve seen it both ways. So I’ve seen orgs that have really dialed messaging, maybe because they worked with us or maybe because they did it on their own, but no solid visibility strategy, that doesn’t work either because there’s just not enough of the right people who have the opportunity to even see that message to understand it. The flip side problem is that you get a lot of visibility, but your messaging is so vague and so jargony and so unclear that people are like, “Yeah, they’re over here doing something in this space, but I don’t really understand it.” I would say that that latter example is a little bit more common.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:00]: If you had to pick one to do well and one to do poorly, which one-

Eric Ressler [00:14:00]: Visibility, man. Yeah. All right. Visibility, because at least you get the chance. You’re opening a door and people could maybe dig in on their own. If you have no visibility, you don’t even have a chance.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:10]: Yeah, fair enough.

Eric Ressler [00:14:20]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode, I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency, purpose built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. [00:14:30] For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

Jonathan Hicken [00:15:05]: I think about this in terms of sequencing and how much effort I’m putting into certain arms of the business at any given time. And actually, I think back to my time at tech and I worked at this company that was doing usability testing and it was a platform where people could sign up and take usability tests and earn 10 bucks for 15 minutes of their time. And there was this balancing act where we needed to get enough customers to run the business, but we also needed to get enough testers on the panel to meet the demand. But if we had too many testers, then they’d drop off because they didn’t get enough work. And if we had too many customers. So there’s this balancing act where it’s, what are we building at any given time? And I actually think of this work similarly. If we take impact and visibility as these two things to balance, I think that organizations need to start with the impact, but they’re going to need to turn their attention towards visibility for a while. But then I’m anticipating, at least at Seymour Center, I’m in this visibility mode right now, but I’m anticipating, once that really gets cooking, I’m going to need to turn back to impact and ramp that up. And it’s going to be this ladder, climbing up the ladder of visibility impact little by little.

Eric Ressler [00:16:30]: I actually want to challenge that thinking a little bit because I think that’s actually a common way to think about it. And I think there is a new strategy to consider that we’ve advised some clients to take that has been really successful, which is to build visibility into every, however you break down your work, every program, every initiative, so that visibility is built into the planning from the beginning. Now, we’ve seen this sometimes with major grants have a communications budget attached to them or something, right? And naturally you’re going to have to prioritize, and you’re in a mode of visibility right now, which I do want to give you a chance to talk a little bit about that. But one way to get started on this visibility play or this visibility strategy is to start to think about every time you are spinning up a new program or assessing a program, there should be a visibility arm or element to every bit of what you do. So if you think about your programs at the Seymour Center, education, exhibits, now we have Seymour Studios, visibility should not be necessarily always an equal amount of your work in each of those things. Some things are naturally going to have more opportunities for visibility or be a very visibility first play. But I’m going to argue and claim that everything that you do should at least be considered through a visibility lens because I think sometimes what happens is that we talk about this with clients and they’re like, “Okay, but I just don’t know what to talk about. There’s nothing new going on or there’s nothing exciting.” And then you realize or re-realize through working with them that you might think that thing is boring, but that’s actually exactly the thing that you need to talk more about. Maybe sometimes that’s a build in public behind the scenes and we’re working with an org right now who’s in a little bit of a pilot experimentation mode. It’s like, “Well, we don’t have any impact yet.” Totally fair, right? We don’t want to make up impact. That’s not the idea here. So instead, let’s shift into a mode where it’s like, “Hey, here’s our thesis, here’s what we’re seeing, here’s what we’re observing in the space, and here’s what we’re learning along this journey so far. And we’re going to take you along for that ride and say, hey, this is what’s stopping us right now. Here are the challenges and here’s how we’re thinking about solving them.” I think some orgs do that in a really interesting way and that build in public, behind the scenes style of visibility and content and storytelling can be really magnetic to your supporters.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:00]: I just went through this little journey as you were going through that. My first gut reaction was like, no, dude, it doesn’t work like that. You can’t build visibility into every program, especially if you’re a small organization, that’s just impossible. The dollars don’t add up. The dollars and cents don’t add up. And then I corrected myself and I was like, no, actually you can do small things.

Eric Ressler [00:19:25]: It doesn’t have to be huge.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:25]: It doesn’t have to be huge. And so even we have volunteering, we have our youth school programs and stuff like that. And we actually, I’m realizing in real time, and maybe this is a little encouragement for listeners, yeah, we build that in because we know that in volunteering, folks that are retired and college students are the people who volunteer the most. So we make sure that when we’re recruiting, we hit those audiences. And our school programs, I actually think of teachers as being our constituent In that program. So we’re like, okay, how are we communicating with teachers? So yes, it is possible. It doesn’t have to be huge, but you do have to be deliberate about it.

Eric Ressler [00:20:00]: That’s a good word, deliberate or intentional. I think my challenge to listeners is throw those assumptions away and just thought experiment, how might we make this part of our work more visible and what’s our visibility strategy? And look, even if you walk away and say, “You know what, there’s not really much there. There’s not much juice to squeeze out of that program.” Great. At least you tried, at least you went through that exercise because I think what ends up happening is orgs will just default to the obvious solutions, but then you get stuck telling the same stories over and over and over again. And a lot about publishing consistently, having a point of view, being visible in your work is figuring out how to tell similar or the same story over and over and over and over again in new and interesting and creative ways. So I think that if you look in the corners that you haven’t looked at, there’s sometimes some storytelling gold there.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:55]: And it’s so funny because sometimes I feel like that’s my whole job, is telling this story a thousand times the day with slight little tweaks depending on who I’m talking to, but I’m just repeating this vision and this impact and the story over and over and over again.

Eric Ressler [00:21:10]: Yeah. I mean, let’s not forget that you hear that story more than anyone in the world, right? And so sometimes you’re like, “Well, we already did that piece. We already did that thing.” I mean, I’ve been talking about brand for 16 years. You think I don’t get bored about it, but it’s like I constantly find new ways to think about it and to repackage and retell the story.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:30]: I actually think you don’t get bored with it.

Eric Ressler [00:21:35]: Yeah. Okay. I don’t really get bored with it, but I do sometimes feel like, “Oh, we already did something on that.” And even some of these ideas in this podcast we’ve covered in various ways and past ones. Sure. So look for those opportunities. I do want to speak to something else you said, which is, we don’t have the dollars or cents for this. And you already alluded to this, but if you’re a listener right now and you’re like, “Okay, Eric, I’m convinced I need to be more visible. I’m going to take visibility more seriously in my work, but how do I even get started? It feels overwhelming. We don’t have the dollars. We don’t have the capacity, whatever the constraints might be.” I think you just need to start, right? You need to start and just do one thing and commit to that and then build on that because my claim here and what I’ve observed over and over and over again is once you start, you might not see success immediately, but you’ll be surprised, especially if you’re going from zero to step one, how much impact even just a little bit of visibility might have. We, for example, had a client that we did a rebrand for, they were a brand new org. We started so simple. We’re going to write two articles a month and we’re going to send two newsletters a month. And at first they didn’t hear much. And then they went to a conference and everyone at that conference came up to them and was like, “Hey, I saw that article about that thing you did.” It was so good. And they were like, “Oh my God, people are reading our thing.” I mean, even our podcast, sometimes I feel like we publish into the void. And that’s the nature of podcasting as you see downloads, see views, but you get some feedback. But I commonly will get people who are like, “Hey, I listened to that episode and I thought it was really great.” I was like, “Cool, maybe hit like next time.” So you have to remember that, and this is a little bit of a content point of view, but there’s so many people who are lurking and are not participating, but you are creating signal. And so I think that if you’re in this position of, well, how do we even begin? First of all, just consider visibility as core to your strategy and think about for every program, for every initiative, for every area of our work, how might we build some sort of visibility strategy into that work and then begin. And then if you do that consistently and you build out that capacity, that skill, that muscle, what will you start to see? Well, now people start to understand your impact. They start to understand your story, start to understand what you do more that leads to opportunities to funders, to partners, to staff who you really need that you couldn’t have attracted before. It is this flywheel effect. And now, oh, we actually have some capacity. We actually have some more resources than we did last year. Let’s not just put all that straight back into program work only. Let’s make sure now that we are investing in brand, investing in storytelling, investing in visibility at large, and then that’s how it becomes this flywheel effect.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:25]: For anybody out there that’s still thinking, “Okay, Eric, that all sounds good. You keep telling me just start, but how?” I would say literally be visible to one person. Pick one person that you think represents the kind of people that you want to be visible to and be visible to that one person. And that’s just doing the reps. That’s just building the muscle. Pick that person and be visible and then it’ll grow, right? And then you’ll start reaching more people like that and stuff. So I would say literally one person.

Eric Ressler [00:25:05]: Yep. So I remember season two or something when we still had seasons on this show, I claimed, Jonathan, you need to be your marketer at the Seymour Center. And at the time you’re like, “No, dude, I’m not doing that.” I convinced you on that one. You’ve come around.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:20]: I’m fully in, man. I have drank the Kool-Aid full blown.

Eric Ressler [00:25:25]: So now I want you, before we wrap up today, to just tell a little bit of a story. We’ve built this Seymour Studios out here at the Seymour Center where we’re recording today. You’ve launched your show, Science Solutions Santa Cruz. It’s like what, week three of it being out at the time we’re recording this, something like that?

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:40]: Yeah, four weeks,

Eric Ressler [00:25:40]: Four weeks in

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:40]: And almost 15,000 views.

Eric Ressler [00:25:45]: So tell me about how good my idea was here. No, I want you to make an honest case and reflection of how this visibility has affected your business so far. And obviously it’s still early, but I’m really impressed with how successful the show is so far.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:00]: Yeah. I mean, look, I did the thing where it was just get started. And to be fair, we had the resources to go bigger.

Eric Ressler [00:26:10]: Sure.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:10]: We had the time, we had the team, we had the resources and we had a clear idea of the story we wanted to tell and who we wanted to tell it to. All of that was pretty clear to us when you pitched this idea to me on our walk along Westclef. So just acknowledging that all of those pieces were already in place for us. We had the space, right? There was a lot of reasons why we were set up for it. I just took the plunge. I knew going into it that I didn’t know if this was going to be successful and it’s still early. There’s still a lot to learn. But four weeks in, we’ve got 15,000 views. I’m already booked out three months with guests. I have people in the community reaching out to me asking to come on the show. I’m getting people writing emails to my guests. In fact, we just got an email today from someone that’s in one of my guests’ universes saying how much they appreciated the perspective and advocacy and stuff. And so-

Eric Ressler [00:27:05]: Guests are getting donations?

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:10]: Yeah. And one of my guests called me saying that she had gotten a donation as a result of the podcast we did together. And so I mean, it was scary and it felt very risky. And to be honest, it still does, right? I mean, we’re seeing some really cool, honest, exciting early results, but every time I sit down on this chair to interview someone for the show, it feels like a risk. And I think a big part of it was just taking that plunge and taking that first step. And so-

Eric Ressler [00:27:40]: So it’s a risk in that there was upfront investment. And by the way, listeners, do you need to build out a pro level podcast, video podcast studio to build visibility? Again, no. No. It’s a good strategy if all the conditions are right, I think creating media like this, I think is an important strategy in our current media environment, but there’s that upfront risk, right? But there’s also the bigger ongoing either risk or trade off of a lot of your time and energy now is spent on this kind of work, which means you are not doing other things that you did before, right? You have a certain amount of time as an executive director. So I’m wondering if you could talk about how you think about that trade off. And you even mentioned earlier, okay, we’ve been really focused on visibility. Now I’m worried about impact, but I want to challenge, I don’t think those two things are a zero sum game. I think they feed on one another.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:35]: Yeah. I mean, my vision for the program that we’re producing is actually that I’m building it so I don’t have to be the host. That’s my vision here is that ultimately somebody else is in this seat. And frankly, I envision launching multiple shows and having this network of media, frankly, where I then get to step back and point my attention as executive director to other areas that need my attention, but it was, and I believe it continues to be the right use of my time. Now what’s really important, the thing that I’m trying to turn on is the fundraising results. For me, the visibility has to lead to fundraising results. And we’re so early in on this program that I haven’t seen those yet, at least that I’m aware of. And so that’s my next focus is turning on that connection. And I’m confident that it’s going to work because the results are so impressive that I think the donors in my network are going to see real impact and real meaning in that, just like I do.

Eric Ressler [00:29:41]: I think one way to think about this, and I think about this in our business also is, your next cohort of donors have maybe not even heard about you yet. And I think about this in the nature of our work being transformative. We work with clients over multiple years, but every year we work with the new cohort of clients too. And so the clients that we work with three years from now might be listening to this episode today and I don’t know that this episode is going to be that first touch point. So this is just brand building 101. So I think not to say you might not get a viewer of a show like this that then is already in a place that they’re already really keen to donate or to make an investment in an org like yours and that visibility instantly leads to a donation, that’ll happen too. But more commonly, you need a certain number of just visibility touchpoints to build trust, to build credibility, to build a relationship over time. So a good way to think about visibility as a strategy is you are paving the way for, in your case, next month’s donations, next year’s donations, five years from now donations. And if you build that visibility machine, you’re just creating more opportunities for those conditions to build that. And it’s the same for me as well. And so it is a bit of a long game, right? Visibility. It doesn’t have to be. There’s short game visibility plays you could do as well, but you do have to be patient at some level and you have to be willing to play that long game for it to work out.

Jonathan Hicken [00:31:15]: One of the things that we knew about fundraising is that we, in terms of major donor fundraising, we got the best results when I personally had time with the individual or the family or whatever, and that was producing results. The challenge is it’s hard to scale one person’s face time with a lot of major donors.

Eric Ressler [00:31:35]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:31:35]: And so the way I think about the show is actually scaling myself with donors that I don’t even know about yet, giving them a chance to get to know me, get to know the questions I’m asking, the kinds of people that I’m working with week in and week out, and having this fantastic starting point. So when I do meet that donor, they know me a little bit.

Eric Ressler [00:32:00]: Yes, yes. I think I say this a lot when we work with clients and we work with their development directors or development teams. It’s like, we do our job well and your job gets significantly easier because we are building awareness, trust, credibility so that by the time you sit down for an in-person meeting, you’re not starting at zero anymore. You are three or four meetings ahead that you would otherwise have to do in person. So yeah, I think to me for listeners, the big takeaway [00:32:30] today is visibility matters. You’re almost certainly under-indexing on it. Take it seriously and reap the benefits.

Jonathan Hicken [00:32:40]: Start with one person if you have to, but get started.

Eric Ressler [00:32:40]: Okay, Jonathan, this one was fun.

Jonathan Hicken [00:32:40]: Thanks, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:32:45]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

The social impact sector has made community co-creation almost sacred. Design with people, not for them. Give everyone a voice. And I believe it, but I’ve also watched it go sideways. The meeting that devolves into NIMBYism or the planning process that stalls because everybody gets a vote, but nobody makes a call. The loudest voices in the room are often not even the most informed ones, and sometimes a leader just has to make a decision. I’ve lived this running my own agency for 16 years. I still don’t have a clean answer for where the line is between participation and just making progress. Taylor Stuckert has been on every side of this tension. He’s the CEO of Lead for America, a national service organization. And before that, he spent 14 years as a planner in his hometown of Wilmington, Ohio, a place that lost almost 10,000 jobs overnight when DHL shut down.

He watched that crisis get managed behind closed doors. He also sat through years of heated planning commission meetings where community input made things harder, not easier. And in our conversation, we dig into this question that nobody in our space really wants to ask out loud. Can too much community input actually be a problem? And what does it look like to lead with conviction while still making room for the voices of the people that you serve?

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:30] Wilmington, Ohio and the day DHL disappeared
[00:05:30] Why big economic decisions used to happen behind closed doors
[00:06:30] The guerrilla flyer campaign that drew hundreds to a town hall
[00:08:30] When community input becomes a double-edged sword
[00:11:30] The civic infrastructure most communities never build
[00:12:30] Building a steering committee out of strangers
[00:14:00] Stop trying to please everyone
[00:16:30] The binary framing trap killing community engagement
[00:17:30] There is no “the community”
[00:19:30] What gets lost when you climb the leadership ladder
[00:23:30] Inheriting a CEO role you didn’t found
[00:28:00] Why the brain drain narrative misses the bigger story
[00:31:30] National service shouldn’t only be for 22-year-olds
[00:37:00] Why AI will widen the divide we never closed
[00:44:30] What keeps a leader going when the work gets heavy

Notable Quotes:

[00:14:10]: “We have to get away from this notion that we’re going to make perfect decisions. Everyone always says it, but we still struggle with the idea that you’re just not going to please everyone — and that shouldn’t take away from how we engage everyone.” Taylor Stuckert

[00:17:40]: “We act as if the community is this unified object that has complete consensus and you’re either engaging them or you’re not. And that’s just so inaccurate to reality.” Taylor Stuckert

[00:11:45]: “You have to invest as much time, energy, and resources in the actual preparatory civic engagement work as you do around the issue itself. Proactiveness is everything — and yet planning so often feels reactive.” Taylor Stuckert

[00:21:10]: “I’m always so impressed by leaders who find a way to sit in that discomfort and yet still have conviction and move quickly — not in a reckless way, but in a confident way.” Eric Ressler

[00:40:35]: “If we really want to get the most out of the economic opportunity from AI, we have to have a country where everybody has the basic digital skills and the basic access to deploy them. We would be selling the opportunity short for anything less.” Taylor Stuckert

[00:47:40]: “The future is unwritten, and we are the authors of that story.” Taylor Stuckert

Resources & Links:

• Lead for America — The national service organization Taylor leads, focused on activating local talent in communities across the country

• American Connection Corps — Lead for America’s fellowship program placing emerging leaders in digitally disconnected communities

• Carnegie Corporation of New York — Referenced via Taylor’s mention of former president Dame Louise Richardson and her work on binary framing

• Energize Clinton County — Taylor’s previous nonprofit in Wilmington, Ohio.

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:01:30]: Taylor Stuckert, welcome to the show. Thanks so much for joining me today.

Taylor Stuckert [00:01:30]: Yeah, thanks for having me.

Eric Ressler [00:01:35]: So you have a really interesting background — Peace Corps, coming back to rural Ohio where you grew up and seeing a really changed community. And I actually think I want to start there, because you came back to a community that had gone through a pretty big shift. The main employer, DHL I believe, had gone through some big restructuring and there was a lot of disruption in the economy. And my understanding from talking to you and learning about you is that there was this moment where big decisions that really had a major influence on the future of the city were being made essentially behind closed doors — by senators, by corporate leaders. And you said, “No, that’s not how we’re going to do this.” And you took matters into your own hands with a bit of a guerrilla movement-building play. I’d love if you would share that part of your history with our listeners as a way to kick off our interview today.

Taylor Stuckert [00:02:30]: Yeah, absolutely. So the company was DHL, an international shipping company most people probably know about. And Wilmington’s unique. It’s a small town of about 12,000. If you look at it on a satellite view on Google Maps, you’ll see this large airport that physically is about the size of the community. It was an old strategic air command base from the 50s. It closed down in the 70s and then was acquired by a shipping company in the early 80s. Airborne Express grew that incrementally over many years. And then DHL, the largest shipping company in the world, acquired it as the headquarters for its domestic operations in Wilmington, Ohio. Growing up in the community, the airport was always a backdrop. It wasn’t anything that stood out the way that a lot of physical, large employers and industrial campuses stand out, because it’s an airport.

You’d see a stream of planes flying in on the night sky every night growing up. So it was always just there in the background. You knew people that worked there. I had family that worked there. Maybe because of its slow growth over many years, it wasn’t anything that felt like this big splash and then something that just disappeared. It was slowly growing over many years and then it disappeared. So it was a unique situation in that regard. I had been in the Peace Corps and service was disrupted, and I ended up back home really by accident around that time. The national recession was starting. Because of the timing of the announcement, Wilmington was thrusted into the national spotlight — some people would say it was the ground zero of the Great Recession at that time.

I’ve talked to a lot of colleagues about this, especially in recent years. When we think of impactful issues facing communities, it’s very natural today for us to think about community meetings, town halls — these are very relatable environments today. People can picture the viral videos of town halls. And I think we take for granted how new of a concept that is. In New England, they’ve always had town halls and robust civic engagement, but for most of our communities, large economic decisions, industrial decisions were not things that involved a very democratic process with the broader community. However, when I was in the Peace Corps, that was something we were teaching in our work abroad — the importance of community engagement, of people having a seat at the table and drawing out the vision for the future of the community.

So when I came back home, this big event was happening, and for that conversation to not be happening felt a little odd. I don’t think it was unusual at the high-level view — that was actually probably the norm — but it was unusual looking at it through the lens of work we had done through international development. A friend of mine from growing up in Wilmington and I happened to be home at the same time, and we felt that because this was such a profound change for the community, it would make sense for the community to have some voice in that envisioning process for the future. We didn’t really have a strong vision for what that should be. It was really about galvanizing a community conversation. So we took what you might call guerrilla tactics — identifying certain popular community gathering spaces or moments to start to initiate that conversation.

