Selling Your Story to the Media
February 6, 2008 - The stories that philanthropy has to tell are often not the kinds that make front-page news. Feature articles, or "soft" news, can go a long way in telling the story of a philanthropic effort while helping the public understand what an organization is doing and why. This session examined effective ways to tell your company's story to the media so that they are interested in your efforts and can communicate your story to a broader audience. Panelists included: Jim Kirk, Associate Managing Editor, Business, Chicago Tribune; Robb Kristopher, Director, Regional Communications, Grainger; and Neil Steinberg, Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times. Richard Turner, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, moderated the session.

The Corporate Committee hosted a session on Selling Your Story to the Media. The discussion was introduced by Richard Turner, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas Corporate Contributions, and featured contributions from Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times; Jim Kirk, Chicago Tribune; and Robb Kristopher, Grainger.

When pitching a story to the media, corporate grantmakers need to be certain they are telling the right story. By pitching a story that is not new or that covers material that has been related in the media many times, grantmakers will likely not see any positive results from their media efforts. If they find a unique angle for their story that focuses on people and how they are affected by grantmaking activities, grantmakers stand a better chance of having their story picked up by media outlets.

Certain elements of a charitable contributions program, such as large events, scholarship programs, or awards received by the program, are generally too commonplace to attract media interest. Finding a way to tell a personal story that is interesting and unique can help draw more interest from the media. The following examples and ideas were mentioned during the session:

• Having corporate officers directly involved in a charitable activity can be compelling, especially if the officer has a high profile or is a well-known personality.
• Listen to comments and suggestions reporters make when you pitch a story to them; they may have an idea of how to adjust your message to make it more interesting to them. When adjusting your message, though, remember that you do not have to accommodate all media requests; you must balance their requests with the general good of your organization and its constituents.
• Develop a good relationship with reporters. This will make reporters more likely to listen to story proposals while often improving the quality of coverage an organization receives.
• Reporters are independent and will not always tell your story exactly as you may want it told. This can include bringing up issues that may cast an organization in a negative light. However, if there are potential problems or difficulties with an organization's activities, it is generally better to be forthright and pre-emptive in addressing them; do not wait for the media to start asking questions on their own before you address potential problems. If you are accessible and candid with reporters, you can make sure your perspective comes across.
• Problems in media stories can also occur when organizations do not offer comments to reporters who approach them with a story; this opens up the possibility that the story will contain every perspective but yours, which can cast your organization in a negative light and harm future communication efforts.
• Aligning your charitable activities with your business strengths and/or with current events can help build an interesting story. If your organization can present stories that deal with issues like the foreclosure crisis, economic recession, climate change, transportation, or new ways to build online communities, your stories have a better chance of finding an outlet.
• Don't bury aspects of your story that make it unique; make sure those interesting angles are front and center. An example of this was an announcement about a breast cancer walk, which by itself would generally not receive media coverage. However, buried in the announcement was a line mentioning that five sisters who had been diagnosed with breast cancer would be walking together. The announcement also noted that one of the sisters had been diagnosed by a sixth sister. To a reporter, those sisters are the most interesting element of the story, but they were almost overlooked in the announcement.
• Focus on presenting a few strong, clear stories rather than inundating the media with press releases about every action your organization takes. Too many sub-par pitches could make reporters ignore future pitches without even looking at them.
• It can be helpful to find unusual angles on recurring stories to make them fresh again. Some examples that were mentioned included interviewing MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grant recipients about possible negative effects of the award and interviewing University of Chicago Nobel Prize winners about where they keep and display their prizes.
• Organizations should pitch their stories to the right place. By knowing the general styles and preferences of different reporters and publications, grantmakers can decide which outlet is best for a particular story. This includes online outlets-organizations should be aware of the coverage they can receive from new media sources.
  

Listening to Community Leaders: Nicor's Experience
October 25, 2007 - The Corporate Committee hosted a conversation entitled Listening to Community Leaders: Nicor's Experience. The discussion was introduced by Richard Turner, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas Corporate Contributions, and featured contributions from Julian Brown, Nicor Gas, and Diana Shayon, Burson-Marsteller.

Engaging important stakeholders is a crucial step towards improving a corporation's activities and messaging in their community. By listening to the concerns and priorities of these stakeholders, by adjusting activities to address these concerns, and by tailoring their messages to focus on issues of primary concern, corporations increase the effectiveness of their communications and improve the impact they have on a community.

The first step in the process is identifying all of the stakeholders and community leaders who have an interest in the corporation's activities. This can include media representatives, representatives of state and local governments, members of the investment community, and others. Once stakeholders are identified, the next step is to listen to their thoughts about what issues matter to them and their opinions and expectations of how the corporation should be involved in specific issues.

Gathering opinions of stakeholders is vital because these opinions can show disconnects between the perceptions of corporate management and of individuals outside the corporation. For example, managers may believe that a commitment to a charitable campaign is a vital element of being a good corporate citizen, while outside stakeholders may be more interested in activities more directly related to the corporation's functions (such as a utility company's involvement in raising environmental awareness). Stakeholders can also discuss how active they think the corporation should be in particular issue areas, including details such as when the corporation should take the lead on an issue and when it would be better to partner with other organizations.

