Jeff Smith is the CMO of Malaria No More, a non-profit, non-governmental organization that aims to speed the progress, unlock resources, mobilize new assets and spur the world toward reaching the goal of eliminating malaria-related deaths in Africa.

Tell us a little about your background in marketing, branding and communication before working in the non-profit sector.

I graduated from Miami University  with a degree in entrepreneurship.  I started my first company straight out of school, providing marketing and registration technology around events and trade shows and conferences.  That was where it began for me – since then, I’ve built about half-a-dozen companies in the marketing space.  Most recently was GRI Media Group, providing marketing and communications solutions to a variety of firms from small businesses to Fortune 500 companies.

What drew you to work in the non-profit sector, firstly for Exhibit Darfur, then for Malaria No More?

In 2008, one of my companies, GRI Studios had the perfect opportunity to capitalize on the Democratic National Convention that was coming to Denver.  We knew we had a prime location, because brands were anxious to wrap our building in advertising, to capture the high-profile audiences of politicians, actors and media all converging on the city of Denver for a week. 

Seeing that opportunity and potential, I decided to pick a global issue that needed attention of these thought leaders.  We chose to build an art exhibit around the genocide in Darfur with notable artists like Mia Farrow, Aaron Cohen and Brian Steidle, to shed a light on the tragedy, slavery, and hope in Darfur.  Our intent was to put on a tremendous one-time awareness event, and it turned into one of the highlights of the week of events around the DNC. Then it stretched into an 8-week show in Denver and a traveling show across college and university campuses, from SMU to Harvard.

Working on that project, I witnessed the power of utilizing marketing principles to advance the message of a cause.  And that turned my attention to Malaria No More.  Its business-minded, innovative, aggressive approach to ending a global health crisis inspired me to dive head first into the non-profit sector.

How important is the role of marketing sponsors in the promotion and awareness campaigns for Malaria No More?

One of the biggest challenges that we face at Malaria No More is raising awareness and educating people about the fact that malaria is killing 3000 children a day, but that it’s entirely preventable.  By teaming up with marketing partners like American Idol and FC Barcelona, we can reach a whole new audience and show them how they can help end malaria deaths.  When we work with strong brands and partners, we can leverage each others’ strengths to amplify the message.

What marketing challenges do you feel are unique to the non-profit sector?

It’s often just as important for us to get people to understand and to care about malaria as it is to inspire them to donate.  The challenge is that we don’t simply want them to buy a product; we need them to embrace the cause and to be an advocate for Malaria No More—to be an active part of the team working to end malaria deaths.

What challenges and opportunities do you feel Malaria No More has within your industry?

There’s always going to be competition for attention – if no one cares or knows about malaria, we’re not going to reach our objective on ending deaths in Africa by 2015.  But Malaria No More is a business-focused organization; we try to bring innovative, new solutions to an ancient, global health issue.  And by remaining flexible and entrepreneurial, we’re able to take advantage of opportunities quickly to ensure that they have the greatest impact, and in the end, save lives.

Do you think marketers have an opportunity to introduce charitable or non-profit elements into their marketing campaigns?

Absolutely.  Marketers have had huge success in incorporating charitable elements into their campaigns.  Over the past several years, consumers have really responded with their wallets to corporate support of causes.  By integrating the charitable aspect into marketing, brands have become more appealing to the consumer because people feel that they’re contributing in a larger sense, not just simply buying a product.

What types of challenges do you encounter in a dual role where you’re focused on a charitable role and maintaining marketing relationships with sponsors, vendors and suppliers?

We have realized that we have a very strong brand that is useful for businesses; consumers respond to charitable partnerships.  There has been a historical assumption that only the charity benefits from a corporate partnership, but that’s not the case. It’s important for charities to realize that they bring something valuable to the table, and that business relationships are good for both parties, and not just the charity.

Looking towards the future for the next year or two, what are your goals?

Malaria No More is working with the wider malaria community to provide every at-risk family in Africa with access to a mosquito net, indoor spraying and effective medicines by December 31, 2010, and to end malaria deaths in Africa by 2015.  It’s a tall order, but we’re determined to do it.

Do you have any key recommendations for marketing executives want to make a move into the charitable sector or incorporate non-profit aspects into their company’s marketing strategy?

 A Tale of Two Rebrands
By Denise Lee Yohn

To marketers in despair, a rebrand may be like a knight in shining armor. How better to reawaken the passion for a brand than to create a new name and image?!

Despite the promise of a fairy tale ending, more rebrands fail than succeed. Executing a rebrand is fraught with challenges and requires some rather subjective decision-making. The stories of two high profile rebranding efforts currently underway – the Sci-Fi Channel and Starbucks -- prove this point.