We have this holiday parade that takes place every year, the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Thousands of people are in our downtown, and we printed out probably a thousand or more of these little flyers that just said, “Are you mad about the DHL situation? Come to this meeting to talk about the future.” We handed them all out, and we didn’t really have too much of a plan for what that conversation would look like. We certainly didn’t anticipate what ultimately transpired, which was a few hundred people showing up to a meeting. We had several regional news stations that even came. We had to throw this conversation together. For us at the time, it really was about: Wilmington’s going through this major economic transition. Where do we see ourselves from an employment standpoint, from a workforce development standpoint, from a community standpoint, where do we see ourselves in this future economy?

It’s interesting to look back to 2009. Hindsight’s always 20/20, but to think about how in that moment even then, there was a lot of question about what the future of work looked like. What would transpire coming out of the recession? And it feels eerily similar to where we are today as we think about technological disruption, how jobs are going to be impacted by these disruptions, and what are the future skills needed? What are the future job opportunities? What do wages look like? These were a lot of the same questions that we were having and talking about in 2009 as well.

Eric Ressler [00:08:25]: There’s a lot of good threads I want to pull on there. We’re going to get to your current role as CEO of Lead for America and talk a little bit more about what you’re going through right now that I think will relate back to this. But I actually want to hold on something I struggle with a lot personally trying to form a strong opinion about — community input, community co-creation. There’s this lionization of that approach in the social impact space, and it’s rooted in good reasoning. But I also think there are some negative downsides that can happen when the process gets almost too democratic, to put it in a weird way. The way I think about this showing up is in city council meetings, community convening meetings where there are residents who have a stake in the game, who have really strongly held opinions, but maybe don’t see the full picture or have very personal motivations for their opinions.

And then I see process for social change get bogged down. I’m curious about what is the best version of that and what is the worst version of that? One practical example we can talk about is housing supply. In California where I am, there’s a very strong state mandate where our cities and counties actually have much less power than they used to around decisions around housing. And yet housing creation is still a major issue, and there are very strong counterpoints to some of this housing supply creation. Some of the criticisms I think are fair, but other times it’s really just straight NIMBYism. So community co-creation, community input is a double-edged sword in certain ways. You I think are uniquely qualified to have a strong opinion about this because of your background and your work you do every day. How do you think about that tension?

Taylor Stuckert [00:10:25]: Yeah. I’ve lived it from every angle of perspective around it, from NIMBYism to now YIMBYism. And I heard a recent one, a new acronym recently called Banana, which was “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything,” something like that.

Eric Ressler [00:10:50]: Never heard that one.

Taylor Stuckert [00:10:50]: Yeah. Which is often what it feels like. I was a regional planning director before this. I was on the front lines of that. I’ve been through numerous heated city council meetings, heated planning commission meetings about everything from very impactful things based on scale to things that it’s really surprising we’re having a heated debate about — from the smallest of items like a fence to a full housing development. So I definitely hear you on the upside and downside of that. I felt like I had really developed my thinking on it throughout my time in planning, and really centered it on the belief that you have to invest as much time, energy, and resources in the actual preparatory engagement, community engagement aspect to the work as you do around the issue itself. Proactiveness is everything.

And yet planning so often feels so reactive. Community development work often feels so reactive. All the tensions we’re talking about are reactions to an announcement, to a perspective development. We’re not doing that civic infrastructure work that’s needed to be in place before those big announcements happen. That’s the problem — we’re always a step behind. I remember we did a big comprehensive plan. It was one of the last major projects I did in the community. It keeps getting referenced by both sides in tense arguments these days. One thing I really set out to do for that process was to build a steering committee that involved mostly people I’d never met before. Clinton County, Ohio is a small county of 42,000 people. It’s amazing when you have tens of thousands of people, how easily it can be to think that you know everyone when really you probably know less than 5% of the population.

So I was very intentional about that steering committee and identifying people who did not hold elected office, who were not the typical well-known people that you see in community meetings or at the front of city council conversations, and bringing them to the table. Several of them were people who had just moved to the community. Often that’s a tension point — “I’ve been here my whole life” or “you just moved here, what do you know?” It was a fascinating process. I wouldn’t say it was perfect, but it was really interesting how that shifted the dynamic of that process, of the conversation, and ultimately of the adoption of the plan. It actually felt like something that people saw themselves in, that they heard their voice in.

To your point about the upside and the downside, we have to get away from this notion that we’re going to make perfect decisions. Everyone always says it: “you’re not going to please everyone.” That’s such a cliche, but yet we still struggle with that notion. You’re just not going to please everyone, but that shouldn’t take away from how we engage everyone, or at least create opportunities for everyone to be involved in the process.

Eric Ressler [00:14:35]: Yeah. I appreciate your commentary on that. I actually think there’s a similar issue I struggle with even leading a small social impact agency — and I can imagine this problem only scales as you grow and you’re leading a much bigger team than I am. Similarly, you want to co-create with your team. You want to empower your team, you want your team to have ideas and bring them in good spirit and have decision-making, not just be totally hierarchical and top-down. And yet similarly, there’s a time and a place for leadership — for people who are in positions of leadership to make strong choices, even if some people disagree with those choices. I see this as a similar metaphor to co-creating with the community. There’s a similar scope and scale where you’re co-creating within an organization that I think a lot of executive directors and CEOs are grappling with.

To me, it feels like a different flavor of the same tension and the same balance that needs to be reached. Honestly, that’s something I continue to struggle with as a leader. I’ve been running Cosmic for 16 years at this point. I’ve tried more democratic, less democratic processes — flatter structures, more opinionated leadership. And I still don’t think I’ve found the golden solution to that. It’s something that feels always a little bit fluid, maybe depending on the season we’re in as an organization. Are we in a growth mode? Are we in a consolidation mode? Where are we in the process? I’d be curious — does that parallel resonate with you from a leadership standpoint? How do you think about that as you’re running your organization as a CEO?

Taylor Stuckert [00:16:20]: Well, one thing I want to touch on too — the head of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Dame Louise Richardson, brilliant person. A lot of her background was focused around domestic terrorism in Ireland. She’s from Ireland, and she talks a lot about the influence and the impact of binary framing in society as it relates to acts of aggression and violence. Going back to the community voice piece of it and thinking about it even from an organizational standpoint, through a variety of ways and factors, we have put ourselves in this position where everything is a binary choice. When we think of even — does the community have a voice, have they participated? It’s not a binary situation. It’s not yes or no.

One of the things I think about a lot lately, as you were talking about that being lionized in the social impact sector, is that that often surfaces. And yet we never really question what does it even mean — was the community involved or did they have a voice? Did we engage? Who is the community? And we act as if the community is this unified object that has complete consensus, and you’re either engaging them or you’re not. And that’s just so inaccurate to reality. Leadership is really that responsibility of hearing and listening and analyzing the landscape and hearing the multitude of voices of the community, recognizing that there’s a pluralism in community and bearing the responsibility of making challenging decisions based on the data and the observations and the information that they’re seeing in these situations. That’s why sometimes I don’t even like the notion of “we’re not going to please everyone,” as if pleasing is the basis of all decision-making or tough decision-making. We put ourselves in these binary corners of “you either pleased or you’re displeased,” and that’s just not often how it shakes out.

So when I talk to people who are coming up in their career all the time, I will say that I was thrust into a leadership role. I found myself leading a regional planning agency without a ton of serious management experience. And then I’ve continued to stay in a management or executive type position since that time. One of the things I realized when I stepped into that role was how much I gave up in terms of the hands-on work I was doing. I no longer was able to do the map-making or the design work that I really enjoyed doing. Now I was doing budgeting and management decisions and HR-type stuff — things I never imagined were a part of the equation. But we are trained to see all careers as a ladder that leads to an executive role.

I’ve accepted that I’ve been in that role now long enough that I’ve acquired a lot of the skillsets and the necessary lived experience to navigate it well, but I’m not sure if I would’ve followed that path again if I was given the choice. Because what comes with it is that responsibility of imperfect decision-making and dealing with a pluralism of voices and data and information, and never feeling like you’re really making a perfect decision. For us, naturally, that can be a challenge — you want to feel this sense of closure in decision-making. Sometimes it can happen in certain moments when you have a certain level of consensus or a process that feels fulfilling or satisfying of all the voices involved, but it’s maybe rarer than we think it is.

Eric Ressler [00:20:45]: Yeah. I imagine that almost everyone listening to the show who’s in any form of a leadership or management position can relate to that. I think that is a healthy challenge. I completely relate to “I never feel like I make a perfect decision.” Even that framing is probably a little bit of a misnomer. As I’ve been doing this work longer and learning from other leaders, I’m always so impressed and inspired by leaders who find a way to sit in that discomfort and yet still have conviction and move quickly — not in a reckless way, but in a confident way — and accept that they’re always going to be a student in life at some level. That’s a lot easier to say than to actually do, especially when real people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake, either just your employees or because of the type of work that we’re doing where the stakes are high at certain points.

We’re not talking about, in this space, “are we going to cut 15% of our highly paid tech workers?” — not to diminish the livelihood impacts of that for the tech worker class — but we’re talking about: “is this intervention going to hit underserved communities harder than we anticipate, or actually backfire in a way that is exactly opposite to the stated mission of our organization?” The stakes are much higher, and often the resources to have the right evidence, the right tools at our disposal to make those decisions as best as we can, might also not be ideal. It’s a really challenging situation.

Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode — I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose-built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy. But we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

I feel like I’d like to transition, and this is a good time, into your experience coming in as the CEO of Lead for America — not being a founder for the organization, but inheriting a CEO role, which is another identity shift. We’re going to talk a little bit about identity and narrative today. I’d love if you could just share a little bit of background on how that happened, what that experience has been like, and how you have stepped into that role as a leader inheriting an organization.

Taylor Stuckert [00:23:50]: Yeah. So I have been a founder of a nonprofit, and I feel like I can relate to the identity attachment that comes with founding something. I try to hold that carefully. I know firsthand what that attachment can feel like. I try to be very respectful and caring of the attachment that the individuals that started this organization, that got it off the ground, hold for it. I carry that with me as I do my work. I make sure I’m thinking about that and being considerate of being a steward of this mission — just stewarding it while I have it — that ultimately someone else will likely take it and leave their fingerprints on it as well. Having had that experience, I probably care for it a little more carefully than somebody that maybe hadn’t founded something before.

My style, in just about anything — whether it’s work or personal life — and something I’ve kind of dialed in on over the years, is really a listen-first approach to just about everything I do. I do try to ensure that I’m giving the appropriate amount of attention and thought and consideration to those that help construct things, those that feel part of things. That can be anything from the founders of the organization to the staff past or present. For us in particular, as a service organization, we have a lot of individuals who have passed through in a fellowship role and are now alumni. Hearing their experience and understanding what this mission means to them and holding that, while also inviting them to be a part of the continued evolution of the mission. I took that very seriously, and it felt right for me — just because of that experience and that approach — to come into a role like this where I’m not the founder of the organization. I don’t have that specific niche story that was often told over and over again as the impetus or the foundation for the existence of this mission.

But I’ve also been able to care for that and continue to grow and evolve that mission. This goes back to the conversation about who is the community when we talk about engaging the community. Is it a fixed group of people or is it a dynamic group of people that changes over time? My belief is that it’s always dynamic, and that the people coming into the work at this moment do have agency and do have say over what this mission means and how they’re going to contribute to it. So it’s a balancing of holding onto the past in a respectful and caring and considerate way — not losing sight of what people put in terms of sweat equity and care into this mission — but being a good steward and doing that, while also looking at current conditions and future horizons for where this work is going, and trying to steward the work in a direction that is sustainable, that is authentic, and is responsive to the world we live in today.

Eric Ressler [00:27:40]: When we were prepping for this interview — and a little bit of time has passed since we did that — you mentioned that you were in the process of going through a strategic narrative shift at Lead for America. Catch me up on where you’re at there and what was the impetus for that. How do you think about that in terms of identity, community, all of the topics we’re discussing here, and engaging your team in doing that?

Taylor Stuckert [00:28:05]: So again, I’m very comfortable looking at the past and recognizing it as a moment in time. Sometimes people get uncomfortable with the sense that when we talk about the past and we make shifts or recalibrate, that we’re saying that what they did was wrong. That’s never how I see it. I see it as just a moment in time. When this organization was founded, it’s an era I can totally relate to, because I was a part of that community. I was not involved in Lead for America, but it was an era in which a lot of books and research and articles were put out about the brain drain issue and about the loss of young people from the heartland. That really was the origin impetus for this work — you had a group of college-age students who had been from smaller communities all across the country, from Kansas to Oklahoma to Minnesota, Kentucky.

They were in college and they were looking at the landscape of fellowship opportunities, and they all were taking them to New York or DC or Silicon Valley. There really weren’t any opportunities to do a fellowship in the heartland or in a small community. They wanted to change that. They wanted to create opportunities for that. It’s very noble. It’s very relatable to me as somebody who moved to New York City and then came back to Ohio. But over time, as I spent a lot of time in Ohio and the Midwest, I really came to see that narrative as just one piece of the story, and a small piece. It’s definitely not telling the whole story about these communities and the future of these places. Returners are important. Brain drain is something communities should care about, just from the standpoint of: are we inviting the young people that we raise to stay here, but are we also giving them the opportunities to flourish and do the things they want to do?

But that narrative leaves out, I would say, obviously the majority of the population. Returners and brain drain make up a small percentage of the human capital that makes the community thrive. I noticed that in my own work before Lead for America — that we’re talking about a very small subset of individuals. As I came into this organization, I was very interested in expanding the tent, not just for that conversation, but for national service as a field. National service is something that does skew young, 18 to 24. I totally support a lot of the folks that are still adamant that this is the springboard for young people, and I agree with that. But I also think people spring at different times of life. Some people spring mid-career, they might spring into retirement. Service should be an opportunity that truly is open for all.

For a lot of our communities, we need everyone we can get and we should welcome anyone that wants to step forward. As I transitioned into this role, I was really interested in taking a step back and thinking about where is our mission and narrative really centered. Historically, the centering was on the individual service fellow that came through the program — their journey, what I was describing in the founders, that they got to do this fellowship and where did it take them from there. I really thought that is just a piece of the story and not the beginning and the end. The centering should be on the places we’re serving in this work. What is happening to the communities we’re supporting and partnering with in this journey? That really was the main shift — to focus our work on activating local talent and building the leadership pipelines that communities need to realize their own unique visions.

We’re not going to tell a community what their vision should be. We’re not going to describe or prescribe to them what talent looks like, that it’s an 18- to 24-year-old that went to this very prestigious school. It could look very different in one community. We’re going to let communities really be step in step on building what leadership pipelines look like to them. That was the main shift, and that’s where we have recentered our work, recalibrated our work. As we look ahead, we’re taking a step back. I talk a lot about — one of the things I was pleased by when I came into the national nonprofit world was that one of the universal consensus that I felt like I could see was everybody would always nod their head when somebody would say something to the effect of, “you’ve seen one community, you’ve seen one community.” We all sort of agree that communities are these very distinct, individualized things that at a certain level have similarities across the board, but we don’t arrange social sector interventions and even philanthropy in many ways at a national level to be aligned to that.

It works at the local level, it works at the regional level, but at a national level we really have a hard time doing that — about how we measure impact, how we tell that story, how we fund it. It is hard. It’s more challenging. But that’s really where I personally, and I think as an organization, we want to be — in that challenging space, because that’s where the work happens. That’s where innovation happens.

Eric Ressler [00:34:00]: Yeah. Tell me more about how you think about that with regards to — you guys are in local communities in the day-to-day work, and yet you are this national organization. Is it chapter-based? Is it cohort-based? Is it place-based? How do you get the best of both worlds? We do work with orgs like this that have districts or chapters, but then there is this kind of parent umbrella organization that provides the infrastructure, the backbone, the cross-learnings. What’s your version of that at Lead for America?

Taylor Stuckert [00:34:35]: Yeah. I came to look at it through my own lens as a local practitioner first, and for many years, about what was I missing in that regard? I was the person on the ground. I knew the community well. I didn’t need a national nonprofit to come in and say, “I should do this, this, or that.” What I was missing — and I think what LFA is focused on providing — was that I didn’t have the bandwidth to provide the administrative infrastructure that was needed to provide a fellowship opportunity to one or two individuals. That’s a lot to ask for. I wasn’t going to apply for a federal grant so that I could have one or two fellows working in my regional planning agency. The other thing was — I was very fortunate, so it wasn’t specifically for me, but I saw the benefit of it — to have been a part of a national dialogue. Because of the spotlighting around the DHL situation, I was very privileged to be a part of national panels about the future of small towns and rural communities.

I took a lot from that. I loved being a part of those conversations and bringing that knowledge back to my community, bringing those connections back to my community and those resources back to my community. That’s something that I feel any local practitioner should want — to feel connected to the country at large, and not feel that they’re working by themselves at the local level with nobody to relate to. Providing that national cohort model gives our participants who do our fellowship, but also the host site communities that we work with, the opportunity to be a part of something beyond their community. There’s these indirect, maybe even direct effects of that — especially as somebody who has worked in a rural part of the country, having exposure to other communities, to other practitioners, whether they’re in other rural communities or non-rural communities, is such an eye-opener and is such an important piece of knowledge to share with the community you’re working in. From a civic bridging opportunity, I think it’s a great way to bring people together from across the country doing similar work for places that they care about specifically.

Eric Ressler [00:37:00]: We’re in another moment right now that at least feels like we’re on the precipice of another major technological disruption that’s going to have impacts to the workforce, to careers, to starting and raising families. I’m speaking broadly about AI here, but I think other technologies as well. I’m not going to ask you to predict a future about what happens there — I don’t think anyone knows exactly what’s going to happen here. But what I would like to ask you is: what is the sentiment within these communities, especially within young people, where one of the stories that we’re hearing — and maybe even starting to see come true — is that quote-unquote entry-level positions are going to be some of the first to be most exposed to some of these new technological disruptions. You’ve led organizations and towns and communities through major change from an economic standpoint before. How do you think about those major disruptions and how to plan for them and how we can best support culture change at that scale?

Taylor Stuckert [00:38:10]: Yeah. What pains me the most about it is that I’m not that old, but I feel like I keep living through these crazy moments where I keep thinking to myself, when are we going to learn? Coming out of the recession, all the stuff I was saying about the proactive civic infrastructure building that we need to do — I think would have really served us well in this moment. Unfortunately, we’re just not there. I wish that we were. The thing I’ve learned over the years is to know that we don’t know, and to avoid some of these binary framings that we go into — that either AI is all good or it’s all bad. I really don’t operate there. There’s a ton of positive opportunity. There’s a lot of things communities should be thinking about and how they’re going to address it in their own unique way.

For me, there’s still a lot of things that aren’t settled on this conversation. I felt that early on, last summer, last fall, as data centers were being built. Where the developments are happening just so happen to be a lot of the places where the digital divide is at its greatest. You’re talking about places where big shifts are happening, big infrastructure being developed in communities where a lot of people still don’t have access to a laptop. They still don’t know what a keyboard and a mouse is. They have never done a telehealth appointment, and now they’re hearing about this new disruptive thing that the rest of us are ready to move on to. A few things come to mind for me. One is, this transformation is not going to happen in a healthy way if we don’t have this human infrastructure to support communities in making that transition.

If we want older adults to be using telehealth, they have to have a broadband connection, they have to have a device that they can use, and they have to have the digital skills to know how to use it. If we really want to get the most out of the economic opportunity potential from AI, we have to have a country where everybody has the basic digital skills and the basic access opportunities to deploy those skills to get the most out of it. We would be selling the opportunity short for anything less than that. I worry that if we try to moonshot past all of those things, we’re leaving the door open for political disruption that’s not going to serve anyone in the end as far as national progress goes, if we just leave it to that. It would be a misfortune if we just closed our eyes, covered our ears, and just hoped that everybody got it and was okay with it.

Eric Ressler [00:41:35]: Yeah. I think that’s fair. I’m under-impressed so far with how little AI is being considered for social innovation and social impact work. It’s happening at the individual practitioner level. The nonprofit space gets a lot of criticism for being slow to adopt technology, but I’m actually seeing — and there’s some data to support — that nonprofits are actually adopting AI more quickly than the private sector at large, which has its pros and cons. But to your point, yeah, we’re talking about this new transformative technology when a certain percentage of our population right here in America still doesn’t even have access to the internet in a meaningful way or the skills to use it effectively. I grew up as the internet was growing up. I had access to the internet very early. I was lucky in certain ways for that. In other ways, maybe not so lucky.

I worry that the internet has actually been in certain ways a net negative on society — especially when you see the polarization and how much hate and disagreement there is in our country right now. I don’t think the internet is solely responsible for that, but I think it is a big part of that equation. My fear is, will we see something similar happen with AI where it just creates an even bigger digital divide, even bigger divides in terms of class and wealth in America, where the most privileged and the wealthy of us are able to have even more leverage because of AI, and the people who are most at need or need more help or lack those resources — there’s this technology that in theory could help them move up in life, but instead is going to just hold them down.

I don’t know. There’s just so much going on with it. I don’t think anyone knows. But your story is poignant around these data centers that are using resources, water, electricity, et cetera, being built in these communities where a good portion of people don’t even have access to last generation’s technological innovation. Big issue, big equity issue. Not here to be an AI hater whatsoever. I think it has a lot of transformative potential. We use it all the time in constructive ways, even in our work today. But I do think this is a place where social innovation should be getting more attention than it is. I hope that leaders in our space can start to make a case for that and participate in it, and that the AI providers do a better job of ensuring we’re not just looking at how we can code things faster, but also how we can apply this technology to some of the things that we were promised early on in this vision they painted around medicine and health, and even universal basic income — was this thing that was talked about really early and doesn’t seem to be talked about nearly as much as part of the AI disruption story.

