- 5,247
- 4,069
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2008
It's funny; my field of work is so far removed from sneakers, but we essentially went through the same thing.
I work for a not for profit that does drug development for neglected disease. Picture a not for profit pharmaceutical company.
We work virtually, so we needed to develop partnerships with existing major pharma outfits. Given that this is highly technical, specialized, and very expensive work, our first obstacle was convincing the world that we have the scientific expertise and know how to develop drugs, run clinical trials, and all those other things that for-profit companies with stratospheric budgets could do. (For profit pharma claims it costs more than a billion dollars to develop a single drug; their figures include marketing budgets, but however you slice it, it's big money)
Now, I'm not a scientist. I do communications for them and have been there for a long time. Early in our existence, we were deliberate about crafting a very serious and scientific public image. Over the years, we've actually emerged as the leader in our specific field and credibility is not an issue. Instead of having to convince prospective partners that we can get the job done and that they should work with us, we are actively sought out by just about anybody doing research in our (very small) field. As such, our communications strategy has shifted and we look to more broadly position our issue in ways that could give us entree to new sources of funds. We have moved in a softer, more traditional not for profit direction in our image, and it's all in the name of broadening our donor base. Replace "donor" with "customer" and replace the scientific community with the skateboarder community and it's essentially the same story.
A lot of the newer heads weren't around when Nike was a very polarizing word in the skate community - or in skate shops, etc. I'm not going to front like I was ever really into skateboarding, but I certainly remember the controversy. ...It seems like that was two lifetimes ago at this point though.
I work for a not for profit that does drug development for neglected disease. Picture a not for profit pharmaceutical company.
We work virtually, so we needed to develop partnerships with existing major pharma outfits. Given that this is highly technical, specialized, and very expensive work, our first obstacle was convincing the world that we have the scientific expertise and know how to develop drugs, run clinical trials, and all those other things that for-profit companies with stratospheric budgets could do. (For profit pharma claims it costs more than a billion dollars to develop a single drug; their figures include marketing budgets, but however you slice it, it's big money)
Now, I'm not a scientist. I do communications for them and have been there for a long time. Early in our existence, we were deliberate about crafting a very serious and scientific public image. Over the years, we've actually emerged as the leader in our specific field and credibility is not an issue. Instead of having to convince prospective partners that we can get the job done and that they should work with us, we are actively sought out by just about anybody doing research in our (very small) field. As such, our communications strategy has shifted and we look to more broadly position our issue in ways that could give us entree to new sources of funds. We have moved in a softer, more traditional not for profit direction in our image, and it's all in the name of broadening our donor base. Replace "donor" with "customer" and replace the scientific community with the skateboarder community and it's essentially the same story.
A lot of the newer heads weren't around when Nike was a very polarizing word in the skate community - or in skate shops, etc. I'm not going to front like I was ever really into skateboarding, but I certainly remember the controversy. ...It seems like that was two lifetimes ago at this point though.
