Branding of non profit organizations, a case study of collaborative innovation and commercialization
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Branding of non profit organizations, a case study of collaborative innovation and commercialization

on

  • 3,075 views

"This coming May, I will be making a journey to defend my master's thesis. The Euro*MBA is a distance learning international MBA program that was recently rated 4th by the Economist as a top distance ...

"This coming May, I will be making a journey to defend my master's thesis. The Euro*MBA is a distance learning international MBA program that was recently rated 4th by the Economist as a top distance learning MBA program. The thesis is mainly based on branding, but the concept was developed from a collaboration between students from Case Weatherhead and an entrepreneur from NEO and myself. My involvement was in developing the marketing plan, one component in creating the business plan for the entrepreneur. From that point, the thesis took form. Here is the presentation, it is mainly talking points. But gives a direction to the main content of the thesis, commercializing renewable energy in absence of governmental support. 81 respondents took a survey that was distributed in March 2009. Enjoy! Feel free to contact for any questions regarding any of the content." - James Flock

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,075
Views on SlideShare
3,075
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
58
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Branding of non profit organizations, a case study of collaborative innovation and commercialization Branding of non profit organizations, a case study of collaborative innovation and commercialization Document Transcript

  • UNIVERSITEIT MAASTRICHT BUSINESS SCHOOL (UMBS)  INSTITUT D 'ADMINISTRATION DES ENTREPRISES IAE AIX‐EN‐PROVENCE  AUDENCIA NANTES.ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT  ESCUELA DE ALTA DIRECCIÓN Y ADMINISTRACIÓN EADA, BARCELONA  LEON KOZMINSKY ACADEMY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MANAGEMENT (LKAEM)  HHL LIEPZIG GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT    And associated partner:  OPEN UNIVERSITEIT NEDERLAND      Master Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Euro*MBA                  Branding of non-profit organizations, a case study of collaborative innovation and commercialization in the U.S.A. renewable energy industry. Student: James Flock Version date: February 8th, 2010 Supervisor: Dr. Clemens Bechter     DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY OF WORK:  I affirm that the attached work is entirely my own except where the  words or ideas of other writers are specifically acknowledged through  the use of inverted commas and in‐text references. This thesis has not  been submitted for any other subject at Euro*MBA or any other  institution. I have revised, edited, and proofread this paper.        
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA List of Tables and Figures List of Tables Table 1: Best Global Brands 2009 (Interbrand) ....................................................................................... 17  Table 2: Total Variance Explained............................................................................................................. 49  Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix ......................................................................................................... 51  Table 4: Gender Differences ....................................................................................................................... 64  Table 5: Network Value Cycle (Estimate) ................................................................................................. 82  Table 6: Coefficients Regression................................................................................................................. 83  List of Figures   Figure 1: Research Framework .................................................................................................................. 12  Figure 2: VENN-Diagram: Literature Review “Classic” Articles ......................................................... 13  Figure 3: Study 2 Mapping MBP and FBP (Grohmann, 2009) .............................................................. 16  Figure 4: Price and Product/image differentiation in commodity and branded markets (Pike, 2009)22  Figure 5: Taxonomy User Contribution Systems (Cook, 2008)............................................................... 25  Figure 6: Open Source Model of Wiki-Based Customer-Centricity (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007).... 27  Figure 7: Open and Closed Innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007) ............................................ 28  Figure 8: U.S. Energy Consumption by fuel (EIA, 2009) ......................................................................... 33  Figure 9: U.S. Energy Mix 2008 (EIA, 2009)............................................................................................. 34  Figure 10: Renewable / Nonrenewable Energy Centralized Grid Percentages taken from EIA (EIA, 2009) .............................................................................................................................................................. 37  Figure 11: Schematic of an example CM (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007)....................................................... 43  Figure 12: Energy Flow within a Microgrid (Hatziargyriou et al, 2007)................................................ 44  Figure 13: Climate Change Targets, US World Resource Institute (National Grid, 2008) .................. 45  Figure 14: Cluster country distribution..................................................................................................... 66  Figure 15: Cluster variable User_content................................................................................................. 67  Figure 16: Cluster Networkcost.................................................................................................................. 68  Figure 17: Cluster Brand ............................................................................................................................ 70  Figure 18: Cluster Renewables ................................................................................................................... 71  Figure 19: Cluster Residential .................................................................................................................... 72  Figure 20: Cluster Handson ........................................................................................................................ 73  Figure 21: Cluster Leave ............................................................................................................................. 75  Figure 22: Cluster Need_gov....................................................................................................................... 76  Figure 23: Cluster Designers....................................................................................................................... 78  Figure 24: Cluster All_ok ............................................................................................................................ 79  Figure 25: Network Value Cycle (Estimated)........................................................................................... 