Taylor Stuckert [00:44:30]: Yeah. It’s hard. I’m in a lot of conversations where each one of those points gets brought up, and I still struggle with just the reality I see on the ground, which is — I’m plugged into this national community that’s talking about this very futurist vision of AI, but people around me are really just focused on this square box that’s being built in the middle of a cornfield. Those are just such divergent situations and realities. As a country, we’re in a position to really hopefully try to merge those two divergent realities, to bring people along with this opportunity and ensure that — we only get the most out of it when we have people participating and have the capability and agency to participate. I remain hopeful that that’s the direction we ultimately go as a national community, that we are able to merge those divergences and ensure that this is something that is about widespread impact.

Scale is the main distinguisher for AI — how fast it’s grown, how quickly it has spread. There’s really no reason that it shouldn’t bring people along. It shouldn’t leave people behind, versus the digital infrastructure of yesteryear, which was fiber and broadband infrastructure that does take longer to spread and more investment and work to build. This is something that spreads much more rapidly. So we need to be doing a better job of equipping people and communities to ensure that they can positively benefit from it.

Eric Ressler [00:46:35]: So before we wrap up, I want to ask one other thing. As a leader — and I think all leaders can relate to this in one way or another — sometimes it’s a grind. Sometimes the work is hard, sometimes it’s difficult, especially when we’re trying to grapple with these existential technologies or major cultural shifts that are happening, or even just get through a community meeting when we’re really trying to do our best job to listen. What in your life keeps you energized about this work, keeps you going, helps you wake up every day and not burn out when especially things get tough?

Taylor Stuckert [00:47:05]: I think for me, I try to be present in these moments. I try not to dwell too much on the past or feel too overwhelmed about the future, to remain grounded in the present and recognize that for as much as we read articles and studies and information and listen to podcasts, that they’re just signals. It’s not a tablet coming down from on high that’s telling us what the future is. I still believe that the future is unwritten, and that we are the authors of that story. What keeps me going through the grind and being hopeful — I love hearing what our individual service members are doing across the country. They’re not the ones that are on podcasts being spotlighted often, but they’re the ones that are sitting with that older adult, showing them how to use telehealth technology.

They’re sitting with a group of folks from the community going through AI images and quizzing them on what’s real and what’s not real. Those little things that are going to be critical for us to bring people along, that’s the work that gives me goosebumps. Whatever I can do to provide the resources or the means, the mission framing that enables that work to happen, that’s what motivates me. I think that the future is largely unwritten. They’re the ones that are writing it in community, and I’m just here to support them.

Eric Ressler [00:48:45]: I think that’s a beautiful note to end on today. Taylor, thank you so much for joining me. This is great.

Taylor Stuckert [00:48:50]: Yeah, thank you, Eric. Appreciate you having me on.

Eric Ressler [48:30]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

Most nonprofit leaders have been through some version of the brand strategy process. The board retreat, where everyone debates whether “empowerment” or “transformation” belongs in the mission statement. The persona exercise where someone invents a 34-year-old Prius-driving mom of two to represent an entire constituency. The tagline brainstorm that eats up a full afternoon and produces something no one will remember six months later. Eric calls it process theater: work that sounds great in proposals and looks impressive on a timeline, but halfway through, everyone in the room is quietly wondering what they’re actually building toward.

This episode puts ten common elements of brand strategy on trial. Eric and Jonathan each rank them as essential, important, or overrated, and the results surface a real philosophical divide. Jonathan, coming from the executive director seat, keeps returning to self-awareness as the throughline: an organization that deeply knows its values, its audience, and the specific value it delivers to the world has the foundation for everything else. Eric, working as the branding strategist who inherits the output of these processes, keeps seeing the same trap: organizations that pour months of effort into the wrong elements and emerge with jargon-filled statements that sound impressive and communicate nothing.

Subscribe now

Where they genuinely disagree is on brand values. Jonathan ranks them essential; Eric calls them overrated. Jonathan argues that values should inform hiring, culture, and how leadership shows up every day. Eric’s response is: “Compelling argument. No one does that.” They end up aligning on a nuanced middle ground, but the tension reveals something important about the gap between how brand strategy is supposed to work and how it actually plays out in practice.

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:00] Brand strategy has a “process theater” problem
[00:03:00] Mission and vision statements: both rank them overrated
[00:05:00] Brand values: essential or a motivational poster trap?
[00:09:00] Why positioning and niche is the most undervalued element
[00:13:00] Taglines: “No one gives a shit about your tagline”
[00:14:00] Audience segmentation vs. the persona exercise trap
[00:19:00] Brand voice and tone: important, but only after the essentials
[00:22:00] Value proposition: Jonathan’s “God tier” pick
[00:26:00] Theory of change: comic books over engine schematics
[00:30:00] The four questions that replace your entire brand strategy

Notable Quotes:

[00:01:20]: “Sometimes these processes can be overinflated, a bit of process theater. Things that sound great in proposals, and then halfway through you’re like, ‘What are we even doing here?’” Eric Ressler

[00:05:35]: “I need to know what my values are as an organization to build my team, to build my board. That’s going to inform who I hire, how I show up, how I expect others to show up.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:07:15]: “I see these values that are so ubiquitous they essentially mean nothing. Integrity, empathy. That version of brand values is more common and is a trap.” Eric Ressler

[00:12:30]: “As an executive director, knowing what your niche is, is like a stress reducer. When other organizations pop up, rather than being fearful, you can just be like, ‘Oh no, that’s a different thing.’” Jonathan Hicken

[00:23:30]: “We cannot assume that because we’re doing something that might feel good, or that our staff and volunteers really care about, that we are bringing meaningful value to our community.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:24:05]: “Working on solving a valuable or important problem is not in and of itself a value proposition. That is a mission.” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Cosmic — Eric Ressler’s creative agency for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations

• Seymour Marine Discovery Center — Jonathan Hicken’s organization at UC Santa Cruz

• WeDo (Women’s Environment and Development Organization) — Global advocacy org referenced as a case study for distilling complex work into clear messaging

• Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History Theory of Change comic

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:00]: I think you need to know what your values are as an organization to build your team, to build your board. I need to know those things because that’s going to inform who I hire, how I show up, how I expect others to show up. And I need to know that deeply about who I am and bake that into my brand strategy.

Eric Ressler [00:00:20]: Compelling argument. No one does that. That’s my take.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:25]: Bullshit. I do that.

Eric Ressler [00:00:25]: I’m Eric Ressler.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:25]: I’m Jonathan Hicken.

Eric Ressler [00:00:25]: And this is Designing Tomorrow.

Eric Ressler [00:00:30]: Okay, Jonathan. I’m very excited for today because we’re going to continue talking about brand strategy and strategy in general. And I thought it’d be really fun to do... Have you ever seen these tier ranking YouTube videos or podcasts before?

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:45]: Oh yeah. I listened to Bill Simmons podcast and he does this with sports all the time.

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: Okay, cool. So we’re going to give our shot at this, but we’re going to be tier ranking the elements of brand strategy.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:55]: Awesome. Amazing.

Eric Ressler [00:01:00]: What even is brand strategy? We just did an episode. What the fuck even is strategy? We’re going to keep going deep on these things. So as a designer and a branding guy, I think deeply about brand strategy. We do a lot of brand strategy work with our clients, but there’s a lot of these different elements of brand strategy like mission and vision and niche and all these things. And sometimes, frankly, I look at our brand strategy process and framework almost every year and I’m like, how can we simplify this? Because I do think sometimes these processes can be overinflated, a bit of process theater, things that sound great in proposals. And then halfway through you’re like, “What are we even doing here?” So today, I hope we can get more clarity for our listeners around, yes, you do need a brand strategy. And what does that mean exactly and what are the elements that matter and what are some of the elements that are in fact overrated and not as important as we think they are?

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:55]: I’ve got my elements tiered out here, man. I’m ready to get into it.

Eric Ressler [00:02:00]: So the other thing I just want to tease is that we’re going to talk a lot about all these different elements of brand strategy and it’s going to probably feel maybe even a little overwhelming to some of our listeners.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:05]: Sure.

Eric Ressler [00:02:05]: I think at the end of the day, this really boils down to four questions that you need to be able to answer as a leader for an organization. And so once we get through the tiering, I’m going to ask those four questions, give an example, and hopefully that’ll be a nice summary takeaway for today.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:20]: And just to be clear, we’re not talking about people strategy, we’re not talking about financial strategy, we’re talking about brand strategy, limiting it there, right?

Eric Ressler [00:02:30]: I think so. And I would say that brand strategy should influence some of those decisions.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:30]: Yeah, and vice versa.

Eric Ressler [00:02:30]: And vice versa. But yeah, we’re talking about brand here, baby. Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:02:30]: Sounds good.

Eric Ressler [00:02:35]: All right. So here’s where we’re going to start. We’re going to go and I’m going to have you rank first and then I’m going to rank for each of these. And we’re going to start with the most common one of mission and vision statements. And just to be clear, we’re going to rank these on three different tiers basically. So is it essential? Is it important or is it overrated?

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:00]: Overrated.

Eric Ressler [00:03:00]: Oh, I was hoping we disagree on this one. Definitely overrated.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:05]: It’s definitely... I mean, there’s baggage to this one, right?

Eric Ressler [00:03:10]: Especially for me.

Jonathan Hicken [00:03:10]: There’s a century of history and mission and vision statements. And there’s a whole... When I say overrated, it’s all that stuff. So it’s not just the “Hey, here’s our mission, here’s our vision.” I think there’s value in those things, but when we think about mission and vision statement as this process and you got to get your board and everybody involved in a thousand voices to write the perfect sentence, that is the thing that’s overrated.

Eric Ressler [00:03:35]: Yeah. Unfortunately, we’re perfectly aligned on this one. I was hoping we get some early disagreement, but yes, I think you need a vision statement. I think you need a mission statement. I think you should even think deeply about those things. What I see doing a lot of these and clients coming and hiring us to help them build some of this out as part of their brand strategy and their messaging strategy is that they get an outsized amount of effort and the impact of them is usually not very important. And so yes, we get into wordsmithing land really early. We get into, “Oh, well, the board member thinks this word needs to be in there and oh, we’re forgetting about this one program that’s really important too.” And so then what inevitably happens is you end up with these jargon filled laundry list mission and vision statements that people read and you’re like, “Oh, well, that sounds cool and I have no idea what you do.”

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:25]: I think what ends up happening is we try to use these mission and vision statements as tools to do a lot of different things when they really serve one purpose and it’s a sales purpose. It’s almost like your elevator pitch. The best version I think of a mission and vision statement is the thing that you tell someone, what does your organization do when you’re in passing? It’s my quick pitch.

Eric Ressler [00:04:50]: So you think about it almost like a little elevator pitch.

Jonathan Hicken [00:04:55]: It’s like a little elevator pitch. And then you should have that. You should have that. But as far as it being central to brand strategy, totally overrated.

Eric Ressler [00:05:05]: Okay. I think we’re mostly in agreement on that one. Let’s keep going. So next one up on the list for me is brand values.

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:10]: Brand values. Okay. I think it’s essential.

Eric Ressler [00:05:15]: Oh, okay. So I have brand values overrated.

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:15]: You go first. Okay. Here’s the disagreement you’re going for. Okay. I think that brand values are essential because it’s a part of defining who you are and knowing who you are. And that’s going to be a thread through all of the items here that I call essential. And that is this deep sense of self-awareness. And I think you need to know what your values are as an organization to build your team, to build your board, to motivate people. I need to know those things because that’s going to inform who I hire, how I train, how I show up, how I expect others to show up. And I need to know that deeply about who I am and bake that into my brand strategy.

Eric Ressler [00:06:05]: Compelling argument. No one does that. That’s my take.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:10]: Bullshit. I do that. Okay.

Eric Ressler [00:06:10]: Okay. You’re like the only person I know who does that. So okay, here’s my take on this one. I see this similar to mission and vision statements where we choose these words and we did an early episode on brand values. Yeah, we did.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:20]: We did.

Eric Ressler [00:06:20]: And you impressed me because I was like, this is the smartest way I’ve ever heard anyone articulate how to actually take brand values and put them into action. And it’s funny because we have values at Cosmic and I couldn’t even rattle off what my actual values list is because I didn’t do as good of a job as you’re doing with your brand values. But there are a couple that stick with me. And I remember talking about this in the episode that we did. So one of ours is Kaizen, which is a Japanese word that basically means continuous improvement. And so there’s these values that become very embodied that I can remember and they become, for me, less of a laundry list of things I remember and more of just an embodied knowing and that’s the best version of a value. And I think that that is very important.

And so I hear your argument around knowing that and knowing who you are is really critical. However, what I mostly see is that this is the same trap that we fall into when it comes to mission and vision statement where we come up with these words like integrity and empathy that are so ubiquitous that they essentially mean nothing.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:25]: Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:07:25]: Right. So that’s why I somewhat controversially put this in the overrated because that version of brand values is more common and is a trap. And I think especially when they become these “Oh, we’re going to go do a retreat and we’re all going to figure out our values and then we’re going to live our values and we’re going to put them on the website and we’re going to print posters.” I think that’s mostly how it happens. And I just honestly, I don’t ever hear anyone say, “Well, one of our brand values of this is this, and so we’re going to act this way.” So maybe it is more of just an embodied thing.

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:55]: Yeah. I think in the version of the motivational poster, I agree with you that is overrated. If that’s as far as you take the brand values work, then it’s totally overrated, waste of time. If you’re going far enough to incorporate those values into expectations for your people, into your tone, your messaging, right? If you’re integrating those values thoughtfully into other elements of your business, I think that is essential because it helps define who you are for yourself, for your team, for your supporters. But you’re right, that work doesn’t always happen. And so lacking that work, overrated. I can see that.

Eric Ressler [00:08:35]: So phoned in brand values,

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:35]: Overrated.

Eric Ressler [00:08:35]: Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:40]: I can get on board with that.

Eric Ressler [00:08:40]: Well executed, deep, strategic, integrated, embodied brand values, essential.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:45]: All right. All right.

Eric Ressler [00:08:45]: Okay. Agreed. All right, let’s keep going. So next we have positioning, differentiation, and we’ll just kind of like, the word I like to use for this is niche.

Jonathan Hicken [00:08:55]: Yeah, essential. Again, for me, this is about knowing who you are, knowing how you fit. This is almost like a flavor of product market fit or service market fit. And I think that you need to know where you sit in your community of focus. That could be community, regional, state, national, international, whatever, but you need to know who you are and how you fit. And I think that clarity is essential to building everything else around it.

Eric Ressler [00:09:25]: This is essential for me too. If I could tier rank my essential tier, this would be the top. And the reason I say that is because in the social impact space, I think this gets... Whereas mission and vision get outsized attention, this gets less attention than it should. And this is where we run into all these different nonprofits who are all working on the same issues in the same way. So not enough differentiation, not enough understanding of where the needs are and where there’s white space opportunities. And this isn’t the same as in the business world where you need to differentiate or you die necessarily because we’re not in competition with one another. We’re in collaboration with one another for the most part. But I think really getting clear on your niche is absolutely critical because everything else is downstream of that.

And I think we’re starting to see some themes here. So we spend a lot of time when we work with our clients helping them figure out how are you positioned in, the way we like to describe it, the broader social impact ecosystem. And there are different levels you can look at. You could look at that regionally, you could look at that in terms of the skillset. I often think about this as, what is your sweet spot? What is unique about how you do your work that you can claim that is different and advantageous to creating an impact in ways that even peers in your social impact ecosystem wouldn’t be able to claim in the same way? Getting really clear on your niche to me unlocks all kinds of amazing things. And maybe I’m a little biased here because when we decided to niche in on the social impact space, there was this fear that I had around, well, now I’m pigeonholing myself and now I’m going to say no to all these opportunities.

But as we talked about in previous episodes, saying no is strategy, right? That’s one of the hardest things about having conviction with the strategy. So to me, niche is just probably the most important and most undervalued element of brand strategy in this space.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:15]: You mentioned competition versus collaboration. And I think that having your niche well-defined actually is a benefit for collaboration.

Eric Ressler [00:11:20]: Agreed.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:25]: Yeah. Because you can show up to the table and you can say to your collaborators, “Here’s our piece, and that’s your piece. And if we put these pieces together, we can do great things.” In some of the collaborative situations or the conversations I’ve been in, lacking that clarity on your niche can just lead to this nebulous confusion about how we want to work together, but we don’t really know how.

Eric Ressler [00:11:50]: I think that’s so true. And also someone who before felt like they might be in competition with you now suddenly become more of a collaborator.

Jonathan Hicken [00:11:55]: Correct.

Eric Ressler [00:12:00]: And you can say clearly, no, this is actually not our sweet spot, but this org over here who’s very adjacent to us would be a perfect fit for you.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:05]: Exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:12:05]: And vice versa. I think also being clear on your niche is magnetic for referrals and introductions and that natural networking that happens because if someone knows you and they’re like, “Well, they’re in the climate environment space, but I don’t really know exactly how they’re different or unique in any way or what exactly they do,” then how are they supposed to introduce you to the people who are going to help move your mission forward?

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:30]: Last thing I’ll say as an executive director, knowing what your niche is, is like a stress reducer.

Eric Ressler [00:12:35]: Oh, huge.

Jonathan Hicken [00:12:35]: It’s a huge stress reducer because when news of other organizations or other things pop up, rather than being fearful that “Oh, they’re going to beat me or they’re going to attract more gifts or whatever,” if you have your niche, you can easily just be like, “Oh no, that’s a different thing.”

Eric Ressler [00:12:50]: The way that I think about this sometimes, to just piggyback off that, is you’re predeciding how you’re going to act in the future. And it’s not niche isn’t the only way you do this, this is just about boundary setting in general. It’s like, I’m going to make the decision now so that in the future when there’s some deliberation that might happen, I don’t have to spin out on it mentally. That mental taxation just goes down immediately because it’s like, I’ve already made this decision three months ago.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:20]: Totally. 100%. Then you can just do it.

Eric Ressler [00:13:20]: So

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:20]: If for wellness alone, I recommend that you develop your position and niche. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:13:30]: Okay. Next one. Tagline.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:30]: Overrated.

Eric Ressler [00:13:30]: Overrated. Taglines are overrated. People love taglines. They want their taglines. They think their tagline is the most important thing. If only we just had the perfect tagline, all of our problems would be solved. No one gives a shit about your tagline.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:45]: Nah.

Eric Ressler [00:13:45]: I mean, maybe if you’re Nike, and that’s the one example of a tagline that people actually remember that’s any good. The other big trap that people fall into with taglines is they’re like, “The tagline must describe who we are.” Just like the logo must visually represent who we are, another common mistake. And no, it doesn’t and you don’t need one. That’s my take on it.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:05]: Honestly, I don’t think we need to spend too much time on this one because it’s overrated. Don’t spend time on it.

Eric Ressler [00:14:10]: Okay. Listeners, no more taglines allowed, unless you can come up with a really good one. All right. Next one should be interesting. Audience segmentation and personas.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:20]: Essential.

Eric Ressler [00:14:20]: Essential. Okay.

Jonathan Hicken [00:14:20]: Essential. And again, this is about understanding who you are and who you serve and just this deep sense of self-awareness. And I have a background in tech, so there’s also just, this was hammered into me early in my career on understanding the customer and everything. So I think deeply understanding your customer or your constituent or whatever word you use, that has to be crystal clear. As you’re making decisions and building programs and iterating, you have to have that always in focus when you’re making those decisions and you need to be able to segment. Just a quick example from Seymour Center. We have this fabulous educational program that’s a field trip to our center. You probably went to something like this when you were a kid. Our kids are going to be coming to this program, I’m sure, here soon. On the surface, it seems like it’s a youth program. I actually think it’s a teacher program.

Eric Ressler [00:15:20]: Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:15:20]: So I think we’re actually providing more of a value to teachers, not to say we’re not serving the kids and providing value there, but when we think about designing this program, we’re actually designing it to meet the teacher’s needs first. So anyway, that’s just one little example of how we’re using audience to make decisions internally. And it’s because we know who we are and what this program’s all about.

Eric Ressler [00:15:45]: Okay. So I have audience segmentation and personas in important, but not essential. And I think it’s because of the persona that put me that way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:15:55]: The activity of creating the persona.

Eric Ressler [00:15:55]: Yeah. To me, this goes back into that performative process theater side of things. So I agree. Knowing your audience, knowing who you are for, and actually that example you gave is great because the audience you think you’re for, I really recommend a peeling of the onion style exercise for this of just really deeply questioning some of these assumptions around “Oh, we serve kids.” It’s like, “Okay, but who are you actually serving in that scenario?” That pushes me up into essential when you start to think about it that way. Persona exercises irk me because they feel reductive and in a way that’s not actually helpful for moving processes forward. It feels like you’re trying to... And just to be clear, when we’re talking about personas here, it’s like, “Oh, our audience is a 34-year-old Prius driving mom of two.” And it’s just like, no, it’s not. You’re taking an entire population of people and trying to... And I get why people do it, right? Trying to paint a more human relatable version of that. Again, I think too much time and energy gets put towards that.