Other pieces of information gathered from stakeholders can help inform a corporation's communications strategy. Past experience has shown that stakeholders often believe that a corporation's employees are generally the most credible source of information about the corporation, followed by corporate management, publications, and press releases. Surveys have also shown that stakeholders are quite willing to learn more about a corporation, and that their opinion of corporations tends to improve when they have more information.

This sort of data, especially when it is specifically tailored to individual corporations, can help corporations design communications strategies and plan what communications channels they should utilize. The data can also help corporations adjust certain behaviors. Studies have shown that messaging strategies built around presenting an ethical image generally accomplish little; the most effective way to build an ethical reputation is to act ethically. Additionally, in listening to stakeholders, corporations need to realize that some of the criticisms stakeholders may make of their company are valid, and they need to be willing to listen and make changes when necessary.

What Values Are Behind Your Decisions?
May 22, 2007 - The Corporate Committee hosted a discussion on Corporate Social Responsibility: Myth or Reality. The discussion was introduced by Brad Ballast, LaSalle Bank, and Shelley Stern, Microsoft Corporation, and featured contributions from Daniel Diermeier, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.

Corporations can improve their public image and head off the significant problem of negative public perception when they discover ways to tie their philanthropic activities to their core mission. In a changing environment, where increasing numbers of consumers demand that corporations act like good citizens, it is not enough for a corporation to generate profits for its shareholders; they must find ways to meet the expanding requirements of good corporate conduct.

Corporations do not have control of how they are perceived since they are not the only source of information about their activities. The growth of the internet and the recent explosion of blogging have brought an increased transparency to corporate activities; corporations must anticipate that their business is under constant scrutiny and that any questionable business activities can be uncovered and communicated across the globe in a short time.

Adding to corporate pressure is the fact that the media and social activists hold corporations accountable not only for their own activities but also for the activities of companies in their supply chain. For example, when McDonald's added salads to its menu and started buying more tomatoes, it gained the attention of groups seeking reforms in the tomato-picking industry. Activists look to place pressure on large corporations because corporations are highly visible targets that can quickly affect a selected issue. When a larger corporation changes its standards for contractor companies, smaller companies in the same field generally follow suit, leading to change throughout a sector. This sort of change is generally much faster than trying to achieve the same result through government legislation or regulatory changes.

Corporations also need to manage internal perceptions. Managers increasingly find that workers want to be part of an organization that produces good results and that employee dissatisfaction and higher turnover can result when employees do not feel they and their company are making important contributions.

Improving corporate social responsibility can take multiple forms. It can be operational, meaning the corporation designs processes that can develop socially beneficial innovations, or it can be strategic, meaning the corporation designs its activities with the realization that its constituents (including customers, employees, and stakeholders) are interested in things other than profit, such as community building and opportunities for self-expression. Recent corporate success stories, such as Starbucks, eBay, and YouTube owe some of their success to their ability to create a community of customers and deliver just what their customers want.

Tying philanthropic activities to the corporation's business model can improve perception of the corporation, as it can directly

address complaints or concerns about perceived negatives of the corporation's activities. For example, Wal-Mart has recently struggled with the perception that it harms communities. When Hurricane Katrina was nearing landfall, Wal-Mart developed a detailed response that included predictions of the storm's path and trucks full of the kind merchandise (as shown by consumer data) that people would need after the hurricane hit. Thanks to their preparations, Wal-Mart trucks arrived on the scene days before FEMA, and Wal-Mart was seen as a community builder. It is notable that outside media, not the corporation's own media efforts, was the primary driver of the new, positive perception.

Corporations need to be aware that, when they undertake such philanthropic activities, they are setting the bar for future events; if their response to a future disaster fails to match previous actions, their public perception will suffer.

There are tools available that allow corporations to track their public perception, as reflected in articles written about them. By isolating articles related to certain topics, and by filtering results according to geography or to a particular demographic, corporations can track how specific efforts are affecting the public's view.

Corporations could have broader impact if they cooperated on their social responsibility work, but such cooperation is rare due to the generally competitive nature of corporations. One exception is banking, which has seen a number of collaborative efforts related to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), as CRA officers meet and sometimes work together to find ways to bring capital to underserved neighborhoods.

Corporate Social Responsibility: Myth or Reality
January 24, 2007 - The Corporate Committee hosted a discussion on Corporate Social Responsibility: Myth or Reality. The discussion was introduced by Brad Ballast, LaSalle Bank, and Shelley Stern, Microsoft Corporation, and featured contributions from Daniel Diermeier, Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.

Corporations can improve their public image and head off the significant problem of negative public perception when they discover ways to tie their philanthropic activities to their core mission. In a changing environment, where increasing numbers of consumers demand that corporations act like good citizens, it is not enough for a corporation to generate profits for its shareholders; they must find ways to meet the expanding requirements of good corporate conduct.