First there’s the Sci-Fi Channel, which recently took on the name, Syfy. They also replaced a planetary-inspired logo with a stylized name treatment which has a distinctively more playful feel. The new name and identity was rolled out to the media industry in the network’s upfront presentation and a new Syfy Imagination Park at Rockefeller Center in New York City and to viewers during the launch of its original series "Warehouse 13."

And Starbucks just announced they are opening a series of remodeled Seattle-area stores bearing the names of their neighborhoods -- 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea for example -- instead of Starbucks. In fact, the Starbucks name and logo won’t appear anywhere in the store, with plans for even the bags of the company's coffee and other products bearing the new name. While it’s unlikely that Starbucks is planning a chain-wide rebrand, this move raises questions
about the future of the Starbucks brand identity, and positioning.

A television network running shows with aliens and a struggling national coffeehouse chain may seem to have nothing in common. But comparing and contrasting the two businesses’ recent efforts to rebrand themselves actually makes for an instructive tale of do’s and don’ts when executing a brand makeover.

Rationale of the rebrands.
The two efforts seem to be addressing two different business situations. In the case of Syfy, the change was made because the network’s executives felt the previous name was too limiting, keeping people away because it conveyed too much geek-ness. There was a more practical reason as well – “Sci-Fi” isn’t a trademarkable name.

The move has been a long time coming, as the network has been evolving its programming away from exclusively featuring science fiction shows to a mix of programs including “Extreme Championship Wrestling.” Syfy president Dave Howe explained, "Rather than changing the programming to suit some new brand strategy, we're changing the brand to fit the programming."

Starbucks’ change appears to be part of CEO Howard Schultz’s well-publicized efforts to reinvigorate the stalled business by reviving the "theatre" of Starbucks’ units. Throughout the system, equipment, product, and design changes are being made, including refurbishments to give the stores a locally-themed and less uniform look. Tim Pfeiffer, Starbucks’ senior vice president of global design, explains the new names on the Seattle-stores are meant to give them"a community personality.”

So the Syfy rebrand was undertaken to change the brand image to more accurately reflect the actual brand experience; while Starbucks is rebranding to change the brand image and customer experience to achieve an aspirational position. Extensive research shows a significantly higher success rate for brand repositionings that are achievable, not simply attractive.

Therefore, since it was prompted by the current reality, Syfy’s seems an attainable effort; Starbucks, more like a pipe dream.

Brand targets.
The targets pursued by the two rebrands are also quite different. Syfy is moving from a niche audience to a more mainstream one. Syfy’s Howe explained the rebrand is intended to bring in new viewers with his comment: “We really do think that the [old] name is a barrier to entry for some people.” And the network seems to be well on its way to capturing its broader target audience, with “Warehouse” attracting a solid 3.5 million viewers. It almost seems as if Starbucks is headed in the opposite direction, hoping to trade its mass market appeal for a more niche positioning. With plans to serve wine and beer and to host live music and poetry readings, the new stores are intended to attract an older, more upscale, and perhaps more elite customer.

While the changes may serve to differentiate Starbucks from McDonald’s which recently launched an effort to lure Starbucks’ customers away, alienating a large portion of its existing customer base by introducing a high-brow image doesn’t make sense if the chain’s current challenge is reigniting growth. Rebranding is usually used to grow a brand’s prospect pool, per Syfy’s case. While the direction Starbucks is moving in is so unusual, it’s difficult to cite other brands that have adopted a similar path, much less to find ones that have been successful at doing so.

Name selection.
When it comes to the names deployed in the rebrands, neither effort seems to be on-target. One seems to go too far; the other, not far enough.  By completely eschewing all reference to Starbucks, that company’s rebrand seems to be throwing out all existing brand equity, including its positive associations. The use of a name that references the neighborhood in which the store is located aligns with the overall rebranding strategy; but it doesn’t speak to the heritage and innovation for which the Starbucks brand has become known – not to mention the broad awareness it enjoys.

The approach also seems ripe as a source of potential confusion or backlash, as people try to make sense of a store that appears to be new and independent but is neither. Perhaps a better strategy would have been to employ an endorser brand approach (e.g., Coffee on 15th, by Starbucks).

In Syfy’s case, they seem to be hanging on too tightly to the existing equity of the Sci-Fi name, where a clean break would probably be better. A new name that constantly requires an explanation which refers back to the original one is problematic and limiting for Syfy. And to appeal to a broader, more grown-up audience, a name with more heft and deft would be more effective.

Rebranding lessons.
Syfy’s rebrand has already come under a lot of fire by the network’s fan base, and questions about Starbucks latest move are starting to fill the blogosphere. The criticisms point to the critical nature of decisions in the rebranding process. And the juxtaposition of the two efforts provides some valuable lessons.

But because the ROI on the changes have yet to be calculated, the stories of each rebrand are still unfolding. So perhaps the moral of these two rebranding tales is the same: proceed with caution.

Read more by Denise Lee Yohn at http://www.deniseleeyohn.com/resources.html