82  Figure 26: Regression .................................................................................................................................. 84  Figure 27: Renewable Energy Innovation community model ................................................................. 87  List of Tables and Figures................................................................................................ 2  List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 2  List of Figures.................................................................................................................... 2  Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 5  1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................. 7    2 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 1.1 Rationale of study.................................................................................................................7  1.2 Research Objectives ...........................................................................................................10  1.3 Research Framework and Methodology ..........................................................................11  1.4 Limitations and Scope for Further Research ..................................................................14  2.0 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 14  2.1 Branding..............................................................................................................................15  2.1.1 Brand Fundamentals.......................................................................................................15  2.1.2 The Non-Profit Brand .....................................................................................................18  2.1.3 The Commodity Brand ...................................................................................................21  2.1.4 Co-Branding.....................................................................................................................22  2.2 User Contribution Systems................................................................................................24  2.2.1 Innovation Community...................................................................................................24  2.3 Energy..................................................................................................................................32  2.3.1 Market Trends.................................................................................................................32  2.3.2 Conventional Energy Process.........................................................................................37  2.3.3 RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standard ............................................................................37  2.3.4 FIT – Feed in Tariff.........................................................................................................38  2.3.5 Smart Grid .......................................................................................................................40  2.3.6 Micro-grid ........................................................................................................................41  2.3.7 Carbon Tax ......................................................................................................................45  2.3.8 Technology Trends ..........................................................................................................46  3.0 Dimensions of User Perceptions .............................................................................. 49  4.0 Interpretation of Dimensions ................................................................................... 51  4.1 Innovation Community - Product......................................................................................51  4.2 Illusion of choice - Placement.............................................................................................53  4.3 Signal Processing – Placement ...........................................................................................54  4.4 The RenewShow - Placement .............................................................................................56  4.5 B^3 - Promotion...................................................................................................................57  4.6 Real Deal - Price ................................................................................................................58  4.7 The Man – Incumbent power ..............................................................................................59  4.8 Value for you – Price / Promotion......................................................................................61  5.0 Gender Differences ................................................................................................... 62  6.0 Geographical Grouping............................................................................................ 65  6.1 Gift Economy ......................................................................................................................67  6.2 Community Cost.................................................................................................................68  6.3 Brand ...................................................................................................................................70  6.4 Renewables..........................................................................................................................71  6.5 Residential...........................................................................................................................72  6.6 Learn by doing....................................................................................................................73  6.7 Support ................................................................................................................................75  6.8 Need for Government.........................................................................................................76  6.9 Designers .............................................................................................................................78  6.10 Conventional Wisdom ......................................................................................................79  7.0 Further Qualitative Findings ................................................................................... 80  7.1 Network Equation ..............................................................................................................81  8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................... 84    3 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Appendix.......................................................................................................................... 