Corporations do not have control of how they are perceived since they are not the only source of information about their activities. The growth of the internet and the recent explosion of blogging have brought an increased transparency to corporate activities; corporations must anticipate that their business is under constant scrutiny and that any questionable business activities can be uncovered and communicated across the globe in a short time.

Adding to corporate pressure is the fact that the media and social activists hold corporations accountable not only for their own activities but also for the activities of companies in their supply chain. For example, when McDonald's added salads to its menu and started buying more tomatoes, it gained the attention of groups seeking reforms in the tomato-picking industry. Activists look to place pressure on large corporations because corporations are highly visible targets that can quickly affect a selected issue. When a larger corporation changes its standards for contractor companies, smaller companies in the same field generally follow suit, leading to change throughout a sector. This sort of change is generally much faster than trying to achieve the same result through government legislation or regulatory changes.

Corporations also need to manage internal perceptions. Managers increasingly find that workers want to be part of an organization that produces good results and that employee dissatisfaction and higher turnover can result when employees do not feel they and their company are making important contributions.

Improving corporate social responsibility can take multiple forms. It can be operational, meaning the corporation designs processes that can develop socially beneficial innovations, or it can be strategic, meaning the corporation designs its activities with the realization that its constituents (including customers, employees, and stakeholders) are interested in things other than profit, such as community building and opportunities for self-expression. Recent corporate success stories, such as Starbucks, eBay, and YouTube owe some of their success to their ability to create a community of customers and deliver just what their customers want.

Tying philanthropic activities to the corporation's business model can improve perception of the corporation, as it can directly address complaints or concerns about perceived negatives of the corporation's activities. For example, Wal-Mart has recently struggled with the perception that it harms communities. When Hurricane Katrina was nearing landfall, Wal-Mart developed a detailed response that included predictions of the storm's path and trucks full of the kind merchandise (as shown by consumer data) that people would need after the hurricane hit. Thanks to their preparations, Wal-Mart trucks arrived on the scene days before FEMA, and Wal-Mart was seen as a community builder. It is notable that outside media, not the corporation's own media efforts, was the primary driver of the new, positive perception.

Corporations need to be aware that, when they undertake such philanthropic activities, they are setting the bar for future events; if their response to a future disaster fails to match previous actions, their public perception will suffer.

There are tools available that allow corporations to track their public perception, as reflected in articles written about them. By isolating articles related to certain topics, and by filtering results according to geography or to a particular demographic, corporations can track how specific efforts are affecting the public's view.

Corporations could have broader impact if they cooperated on their social responsibility work, but such cooperation is rare due to the generally competitive nature of corporations. One exception is banking, which has seen a number of collaborative efforts related to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), as CRA officers meet and sometimes work together to find ways to bring capital to underserved neighborhoods.

ROI - Tying Philanthropy to the Company's Bottom Line
January 18, 2006 - The Corporate Committee hosted a discussion on ROI-Tying Philanthropy to the Company's Bottom Line. Introduced by Shelley Stern, Microsoft Corporation, and Cheryl Lamm Gunn, Quaker Tropicana Gatorade, the discussion featured presentations from Dr. Lynda Crawford, Spertus College, Dr. Marcia Lipitz, Executive Service Corp and Spertus College, and Falona Joy, the Alford Group. The speakers engaged participants in a dialogue to further define the relevant areas of assessing the impact of philanthropy on a company's bottom line.

Corporate philanthropic activities can be classified along a five-point continuum based on the corporation's reason for giving, their relationship with their grantees, and the expected outcomes of their giving. On one side of the continuum is "pure" philanthropy, in which gifts are given with no efforts to control the use of the funds and no expectation of positive outcomes for the corporation (as opposed to an expectation of positive outcomes for the community at large or for the people targeted by the grant). On the opposite side of the continuum is what might be called "controlled investment," where the corporation takes a strong role in controlling the activities of the grantee and has a concrete set of expected positive outcomes for the corporation as a result of the grant.

In between these two extremes are three intermediate areas. "Strategic" or "Supportive" giving focuses on gifts with a specific purpose (e.g., programs that match dollars contributed by employees to organizations of their choice); "Marketing" philanthropy focuses on building visibility and brand recognition for the corporation when making gifts (e.g., sponsoring a table at a fund raising event); and "Return on Investment" or "Win-Win" philanthropy brings more direct benefits to the corporation while also generating funds for a non-profit organization (e.g., programs where a percent of sales of a product go to a non-profit organization).

A single corporation may have multiple activities that fall along various parts of the continuum, and some may fit better between two categories than squarely in one or the other. As participants discussed the continuum, they mentioned that truly "pure" altruism is rare, as the act of selecting one beneficiary over another indicates decision-making and a small degree of control by the grantmaker. However, some corporations make anonymous bequests to organizations that have no ties to either their business or to their overall business environment, and such grants come fairly close to the "pure" end of the scale. Additionally, grants on the controlled investment side of the continuum are rare, because when too much control is exerted by the corporation and they receive too great a business benefit from the activity, the tax benefits generally offered for philanthropic activities may not apply, which creates a disincentive for this kind of giving.