We do audience strategy work at Cosmic, as you could imagine. We do audience surveys, et cetera. The way that we segment our audiences, and we’re obviously biased because we’re looking at this from a brand communication standpoint, is there a meaningfully different message that needs to be developed for that audience? If yes, new audience segment. If no, figure out where to lump them in. And I found that that’s a really pragmatic and practical way of breaking down audiences without... We don’t do any personas. No one has ever come to us and said, “Oh, the process was so great except we didn’t do personas.” And I think that’s meaningfully hurt our success here.

So I would say ditch the personas, audience segmentation, get very clear about who you know and who you’re trying to reach and what you know about them. Segment based on is there a meaningfully different message or story that you need to tell to them? And I think that’s probably good enough.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:45]: Yeah. I mean, here’s a really easy shortcut for personas. Just picture somebody that you know that fits that persona. Boom, done.

Eric Ressler [00:17:55]: Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:17:55]: And you

Eric Ressler [00:18:00]: Don’t need to define them. And you do need to acknowledge that a persona and a segment is a group of many people.

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:05]: Exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:18:05]: But when you start to get hyper specific about what kind of music they listen to...

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:10]: Yeah, all these fictitious things that... Yeah, I agree. That’s not helping anybody. Never research-based, by the way, just totally vibes all the time.

Eric Ressler [00:19:15]: Brand voice and tone.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:15]: Ah, important but not essential.

Eric Ressler [00:19:20]: Okay. We’re aligned there. Brand voice and tone, I think can be a superpower for certain brands who are willing to be bold with that. Most are not. But to me, it’s only helpful to have a strong brand voice and tone if some of the more essential elements of your brand strategy are strong.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:40]: So you agree, important but not essential?

Eric Ressler [00:19:40]: Agree.

Jonathan Hicken [00:19:40]: Yeah. For me, the items that fit into this bucket are ones where it’s really about expressing who you are and I feel like expressing who you are comes after knowing who you are.

Eric Ressler [00:19:50]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:50]: And so to me, this is an example of a way that you’re going to express things like position and niche and your clarity on audience. And so it’s just the expression piece. I think you need to be good at that, but it’s important and not essential.

Eric Ressler [00:20:05]: And I think if you think of it as essential, that’s a trap because what I’ve seen sometimes is people skip the truly essential work and try and just mask it over with a really hip voice and tone that sounds forward thinking, but actually is empty inside when you open it up. So I think yes, it’s important to have a brand voice and to have a tone and have that be consistent. You don’t want staff writing things in certain ways or speaking in certain ways or having a certain message that’s dissonant with how your leadership is talking. So having a unified voice as a brand is truly important, but it should not be the thing that you elevate.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:45]: Yeah. Agreed.

Eric Ressler [00:20:50]: Okay. Let’s keep going. Brand story and messaging.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:50]: Important, but not essential.

Eric Ressler [00:20:50]: Important but not essential. We’re aligned. And the same argument as the last one.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:55]: Yeah. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:21:00]: What do we mean when we’re talking about a brand story? To me, this is almost more where I think about the elevator pitch. When you run into someone and they’re like, “Oh, you work at this org, what do you guys do?” That’s your brand story, right? And it should be, that’s an elevator pitch version of it, but it’s your narrative. It’s how you talk about the work. You can, again, process theater this thing and write this massive thing. We’ve been trying to cut these down more and more. When we deliver brand stories and messaging for our clients, if we’re not doing audience specific messaging, we have the brand level one. We write a page version, a half page version, a paragraph version, and one that you can put on your social profile. Done. And they’re all basically the same. They’re just cut downs. So it’s when someone’s like, “Hey, we need a one pager about you.” You have a boilerplate that’s accurate, that’s aligned with the rest of your strategy. You’re not cobbling it together with ChatGPT last minute. So that’s all that you really need for that.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:55]: Yeah. Don’t work on your brand story until you know yourself and you really know what your story is, right? That’s ultimately what we’re saying here.

Eric Ressler [00:22:00]: I think so. Okay. Next one’s an interesting outlier. Not to be confused with values, your value proposition.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:10]: I’m going to zag on you here, Eric. I created a new tier.

Eric Ressler [00:22:15]: Whoa. You can’t do that. That’s not allowed. There’s three tiers, man.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:20]: S tier, God tier. This is the top. This is tops for me. You said you put positioning niche as your number one in that. I’m like, I think it’s value proposition.

Eric Ressler [00:22:35]: Okay. I feel like most nonprofits, especially social impact orgs, don’t even think about this.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:40]: Yeah. Well, that’s a problem.

Eric Ressler [00:22:40]: I mean, do you agree?

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:45]: Well, I think it depends. I really do. I think that some, at least the organizations I’m familiar with, some really get it more than others. So the reason why I think that value proposition is the most important thing, because why does any business of any type exist other than to deliver some value to the world? I mean, to me, I think it is the very essence of working in any organization that you want to make better.

Eric Ressler [00:23:20]: I think that’s true, but I think a lot of nonprofits especially assume that their value is obvious and inherent in just being a nonprofit.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:30]: Yes. A, yes. B, be better. We can’t assume that because we’re doing something that might feel good or something that we might really care about as individuals, or even that our staff and volunteers really care about it, we cannot assume that we are bringing meaningful value to our community or to whatever our sphere of influence is. We cannot make that assumption just because we think it’s good or right.

Eric Ressler [00:24:05]: I’m going to take that a step further and say, you can’t make that assumption even if the issue area or the problem that you’re solving is worth solving. Working on solving a valuable or important problem is not in and of itself a value proposition.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:20]: Right.

Eric Ressler [00:24:20]: That is a mission.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:20]: So let’s talk about housing homelessness, right? Housing homelessness is important and maybe you’re working on it, but if you don’t know the value that you are bringing to the problem of housing and homelessness, then what are you even doing?

Eric Ressler [00:24:35]: You don’t have a value prop.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:40]: You don’t have a value prop and you have absolutely no basis to begin your work.

Eric Ressler [00:24:40]: So how do you think about value prop in your work?

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:45]: Yeah. Specifically to Seymour Center? Or just in general, as someone who’s been in the social impact space in a number of different positions.

Eric Ressler [00:24:45]: Sure. Or just in general.

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:50]: Yeah. I get to this... You brought up Kaizen. I’m going to go to another Japanese concept and we may have talked about it on the pod before, Ikigai.

Eric Ressler [00:25:00]: Oh yeah, Ikigai.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:00]: Yeah. We’ve talked about this, which I think is the intersection of these four pieces, which is something the world needs, something that is economically viable or that you can make money doing, something you’re uniquely good at doing and something that you’re passionate about.

Eric Ressler [00:25:15]: And the Venn diagram where all those four converge is your Ikigai.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:20]: Right? Yeah, that’s your Ikigai. And that’s where my mind goes immediately: can you define all four of those things for yourself in terms of your organization? And also, the next thing I would do is thinking about audience. We talked about audience for a second. What problem do they have? Would they articulate the problem in the same way you would? And would they validate that the thing that you’re doing is solving that problem?

Eric Ressler [00:25:45]: Yeah. Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:45]: So some combination of those things.

Eric Ressler [00:25:50]: Okay. So we’re pretty aligned. I have value prop as essential as well. I didn’t make my own fake tier and break the rules, but yeah, value prop is high up there and I think underconsidered. I don’t get a lot of nonprofits in social impact orgs coming to us saying, “Hey, we need help defining our value prop.” Although we do get that, it’s a little more rare. We get a lot more people saying, “Oh, we need help rethink our mission and vision.” So something to consider, I think, for our listeners. Okay. Next one, also an outlier to a degree, theory of change.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:15]: Okay. I think it depends on how we’re going to define this again, right? Because if it’s the process of doing the thing and the flow charts and the infographics and all that stuff, I think that you can get lost in that and it can become a waste of time. But I think at its very core, the idea that you have clarity on how your work produces meaningful impact, I think that’s essential. I think that’s essential. And you have to understand that and you have to understand how the way that you’re using donors’ money, the way that you’re showing up, the actual work that you’re doing is producing impact and that you’re fueling the pieces of that chain that are ultimately getting you to your desired end state.

Eric Ressler [00:27:05]: Yeah. Okay. So I hedged my bet a little and put this one in important because of that, you see these schematic style diagrams of theory of change and you’re just like, “Are we building a car engine here? What’s going on?”

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:15]: Exactly.

Eric Ressler [00:27:15]: So I agree though that you should be able to answer, how do you and how does your organization and how does its value prop and its work actually create change in the world? You got to be able to answer that and you have to be able to answer it in a way that someone who’s a layperson or not in your field as an expert could basically get it. And so I would say also important, if not essential, and I don’t think it needs to be... I remember, I think we’ve talked about this on the show before, but at the Santa Cruz MAH, the Museum of Art and History, the Theory of Change was a comic.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:50]: Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:27:50]: I loved that. I was like, yes, more comics, less engine schematics.

Jonathan Hicken [00:27:55]: For theory of change. Yes. And by the way, I’ve never seen a theory of change better than that one.

Eric Ressler [00:28:00]: Yeah, that one’s amazing. And we’ll link to that in the show notes, which I will have to do later and remember to do. I always say that. I’m like, “Why do I say that?”

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:05]: Email us and we’ll send it to you. How about that? Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:28:10]: Okay. Last one. Number 10 here, case for support.

Jonathan Hicken [00:28:15]: Oh man, see, this one’s tough. This one’s tough for me. Ultimately, I put it into important, even though you and I worked on a case for support for Seymour Center, and it has been so impactful to the point where in my day-to-day work, I would call it essential. For me personally in my work, I need that case for support and it’s been really helpful. And to me, it fits into this bucket of expressing yourself after you know yourself.

Eric Ressler [00:28:40]: Interesting. Okay. I’m going to push back on that one a little bit. I have it in essential. And the reason why I have it in essential, and we can riff on this a little here, I think to have a solid case for support, going through that process forces you, if done well, to answer all of the other essential elements. You have to know what your positioning is and your niche. You have to know what your value prop is. You have to know what you are standing for in the world, all these things. What’s the problem that you’re solving? So it’s a shortcut for forcing you to make the hardest and most impactful and important decisions as an organization. So I put the process as essential. Does every org need a polished... I think sometimes you think of case for support and you think of this report that you put together for a capital campaign, that’s a version of a case for support, right?

Similar to the theory of change for me is, if I ask you, Jonathan right now as the executive director of the Seymour Marine Discovery Center, why should I donate? Why should I support? You should have a pretty good answer for me.

So to me, again, I think a lot of times, and as we wrap up, I think we’ll get into this here, these different elements, there’s all these terms and terminology around, well, what’s a theory of change, a case for support, and it feels jargony. I’m in it every day, so I have deep knowledge of what it means to run these things. But if you’re in a leadership position at a social impact org, what really matters? What’s the distilled version of this? And so I want to leave listeners with a bigger picture takeaway, which is I think that however you describe this stuff, however you think about it, which parts you think are essential or whatnot, there’s really four questions that you need to be able to answer as an organization. And if you can answer those questions, you could basically ignore all of this stuff at some level.

And the first question is, what do you do? The second question is, who do you do it for? The third question is, how are you different? And the fourth question is, why does it matter? I think if you can answer all four of those questions well, you have a brand strategy and you don’t need to worry about all these terms and terminology and all this process.

Jonathan Hicken [00:30:55]: Preach that from the rooftops, my friend, because that’s such a simple thing that literally every listener could take to their next staff meeting, take to their next board meeting and work through that if they don’t already have the answers. It’s such a simple exercise. It doesn’t need to take months and months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to answer those questions. And if you can’t answer those questions, that’s probably really good for you to know. Maybe there’s some problems with your business.

Eric Ressler [00:31:25]: The thing I will also add to that is you would be surprised how many orgs who are well-known, highly successful, and by common metrics of how we measure success in this space, who’ve come in to my door at Cosmic and cannot give me a solid answer on those four questions. And I don’t mean that in a judgmental way. I mean, this is actually, those questions are simple, but they’re hard to answer. And especially if you’re in a moment of transition or stepping into a new chapter as an organization, the answers to those questions may not be relevant anymore. So you might be able, “Well, we were this, but we’re becoming something else, and I don’t really know how to articulate that yet. It’s this vague thing we’re still shaping.”

I wanted to also just share, and I challenged myself to come up with an example that was actually difficult to answer these four questions for. We’ve been working with an org called WeDo for a long time now. They’re amazing. Shout out to them. We just launched a new website, by the way. Go check it out. WeDo.org. They stand for Women’s Environment and Development Organization. Their work is very complex. They do global advocacy work. It’s the kind of org that... And I’ll just be honest, and Bridget, I love you to death, but this was very hard to figure out how to take this super insular advocacy policy. They’re at the UN, they’re at COP. This is deep expertise work. And we still believe this needs to be distilled down into something that someone who’s not in those rooms can understand without dumbing it down.

And so I actually tested. I was like, did we get to a point in their messaging where we could answer those questions? And does it show up on the website exactly like that? No. But I think we did. And so I’m going to test. WeDo could have been a complex global advocacy organization working at the intersection of gender equity and climate justice, but what does that mean? So what do they do? They advocate for gender just climate policy. Who do they do it for? They do it for grassroots feminist leaders and frontline environmental defenders. How are they different? They’ve been doing it for 35 years and they’ve been building coalitions and tools that get women in the rooms where climate decisions are made. And why does it matter? Because we know that when climate policy excludes women, the climate policy fails. Done.

Jonathan Hicken [00:33:50]: Done. Beautiful. That’s wild. Congratulations to WeDo and to Cosmic for that because that’s super powerful. Yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:33:55]: Okay. So Jonathan, this was great. More tier ranking podcast coming up.

Jonathan Hicken [00:34:00]: Yeah, dude, that was fun.

Eric Ressler [00:34:00]: That was fun.

Jonathan Hicken [00:34:00]: Yeah, thanks, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:34:00]: All right, man. If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

“AI only knows how we describe empathy, but it doesn’t know what empathy looks like in practice.”

Tina-Marie Gulley was the CEO of Ada Developers Academy, a tuition-free coding program for women and gender expansive adults. In a moment where everyone is racing to adopt AI and equity programs are being quietly dismantled, she’s doing both at once: embedding AI into the curriculum while refusing to water down the mission.

What’s fascinating is how she thinks about the tension between technology and humanity. She pointed out that the children of tech billionaires often aren’t using AI in school the way the rest of us are pushing it on kids. That disconnect says something worth sitting with.

We also talked about what happens when funding dries up. Her take was sharp: impact reporting shouldn’t stop when the checks stop. If a funder gave you $10,000 ten years ago, they should still be hearing about what that investment made possible. That’s how you build relationships that outlast grant cycles.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:01:00] From corporate marketing to nonprofit CEO: how a computer science competition revealed tech’s inclusion problem
[00:02:00] Why technology hasn’t fulfilled its promise of closing the digital divide
[00:04:00] Why nonprofits are slower to innovate and what Ada is doing differently
[00:05:30] Using vibe coding and hackathons to build real solutions for nonprofits
[00:07:00] Cutting through the AI hype cycle: grounding innovation in mission
[00:09:00] The hidden human cost behind AI, from data centers to the communities around them
[00:10:00] Why AI should never replace your therapist
[00:12:00] Working in community with AI and the risk of treating machines like people
[00:17:00] Investing in AI means investing in humanity, and in unplugging
[00:18:00] Why billionaires’ kids aren’t using AI in school the way everyone else’s are
[00:21:00] Reframing DEI in a hostile political climate without compromising on impact
[00:23:00] Navigating the funding shakeup and keeping funder relationships alive after the checks stop

Notable Quotes:

[00:02:20]: “People get really excited about innovative creations and creating the next unicorn, but they don’t really think about all the pieces that drive that. Making sure that they’re in the room at the start versus as an afterthought.” Tina-Marie Gulley

[00:07:55]: “People get so enamored with this new shiny thing that they forget how it can also further exaggerate inequalities.” Tina-Marie Gulley

[00:11:10]: “AI only knows how we describe empathy, but it doesn’t know what empathy looks like in practice.” Tina-Marie Gulley

[00:16:00]: “Are we gaining efficiency and more technology and more information? But what is the cost of that? Are we losing pieces of our deep humanity?” Eric Ressler

[00:17:00]: “A big part of investing in AI is investing in humanity. And that means investing in ways where people are able to unplug.” Tina-Marie Gulley

[00:25:15]: “A lot of times the impact reporting stops once the checks stop, and I don’t think that’s fair.” Tina-Marie Gulley

Resources & Links:

• Ada Developers Academy — Tuition-free nonprofit coding academy for women and gender expansive adults

• AI2 Incubator — Seattle-based AI startup incubator; Ada partners with AI2 on the AI House initiative

• AI House at Pier 70 — Public-private AI hub in Seattle launched in partnership with the City of Seattle, AI2 Incubator, and Ada Developers Academy

• Tina-Marie Gulley on LinkedIn — Connect with Tina-Marie directly

• Imagine Cup — This is Microsoft’s global student technology competition.

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:00:45]: Tina Bree, thank you so much for joining me today.

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:00:45]: Thank you so much for having me.

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: So your career began in corporate marketing and I’m curious to hear how you got from there and maybe what pivotal experiences moved you from that world into being an executive as a nonprofit CEO.

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:01:05]: So actually one of my first jobs, I was doing marketing and we were managing Imagine Cup. And so that’s a big computer science competition. And that was one of the aha moments where I was like, “Hey, this is so cool, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of opportunity for people that are diverse or I just don’t see them in the room.” And so that was my first indication of, “Oh, tech is not really as inclusive as I thought it could be.” And so through there, I just started building my career and I did a lot of the work around equity, education for folks that are often not part of the conversation as a volunteer. I really am passionate about creating opportunity for people that maybe are underestimated.

Eric Ressler [00:02:00]: Technology has this promise of bringing us closer together, of closing these digital divides, of being a way to get past some of these issues of inequity and inequality. Why do you think it hasn’t fulfilled that promise?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:02:15]: I think that people aren’t as intentional as they could be. I think people get really excited about innovative creations and creating the next unicorn, but they don’t really think about all the pieces that drive that. So not only your customer base, but also the people who are creating those innovations. So making sure that they’re in the room at the start versus as an afterthought. I think it’s really about creating opportunity for folks that maybe wouldn’t necessarily have that opportunity and really thinking about, okay, what kind of future do we want to build? Do we want to just continue building these systems that really do us all harm or do we really want it to be intentional from the start and really see it evolve from there? I think a big part of that is just really making sure that we as individuals, as we’re creating rooms, as we’re having a seat at the table, that we’re looking at who’s missing and who could really make a difference in evolving this idea, this innovation, this thing that we’re trying to move forward to adapt and problem solve for.

Eric Ressler [00:03:35]: You used the word innovation and coming from the tech world, that’s a term that’s used a lot to describe experimentation. Use the word unicorn, these new bold ideas, these white space ideas. How have you experienced the transition from the tech world into the nonprofit space? Another space that talks a lot about innovation, but I don’t think is really set up properly always to facilitate that kind of research, that experimentation, a willingness to be bold, a willingness to experiment and to fail. Has that been a bit of a culture shock for you or have you been able to bring that spirit of innovation through your career path?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:04:10]: I think that Ada is one of those anomalies where we’re creating that intentionally and to what we’re doing every day. I do see that oftentimes nonprofits are slower to innovate, slower to invest in things like AI, slower to improve their systems. And so fortunately, that’s not our situation at Ada. We really think of those things at the, how we can continue to be cutting edge and take some of those elements from businesses and bring that into our organization as a nonprofit and as an education technology provider or institution. And so I don’t see us having that issue, but definitely as I talk to other nonprofits, I definitely see that there is a lag behind. What’s really exciting though is that we’re seeing a lot of forces joining together to bring innovation to organizations. We actually did that most recently. We had a hackathon where we were really trying to solve for real world issues for other nonprofits and community organizations.

And we did that through what’s called vibe coding now, which is a lot of prompting and making it more accessible for people. And so we were really building solutions that we know that nonprofits can use and take and iterate on. And so I’m seeing more of that. I’m also seeing more opportunities for partnerships, solution innovation partnerships with different organizations. I know Salesforce is doing it. I know JP Morgan Chase and a host of other organizations are doing it where they are bringing in re-imagining, hey, if you were to bring AI into your organization, what would it solve for? Would it help improve curriculum? What are the things that you can create? So I think there’s lots of avenues where these forces are joining together. We don’t have to be so distant, but we also can learn from each other. A big portion of, I think, working in nonprofits is around the impact of people in a way that businesses don’t necessarily think about.

Eric Ressler [00:06:40]: So AI is this new technology, this transformational opportunity, and it’s very controversial change, a lot of fear, a lot of uncertainty around it. And I think a lot of that is grounded in good, healthy skepticism and criticism. And at the same time, a lot of potential. And everyone’s trying to figure out how AI fits into their work, into their life. How are you thinking about how AI fits into your work, into your mission, into the values that drive your work? And what are the things that you’re excited about when it comes to AI and what are the things that you’re cautious about when it comes to AI?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:07:20]: I think what can be challenging, especially as somebody who works in tech and who’s worked in tech for years is there is a huge hype cycle echo chamber that sometimes happens with these new innovations and things that come out. And so for us, it’s really being grounded in the work that we’re doing, really looking at it as AI is amazing, but it does not replace humans. It does not replace the connectivity. It’s really meant to be your copilot. And so oftentimes people get so enamored with this new shiny thing that they forget how it can also further exaggerate inequalities. And so for us, it’s really grounding ourselves in our mission and our purpose and how can AI help us to solve it. So whether it be internally from an operational standpoint, whether it be embedding it into our curriculum like we did about a year ago, whether it be through partnerships that we have with other orgs as well as the government to see how we can make it more accessible, I think those are the things that I’m really locked in and focused on. As we are creating these pathways for people to have AI, to use AI, to also think about the ethics around AI, also thinking about what goes into the background of AI.

