Updated: May 28, 2019
Here comes a lovely saying in the ad industry,
“In advertising, everyone wanna work for a charity, but nobody does, because it doesn’t pay enough”
WILDAID is one of the top charities aiming at protecting endangered species. Joining them would be a life dream for me (regardless of the salary).
They are strong in Asia, have government’s back-ups and do benefit from solid ad campaigns displaying like-able ambassadors. They get good results and even some product trafficking banned.
Looking at their business, the model is strong, focused and they tend to hire specialists rather than generalists. They surely have no problem hiring people, and managed to do so on a short/mid term basis. So what?
To me (and clearly not knowing what their future plans are), WildAid lacks high-level vision on the recruitment lifecycle.
Here are two identified challenges:
1. An inexistent advocacy pool
2. Too many applicants and not enough openings
1. Where is that goddamn pool
A charity like WWF manages via gifts and sponsorships to gather a solid pool of brand ambassadors, from a very young age (I got hooked at 8 because of crowd funding ads on chocolate bars, for god sake).
For WildAid, none. I suspect they are or will be facing difficulties hiring and retaining external advocates / fans, simple citizens like you or me. They do get social mentions, likes and shares, but not on a regular basis, and not by an active advocacy pool who could reinforce their brand awareness and micro-actions. They likely haven’t activated the ‘365-day concept’, aiming at being active all year long. The fans could do that for you, as long as they know how and what to do (a tangible action with a clear incentive).
2. Do they want talents?
- A lack of job openings can discourage people to apply at a company.
- A lack of job openings can miss an opportunity to hire the right talents, because the implementation of too tight screening processes and assessments (ATS)
- A lack of job openings does not grow a talent pool, and does not grow a fan base (advocacy pool).
Having a meaningful life, and making a impact. Two needs of those troubled millennials that any genuine charity could satisfy.
-> WildAid should create side campaigns, involving a lot more the talents before hiring them within the organization. In short, it means hiring external people, for free, and transforming them into a sales force and year-long KOL.
-> WildAid should expand their reach to the world (and beyond?) and sponsors like-minded projects submitted by the fans.
-> WildAid could empower every generation and make the advocates responsible to spread the good word, via the mean of their choice.
-> WildAid is a 'charity', where it should be a 'mindset'. A lot of people agree with it, but little have enough time (attention) to actually cherish it. Creating a 2-min per day action via mobile phone (i.e paperplanes.com, calm.com etc.) could smartly engage an unaware audience, create vocations, and motivate mini-charity programs.
KPIs could be the number of people hired (free) and projects sponsored, instead of the total amount of money collected. As for the actual impact, we will need to look at mid-long term benefits on the organization, its actions and its weight, globally. They made some country changed their mind about Ivory, so who knows what they could achieve with an army behind them.