Neither side of the continuum should be thought of as the "right" side nor the "wrong" side, and corporations should not think about moving along the continuum as if it is a series of steps. Rather, the purpose of the continuum is to categorize different types of grantmaking and tie a set of expected outcomes to each type. Grantmakers can then ask themselves: are we making the kind of grants we want to make? How are we evaluating the grants we make? Do the outcomes we are measuring fit with the type of grants we want to make?

Measuring actual outcomes of philanthropic activities can be difficult. For example, one of the expected outcomes of a program to match dollars that employees give to charity may be increased employee satisfaction with the corporation. Surveys may help show how satisfied the employees are, while the amount of dollars matched through the program may provide another indication. These indications should, however, be used together, not in isolation. Increased dollars contributed to charity by employees may represent satisfaction with the program, but it also may indicate that employees feel pressured to give, which could lead to discontent.

Employee satisfaction and pride in a company may also be increased by making employees more aware of corporate giving activities, but when doing so philanthropic officers should be aware of a few pitfalls: announcing philanthropic activities at a time when the corporation is cutting jobs can build resentment, and employees may also be displeased if they discover the corporation is donating money to a cause with which they do not agree.

The session concluded with participants listing possible methods for evaluating the outcomes of their philanthropic activities. Among the activities they listed were:

• Surveying employees, grant recipients, and customers;
• Measuring the number of times the corporate logo was used in connection with philanthropic activities and how it was employed;
• Asking if new sub-populations were exposed to the corporation's product through the philanthropic work;
• Calculating the percentage of employees who take advantage of matching gift programs; and
• Examining whether giving is tied to employee concerns.
  

United Way Update
June 7, 2006 - The Corporate Committee hosted a United Way Update. Introduced by Richard Turner, Peoples Energy, the discussion featured presentations from Janet Froetscher and Lyn Corbett Fitzgerald of the United Way of Metropolitan Chicago. In the forthcoming year, the United Way of Metropolitan Chicago hopes to build stronger relationships with corporate supporters by maintaining more regular contact with them and doing a better job of saying "thank you" for previous support while also letting their corporate partners know what kind of work the United Way is performing and supporting.

The previous year for the United Way was heavily influenced by Hurricane Katrina. Chicago received about 10,000 evacuees on only three to four days' notice. Arranging for housing, basic living needs, and the volunteers to deal with the crisis required quick action, and the funding community responded to help Chicago's approach to the evacuees become one of the most effective in the nation.

In the past year the United Way also began a program to focus on the needs of young African-American males who have occasionally been overlooked by social service programs. A matching grant enabled the United Way to raise funds specifically for this program, and they plan to continue this program well into the future.

The current status of contributions to the United Way is somewhat unclear, as the response to Hurricane Katrina has made it difficult to determine what sort of funding to expect, since they are not certain how many donors will continue to offer funding and how many were providing one-time gifts for the emergency. On the fundraising side, there is a particular focus this year on increasing the amounts offered by many of their individual donors.

Along with financial donations, the United Way is working on ways to better accept volunteer contributions from corporations and individuals. Their website has a page where individuals willing to volunteer can be matched with an organization that could use their contributions, and the United Way can work with corporations to coordinate their volunteer efforts into an experience that can be memorable and significant for all participants. They are also developing new communication tools that will tell the stories of the United Way's involvement in the region while also providing a menu of items the corporations can choose from to tailor their United Way campaigns to their own specific needs.

Branding Corporate Philanthropy
October 18, 2005 - The Corporate Committee gathered to discuss Branding Corporate Philanthropy. The discussion was introduced and facilitated by Heather Loebner, HSBC, and the panelists were Kristin Anderson, Leo Burnett USA, and Warren Chapman, JP Morgan Chase and Bank One Foundation.

For corporate philanthropy, branding can mean presenting an image, logo, and message that is consistent with other corporate activities. Using a recognizable logo, for example, can help consumers connect a corporation's business activities with its philanthropic activities while also developing the brand through positive public relations. Branding is not simple; building a brand requires time, patience, and persistence. At its most effective, a brand carries with it both tangible and intangible associations; people should not only think of the product or service provided by a brand, but also have emotional or other intangible associations with the brand-for example, the "magic" of Disney or the status of Mercedes-Benz.

The most visible, but also the most expensive, method of building a brand is through advertising. Public relations can be effective and less expensive than advertising, but it can be more difficult for a corporation to present exactly the message it wants to convey. Grantees may be able to perform public relations for the corporation if the grantees receive coverage for their activities. Word of mouth can also be effective, but some guerilla marketing techniques that have been used recently-for example, having people use a certain product on the street while attempting to get passers-by to notice what they are doing-have taken a hit, as it is not clear if these techniques are as upfront as laws governing advertising require.

Making sure employees and other stakeholders know and understand the philanthropic activities of the corporation can be helpful, as they can pass along the brand to customers as well as to each other. Internal communications can help spread the word within a corporation, while posting information on a web site can be an inexpensive but effective way of informing both employees and the general public about philanthropic activities.