There’s people behind all of this, from the language learning models, from tagging things, from the people that are creating the data centers to the water that is running through the data centers to the communities that are impacted by those data centers outside of their door. And so we really try to be intentional about the way that we’re using AI, where we’re really making sure that when we use it, we’re being constructive with it. We’re just not using it because it makes sense, it’s because it’s helpful, but we also understand the ramifications of all of those things.

Eric Ressler [00:09:35]: Where do you think AI is most helpful when it comes to social impact work and even just in general as it comes to creating social change, doing your work, being a human being even, and where do you think it is not a good fit and where there’s some potential either downsides or even just places where AI is not constructively used or shouldn’t be considered as the first tool in the toolbox?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:10:00]: Well, therapy is one. I know that is a big one that I’m starting to see the trends that people are using AI as their therapist and those are one of those areas where I say, “No, let’s not do that. Let’s go to our therapist.” It’s really meant to be a copilot. A lot of times, depending on the language learning model that you’re using, AI is meant to please you. It doesn’t want to make you angry. It’s going to tell you what you want to hear. And so we have to take that into consideration. It might give us a perspective based off of the prompts that we put in or what it knows about you. And so we really have to take that into consideration as we’re using it. I really love the idea of co-authoring with people, with humans and the machines to really make a better perspective, to understand all of the nuances.

There are things that AI is just not going to know because it doesn’t have the lived experience of humans. It only knows how we describe empathy, but it doesn’t know what empathy looks like in practice. And so it’s really important for us to make sure that as we are guiding what the future of AI looks like, that we are not displacing people. It’s really meant to be used as an opportunity for you to focus on the areas that you really enjoy doing and all of those minute tasks that maybe aren’t so fun, it can help you solve for that. For me, I think AI is less about productivity and more about figuring out what are those things that people enjoy doing, what are those core competencies that AI can help you with, and what are the things that we need to continue to let people do?

I don’t want us to get into a situation where AI is replacing people. I don’t think that is great. People still have to have a livelihood, people have to pay bills. And I really want there to be a world where we can work in community with AI.

Eric Ressler [00:12:20]: It’s an interesting way of putting it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone quite say it that way, working in community with AI. And it is an interesting way to think about it. And it starts to get almost very sci-fi very quickly around this idea of humanizing this technology in a way that I really don’t think any other technology has been humanized so quickly. At the time of this recording, ChatGPT-5 just rolled out and there’s a whole subculture of the internet freaking out because they miss their old model, not because of the tool element of it, but because almost like they would miss a dear friend who got replaced unexpectedly. This goes back to your point about maybe we shouldn’t be using AI for therapy or in replacement for therapists and the constructive and the skillful use of AI versus a maladaptive use of AI. Does that cultural relationship worry you even when you’re using terms like working in community with AI?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:13:30]: It worries me all the time. I mean, we’re seeing a proliferation of people having relationships with their AI. They consider their AI their best friend or their romantic partner, and that definitely has me very concerned. I think that there is a way to invest and engage and make AI a part of your community in terms of really improving systems, improving experiences, creating more opportunities, better understanding outcomes. But we really have to think of it as a partnership ecosystem versus this is an actual community member. And we can definitely build together and create the next era of things, but it definitely should be led by human beings and not by machines.

Eric Ressler [00:14:30]: I have a bit of a complicated relationship with technology, and I’ll try and explain that briefly here. So I grew up with basically the popular adoption of the internet and have been pretty connected to technology my entire life, personally, professionally. I’m an artist, I’m a designer, I’m a creative, and the convergence of creativity and technology has essentially been my life’s work. And at the same time, and maybe part of this is because I’ve recently become a parent, I have two young kids. I do worry about how technology has so deeply become interwoven into humanity. And I think the internet was a major milestone in this. The smartphone was maybe even a more major milestone because now we are connected everywhere we go. We’re looking at VR and AR and now AI. And it seems like technology is getting closer and closer and more interwoven into our humanity.

I walk around with a smartwatch on and I track my daily steps and I know what my resting heart rate is. And sometimes it can be constructive because it might remind me, “Hey, dude, you got to get up and move a little bit. You can’t just be sitting at your desk all day.” And at the same time, I do worry sometimes, and when I think about my daughters growing up in this world, I worry sometimes about, are we gaining efficiency and are we gaining more and more technology and more and more information? But what is the cost of that? Are we losing pieces of our deep humanity in a way that is leading to some of the cultural and societal issues and the polarization and the loneliness epidemic and maladaptive behavior trends that we’re starting to see show up in data and in science? As someone who’s also very tied deeply to technology and social impact, I’m just curious how you think about that and how you think we might be able to more skillfully coexist with these technologies because it’s not going away. The genie’s out of the bottle at some level. So I think the question is, how do we best... Is it regulation? Is it social and cultural norms? Is it people speaking up and reconnecting with their humanity? Where do you see this going?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:17:00]: I think a big part of investing in AI is investing in humanity. And that means investing in ways where people are able to unplug, where they’re able to be in areas where we do things without technology, without AI, to have that balance. I think we still have to have opportunities to spark amazing conversations that lead to action that allow us to really be able to use a lot of those soft skills that we’ve already developed as human beings. And so we definitely need to have... I don’t necessarily know if it’s regulation, but it could just be a framework of how to do it properly. So that means not only at work, but in your personal life, at schools. One thing that I find really interesting, I’ve read a couple of articles that were speaking to billionaires and the schools that their children go to, and a lot of times they are not using AI or technology in the ways that other schools are.

And it’s very interesting because these are children of people who are running technology companies. And so it’s really advantageous for us to learn from that, where there has to be balance, where part of what this AI and technology as a whole is supposed to do is democratize some things, but also realize that we have to be able to spark conversations and innovations in natural settings without technology as well. We have to use both sides of our brains to ensure that we’re able to do that. And we’re not living in a world where we are so reliant on technology that the next generations don’t know how to think critically, or they don’t know how to analyze, they just don’t know how to do basic things. And so we do have to have the balance. I don’t know if that’s policy. I don’t know if that’s some type of mandate, but I definitely know that that has to be part of this conversation.

Eric Ressler [00:19:30]: Hey friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode, I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

I want to shift and talk a little bit about diversity, equity, inclusion, given that those are major drivers in your personal life, your lived experience, also the values that shape how you think about your organization. We’re unfortunately in a moment where a lot of those values, a lot of those efforts are being scrutinized heavily, at least in America. We’re in a moment where a lot of funding that was flowing pretty freely towards some of those initiatives in the corporate world, especially in the social impact world, that seems to be pulling way back, even just because organizations don’t want to attract any negative attention or extra scrutiny. What’s the experience been like for you this year navigating all of that as that’s been unraveling in real time? Or maybe you have a different experience and that’s not how you see it happening.

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:21:10]: I think more of it is I want to focus more on reframing it. At the end of the day, we’re trying to create opportunity for everybody, but we really have to focus on what are the challenges to those opportunities. We have to call it what it is. I don’t care if you call it DEI, something else. I really want to scale responsibility. I don’t want to compromise it. I want to make sure that impact is there. I want to make sure that we are able to create those cultural safeguards that these communities need. And I want to be able to feel good about what I’m doing in terms of creating opportunities for folks that are untapped or considered non-traditional and being able to partner with organizations that don’t want to retain these archaic systems that cause everybody to suffer.

For us, scaling really means quality over quantity. That means our students, once they graduate, they’re giving back to our program, not only in mentorship hours or volunteer hours, but also in dollars. We are still addressing structural barriers that are happening, but we’re reframing what that looks like and changing what equity and action also looks like.

Eric Ressler [00:22:45]: I want to pick back up on a thread that we started early in this conversation around innovation, and especially as it relates to fundraising and philanthropy. So you talk about power dynamics with regards to philanthropy and finding the right partners, the reciprocal partners who will fund this work. What’s your experience been like, especially recently with a major shakeup in the funding landscape and the incentive structures that are in place for some of the major donors and most importantly, some of the institutional donors. What’s that experience been like for you this year?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:23:15]: I think more than anything, there’s a lot of uncertainty on both sides, and that’s definitely relatable. And I think more than anything, we want to make sure that as things get aligned or adjusted as different priorities happen, that we also think about other organizations. There are other organizations that are literally ensuring people are alive and they’re being prioritized and they should be. If there’s a nonprofit that is ensuring people have cancer care, people have a place to live, and to eat, they should be a priority. And I don’t fault any organization that wants to realign to those things. Those are very important. Those go back to the humanity of society, but also knowing that we all play a part. And so really making sure that if it is something where an organization is perhaps shifting in direction, to know how we can still be a part of maybe future conversations, that this relationship hasn’t ended.

And so for us, that’s what’s really important. We really want to make sure that whoever we partner with, that they understand our mission, that we’re mission aligned to the focus of the organization and to know that we’re here, we’re not going anywhere. And even if you’re readjusting the way that you’re distributing grants and funding for the next two, three years, we’re hoping that our mission was so strong, the relationships that you created with us was so strong that you still want to figure out how you can still be involved with what we’re doing. And so it’s really about building those relationships and also showing the level of impact. I think a lot of times the impact stops or the impact reporting stops once the checks stop, and I don’t think that’s fair. I feel like if somebody’s given to you, they should always have those updates of what the organization’s doing, what are some of the things that you’ve rolled out, because that impact has a ripple effect.

And it’s important for them to see this $10,000 grant that you gave us 10 years ago has allowed us to accomplish all of these things. So I think it’s really important to have those mechanisms where you’re still reporting back to funders way after maybe their relationship has formally ended.

Eric Ressler [00:26:00]: Before we wrap up, I want to ask you something a little bit more personal about how you show up in this work. And no one comes into this work and dedicates their life to doing social impact work because it’s easy. Being up at the top as a leader, not to get too hierarchical with it, but it could be lonely at times, it could be hard at times. What do you do when it gets hard for you? What keeps you going? What keeps you energized doing this work, especially when it gets hard? How do you balance all that? How do you prevent yourself from burning out, from losing hope and motivation for the future as it relates to technology and just in general, how you show up every day in doing this work in community?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:26:45]: I think I have to ground myself in who I am and what I can control. And that’s a big thing that I do with my team as well. I think it’s also important to always just have a mindset of continuous learning. You might be an expert in all of these areas, but there’s so many more areas that you have to learn from or learn about. And I think the other thing is being able to unplug, rest, rejuvenate. I think that naturally, a lot of us didn’t even know what that looked like, like work-life balance, what is that? I don’t know her. And so being able to prioritize rest. I’m always a big proponent: when your body tells you to rest, you do it or it’s going to make you rest. And I think I’ve learned that so many times. If you are not filling your own cup, you can’t fill other people’s cups.

Eric Ressler [00:27:45]: That’s beautiful. Thank you. What are you personally most excited about right now as it relates to the work that you’re doing or even just in your own life? What are you looking forward to?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:27:55]: My goodness. I think that I’m most looking forward to creating new partnerships. I think that we’ve started this year with some amazing partnerships with the city, with the state, with other nonprofits, with AI2 Incubator. And I’m really excited about where that is going. I think that a lot of times we’re just so focused on ourselves or our organizations that we don’t think about the totality of what we can do when we come together. And so that’s what I’m looking forward to is more community and private partnerships to ensure that people are being able to be a part of society, able to make sure that they’re part of the workforce, able to make sure that they’re contributing in lots of different ways that we find the value in the different ways that folks in our communities can contribute. So that’s what makes me really excited right now.

Eric Ressler [00:29:00]: Awesome. For listeners who want to learn more about your work, to connect with you, where can they go? Where do you want to plug?

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:29:10]: Yeah, please visit us. Our website is adadevelopersacademy.org, and I’m on LinkedIn. I am Tina-Marie Gulley, G-U-L-L-E-Y. That’s a great way to plug in with me. And definitely at an event. I try to go to a lot of tech, social impact events, as well as my team. We’re a small but mighty and approachable team, and we really believe in the best in people.

Eric Ressler [00:29:45]: Tina Marie, this has been awesome. Thank you so much.

Tina-Marie Gulley [00:29:50]: Thank you.

Eric Ressler [00:29:55]: If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

There’s a post going around LinkedIn right now where a fundraiser is calling out a foundation for not structuring a grant as multi-year support. The tone is essentially: our work matters, so funders should give us what we need.

That sparked the thorniest disagreement Eric and Jonathan have had on the show. Jonathan’s take is blunt: nonprofits need to stop treating funders as fuel for their missions and start treating them like customers. Not in a transactional way, but in the way a great customer success team operates, deeply understanding what success looks like for the individual program officer.

He’s so committed to this idea that he’s stopped pursuing competitive grants entirely, opting instead for a relationship-first approach where he only seeks funding from partners he’s actually gotten to know.

Subscribe now

Eric agrees with the pragmatism, but he can’t let the systemic critique go unspoken. These are organizations with massive tax advantages hoarding wealth, spending down the legal minimum, and investing in ways that sometimes directly contradict their stated missions. Trust-based philanthropy is a structural response to a power dynamic that’s been broken for decades.

Eric draws a parallel to his own decision to stop doing RFPs at Cosmic, and Jonathan admits his approach might be its own quiet act of resistance.

Most fundraisers live in this tension every day… they just don’t say it out loud.

Episode Highlights:

[00:00:01] The LinkedIn post that set Jonathan off
[00:02:00] Why funders should be treated like customers, not fuel
[00:03:00] The long-held power dynamic between funders and nonprofits
[00:04:00] Trust-based philanthropy and where it fits
[00:05:30] Jonathan’s case for relationship-first fundraising
[00:06:30] Why Jonathan gave up on competitive grants entirely
[00:08:00] Eric’s pushback: isn’t this a broken system?
[00:11:30] The RFP parallel: why Cosmic doesn’t do them either
[00:13:30] Understanding funder motivations at the individual level
[00:17:00] When foundations abandon their own stated priorities
[00:20:00] Whose job is it to fix philanthropy?
[00:23:00] Entitlement as an excuse for not being fundable

Notable Quotes:

[00:02:10]: “We need to stop thinking of philanthropic funders purely as fuel for our missions and more like customers that we deeply need to understand and serve in their own right.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:03:10]: “There’s a long-held power dynamic in the space of social impact where funders basically hold all the power because they’ve got the money.” Eric Ressler

[00:05:25]: “If I deeply understand what my funders are trying to do, that puts me in a position where I’m actually seen as an ally and a partner rather than a hungry mouth to feed.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:23:00]: “If you’re commenting on systems change, fantastic. Let it rip. If you’re talking about actually going after money, the entitlement tone is hurting all of us.” Jonathan Hicken

[00:24:15]: “How can we build social impact organizations that are not constrained by resources, but can sit there and imagine and do bigger work and not always be stuck in scarcity or reactivity mode?” Eric Ressler

Resources & Links:

• Stupski Foundation — Spend-down philanthropy referenced by Eric; Jennifer Nguyen was a previous guest

• Jennifer Nguyen’s article on abolishing philanthropy

• Rusty Stahl episode — Recent guest discussing new fundraising mechanisms.

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Full Transcript:

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:00]: I think that we need to stop thinking of philanthropic funders purely as fuel for our missions and more like customers that we deeply need to understand and serve in their own right.

Eric Ressler [00:00:15]: Interesting.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:15]: I get the feeling you got some things to say about this.

Eric Ressler [00:00:15]: I have opinions. As fundraisers, as leaders and organizations doing this work, really understanding motivations and trying to attract right fit partners for our work. But the longer I’ve been doing this work and also just seeing some of the frankly shitty downstream effects from some of these funders who, let’s remember, have tax benefits to being set up this way, have hoarded massive amounts of wealth, so they’re in this position of privilege and power. And so we should hold them to a very high standard.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:45]: Okay.

Eric Ressler [00:00:45]: Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:45]: Are you ready to get into it?

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: Let’s go. I’m Eric Ressler.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:50]: I’m Jonathan Hicken.

Eric Ressler [00:00:50]: And this is Designing Tomorrow.

Jonathan Hicken [00:00:55]: All right, Eric. There was this post on LinkedIn the other day that nearly had me throw my mouse against the wall. It was from a fundraiser, I’m not naming names, that was talking about how this foundation wasn’t structuring a grant in a multi-year way, and it was a call for foundations to structure their giving in a way that met that particular organization’s needs. And it came off to me as totally out of touch and very entitled with an assumption that the work is so important that the funders should acquiesce to our needs. And the first thought that came to mind was, “No, dude, it’s completely the other way around.”

Eric Ressler [00:01:40]: Mm.

Jonathan Hicken [00:01:40]: And so I wanna unpack this idea that funders actually don’t owe us anything as nonprofits and what that actually means. At the end of the day, I think that we need to stop thinking of them purely as fuel for our missions and more like customers that we deeply need to understand and serve in their own right. And what I mean by that is the individuals — we can bring this down to a human level. The individuals that are working at these foundations, they have goals, they have objectives, they have strategy that they’re trying to execute. And when we put them in the position that somehow they are not doing right by us, I think that just causes separation in the industry that I don’t think is healthy for anybody.

Eric Ressler [00:03:00]: Yeah. Okay. I think this one’s super thorny. That’s my first take on this one. Thorny, complex, nuanced, use your word, because I can make counter arguments for every argument you just made. So there’s a long-held power dynamic in the space of social impact where funders basically hold all the power because they’ve got the money, right? That’s the general power dynamic. And Jen Nguyen, who we had on the show from the Stubski Foundation, who is clearly an institutional funder — they’re unique because they’re a spend-down philanthropy. This is not the Stubski’s point of view, but it’s Jen’s point of view that philanthropy in and of itself should just be abolished because the structure is so broken. It’s not my take necessarily. I respect Jen’s take and I think that there’s a lot of really good reasoning behind her take on that. She just wrote an article about it, which we’ll link to in the show notes.

I think where this comes from and where we can loop into the movement around trust-based philanthropy, which sounds like this person on LinkedIn was advocating for, is that there is this power dynamic inevitably between someone who has resources and someone who needs resources that’s gonna be there, right? Let’s just acknowledge that there’s gonna be a power dynamic there. And there’s been traditionally a lot of funding that comes in that’s just open call or invite only, however it comes in, there’s a grant opportunity and you can get this. And it becomes this competition, essentially. And a lot of upfront work is required by nonprofit organizations to even win the grant. If they get it, it’s restricted. So they don’t actually have the right resources or structures to do their best work. They’re being pushed into a system and it’s elective, right? They don’t have to apply for the grant, but these organizations need funding to do their work. So I guess I should just come out and say I’m generally a proponent for trust-based philanthropy. I think it is a better way of doing this. I don’t think that’s necessarily at odds with your key takeaway.

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:00]: Yeah, me neither.

Eric Ressler [00:05:00]: So maybe we could just start there and get into some of the details.

Jonathan Hicken [00:05:05]: Yeah. Something that’s coming up for me is where’s the onus of responsibility for changing these things? And I think for me in my position as a fundraiser, as an executive director, I feel like it’s counterproductive to be villainizing my funders rather than spending the time to deeply understand what it is that they’re trying to do and the impact that they’re trying to have, because if I deeply understand that, that’s going to make me more competitive, and that puts me in a position where I’m actually seen as an ally and a partner rather than a hungry mouth to feed.

Eric Ressler [00:05:40]: Okay. So I think that’s a really important distinction, which is we can do both. We can work with funders to be better funders, and we do that by being partners with them, and not expecting them to just bend to our will. Because really at the end of the day, there’s a shared objective here, or there should be, if the partnership is healthy, where there is some impact in the world that you as a practitioner or organization are working to make, and that an aligned funder feels like you are a good fit to help make, right? But I’m gonna push back in a couple ways here. One, I just wanna — my understanding is you’ve basically given up on this style of fundraising.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:25]: Yeah. We don’t go after these huge competitive grants anymore.

Eric Ressler [00:06:25]: So tell me more about why you made that choice.

Jonathan Hicken [00:06:30]: Well, because rather, what I prefer to do is to go seek out individuals and organizations and build relationships first. So we don’t go after these massive calls where I know that hundreds or thousands of other organizations are gonna apply. Because I have no relationship there. I don’t necessarily understand that foundation’s needs or their goals or the way they think or the way they show up or who they’re looking for. I don’t know any of that stuff. All I have is a website with the requirements for the grant, right? And to me, this comes down to dollars and cents too. How much time and money am I gonna put into this thing with what percent chance that I’m gonna get this grant? I would much rather put my time and effort into developing relationships that is gonna give me a really high chance of getting the gift rather than spinning my wheels on these organizations I know nothing about.

Eric Ressler [00:07:25]: Right. Okay. So I’m gonna keep going on this thread. Doesn’t that feel like a broken system?

Jonathan Hicken [00:07:30]: No, not at all.

