Love seeing marketing in here! New organisations often haven't budgeted for their marketing needs. It would be great to see systemic change in funders making clear what's expected and that includes a marketing spend (in most cases).

Thanks for commenting.

Sure, I'd be happy to.

This first example of a research org is needing short-term action, so long-term branding for them would have ideally predated this need and built a bigger audience that knows their brand and would be likely to support. For this current need, they are using short-term activation marketing, but would get much greater success if they'd already committed to building their audience over a longer time. So the current ads for this purpose wouldn't be long-term, but would be support by past long-term marketing.

The startup charity aiming to acquire talent has 5 years to imbed their brand into the minds of likely future candidates. This long-term marketing could be relevant sponsorships, attending conferences, ads that are focused on making their brand memorable.

The "shopfront" EA org should be generating ads that are purely designed to capture peoples attention, impart the brand and some credibility. These could be 6 sec YouTube ads, social ads, sponsorships...

Broadly speaking, all long-term marketing has one major focus, and that is to be interesting enough to be remembered. It should therefore hone into emotions, humour, surprise - something that will leave an impression on the audience so that they are effectively warmer to the brand for when they (in the future) might come to want to engage.

If you consider this Rightmove ad, it's entire remit is to make you feel something, which you then associate with the brand. And it has no call to action. It's about logging the brand into your mind for whenever you might come to need to look for a place to live.

Hey! Thanks.

We are in close contact with GI and talk regularly :)

Hey Yonatan, thanks for reaching out! I think we're both at EAG DC over the next few days, let's meet up and chat about this? :)

Thanks for commenting Linch, this is a great point. I agree on this viewpoint. There are likely many benefits to meta services like the one you describe being covered by more than one org, not least the diversification of skills, focus, specialisation and resource.

Hey Christian,

That's great to hear - thanks for sharing. I'll aim to be writing posts of this style fairly regularly, but do shout if there's a topic you'd particularly like me to cover.

Thanks Peter - I do agree that marketing and communications could do with being more highly prioritised, broadly speaking.  I hope to at least provide some of the basic knowledge that might help others stay away from some of the easy traps to fall into.

haha, thanks for sharing. This did make me laugh.

Hey Sanjay, thanks for your message.

Yes, this is a good point you raise. As you mention, I don't think the same rules apply to every context and given that EV Ops (and any of the CEA brands/sub-brands) are central components to the entire movement, there is little issue with them using 'Effective'. They may still face some issues with cannibalisation, though as you suggest EV Ops is so niche and inward facing that it needn't play by the same rules. My post here is referring to satellite organisations emerging from, surrounding and across the movement, not the central founding components.

I'm going to edit the post to make this clear as my post is not a criticism of this particular use of the term and their recent name change.