When building a brand, corporate foundations should be aware of how an often-cynical public may perceive their actions. For example, some people may see disaster relief efforts, especially if they are publicized, as mere opportunism instead of real philanthropy. (There are other possible pitfalls in disaster relief efforts, and these obstacles, as well as lessons learned after Hurricane Katrina, will be the subject of the next Corporate Committee meeting on December 6). In many cases it may be best for a foundation to make grants but leave publicity of the grants to the grantees.

Having clear guidelines for giving can help keep grantmaking activities separate from business activities, even if marketers subsequently use the grants to demonstrate the corporation's community involvement. A corporate foundation may need to clearly state that its philanthropic activities do not treat customers of the corporation any differently than non-customers; customers do not have an inside track to receiving grants, and the foundation will not go outside its guidelines in order to make a grant to a customer.

However, there are instances where a corporation may wish to give money to an organization with which it does business-for example, by buying a table at a luncheon. Such expenses can be considered costs of doing business, and streams of funds for those purposes can be kept separate from the foundation dollars.

Focusing on program areas that are related to a corporation's activities can help define the brand. For example, a bank may be involved in community development, while a publishing company may be involved in literacy. However, the foundation's activities still need to be separate from corporate business. For example, if employees of a bank help lower-income individuals fill out their tax returns and claim all of the credits for which they may be available, the employees should not then turn around and recommend that the resulting tax return be used to open a new account with that bank.

It can be difficult for one corporate foundation to distinguish itself from others. Some strategies for building a recognizable identity include finding activities no one else is doing, building unique partnerships with other organizations, and consistently funding programs that may gain long-term recognition.

Corporate foundations may need to steer clear of sensitive, polarizing issue areas that can have a negative impact on public relations, but sometimes taking a stand may be worthwhile-a corporation might lose some customers for taking a controversial stand, but they might in turn gain new customers who appreciate the fact that the corporation stands for something.

Corporations should also be aware of the opportunity to provide in-kind services. While nonprofit organizations will always need some general operating support to keep functioning, in-kind contributions can provide valuable assistance.

Media and Corporate Philanthropy
April 21, 2005 - This well-attended meeting of the Corporate Committee was hosted by Richard Turner, Peoples Energy Corporation, Paul Hasenwinkel, Accenture, and Susie Kessler, Grainger. Laura Washingon, Ida B. Wells University Professor, DePaul University, and Chicago Sun-Times columnist, moderated the discussion featuring a panel that included Greg Dunn, Burson-Marsteller/Chicago, Cheryl Reed, Chicago Sun-Times, Shawnelle Richie, CBS 2 Chicago, and Janis Tratnik, Grainger.

The discussion focused on ways that corporations can gain better coverage for their philanthropic activities. Such coverage can be important, as, according to the 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study, the public has grown increasingly mistrustful of corporations in general, while putting more trust in those corporations that they perceive are working to better their community.

The panel pointed out that receiving coverage of philanthropy is indeed possible; from 1995 to the current year, 12 newspapers (including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times printed 20 percent more stories about corporate philanthropy. At their high-water mark, the publications printed a total of 172 stories in a single year about corporate giving.

The panel offered the following advice for gaining coverage of corporate philanthropy:

• Always present the media with a good, compelling story. If there are specific individuals who can tell the story behind corporate giving efforts-whether they be beneficiaries of the giving, the corporation's CEO, or corporate employees involved in the charitable programs-make sure they are available for interviews and that the media knows how to contact them. Also be aware that the media is generally not interested in a story that simply sounds like cheerleading for a corporation. Conflict is often the driving force behind media stories, so framing your story in the context of a conflict can make it more compelling.
• Know the name of the right person for your issue at a media organization (for example, the reporter covering nonprofits or a community liaison) and send a brief announcement of your event or a summary of the story you wish to tell to that individual. Keep the initial contact short and to the point.
• Develop a partnership between the philanthropic side of the corporation and the media relations side, and let the media relations people do their job in gaining exposure.
• Media stories do not have to be the only way of gaining publicity for your philanthropic activities. Including descriptions of these activities in CEO speeches or on your corporate website can gain greater exposure for them.
• Look at funding decisions in a public relations context. That is not to say that decisions should be made solely on what could get press coverage, but rather that possible angles for improving public relations should be considered once a general philanthropic strategy has been determined, and specific activities can then be informed by the public relations context.
• Be aware of timing. Releasing information on normally slow news days (Saturday and Sunday) or tying your information into an ongoing major story can increase your chance of receiving coverage.
• If you want a story to be covered on television, remember that there needs to be accompanying visuals. Have an idea of what those visuals could be.
• Build a relationship with a reporter or community liaison; let them know you can be available and you have information that's useful to them. They will then be more likely to turn to you in the future.
• If you have some bad news coming out, get ahead of it. Be forthright and tell media representatives what happened and what you are doing to correct it. Getting ahead of a problem can earn trust with the media and enhances the chance of positive coverage in the future.
• Manage expectations within your organizations. There is no guaranteed way to get coverage for a story, as coverage of large world events can eliminate the time or space that might go to other stories.