Eric Ressler [00:07:30]: So you think it’s okay that these organizations who have gathered wealth in our society, largely because founding organizations have built them as, just be real, a tax haven for the most part. They’ve got all of this wealth and power. They exist legally and in spirit to do good, and they are not spending down, in many cases, more than 5% a year, and they have the ability to. And the structure basically means that you have to have some kind of in to get money because you either already are successful enough, or because you have a personal relationship with a program officer, or because you’ve been funded by someone that they know in their network. And as much as a lot of these orgs pay lip service to being really research-backed and objective about who they fund, that’s not usually how it actually happens in the real world.

So I don’t think these things are necessarily exclusive, right? I do agree to your point around you shouldn’t just expect to get money just because your mission matters. There is a healthy amount of competition. It’s not a zero sum game either. So I don’t think this means that every nonprofit who has a worthwhile mission is just deserving of all the foundation money in the world, and at the same time, I do think some of these structures are inherently not as effective as they could or should be.

Jonathan Hicken [00:09:00]: Okay. Let’s separate the fact that philanthropy has to exist in society from the way that we as leaders and fundraisers are going after that money. ‘Cause I agree with you. At a moral level, how do we get to this place where this is the system that we have to operate in?

Eric Ressler [00:09:20]: Yes.

Jonathan Hicken [00:09:20]: Okay? Yes. Okay. Fine. Fair enough. All sorts of questions arise with that, right? Major shout out to Stubski for their work.

Eric Ressler [00:09:30]: Yeah.

Jonathan Hicken [00:09:30]: On a personal level, I’m like, yeah, fuck yeah. I hope more foundations operate the way they do. Mackenzie Scott. Right? Great. Love that. Fantastic. But for us as individuals who are seeking the money to expect that from every foundation out there right now, I think is a waste of time and frankly just a not very smart way of going about fundraising.

Eric Ressler [00:10:00]: Yeah. So I would agree that that’s not a pragmatic strategy, right? Is to hope that philanthropy is going to fix itself. And look, I mean, we had Rusty Stahl on the show recently who is trying to advocate for some new fundraising mechanisms to fund the people. Like any systems-level issue, there’s a need for the kind of people who see that system and say, “Fuck that,” and work to change the system. But that is long, hard, decades-long work usually.

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:20]: Sure is.

Eric Ressler [00:10:25]: And then there’s the pragmatic, “Well, we gotta get the important urgent work done within the broken system.” And so what I’m hearing from your point of view is less, “Oh, the philanthropic system is perfect. We should stop complaining.” And more, this is the way it is, so either your work should be changing that or your work should be figuring out how to operate within the constraints that exist. Is that generally your point?

Jonathan Hicken [00:10:45]: That’s exactly my point. There are people who are already funded by a foundation, right? And let’s say you’re going out for a renewal or for an extension of that support. By all means, go have that conversation with your program officer about restructuring the flow of the money. That is an opportunity where, yes, you can express to your funder that this isn’t quite working for us, but there’s already a partnership that exists. There’s already a relationship that exists, and that is meaningful feedback for that foundation to hear from their grantee about what’s working or what’s not.

Eric Ressler [00:11:25]: I think about this sometimes from my point of view as an agency owner. A common but broken approach for hiring an agency is to put out an RFP, right? “Hey, everybody, we have this project. We’re looking for submissions to a proposal.” It’s very similar to applying for a grant. We basically don’t do RFPs at Cosmic for a very pragmatic reason. And I believe that, and I’ve written about and spoken to people individually and publicly about, hey, just like pretty much every agency owner who’s ever been through an RFP process, hey, this actually isn’t the greatest way to hire people like us. There’s a better way to do this. And it is very similarly about partnership. I have similarly pragmatically decided we’re not gonna do that. We are gonna work with people who are certainly should be doing their research and talking to multiple agencies and seeing who’s the right fit, but who are approaching it from a peer-level partnership from the beginning and not a “Well, it has to be this many pages and this set type and you have to have these professional references and know we won’t meet with you before you submit.”

How are you supposed to do that and do good work, right? That’s similar to, I think, sometimes nonprofit leaders and fundraisers, maybe especially ones who are early in their career, think, okay, well, I’m just gonna write a bunch of grants with people I have no real connection or relationship to and I’m gonna mold our work to fit the requirements of the grant because that’s just how we have to get money, right? That’s not a good strategy. And I’m not saying — I mean, we work with organizations that are 90-plus percent grant funded, but that’s not how they do their grant work, right? There’s a much deeper relationship and networking-based approach to doing it. So it’s both at some level, but I’d be really curious to hear more about how you think about, okay, if you flip the script and say, “We’re not entitled to this money,” whether it’s from a major institutional philanthropy or a major donor or a community member who’s giving what to them is their best gift, but might not be a lot of money — I’d like to hear your thoughts around understanding the customer and thinking about it that way.

Jonathan Hicken [00:13:20]: So everybody’s got a motivation. Individual motivation, organizational motivation, whatever makes them tick. And I don’t think that we spend enough time in the sector deeply understanding what that is for our funders. I think we’re generally better at that with individual donors, right? Because it’s a person. And you can ask them, “Why do you care about this?” When you’re asking a program officer, well, they’re gonna give you the company line, right? So it’s a little less personal.

But when I think about my time in tech and for-profit, business-to-business — I ran a customer success team and so much of our time we spent as a team asking our customers and trying to deeply understand what success looked like to them at their own job. I’ve worked with Adam from HubSpot and I’m like, “Adam, what’s gonna make your boss think you’re doing a great job and what’s gonna get you a raise?” Down to that level of what makes Adam work well? And then of course, I wanna understand what HubSpot’s goals are too so we can demonstrate that our product is helping them achieve both individual-level and company-level success.

I think the same thing needs to happen with foundations. Understand deeply what this individual that you’re working with needs. Maybe that’s a program officer, maybe it’s the CEO, maybe it’s somebody in between. Understand deeply what they care about, and then also at that organizational level. And it’s more than just their three goals that they’re stating on their website, right? It’s deeply understanding what they’re tracking, what success looks like, what are they trying to improve at. That level, I think, is really important so that when you put your proposal forward, you are addressing things that is speaking to a human and speaking to a team of people who are trying to get something done.

Eric Ressler [00:15:30]: Hey, friends, real quick before we continue today’s episode, I’m Eric Ressler, founder and creative director at Cosmic. Cosmic is a creative agency purpose-built for nonprofits and mission-driven organizations. For the last 15 years, we’ve helped leaders like you nail your impact story and sharpen your strategy, but we’re not here to just leave you with a fancy slide deck and a pat on the back. We roll up our sleeves and help you bring our ideas to life through campaigns, creative, and digital experiences. Our work together helps you earn trust, connect deeply with your supporters, and grow your fundraising and your impact. If you value the thinking we share here and want it applied to your biggest challenges, let’s talk at designbycosmic.com. All right, back to today’s conversation.

Eric Ressler [00:16:15]: I think about that when we’re exploring client partnerships at Cosmic, and sometimes people have a really clear answer about that for the organization and personally, but I would say in more cases than not, that requires facilitation. It requires two skills that I’ve been really trying to lean into and acknowledge that I’ve developed over my career, which are deep listening and relentless curiosity. To me, to be a good designer, you have to be really good at both those things, to be a good strategic person doing this work in a meaningful way, those skills are gonna translate to almost any position in a good way, I think. On the flip side, I do think there is some reasonable criticism for some of these organizations that articulate they have a focus area or a mission, articulate they have standards and details about who they will and will not fund and all those things, but they’re loosely held.

I’m just gonna go ahead and put it out there. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative had some pretty strong opinions about who they were gonna fund and what they stood for, and they were really quick to let go of those as soon as Trump was elected again. I don’t have any problem with individual people at that organization who are doing their best work in philanthropy and wanting to do good and came in in earlier days where maybe that was a little bit more true, but these stated motivations and alignments are not always as clear or as real as they are stated. And so then funder priorities just change on a whim at times. And hey, that’s just the way the world works at some level, right? So again, back to the entitlements — you gotta be pragmatic about, I’ve seen over and over again clients who have multi-year relationships with funders, sometimes seven years long, and all of a sudden, oh, our priorities changed, best of luck to you.

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:00]: Bye.

Eric Ressler [00:18:00]: And it’s like, wait, that was a third of our operating budget, and you gave us three weeks’ notice, right?

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:10]: Yeah, but that can happen with an individual donor too, right? That’s not unique to a foundation. That happens — you need to build a business that can withstand those changes. That’s part of the job, I think.

Eric Ressler [00:18:20]: 100%.

Jonathan Hicken [00:18:25]: And someone like Chan Zuckerberg — they should be held to account for their priorities changing. I don’t waste my time with that, right? And that’s — I’m looking for organizational partners who do have a clear sense of self. And do know where they’re headed, and those things could change, and I need to be ready for that. But that’s on me to deeply understand the partner I’m looking for.

Eric Ressler [00:18:50]: Yes. I mean, I agree. And I think this is why I started by saying this is thorny. ‘Cause I think it is. Because I do agree that both can be true. As fundraisers, as leaders at organizations doing this work, we need to be doing the things that you’re talking about. We need to be really understanding motivations and trying to attract right-fit partners for our work who are doing this work. There are funders out there who, institutional funders and philanthropies, even if the money came in in less than ideal ways at the beginning, have turned that money into incredible impact. So I don’t want to come off as being anti-philanthropy, anti-foundation, but the longer I’ve been doing this work, the more I do question — a lot of these structures are bullshit. And I’ve been seeing more and more of that, interviewing some really awesome people even on our show and meeting them through the networks and also just seeing some of the frankly shitty downstream effects from some of these funders who, let’s remember, have tax benefits to being set up this way, have hoarded massive amounts of wealth, have invested that largely in things that are not necessarily good for the world and maybe even directly at odds with their stated mission. So they’re in this position of privilege and power, and so we should hold them to a very high standard.

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:00]: Yeah. Whose job is that?

Eric Ressler [00:20:00]: Whose job in the world is that?

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:00]: I mean—

Eric Ressler [00:20:05]: I think it’s — is society an acceptable answer? I think it’s—

Jonathan Hicken [00:20:10]: Designing Tomorrow, Eric and Jonathan—

Eric Ressler [00:20:10]: Well, here’s why I think I’m sticking up a little bit for your LinkedIn example. Shouldn’t it be all of our jobs? If we care about this work, if we care about this sector being the best version of itself that it can be, which I know you do and I know we both do, we have to be holding all of this at the same time at some level.

And look, you as executive director at the Seymour Center, you’ve got mouths to feed, you’ve got impact to make here locally. How much of your time should you spend thinking about this? Probably very little. But there’s a counterpoint to be made there too that’s like, these systems persist because no one says, “Hey, this sucks. Let’s do it a different way.” So I think there’s a lot to chew on here. And this is why I come back to — I think both can be true. I think you can be pragmatic. I think you can continue to say, “Hey, foundational institutional funding isn’t a fit for us for these reasons. This system works for us. We’re gonna double down on that.” And I know when you are talking to local community members and partners who are giving to you, you’re doing the same thing, right?

But yeah, whose job is it to fix philanthropy? That’s a big one, man.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:20]: Yeah, I don’t know. Maybe as we’re talking, my little act of resistance is just bowing out of it, right? Of I’m not gonna play this game. I’m gonna look for people who wanna do good work together and if it works out, we’re gonna do it. And if not, that’s okay too. Maybe that’s my little contribution, right, is I’m just not applying.

Eric Ressler [00:21:40]: Yeah. Well, and I think that there’s no one way of doing this work. That’s something I’ve definitely learned.

Jonathan Hicken [00:21:45]: For sure.

Eric Ressler [00:21:45]: Even, and this comes down to what kind of org are you? Because you are a place-based organization, you have the ability to earn income. Not all issue areas have that ability, right? So some orgs really need that institutional funding because there isn’t a market-based approach. It’s really hard to raise from individual giving. It’s the kind of work that’s important but not sexy. Someone’s gotta fund that stuff if we think it’s real. So I think that my general take on this is that if we’re going to have institutional philanthropy that is not government, or that is government money, we should be consistently trying to do it better. To me, that seems obvious. Does that mean we need to be entitled about, oh, my mission’s important, so I deserve money? No, I don’t think those two things are the same.

Jonathan Hicken [00:22:35]: I think we just need to be really clear then when we are expressing our feelings about the system. Especially if we are a practitioner in the social impact space. To be really clear about when you’re talking about system change and when you’re talking about real grant-seeking work, because I can see if you’re commenting on systems change, fantastic. Let it rip. If you’re talking about actually going after money, the entitlement tone I think is hurting all of us. Do better work to better understand your funders.

Eric Ressler [00:23:15]: I think it can be, not always, but can be an excuse for an org that is not fundable. There are, let’s just be real, a pretty big percentage of social impact organizations and nonprofits that aren’t viable, just like there’s a number of businesses and startups that aren’t viable. The world is brutal.

Jonathan Hicken [00:23:35]: That’s how it works.

Eric Ressler [00:23:40]: And so I think that challenge, that competition, if you wanna use that word, there’s a certain amount of it that’s healthy. And I don’t think that means we should just accept the way this has been done traditionally, because I think there are emerging ways that are not just don’t just feel better and sound better, but actually just work better, right? When there are these orgs and these funders who have said, “Hey, you’re right, this sucks. How else might we do this work in a meaningful way, not just because it’s progressive, but because it’s actually more effective at the end of the day in terms of creating the kind of impact we wanna make, and how can we build social impact organizations that are not constrained by resources, but can sit there and imagine and do bigger work and not always be stuck in scarcity or reactivity mode.” We’re talking about the hardest problems in the world here. We have to think big about it. So I don’t know. I could keep going on the nuance of this. And I don’t have good answers for all of it either. It’s something I think about a lot and every time I feel like I have a really solid take on it, there’s some counterpoint that I’m like, “Ugh, that’s also true.”

Jonathan Hicken [00:24:45]: Yeah. I mean, this is one of those where I really wanna hear from listeners on the way you’re thinking about this and the relationship with your funders, because I see the argument for both. This episode topic came out of a place of frustration for me, where I was like, “Come on.” So it’s actually a little cathartic to talk this out with you, right? To be like, okay, yeah, actually this is — that particular post came from a real place, right? It wasn’t just someone whining.

Eric Ressler [00:25:10]: Right, right. And what I’ll say is your perspective on this is relevant regardless, right? Because approaching it that way is naturally going to lead to finding better, more aligned, more sophisticated, more progressive funders who are going to give you better support and gifts and partnerships.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:30]: Yeah, I think so.

Eric Ressler [00:25:35]: So we don’t need to choose. And so I think it’s just, be clear about what is your place in this world and what feels right? Hey, if you wanna speak up and do it, do it. And if Jonathan thinks you’re a little entitled, who gives a shit, right? And I do think, to be clear though, there is a way to do that that’s constructive, and then there’s a way to do it that’s performative.

Jonathan Hicken [00:25:55]: Yeah, yeah.

Eric Ressler [00:25:55]: And so maybe the person you saw was a little bit more performative and felt a little bit more entitled in a way that was just like, oh, I need attention, or maybe they’re just venting. Who knows, right? A thorny one. One of our thorniest ones yet.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:10]: In fact, I think this might be the biggest disagreement we’ve had on the show yet, so that’s good. All right. It’s good.

Eric Ressler [00:26:15]: Let’s keep going.

Jonathan Hicken [00:26:15]: All right. Well, this is a good one, Eric. Thank you so much.

Eric Ressler [00:26:15]: All right. Thanks, Jonathan. If you enjoyed today’s video, please be sure to hit like and subscribe or even leave us a comment. It really helps. Thank you. And thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.

Subscribe now

The nonprofit sector has a marketing philosophy problem. Somewhere along the way, we adopted a playbook built almost entirely around conversion, direct response, performance marketing. Get the click, get the gift, optimize the funnel, rinse and repeat. And look, that stuff matters, but it’s also incomplete because all of that activation depends on something most organizations never intentionally build: A brand that people actually know, remember, and feel something about.

You can’t convert someone who’s never heard of you. You can’t retain a donor who has no emotional connection to your work. And right now, the sector is raising roughly the same amount of money from fewer and fewer people every year. That’s what happens when everyone is fighting over the bottom of the funnel and no one is investing in the top. The missing piece isn’t a better campaign or a sharper donation page.

It’s brand. And not brand as in a new logo or colors.

Brand as in a deliberate long-term investment in making people feel something about your organization before you ever ask them for a dollar. That requires a willingness to make bets that are hard to measure and may take years to pay off. It requires playing the long game — and almost nobody in our sector is doing it. Except for charity:water. They’ve become one of the most recognized nonprofit brands in the world and it’s not by accident. Over the past few years, they’ve been quietly re-imagining how they invest in brand from TV campaigns designed to surprise rather than solicit to a 7,000 square foot immersive experience space in Tennessee. They’re making big bold bets and they’re working. To understand what that looks like from the inside, I wanted to talk with Brady Josephson. Brady is the head of growth and innovation at charity:water. Before that, he led their team through this multi-year shift from performance first marketing to serious brand investment.

He spent most of his career in the direct response and performance marketing trenches. So when he says the sector needs to rethink its relationship with brand, he’s not just a designer selling you in aesthetics. He’s a data guy who followed the data and he came to a completely different conclusion. I’m Eric Ressler and this is Designing Tomorrow, and now my conversation with Brady Josephson.

Subscribe now

Episode Highlights:

[00:03:00] How charity:water unknowingly burned through its brand equity

[00:05:30] What “investing in brand” actually means beyond logos and colors

[00:07:00] Why brand marketing takes 3–6 months to show ROI — and why that scares people

[00:11:00] Self-determination theory and why trust is really about competence

[00:14:00] The charity:water origin story and building for skeptics

[00:18:00] Why brand strategy looks different for small local orgs vs. large international ones

[00:22:00] You can tell the same story far more times than you think

[00:25:00] Inside charity:water’s 7,000 sq ft immersive experience space

[00:30:00] TV, attention, and why you need 2.5 seconds to form a memory

[00:39:00] What it actually takes to get organizational buy-in for brand investment

[00:44:00] Pick one growth engine and stop trying to do everything

[00:48:00] Brand vs. individuals: why charity:water was slow to adapt — and what they’re doing now

Notable Quotes:

[00:04:00]: “There’s something that we can’t see further up, carving the pathway for us that has now gone dry.” Brady Josephson

[00:15:10]: “Every nonprofit consultant would be like, ‘Don’t worry about them. They don’t give. Focus on these people.’ But that’s the exact type of thinking that creates where we are in this space, where we are raising the same amount of money from fewer people every single year.” Brady Josephson

[00:09:30]: “They don’t have a very clearly defined impact story. Maybe there are fundamental issues with the brand. We need to all be better about understanding human psychology if we want to reach people in a more deep and emotionally driven way.” Eric Ressler

[00:44:15]: “What you say no to or what you do less of is the game. That is strategy.” Brady Josephson

[00:24:00]: “You acknowledge some of the footage is old, some of the facts are out of date, and yet you’re putting millions of dollars of ad spend behind that piece.” Eric Ressler

[00:39:50]: “I did the work, did the research, came to the conclusion, vetted it to the point I was like, ‘I’m fully committed to this. I’ll put my job on the line for this thing.’” Brady Josephson

Resources & Links:

• charity:water — Brady Josephson’s organization, known for innovative brand-building in the nonprofit space

• The Factory at Franklin — Chelsea Market-style venue in Franklin, Tennessee, home to charity:water’s 7,000 sq ft immersive experience

• Lenny’s Newsletter / Lenny’s Podcast — Former Airbnb growth lead Lenny Rachitsky’s newsletter and podcast, home to the “race car” growth framework Brady references

• SSIR article on fundraising diversification — Article on the trap of fundraising diversification

• Bank of America Philanthropy Study — Referenced in context of giving trends showing fewer donors giving more

P.S. — Struggling to align your message with your mission? We help social impact leaders like you build trust-building brands through authentic storytelling, thoughtful design, and digital strategy that works. Let’s talk about your goals »

Eric Ressler [00:02:15]: Brady Josephson, thank you so much for joining me today.

Brady Josephson [00:02:15]: Thanks for having me, Eric.

Eric Ressler [00:02:20]: So I’m really excited today to dig into all things brand and brand marketing and social impact and the intersection of those things. We are right in my sweet spot and the sense that I get from you is we’re right in your sweet spot too. So I would love today to just break down, and if you wouldn’t mind, let’s imagine together a completely different social impact sector where brand marketing and brand building is core to how nonprofit organizations communicate and what that looks like. And I think I’d like to tee us up by giving you an opportunity to talk about what you’re in the middle of right now as a leader at charity:water and how you’re experimenting with really completely re-imagining how you guys are making investments in brand and in paid media and in communications in general, and let that tee us up for the rest of the conversation.

Brady Josephson [00:03:10]: Yeah, that’s a big conversation. I’ll do my best. I think one thing to acknowledge right off the hop is I come to the brand side of the brand marketing conversation pretty honestly and through the back door. So much of my career was on more of the bottom funnel, transactional, performance marketing, direct response. Like a lot of people in the nonprofit space. If you read articles and go to conferences, the vast majority of things that get taught and are learned, whether it’s at grad school or conferences or podcasts, it’s often pretty transactional, pretty bottom funnel. And so I think it’s a bit of a journey that a lot of direct response people go on for a bit is like, “Oh yeah, direct response is the best provable ROI.” And then at some point you’re like, “Oh gosh, this isn’t working like it used to. What’s the problem?” And then you figure out, ah, there’s something that we can’t see further up, carving the pathway for us that has now gone dry, which is exactly the story of charity:water.

Unbeknownst to charity:water, I think, was really investing in brand, in brand marketing for years and years and years. Very intentional about brand and design, but in terms of building a brand and brand marketing, I think it was a lot of just intuition from our founders and early folks. And so then when we shifted more to really growing the monthly giving program and focusing more on revenue optimization, we started pulling from all that brand equity that we had built up until one day it was like, we’ve pulled all the brand equity that we’ve earned up. And so how do we get this ship going in the right direction again? We need to actually invest more in the brand.

And so that’s really the journey that we’ve been on over the past two years or so is really plateauing in revenue, what’s going on, ending up and saying, “I think we have a brand problem, not so much in logo and positioning, but just reach, awareness, engagement, which is causing a lot of revenue problems for us.” And so that’s the journey that we’ve been on and the journey that I’m on more as a marketer as well.

Eric Ressler [00:05:10]: There’s so much to dig into right away. And I want to try to break down some of these terms to listeners, especially who aren’t as in the weeds on this stuff and make it more accessible. So bear with me while I do that a little bit.

Brady Josephson [00:05:25]: All right.

Eric Ressler [00:05:25]: When you talk about investing in brand, what does that actually mean? Because I think a lot of people hear that and they’re like, “Oh, so we’re going to redo our logo and our colors now.” So what do we mean when we talk about brand marketing and brand building? And I’m happy to riff on it from my perspective, but I’d love for you to start.

Brady Josephson [00:05:40]: Yeah. Again, it’s hard. And you could probably ask six different people and they would answer it slightly differently. When I say invest in brand, I’m very specifically talking about how we use paid dollars and resources to make the brand more known. And now you don’t want to do that unless you have a better sense of who we’re trying to reach, what the targeting looks like, what the positioning is, what the logo should look like. Those are underlying things that you would have in place before you really spend a lot of resources and time and money to make sure people know who you are. Otherwise, what’s the point? If you’re not creating the emotional connection that you want, there is not as big of a point for brand marketing.

So it’s both the lowest thing of how do we reach people with the brand, but it’s also the highest thing of how do we leverage the brand to create emotional connection with people and hopefully invite them in some way to join us on our mission and our journey.

Eric Ressler [00:06:30]: Great. So I agree with that. And I would say that one of the things that you alluded to in your first response is this tension between brand marketing and brand building, which I look at really as longer game plays. They may have some short term results, but really we’re looking at playing a long game. Whereas direct response, performance marketing, very targeted campaigns, conversion focused campaigns — we’re talking about measuring things in weeks, months, sometimes even days. Whereas brand marketing, and I think some of the data that you guys have collected even on your own shows that we’re talking more at least in three to six months before we can really start to see a return on investment.

And I’ll just put a pin in this because I want to come back to it in more detail. Measurement of brand investment is becoming harder and has always been harder to a degree. And I think that’s a big reason why people traditionally underinvest in brand marketing.

Brady Josephson [00:07:25]: Yeah, that’s definitely it. And I think a lot of it does start with the measurement side. And when you actually go into a lot of the research around how do you measure brand, it’s often quantified in things like business effects, share of market, are you actually growing or sales improving? They’re pretty top level. And that’s at one level so opaque, but it’s also like, what do we exist to do? We do not exist to increase retention by two percentage points or increase our donation page conversion by three percentage points. Those are little pieces of the whole. We exist to grow our causes to help more people, in our case, get the clean water that they deserve. That’s all that matters.

And so at one level, we get so wrapped around the axle and myopic around what was the ROI on that email and this campaign and just saying, are we moving the organization forward and achieving the things that we need to do or not? And that’s really what is the bellwether of the brand. If you have all the awareness in the world and you can’t execute your mission, who cares? So that’s fundamentally the thing that you start measuring against. And once you start really understanding brand measurement, it is really the most important thing that you can get into. Now you can get into more detailed specific parts of brand measurement that we can talk to, but at the highest level, it’s like, are we helping drive the business forward or not?

Eric Ressler [00:08:40]: Totally agree. And what I would also add to that from the way that we think about it is if you get so myopic in these conversion rate optimizations to the stat that you threw out, improving conversion rate in the donation form by 2%, that can make a big difference, especially if you have hundreds of thousands of monthly donors. But what I often see in my work, and we tend to work with growth stage nonprofit organizations, social impact organizations, is that we’ve been trained to focus on ROI, on return on investment, return on advertising spend, these things that we see as best practice.

But what I consistently see with the clients that come to us is that they are missing the bigger picture fundamentals of good brand marketing and hyper focusing on these things almost like they’re trying to run before they’re even walking in a lot of cases, where they don’t have a very clearly defined impact story. Maybe there are fundamental issues with the brand that might be the name, it might be the logo, it might be the design system, it might be their ability to just create any kind of emotional connection. I think there’s a lot of academic speak and jargon being used to describe the impact work coming from research and that stuff is important, of course, but we’re losing something.

We need to all be better about understanding human psychology if we want to reach people in a more deep and emotionally driven way and actually move our missions forward. And so I would rather take all of that time spent, or let’s say 75% of the time spent on these micro improvements, these conversion focused improvements, and put that towards understanding how people actually tick in this space, what actually gets people lit up.

And I want to touch a little bit on one of those things I think is becoming increasingly important, which is trust, which is a little bit of a buzzword right now. But if people don’t know your organization and people don’t trust your organization, if there’s not an emotional connection, if there’s not credibility built, none of those conversions are going to matter because you are reaching only a fraction of the people that you have the potential to reach. So I’m wondering if you might be able to riff on how you all think about building that trust, building relationships with the people that you need to reach and reaching new audiences at charity:water.

Brady Josephson [00:10:55]: Yeah, definitely. It’s critical for all transactions. And let’s try two different frameworks. One, so talking about understanding humans, I’m a pretty simple guy and one of the best frameworks for understanding humans, self-determination theory, which basically says at the root of all things that we do, we want to be competent, autonomous, and connected to others. And I think that’s a pretty good way to think about it. And so for me, trust is a subset of competence. When people give, they want to feel like, “I’m a smart person making a good decision.”

So I think too often when we hear trust, we immediately go to overhead spending or impact reports or something like that. And that’s a function of it. We have that. We have a hundred percent model, which is really built on the idea that so many people when it was invented did not trust charities. And so we just said, “We’re going to do it differently to take that out of the equation altogether and just say, do you want to give or not?”

So that is a component of it, but a bigger component is, are you helping people feel competent? And you can do that in different ways through really great storytelling where people have an understanding of the work that you do, through a really tangible offer of $40 does this. That’s a way for people to feel confident. There’s so many different ways to go at building trust, but I prefer to focus more on competence because I feel like it’s a little bit bigger and it’s a little bit more of the driver that I think humans are really looking for when they’re scratching at trust. It’s really, “I want to make sure I’m making a good decision and there’s other ways that we can do it.”

Eric Ressler [00:12:20]: Yeah, I actually really love that reframe. I’ve never really thought about it quite that way. The way that I’ve thought about it before is that people want to support organizations that they feel like are going to make an impact, which sounds very obvious, right? But when you start to really break that down, what is it that makes people feel that? And it is a mix of things, I think, in my opinion. Yes, impact storytelling and stats and numbers and seals and transparency and those things are all adding to it.

But I think more than anything, it’s actions in the real world. And this is why I believe communications, and we can even stretch this more to brand building, is so important, because you have to show people that when they are investing in your organization, it is actually leading to actions in the real world, not just an annual impact report. And I believe this is something that charity:water has been exceptional at compared to the standard.

And we can talk about the 100% model. We could talk about the transparency and the tracking opportunities that you provide donors and supporters, but I think you guys have done an exceptional job at making someone who’s considering becoming a supporter feel like it’s going to be a good choice, that it’s going to actually make a difference, going to lead to real world impact, that it’s not just this, “I’m supporting because it feels good.” And there’s nothing wrong with supporting because it feels good. And a lot of people do give from that emotional standpoint. But I think the more that you can make, to use your framework, supporters feel like it’s a good logical decision — people do give from emotion, but there is a logical barrier that has to be overcome for that giving to actually take place and people actually put their credit card in.

Brady Josephson [00:14:00]: Yeah, for sure. And a lot of the charity:water story for people who aren’t familiar — it was a club promoter in New York who was like, “What is my life about?” He’s 31 saying, “This got to be more to life.” Quit cold turkey, went on a service trip on a mercy ship, started taking photographs and walked out into rural Liberia and came in contact with just horrible water and said, “You know why everyone’s getting sick? It’s because they’re drinking this water.”

Came back and turned his life around and said, “I’m going to give my life to this cause.” And so much of the DNA of charity:water is built for skeptics, to be honest, right? He went back and threw a birthday party with all his not typically philanthropic friends and said, “I’ll prove this to you.” And that’s what we have today. We track a metric of how many people give to charity:water and it’s their first time ever giving to a nonprofit because we feel like that’s part of our role in the charitable ecosystem is to help try and grow the charitable pie, not just take a bigger slice of it.

And two, that’s what we try to hold ourselves to. The vision originally was to reinvent charity. You can’t say you’re reinventing charity by just raising more money from the same people. So that’s always been in the DNA. And that’s where a lot of the model, the proof, the trust is saying, we are trying to convert the skeptics. And that is on paper, low ROI proposition. Every nonprofit consultant would be like, “Oh, don’t worry about them. They don’t give. Focus on these people.” But that’s the exact type of thinking that creates where we are in this space, where we are raising the same amount of money from fewer people every single year because we all follow that methodology. And it’s not one focused on growth.

And so I feel really lucky to work at an organization that has so much of that in their DNA because that mindset and view is often by far the hardest thing to get in organizations. And I realize that.

Eric Ressler [00:15:40]: Yeah. And I think that’s consistent with some of the recent giving trend data. We just did an episode with the Bank of America philanthropy study. And one of the things that came out from that is that overall, fewer people are giving. However, the people who are giving are giving more. And that’s positive in some ways. And a lot of the takeaways from that episode is there’s some good things to be feeling good about in terms of overall giving is up. Some of the data that just came out around Giving Tuesday was pretty positive as well.

But the near enemy of that that I’m a little bit worried about is that fewer people are giving. And not only are fewer people giving, but this is just, in my opinion, a reflection of growing income inequality, especially in America. And we want charity to be a big tent game, in my opinion. I don’t think it should be something that is reliant on a smaller and smaller subset of wealthier and wealthier people to prop up. And there’s been all kinds of discussions around some of those elements of philanthropy.

So how can we make philanthropy every person’s game? Where it’s not this exclusive club where you’re a philanthropist and you come to expensive galas, but something that everyone can participate in in a more democratic way. And I think that charity:water has been a good example of what that style of philanthropy looks like.

And what I’d like to go next actually is to talk about how that might translate to orgs where the story isn’t quite as simple or intuitive as charity:water. I think when you’re first introduced to charity:water, it makes intrinsic sense. Oh, people need clean drinking water. I give money to charity:water. They give clean drinking water to people who need it. At face value, a very simple story. The ROI for a potential retail donor is really straightforward. What about orgs who are doing more upstream work, where they’re doing systems change, where they’re doing advocacy work, where they’re doing policy work, where they’re not doing as much boots on the ground work? Do you feel like some of the approaches that you’re taking specifically around brand building and building out more awareness and top of funnel is still worth exploring? Or what would you do if you were to join an organization like that and be in charge of growth?

Brady Josephson [00:17:55]: Yeah, I think that’s a great point. Oftentimes we get in conversations and we talk about the nonprofit space, or especially when maybe you go to conferences and are talking about the nonprofit space with folks who maybe don’t spend as much time in it. It’s a huge space, right? It’s like 13% of the workforce. It’s bigger than the manufacturing industry. It’s huge, and yet we often talk about it as it’s singular. And so I think it is worth pointing out. There’s some splits that we can talk about, like large and small, international and local. So even just think about a two by two grid. We’re large international. That’s very different than small local.

So some core concepts, marketing is marketing, fundraising is fundraising, great. But some of the things carry less value. And I would say if you are local and small, yeah, building up top of funnel and brand is probably not as impactful, but it doesn’t mean you don’t need people to know who you are or resonate with what you do or have an offer. You absolutely do. It probably just means that strategy will diminish quicker than say a large international organization.

And so again, if you come back to people need to know and trust and feel competent, that’s really what the brand exists to do. You can’t feel competent about something you’ve never heard of before. Or if the story is so confusing, you can’t quickly understand what it is. So we are very fortunate. Clean water, we’re not faith-based, we’re not political, we are very accessible and that has been part of the recipe for success. So I fully acknowledge that.

I do think we overcomplicate things in the nonprofit space as well, right? You get a lot of programs people, a lot of academics, a lot of people who get into it because they want to serve the people, but how they think about the work is often very different than the average person who will fund the work. And that is one of the marketer’s and fundraiser’s biggest blind spot — you know too much and you lack the ability to talk about it in ways that work if you don’t have that information.

And so that’s where agencies and outsiders can be super helpful. Actually, if you trust them, that’s where research can be super helpful and testing can be incredibly helpful because almost for sure how you think and talk about your organization is wrong, just left to your own devices. Maybe major donors, maybe major funders, but if we’re talking about mass consumer, which is where I live, your natural instincts are probably wrong. It’s just the way it is, honestly.

Eric Ressler [00:20:20]: That rings really true. And I think one of the things we’re often working with clients on is there’s this intuition, especially if you’re more academic in your background and more research oriented, really true category experts in the space, which a lot of nonprofit organizations and leaders are — we’re talking about some of the most complex issues in the world. They should be the world’s leading experts at this work, but they have a sense that they must tell the entire story all at once.

That’s the big mistake that I see more than often. It’s like, oh, but we’re not talking about this program or this program or this program, or that’s not quite true where you’re forgetting this one nuanced thing. And it’s like, great. So when you go to a movie, do they just regurgitate the entire plot all at once or is there an actual narrative? Is there tension built? Is there an introduction? Is there an establishing shot?

So I think a lot of what I see our job as we are working with social impact organizations who are doing oftentimes super complex, super deep work, how do we translate that in a way that is accessible without at the same time inadvertently dumbing it down? And there’s no silver bullet answer to that. That is the hard creative work and that is the strategy work that needs to be done.

But one of the things, and for listeners who are trying to figure that out right now and also figure out how does that fit into this idea of brand marketing, I would encourage you to realize that you don’t need to tell the whole story all at once, that you can drip that out. What is the simplest, most memorable, most intuitive way to introduce someone to your story and then build more depth and breadth over time in relationship. We talk a lot about donor nurturement and nurturing donors, engaging donors. One way to do that is to tell a deeper and deeper story over time instead of trying to do it all at once.

Brady Josephson [00:22:15]: Yeah, for sure. Again, and this is where data can help too. If you think about web, probably 85% of people who visit our website have never visited before. And so even if you’re telling a story, keep it simple, but also you can tell the same story pretty much way more than you think, just like you can reuse content.

So when we launched our monthly giving program called The Spring, there was a video called The Spring Film, and it’s an 18, 19 and a half minute mini documentary. And we’ve been running it and sharing it and putting millions of dollars of paid spend behind it for seven years. And people see it for the first time and they’re amazed. It’s a little old, some of the footage, some of the facts are out of date, but what we’re trying to accomplish, it absolutely achieves. And there’s so many people who still haven’t seen it, even though over a hundred million people have. And even if they have, they’re like, “Oh my gosh, I forgot I watched that a few years. This is amazing.”

And so again, I think the parallels to me are just like, we are so in our own shoes without using some data or research or trying to get outside and say, “Yeah, but they don’t know who we are.” Or even if they do, you’re probably not as big of a role in their lives as you think they are as well. So some repetition or some revisiting is totally fine. And I just think we get so wrapped up in our own stuff, it gets harder to do that. And in some ways it’s actually harder when you’re smaller because you know everyone or you feel like you know everyone. When you’re big and you just have a lot of numbers, “I can’t possibly know everyone,” it does get a little easier in some ways. But that mindset I think is really helpful. And that’s where I think coming from more of the data side actually helps in some ways on the brand side — you just think about data and it really helps unlock some of that.

Eric Ressler [00:23:55]: Yeah. I want to reiterate one thing you said that I think is actually quite fascinating, which is you acknowledge some of the footage is old, some of the facts are out of date, and yet you’re putting millions of dollars of ad spend behind that piece. I’ve worked with so many organizations where those two things would be an absolute deal breaker. And this is, I think, where we sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture — we can’t get so caught up in these minute details and lose sight of the fact that you guys put a lot of time, energy and effort in producing that piece.

I remember when it came out, it stuck with me because it felt different, and you’re willing to continue to promote it and to distribute it, which is another thing that I think a lot of folks heavily under index on. They spend all this time and energy putting creative things together, but have no distribution strategy whatsoever or no paid media spend behind it.

So I think that’s a good segue actually. I’d love if you wouldn’t mind sharing some specific stories and examples about what you all are doing right now and taking some bigger swings around investing in brand. And I’d love if you wouldn’t mind starting with the 7,000 square foot retail space that you guys have opened and what was the idea behind that? How’d that come to be and what are some of the early results from that so far?

Brady Josephson [00:25:10]: Yeah, that’s definitely the biggest swing we’ve taken since I’ve been here. It’s a pretty big one. So what it is, it’s 7,000 square feet. It’s in Franklin, Tennessee. It’s in a cool Chelsea Market style place called The Factory. And we’re up on the second floor and we have hour long reservation only free tours where people are introduced to charity:water and the water crisis and watch a video.

They go for a walk for water in a really hot room lined with LEDs and you’re on a treadmill and you carry a jug of water while you walk behind a girl in Uganda to try and get a sense of what it would be like in Uganda. You learn more about diseases, bacteria and water, you learn about the solutions that we have. We have a VR film that we shot where you see a community get clean water for the first time through the eyes of a girl in that community, which is the pinnacle absolute experience. Everyone rates it the number one. And part of it’s the journey that we create, but part of it too is just, again, keep it simple. If you watch a community go from not having water to having water, you’re forever changed by seeing that. So that’s all we’re trying to do is just let you see it.

And then there’s a real pump that we built that you can pump in celebration. So it’s really tactile, really experiential, really family friendly. Costs a lot of money and took two years to build and get off the ground. And we’re about nine months post-launch, one year after soft launch.

The idea came about because we would have so much success and invest so much in our galas in the past. And so you’d put all this energy into these amazing experiences at an event and then you’d have 200, maybe a thousand people see this, they’re transformed, and then onto the next thing. No one else gets to experience it or see it. And so the idea, and this wasn’t my idea, it was long before — it’s when we were still based in New York — was saying, “What if we just took the best that we’ve produced and made it accessible for more people to come and experience it because this stuff is amazing. And we’ve already spent so much time, energy and money to develop it.”

And so we started looking at shops or pop-up shops, and this was New York in 2019, 2020, and then it was not a good time to invest in retail. And so when we got on the other side, we went remote only. Our founder found his way down to Nashville and Franklin, Tennessee, and we hit this plateau. Then it was like, well, what if we revived this idea but gave it a different spin. So instead of in New York or at a pop-up, what if we put it in this up and coming place where we could get a really great deal and it’s close to the founder and it could be this storytelling asset as well as something that the public can really use.

And so it was really risky at one level, but also we had a decade of knowing that when we put our story and experience in front of people, it works. So the risk was more in, can we get enough people through this space and will it generate enough revenue? It wasn’t, would we provide something that’s compelling? And again, I think that’s a luxury that we have at charity:water where that’s not really what we question. We know that we have that in us. It’s more like, can we make this work from a business standpoint?

And so yeah, we’re about nine months in. We’ve had over 7,000 people visit. We’ve raised about two and a half million dollars in projected revenue. The net promoter score’s about 93%. People are coming back and bringing their families. It’s truly amazing. You got to come check it out. It’s quite special.

Eric Ressler [00:29:20]: I’d love if you could share some of the other ways that you guys have been reallocating your spend from bottom of funnel to top of funnel and some of the early results that you’ve seen from that too.

Brady Josephson [00:29:30]: Yeah. So I think one of the things is we started investing a lot in TV. And so again, when we went on this deep dive of how do we invest in brand in a meaningful way and what’s out there from a research perspective, you quickly end up in a place where you’re saying we need to capture attention. You need about two and a half seconds of attention to form a memory and memory is linked to building brand or recall or something called mental availability, which is the academic term of when someone goes to think of you, will they? Essentially.

So you need attention and some channels are way better at delivering attention than others. So you can run display ads for days, but capturing someone’s attention is really difficult. They’re just going to glaze right over it. Where TV, whether you like it or not, especially non-skippable ads, they capture a lot more attention than almost any other medium. And so TV doesn’t make sense for some things, but when you’re trying to build brand or mental availability, you need that dedicated time.

So TV was one, but then you also need a different style of creative. We can’t just take a 19 and a half minute documentary or take some of the things that work really well in a fundraising campaign because those are made to activate people, not necessarily leave a memory. And some of the emotions that are linked to memory are things like surprise and happiness. And surprise is one that nonprofits typically don’t do very well at all. I think we’re getting better and better at happiness, but it’s pretty expected happiness. This person didn’t have something, thanks to you or thanks to this organization or a local partner, now they do and everything’s happy. It’s also pretty expected. So even the happiness that we provide, I think, is a little muted because we all tread a very similar storyline.