The panel concluded by saying the interest in covering nonprofits is definitely there-the media just need the facts and the compelling storylines that will help them get that coverage into print or on the air.

Balancing Philanthropy With Business Interests
February 11, 2005 - The Corporate Committee held a Panel and Group Discussion regarding Balancing Corporate Philanthropy with Business Interests. Bradford Ballast, Director of Corporate Contributions, LaSalle Bank led the discussion and served as a panelist. The other members of the panel included: Rosemary Keefe, Director of Corporate Contributions, Hewitt Associates LLC; Shelley Stern, Community Affairs Manager, Midwest District, Microsoft; Patty White, Manager, Corporate Citizenship, Exelon Corporation.

After introductions, Bradford Ballast gave an overview of the corporate contributions program at LaSalle Bank. He spoke about the wide scope of giving at LaSalle Bank, because "anyone can be a customer of LaSalle Bank." He noted the financial expertise that the bank is able to offer to nonprofits, as well as the large percentage of bank executives that serve on the boards of local nonprofits.

Patty White followed with an overview of corporate citizenship at Exelon. She spoke about Exelon's focus on finding the right partner for sponsorships that would produce visibility and leverage the company's giving. Exelon has four major funding priorities which include Education, the Environment, Arts & Culture, and Neighborhoods. She noted that a project that combines priorities is always better than one that fulfills only a single priority.

Shelley Stern spoke about her role as Community Affairs Manager for Microsoft. She stressed that Microsoft was still a very young company and as a result still had a very entrepreneurial approach to philanthropy. Microsoft has a very generous matching gifts program. She said her role as Community Affairs Manager is primarily focused towards the marketing concerns of the company but that she has employed creative use of in-kind donations to help extend Microsoft's philanthropic contributions.

Rosemary Keefe finished the panel overview by speaking about Corporate Contributions at Hewitt Associates LLC. Human Services and Education are funding priorities because both support Hewitt's work as an outsourcing and consulting firm for Human Resources. Hewitt concentrates on projects with long-term effects and potential for branding such as their new high school learning centers. She also mentioned the valuable role that Hewitt was able to play in the tsunami relief efforts by volunteering their call center.

Brad Ballast opened the discussion up to questions from those attending. Members of the Corporate Committee discussed:

• How to engage and consolidate employees around corporate philanthropy, and how formal these efforts to engage and consolidate should be.
• The legal risks (in union vs. non-union houses) of allowing employees to introduce charitable solicitations, whether or not they are approved by the organization.
• How employees serving on local nonprofit boards were supported through pro-bono work and marketing dollars.
• Using loans (applicable only to the banks) as an opportunity for philanthropic giving that is outside of the normal budget or giving guidelines.
• Whether the outcome of corporate philanthropic efforts is gauged by measuring the benefit for the company or the benefit for the recipients.
• That scale of giving is important. It is often possible to create a larger impact in terms of corporate marketing and benefit to the recipients by giving a small grant to a smaller organization.
• The overlap and differences between being a good corporate citizen and strategic philanthropy, as seen in corporate efforts to maintain the civic and cultural organizations in order to build a city that will attract employees.

The committee members expressed a wide range of views on all the different topics and agreed there was no single answer to the question of balancing corporate philanthropy with business interests. The balance is found by each corporation independently and depends upon that organization's corporate giving philosophy and strategic direction of top management.

United Way Update
May 6, 2004 - Janet Froetscher, president of United Way of Metropolitan Chicago, recounted recent United Way campaign and governance history and provided an update on key initiatives. She noted that the United Way of Metropolitan Chicago has a new board of directors that includes five individuals who were previous members of the board or on suburban United Way boards. She pointed out that while previous campaigns had a 19 percent decline, the 2003 campaign results were flat. The campaign will target growth, especially in the Toqueville contributions that have grown in other parts of the country, but not here. As a means of addressing this, the local campaign cabinet has now more than doubled from 30 to 70 leaders.

Pam Tully, vice president of United Way, reported that outside consulting firms revamped the approach to needs assessment and allocations towards bringing an alignment between the city and suburbs. The Boston Consulting Group redefined all issue areas for needs assessment resulting in a framework focusing on kids, youth and adults, tied to outcomes for the allocation process. The United Way will expect consistency in alignment between the city and suburbs for needs and impact (outcomes). United Way will be positioned to identify needs and effective programs for funders in the communities in which they fund.

United Way is in the process of developing an infrastructure to support its new needs assessment. The former Distribution Formula for allocations is still in effect and United Way is working on revising it to align with the new needs assessment process.

Measuring and Promoting Corporate Giving
April 8, 2004 - Cari Parsons, Committee to Encourage Corporate Philanthropy, presented an overview of the development of CECP's approach to measuring corporate contributions. Amina Dickerson, Kraft Foods, shared their experience in participating in the process to develop the tool to measure giving and recommended that Chicago area corporations get involved in guiding the process.