And so we shot some very different creative that would be more like brand spots that you would see. A car going through a car wash without water, a kid going on a slip and slide without water, someone at a diner who gets coffee without water. And we don’t actually talk a lot about the work we do in the water sanitation and hygiene space or our local partners or none of that’s there. It’s really solely built on how do we capture attention, leave an emotional connection tied to our brand, which is really what nerdy brand building on TV is really about. So we really tried to execute that strategy.

Eric Ressler [00:31:45]: And I think this is what you see consumer brands do all the time. And sometimes I talk to friends and the classic example of this is the Super Bowl ads. And everyone’s talking about what their favorite Super Bowl ad is, but there’s always someone in the room who’s like, “These ads are all stupid. None of them describe what the products are.” And there’s a very good reason for that, which is that they don’t exist to describe what the products are, what the benefits of the products are. They exist to create that recall and that memory. And surprise and curiosity also are two of the most important emotions to trigger to create memories and to create that recall.

And it is interesting to think about how might social impact organizations do that. The way that you approach some of those spots, and I’ve seen some of them, are very nontraditional for the space. I can’t really think of too many others quite like that. I would say probably the closest thing would be celebrity voiceover style ads that you’ve seen from some major international orgs that have been done by some of the major ad groups down in LA who have a for good arm or something.

And so I’d be curious to hear how that’s gone for you so far and how you think about how that fits into the overall flow of engaging someone and inviting someone into the charity:water world.

Brady Josephson [00:33:05]: Yeah. So I think one thing worth pointing out too is TV today is very different than TV five years ago and definitely TV 15 years ago. So to help measure this, we implemented something called marketing mix modeling and it tries to take a holistic view of what’s driving performance. So it’s not your CRM doing attribution, it’s not your platforms doing attribution. It is a data model looking at three plus years of all the data and trying to — then we trained it for six months to try to figure out what’s actually driving that.

So you think something shows up as a search donation, search doesn’t drive very much. Something drove the person to look for you. It could be seeing an ad, hearing someone speak, something’s driving it. And so what MMM is trying to do is figure out, yeah, but what’s the thing that drove the thing that got the thing?

And so we implemented that largely to help monitor TV. And what we found through that is TV was our second cheapest donor driving platform according to MMM. So they may have given through search, but TV is really what drove them. And that’s a bit of a game changer. And if you think about how you watch TV, you can watch TV, be like, “Huh, that’s cool.” Pull up your phone, Google really quick, scan the QR code. You can go to the website. And if the website’s good and simple and clear, you can go from never hearing about a brand, being like, “That’s pretty cool,” to buying something or taking an action faster and easier than ever before.

And so that’s the other one of the main arguments for investing in brand now is you can transact almost anywhere, but can you be remembered and will people hear about you? The value of brand is going up in the world. That’s the bet that we’re making. But I want to make that point on TV because often it’s like, “Ah, TV, it’ll take forever.” And maybe, but it’s more of a performance channel today than you might think, I think, especially if you do creative really well.

Eric Ressler [00:35:00]: No, that’s great. I want to actually go a little bit deeper on that because what I don’t want listeners to do is say, “Oh, Brady says TV is the future. We’re going to go spend a bunch of money on TV.” Because I think what you have to realize is, especially if you’re doing connected TV or YouTube is often synonymous with TV these days, you cannot just run your boring academic documentary on TV and say you’re doing brand marketing. I mean, I guess you could, but that would be a really bad idea.

And so I think especially if you’re talking about YouTube, but even to a degree just TV as a channel, people are typically watching TV to be entertained, right? Sometimes people are there to learn. I do actually a lot of learning on YouTube for my own personal reasons for music stuff. But it’s an entertainment modality. And so if your content isn’t entertaining, even if it’s edutainment, it’s a mix of education and entertainment, it’s probably not going to perform very well. So I’m curious how you guys thought about the creative element of that and making sure that the content was actually appropriate for the medium.

Brady Josephson [00:36:00]: Yeah. Again, I think that’s where a lot of the research is coming in handy is trying to figure out what are the emotions and then how do we evoke some of those emotions like surprise. And then we did some pretesting. So we did various degrees of pretesting to see, “Hey, is this resonating with people?” And you can do it as cheap as $800. There’s a tool called Listener that we use a lot. We just used it this week and you can recruit a panel pretty cheaply and get some feedback. And again, trying to get out of your own mind. I mean, that’s why we did it — our creative director was working on something and I said, “I like this, but I’m pretty biased because I really like those people. Let me try to get out and get some other data.” And sure enough, the folks that we paneled really preferred the other one. So I said, “All right, let’s try the other one.” So that helped guide us.

And then we had some more sophisticated testing in there as well to make sure that we were on the right track. And so it’s not just like, you don’t flip a switch and then just start pouring money into TV. You can test in little ways. Again, you can stand up TV or if you have YouTube, you can say, “Just show this on TV with some creative that you feel might work and just start getting your feet wet.” There’s some ways to do it.

And then we also — I spent maybe a year getting the alignment that this is a good thing for us to spend on. So even though charity:water has high risk tolerance and we get brand, it wasn’t just like, “Hey, I want to take half the budget and just spend it on things that are going to be super hard to measure.” It took a lot of time and that’s where a lot of the research came in. And then our founder intuitively getting it helped a ton, but it was a year and a half process to get us to the point where we were willing to start making those types of investments. And then we made smaller investments and then made bigger investments. So all in, it’s been a three-year process to get to this point where we feel like we’re aligned, we’ve got the creative, we’re investing at a high level and we’re confident in it. It didn’t just happen in a three-month window. It’s definitely a big commitment that we made.

Eric Ressler [00:38:05]: I think that’s actually a bigger theme I’d like to dig into just a little bit because I often do hear and see people online in the social impact space hold charity:water up as this benchmark, this aspiration around, “Well, this is how charity:water did it. We should do that too.” But what I don’t think a lot of people understand is how much time, energy, investment and expertise you all put behind the work. I think a lot of that is invisible and people want the results, but don’t understand what that actually looks like to get those results.

So I’m wondering if you might be able to, at least at a high level, just give people a sense of what does it take to run your communication and fundraising program at large at charity:water? What’s the general team size, level of investment at a high level even? How much iteration and growth and professional development are you doing? I want people to understand that this doesn’t happen magically. And I’d actually like, even if you wouldn’t mind talking about the ability for risk tolerance, because I feel like that is a non-negotiable for running a program like this.

Brady Josephson [00:39:10]: Yeah. I think that’s probably the best place to start, honestly. And I was having this conversation with someone and we were just saying, how do we create ways to shift the mindset of executive leaders and board members? Because absent that, it’s really hard to change. Someone could be listening being like, “I get it. They’re sold on brand, they’re sold on TV, but they have to get that person or those people or all the way up the chain because you can’t just make this type of investment over time without that type of alignment and buy-in.”

So one, I do think even at charity:water, you have to work hard for it. So you have to be really convicted and willing to put yourself out there. And it wasn’t just me, but it was definitely something that I did — I did the work, did the research, came to the conclusion, vetted it to the point I was like, “I’m fully committed to this. I’ll put my job on the line for this thing.” And so few times do I think people are actually willing to do that. And then it’s like, “Wow, nothing happened.” And it’s like, “Well, how willing were you to put yourself out there and do the work?”

So I think that’s important, but I do think risk tolerance at charity:water’s super high. We’ve had something in our culture from day one about trying things, testing things, wanting to be the first. There’s a concept called safe to try where there was a process where you’d get a gathering of cross-functional people and run this idea by them and you’d get a cumulative, yeah, that feels safe to try, to de-risk some things, but everyone’s starting point was yes.

So there’s these things baked into the culture to make it happen. And then our investment last year on the paid side was about $2.6 million, which is pretty big for international, but pretty small compared to some others, and especially TV. That was one of the learns actually — we can’t compete on TV with the other people that were competing on TV, so we need to still be smarter on the TV side.

Our marketing team’s way smaller than people think. When I started, we were rebuilding the marketing team. There was zero full-time marketing people when I started. Now we had a big creative team and they did a lot of the marketing work. So again, when you get into marketing, it’s like, oh, copywriter, are they creative? Are they marketing? Some fine lines, but our marketing team’s about five. Our creative team’s going through a transition. We’ve been as big as 12 and as small as two.

So it’s still a pretty lean team, but so much of our time and energy in the past has been really focused on marketing. And I think we have a marketing led founder or a marketing centric founder. When you think of Airbnb, they’re design led because their founder’s a designer. You think of Shopify, they’re engineering led, their founder’s an engineer. Our founders are creative and a marketer. So when he gets free time, he’s thinking about creative and marketing. And so I think that’s also really different as opposed to the programs person, the practitioner, the academic. Ours is a salesman, a marketer and a creative. So that makes its way through the org.

And again, it’s a really lucky spot to be in. But we’ve got a lot of constraints. We wish we had more time and money. We fail a lot too. Some people are surprised. Our email program is very small compared to what people think it is because we don’t focus a ton on it. We focus on some different levers. So yeah, you’d be surprised on some of the things that we have or don’t have maybe at charity:water too.

Eric Ressler [00:42:40]: Yeah. Thanks for sharing all that in a transparent way. And I think it’s all relative because sometimes we work with folks where they fought tooth and nail to get one full-time chief communications officer who’s supposed to do the job of 12 people somehow and also has no marketing budget to invest. So there’s folks at that level. And then of course, there’s obviously a whole spectrum of maturity from there.

I would like to just get your thoughts really quick around if you were starting from a smaller point of view, and let’s say you’re a $5 million a year org and you aren’t as staffed up. What are the bigger picture ways that you would think about making investments in brand, in fundraising, in some of the just general best practices for communications when you’re not quite at a level of sophistication that you’re even at at charity:water at this point? What do you feel like in your bones right now are the fundamental skills and where those are going and how those are changing right now? Because I do feel like this is all very fluid in this moment in culture.

Brady Josephson [00:43:50]: Yeah. No, that’s a great question. And I should mention too, my first job out of grad school, I was the only full-time employee. I know what it’s like to work in a small shop and wear all the hats. Before I answer the skill question, I think there’s a question on model. And I think this is where small and medium-sized nonprofits get really tripped up — they feel like we have to do all the things and you really don’t. You maybe have to do all the things at a small level, but you should not be doing all the things at the same level. What you say no to or what you do less of is the game. That is strategy. Saying, “Oh, we should do this, fine.” What we won’t do or what we’ll stop doing or what we’ll do less of is actually what real strategy is about.

And so there’s a great framework. There’s a podcast and a site called Lenny’s Newsletter, and he’s a former Airbnb growth guy, and he’s got a growth framework called a race car. And it really resonated with me because it basically boils down to — and this is a for-profit example — but there’s only four ways that you grow, that is your growth engine. And when you’re starting up or you’re small or medium, you only have one engine. You don’t have multiple engines. When you get to be really big, maybe you can develop a second engine. So you need to figure out what is the engine that is going to drive your growth, and then you orient everything around that.

That doesn’t happen in nonprofits. It feels like we got major gifts and grants and foundations and email and direct mail and monthly, and you cannot do all of it, especially if you’re really resource constrained. So some of that hard work is trying to figure out, like saying, we are going to be paid ads heavy and we’re going to focus on monthly giving. That’s how we are. That’s a tough road to go. It’s not the easiest one for all startups, but then you start going, “Here’s what we need then. We need money, we need content, we need data, we need digital.” So then who you need or who you hire is way easier to figure out, or what you need from the board.

If you can’t make that decision of what your revenue engine is or should be, then all these decisions get really hard. And so I think that’s the hard work that not just smaller, every org really has to do. And then you basically, again, have to double down and triple down on that growth engine and get better and better at it. And even diversify — I think we’ve overdone it on diversification. If you’re really good at one thing, keep doing it and finding other ways to improve within it. I think we’re often a little too quick to do big diversification like, “Oh, major donors are starting to dip. Let’s go to Corp.” Nope. That’s a totally different world. Get better at major donors, revamp major donors.

So I think that’s my own personal belief and I’ve really just resonated with that idea of growth engine and then what are all the things. And so then that leads to answering the skills question. So I don’t think you can really answer who do you need and what are the skills without knowing, well, what’s the strategy? What’s the engine?

Eric Ressler [00:46:40]: Yeah. Well, and there’s actually, and maybe you’re familiar with this — I’ll link to it in the show notes as we put the episode out. But there was a seminal article on SSIR about this exact issue, which is that there’s this trap of diversification around fundraising. And the data shows that when orgs really double down on one modality of fundraising and get really especially good at that, that’s when they tend to grow most.

And I don’t know that means that every social impact org out there should just find only one modality of fundraising and shed everything else that they’re doing. But I do think it means there should be one that you spend 75 plus percent of your time. Yeah, dominant. Totally. And optimizing around that. So I’ll check out Lenny’s podcast around the growth engine. That’s really interesting.

Brady Josephson [00:47:20]: Yeah, no, it’s great. And I think the other thing is there’s all these halo or additional benefits of a strategy that you pick up along the way. And so that’s one of the arguments for brand is by focusing on brand reach, you often reach your own donors and it actually helps increase loyalty and retention, even though that’s not exactly why you’re doing it.

And so that’s the other thing. If you have this dominant thing that you keep investing in, there’s network effects, there’s economies of scale, there’s unseen connections. And so you can get some of that as a byproduct, whereas trying to intentionally go after it sometimes is not even the right play too, right? So yeah, that idea of a dominant way to grow or focus, I think is really important.

Eric Ressler [00:48:00]: I have one more thread I’d love to tug on with you before we wrap up here around how you’re thinking about brand versus individuals and influencers and institutions versus people, because I feel like that’s a really big part of the conversation right now. We had Amanda Litman on the show earlier who comes more from the political world and she has some interesting perspectives around that brands can’t actually have ideas, that it’s really people that have ideas.

And you see this with content becoming less polished and more authentic, to use a buzzword. You see this with the trends in technology and more influencer based content and phone-based content being created. And I don’t think, by the way, that investing in brand and doing more authentic content is necessarily an either or. I think you can do both. But how are you all thinking about that in terms of showcasing the people behind the org and considering that trust in brands and institutions is down, although trust in nonprofit organizations is down less than any other major institution, which is good news for us.

Is that part of your thinking and conversation right now internally at all?

Brady Josephson [00:49:10]: Yeah, it is. And I think we were too slow to adapt, especially on the social side. And I think that’s where not being maybe as focused on data or what customers or consumers are saying directly or indirectly through data, we were pretty slow to react. The brand is beautiful. It’s really well designed and it’s world-class. I think it’s amazing, but it’s very clear that that stopped working the same way and we were pretty slow to figure out how to make that work for us.

Being here in the United States and working in the global south, there’s a lot of issues that we want to make sure we represent the people and communities we serve in an authentic way that makes it harder to just have someone in Franklin, Tennessee up in front of a camera and talk about the plight of a woman in Uganda walking for water. There are some real reasons why we were slow to get into it as well, but there were some things that we probably could have done in terms of our storytelling here, our supporters, where we could have done more face to camera.

So that is part of what we’re doing as we revamped the strategy. Having a physical place in Franklin helps a lot in terms of storytelling and some of those things. We started developing a local network of storytellers in some of the countries and communities where we worked. So we had about five or six folks that we had on contract that were excellent creatives, but from the communities that we served and grew up there and knew the people and spoke the language. And so when we would go on a trip, we would train and then we would keep ties with them. So if we needed a piece of content or wanted that first person story, the idea was that we could go and tap them so that it could be authentic, could be first person and not from us here in Tennessee or New York. It’s difficult to scale. It’s pretty tricky to maintain, but philosophically it was really cool.

So we are thinking more about that. And then the brand risk too, I think we’ve just acknowledged, look, this is part of it. If you really want to reach people, you got to lower the access and be okay with a little bit more risk in your brand — people talking about it. They won’t say it all correctly. You might get some blowback.

So we’re a little behind in that area, I’d say. And then the one thing too is everything goes in cycles. So that’s the other thing to be worried about is right now, great. That’s what the algorithms are saying. That’s what the brands are doing. That’s what everyone’s doing. Five years from now, it’s probably going to be something else. And so I think that’s the other thing. If you’re really rooted in what a great brand is about and what is great, whether they come to our site or they do it through chat, whether they hear it from an influencer or they hear it from our founder, the core that is the brand is still what you really need to make sure you maintain as those things come and go. So that’s where I feel like, yeah, we are a little slow, but at our core, I still think we’re in such a great spot to either catch up or catch up with what’s next.

Eric Ressler [00:52:00]: Yeah. I think that’s a great takeaway that I want to make sure listeners don’t misinterpret my question that, “Oh, now brand’s not important. Don’t worry about building.” I think it’s more about how does a brand show up in a modern way right now. And I think there’s a bit of an art and science to it because we see sometimes people are just hopping on whatever the latest bandwagon is. Oh, everyone’s on TikTok now. We have to do short form video and that’s our thing.

And to your point, these things all do happen in cycles. So if all you’re doing is building on those tangential discovery platforms, but there’s no foundational brand that supports it, you may be successful in that one channel, but then you’re constantly chasing the trends and there’s no bigger brand foundation that’s being built on top of that. Whereas if you do have that stronger brand foundation, you can surf those waves as they come, but always come back to something that’s building longevity and more robust support over time.

Brady Josephson [00:53:00]: There, as you think about it, I think I’m a growth guy and one of the differences I think between growth and marketing is you come with a hypothesis. And I think that’s helpful for things like that — okay, so TikTok, what’s the hypothesis? If the hypothesis is other people are doing it and it works, that’s not a hypothesis. Because you observe what means that you’re going to do what and you’re going to evaluate success because of what. And then any good experiment then goes, “Okay, if this works, now what do we do?”

And for most brands, I think they don’t have a hypothesis. And then even if you succeed, it’s like, well, now what? Now you got to feed the TikTok beast. Are you ready to do it? Can you do it? No. So why are we doing it? And I think that’s one of the reasons why I really like hypothesis-based thinking — it forces you to have some of that rationale or ask that question, “If this works, what do we do next?” And we had that. We had this great idea and we said, “If this works, we can’t even do the next phase. So let’s not even test it. It’s not worth it.”

So I think that’s one way to guard yourself a little bit against always chasing the shiny objects — having a hypothesis. Sorry, I just wanted to get that in there.

Eric Ressler [00:54:05]: No, thank you. I think that’s really helpful and touches back to your earlier point around so much of strategy is what you say no to, not what you say yes to. And it’s easier said than done, but I think that idea of thinking ahead a few steps — what happens if this does work? What happens if it doesn’t work? And I think the art of marketing and brand building and growth is knowing how long to run these experiments for before shutting them down.

Because sometimes if you shut them down prematurely, especially when it comes to attribution being hard and some of the brand building efforts taking six months, even a year at times to really start to pay off, you’re shutting these things down before they have time. I think about our show this way. If I started to measure the effectiveness of our show Designing Tomorrow after month three, I would’ve shut it down, but I knew that it takes a hundred plus episodes to really start to make a difference. And now we’re starting to see that payoff as we’re in episode 72 right now. And that’s because I come from that more long game brand building philosophy as a designer in my background and just as I’ve observed it.

Brady, one last thing before we wrap up for today. Thank you so much for your time. This has been awesome. I feel like we could do four more episodes on any of these topics, but I’d love to just hear what is lighting you up right now and what are you most excited about? You’re on this mission — my interpretation around where you’re at right now — of really doubling down on brand at charity:water, which seems close to your ethos as a growth marketer. But I’d love to just hear, what are you thinking about next and personally, professionally, what’s getting you excited these days as you’re waking up and doing this work every day?

Brady Josephson [00:55:50]: That’s a good question. Well, I’m about to go on parental leave, so I’m trying not to get too excited for anything other than hanging out with my baby boy. I think one of the things that we’re spending a lot of time thinking about and that I’m, I’d say maybe not so excited, but very curious about is AI search and web — or bigger picture, just off platform giving. Already so many people give off platform, donor advised funds, whatever, and we’re losing data and information through Privacy Acts and that’s only going one direction.

And so trying to think a few years from now, how do people even interact with charitable causes? Do they even come to our website? Are they even transacting through our forms? It’s definitely less. We always overpredict the future. And so then what does it mean to show up in the world when that is happening? It’s a pretty big question that we’re all facing. And I think that’s really interesting and curious — I’ll hopefully be able to spend some time on that.

And then maybe at the other end of the scale, I’m really excited to get more into our monthly giving program again. I feel like we took a couple years, not off, but to really focus on major gifts and brand. And now I think hopefully in this next phase, it’ll be back to, yeah, but why do we really want to build brand and build up this future demand? It’s to really grow our movement, capture that demand. And that’s really about subscription giving in The Spring. And I just love that program. I think it’s so important for us. I think it’s so relatable and accessible for small donors, young donors, old donors. And so to put some more life and energy into that program, I think is going to be really exciting.

Eric Ressler [00:57:30]: Awesome. Brady, this has been great. Thank you so much for your time today. Really enjoyed everything we talked about and looking forward to what you all do next.

Brady Josephson [00:57:40]: Thank you so much for letting me share.