The community of corporate philanthropy professionals identified the need for systematic and consistent measurement of contributions. CECP has been in operation about 4 years and is developing a means of supporting corporations in their effort to measure the inputs and outcomes of their corporate contributions through The Corporate Giving Standard (CGS) measurement initiative.

The London Benchmarking Group has been operating for 10 years, and global companies participate in both LBG and CECP. Several key issues generated the LBG: The state of corporate reporting on giving has been inadequate because there is no way to get consistent data across the field, and better information on impact of giving was needed. LBG was developed with giving officers coming together. Corporate CEOs formed CECP not only out of their commitment to giving but also to bring corporate giving into line with strategic management and reporting mechanisms similar to other business units.

Using lessons learned from the LBG experience and the interests, values, and goals of its corporate leader membership, CECP has created a comprehensive survey to report company giving that illuminates key motivations for giving related to charity, strategy, and business. CECP began collecting data in Fall 2003 and launched an updated survey tool in early April 2004. Currently, the Corporate Giving Standard survey is gathering information on inputs and outputs. Discussions will take place soon on how to measure outcomes and how to collect that data. CECP convenes a 'report card' session to share aggregate results; companies share comments that illuminate .
CECP has begun tracking data, and reported that as more companies participate, aggregate results will better portray a market analysis that can serve benchmarking purposes.

Key points from the discussion:

1. CEOs want to see more data, so more corporate involvement in the CGS will provide a more complete picture and benchmark a given corporation against others.
2. CEOs are tending to treat giving like other business units; transparency is central to stakeholder relationships and more strategic approaches to giving are sought to fulfill objectives.
3. Companies participating in the CGS survey send it out to their business units and harvest the data.
4. This data can be used as part of the dialogue with shareholders, in annual reports, on websites. CECP leaders will determine its readiness for dissemination.

The group considered the question of how to continue discussion to help frame the CECP's approach to outcomes reporting in order to identify and understand best practices, be more informed, and guide rather than follow this process.

Key points:

• What has to be defined for measurement? What outcomes are important to measure?
• Why should these outcomes be measured?
• How can it be captured?
• Who are the audiences?
• How can it be used? What do corporate grantmakers want it to do for their programs and communities?

Nuts and Bolts: Corporate Community Relations
November 13, 2003 - Warren Chapman, BankOne Foundation; Fran Grossman, ShoreBank; Susan Levy, RR Donnelley Foundation; Jan Ellen Woelffer, Chicago Tribune Foundation shared practical approaches to their work on developing scholarship programs, outsourcing matching gifts programs, and managing a national giving program with Chicago-based leadership.

Presenters and participants shared key strategies that enhanced the development or expansion of community relations programs.

Scholarship programs

• A strong scholarship program involved employees in a committee process. They became dedicated to its survival and development.
• Employee involvement demonstrates that the company 'values their values.' It is critical to market the program internally. Volunteerism among employees can be an important part of the culture in institutionalizing a scholarship program.
• In one case, the company incubated the scholarship program and eventually developed a partnership with an academic institution to further expand it and bring the resources of other funders to it. Building successful results and communicating them internally was key to long-term corporate commitment.

Employee Matching Gifts

• The value of outsourcing the operation of matching gifts depends upon internal capacity to process the number of gifts that can range from several hundred to thousands and total a few hundred thousand dollars each year. Factors to take into account include whether vendor fees are appropriate compared to potential internal costs. Vendor fees can be up to $40,000.
• Matching gifts can be difficult to regulate due to the range of institutions that employees select. While due diligence can use significant resources, internal staffing was generally seen as more cost effective than vendors, except in circumstances when there has been significant downsizing and other strains on giving program operations.
• Matching gifts can be seen either as an employee benefit or can be intentional and strategic, tied to the company's giving program and company culture.
• A best practice is limiting what matching gifts may support and offer other opportunities such as Dollars for Doers to support any employee's volunteer commitments.

Geographic Tensions: Giving in Headquarter City and National Sites

• Recognize that geography is important strategically for companies with national sites.
• Consider the impact of size of grants in different markets and what that means for company visibility.
• Measure the giving program's success in terms of how well it works in smaller communities.
• Track the percentage of discretionary giving in the headquarter city compared to other sites.
• Note the impact of mergers and acquisitions on overall giving patterns, strategies and total amounts.
• Identify local leadership such as plant managers for effective relationships in other cities.

Corporate Community Relations
October 1, 2003 - At this session, members provided key lessons learned about handling corporate crises; managing company leaderships' board involvement; and trends in volunteerism.

Frank Gihan, Chicago Tribune Foundation, shared lessons learned about managing crises in a consumer company and constructively managing communications to the public about weaknesses in company products or services. Key elements for success of corporate community relations leaders handling a crisis are:

1. See the crisis as an opportunity and take advantage of it.
2. Build internal and external relationships before the crisis.
3. Establish and direct the crisis management system.
4. Establish and train a crisis management team.
5. Act as media spokesperson.
6. Divide management of the crisis. If all top management are managing the crisis, no one is left to manage the company.
7. Find strategic opportunities to tie business to causes.
8. Get media training for working with not only media but other audiences like consumers or other adversarial groups.

Julian Brown, Nicor Gas, described how the company structured itself to address a crisis. He emphasized positioning community relations in front of the crisis team and explained how the company created a "company within a company" to deploy a team of 1,200 to handle a five-month crisis with consumer health and environmental impact. He also emphasized the importance of having positive relationships with the media.

Cheryl Lamm Gunn, Quaker Food and Beverages, reported on behalf of Mark Dollins of Quaker Tropicana Gatorade. Key points for handling crises include:

• Be concerned about people first, whether they're employees, consumers or a community.
  
• Relationships are important. Build up a reservoir of goodwill, in ways that can be either scattered or strategic. Make sure you have deeper relationships that will speak - or be silent - on your behalf.
• Know what visual documentation you have in order to tell the company's story in 3-5 bullet points. Is there video footage of how operations run?
• Tone of spokesperson is important.
• Be honest and strategic about what the company supports and find ways to be proactive.

Tim Phillips, Peoples Energy, described key elements of volunteer programs that work. He emphasized:

1. Successful recruitment of internal volunteers requires well-planned volunteer projects.
2. Be thorough in working with the volunteer site to make sure things run smoothly the day of the event.
3. Thank volunteers over and over again.

• Corporate volunteer programs help companies meet corporate strategic goals, enhance corporate image, and improve teamwork and morale.
• Companies focus volunteer programs on their core business functions; to build relationships; and to improve employee recruitment, to address the values of the younger generation of potential employees who grew up in a service learning culture.

United Way Update
June 25, 2003 - Janet P. Froetscher, the new president of United Way of Metropolitan Chicago shared an update on last year's results, information about the outlook for the coming year and changes in the organization's governance, corporate structure and allocations programs.

Julian Brown of Nicor Gas outlined why communication is important and what makes volunteer programs a serious component of business. Cynthia Hunt of PricewaterhouseCoopers spoke about how to incorporate volunteer programs around company culture and outlined several strategies including: track volunteer time, tell the story, set appropriate goals, be creative and counsel employees. Tim Phillips of Peoples Energy shared the benefits of volunteering for volunteers and companies, and how to engage volunteers.

Corporate Committee Discussion
March 18, 2003- The Corporate Committee held a round robin discussion that addressed issues facing the corporate contributions community including: city versus suburban giving, headquarter versus outlying offices, relationship with nonprofits, giving by industry, and recent changes and challenges.

Grantmaking in An Economic Downturn
February 26, 2003 - The Corporate Committee welcomed James N. Alexander, Catherine Brown and John McCarron to explore the topic of grantmaking in an economic downturn. In this discussion, moderated by Jan Woelffer of the Chicago Tribune Foundation, the audience heard different perspectives on how a negative economy affects corporate giving. James Alexander of Alexander Associates outlined several strategies for survival during this time, including: re-examining programs to ensure they relate to the mission and are adequately evaluated, linking current priorities to where the company is going and decreasing administrative costs.

Cathy Brown of the McCormick Tribune Foundation outlined the current trends in the corporate giving community, with giving dropping by 12 percent from 2000 to 2001 and non-cash contributions increasing as companies look for other ways to offer support. John McCarron, a retired columnist for the Tribune, spoke about giving within the context of national and regional urban affairs.

Trends in Workplace Giving
April 11, 2002 - This program provided an overview of the ever-changing environment of employee workplace giving campaigns, addressing the role of new federations in workplace giving campaigns and highlighting national and local trends. Richard Turner of Peoples Energy and Ron Mori of SBC Ameritech moderated this session, with special guests Matt Howe of the National Alliance for Choice in Giving and Lisa Finnern of Sears.

Corporate Volunteerism in Chicago - Part II
Measuring the success of your employee volunteer program
February 5, 2002 - Employee involvement is one of the fastest-growing and most-valued resources in corporate community relations. It's also the riskiest, highest-profile activity you may have to handle -- one where failure is easy to see, but success can be difficult to define. Led by John Coy of The Consulting Network, this session included discussions on how to develop a program suited to your company, best practices and (most important!) objective evaluation of your program's effectiveness.

Conversation with John Coy
February 5, 2002 - John Coy led further discussion about corporate philanthropy, focusing on measurement, strategic planning, trends and issues, adding value and building ownership.

Corporate Volunteerism in Chicago - Part I
Expectations for Your Volunteer Program: What do you want it to achieve?
January 15, 2002 - Participants learned from corporate peers and professional volunteer managers about the best practices and potential pitfalls in creating a successful program to fit your company's goals. Moderated by Cheryl Lamm Gunn of Quaker Oats, corporate employee volunteer coordinators were joined by representatives from Chicago Cares, United Way, and The Volunteer Center to answer questions about starting, running, funding, and revitalizing an employee volunteer program.

Back to Corporate main page.