89  Section A – Survey (Likert Scale) .............................................................................................89  Section B – Group Comparisons (T-Test) .................................................................................91  Section C – Network equation (variation) .................................................................................94  Section D....................................................................................................................................95  Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 95    4 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Abstract   This research is focused on branding of a renewable energy non-profit. Which exists in the framework of network theory, open innovation, and methods for new technology dispersal. To attract or draw members, clients, and supply-chain’s to this network, a clearly defined value proposition must be embedded in the brand equity. To create engagement with a potential network member of a non-profit, multi- stakeholder perception, of renewable energy technologies, methods of brand communication need to be determined, so as to deliver the value proposition of the brand, thus influencing the dispersal of the network. Apriori, the starting points for renewable energy sources are different than that of non-renewable energy sources. The former are based along the thinking of Rachael Carson [1962] (Karvonen, 2008) summarized in her breakthrough work titled ‘Silent Spring.’ Under this view, society is viewed from the socio-bio eco-system perspective, where the whole is viewed to be greater than the sum of the parts. Whereas the latter, energy production from non-renewable sources, is based in the context of a synergy of conventional machines, with defined rational for every part to serve the efficiency of those controlling the divided parts. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Adam Smith (1918) called this phenomena division of labor, in his influential book on economics titled, ‘Wealth of Nations’. In terms of usage as an energy source, non-renewables are considered an ideal production source based upon the reliance on a tightly controlled and defined supply chain from source to consumption. On the other hand, renewables are considered sensitive in terms of a volatile input imposing environmental constrains, thus affecting the output capacity, hampering the predictable energy quality and supply. Early adopters of the Carson view, in the context of energy, accepted the risks inherent with the output volatility and in turn created a local consumption environment that seems to, on average, balance consumption with production of electrical energy. Furthermore, the early adopters made this choice for many reasons, but one factor that all the early adopters faced as a ramification of their decision was the hurdle of high initial investment. This high initial investment coupled with other factors, beyond the scope of   5 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA this paper, is what many consumers consider to be the cause for the lack of real market penetration of renewables in the U.S.A. This paper will mainly focus on promoting alternatives in energy production as a means to increase market penetration of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures in the U.S.A. The market place has infinite segments and multiple stakeholders and thus the idea proposed in this analysis is to create a network where open communication can organically grow, but be monitored and directed. The goal of this analysis is to address the barriers of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures from a customer perspective of energy on a massive project scale. Therefore, the proposal of this paper is to consider a web-based application to develop an innovation community focused on addressing the issues of the deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency concepts for the average consumer. The mixing of ideas in an open source forum to solve project-based issues should augment existing programs with a reduced cost and learning curve for the end user. To achieve this understanding on renewables and energy efficiency, a literature review will be conducted to identify the fundamentals of an innovation community. More importantly though, research into the branding process, specifically of a non-profit as a means to engage, influence, and direct the potential market will be conducted. This project as proposed, would be initiated in an effort to promote the mass penetration of renewables from a demand point-of-view, minimizing the need for state intervention in the sector of energy production and consumption. To discover if this concept can be achieved or not a user perception survey was distributed by the way of an online survey. The analysis of the results of the survey found major dimensions of stakeholder perception combined with gender and geographical differences. The results are further analyzing in the context of the extensive literature review to determine a conclusion and also recommendations for future research in this area.   6 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Rationale of study   In December 2008, a team formed that would create the business plan for a non- profit business idea known as the Global Sustainability Center (GSC). An entrepreneur, with little funding, led the project. Three MBA students – two students from Case Weatherhead School of Management (Cleveland, OH) and one student from the Euro*MBA (European Consortium) were tasked with constructing the business plan that would assist them in gaining requirements towards their graduation. The author of this paper’s role was in the area of the marketing budget and plan. The business plan was to directly challenge the research findings from a report generated by the Greater Cleveland Partnership (Greater Cleveland Partnership, 2008), that stated the concept of GSC was, not a good fit for Cleveland, and would not attract membership beyond the local region, which limited the concept’s effectiveness for the region. The GSC concept (Norman, 2009), as initially understood by the MBA students, was to be a network hub, or an innovation community, that was to target three specific market segments. This innovation community’s sole purpose was to be the market incubator for existing products in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sector related to building construction, and would have a physical space, in Cleveland, OH U.S.A. During the course of the project, the MBA students, as the previous planners (Greater Cleveland Partnership) before them discovered, that the business concept, as was presented to them, had many financial short falls in terms of generating sustainable revenue. The goal of what the business was to conceive was unable to be achieved on the planned revenue stream. Furthermore, the business GSC, as it was uncovered in the planning stages, had no real competitive advantage. Therefore, to attract potential network members, the community of GSC was to rely on the targeted segment’s desire, portion of their marketing budget, and good will to participate as a member of the community. The MBA team agreed that a key feature, namely the branding of the service, was missing from the original concept. Despite the not-for-profit status, it was determined in   7 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA the marketing plan that the main competitive advantage for this business concept was ultimately in the selected brand type. Branding of the business activity was a key factor in driving the increase in membership. Additionally, as the membership base grew, the value proposition of a well-connected supply chain could be realized, which would achieve the mission of the non-profit acting as the market incubator for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies for all building types. However, to develop and promote the brand, it was crucial to maintain a substantial marketing budget. For the GSC marketing budget plan, as a benchmark, another non-profit brand, ‘CLE+ / Simply Cleveland’ was referenced for justification of the financial figures (Norman, 2009) of the planned marketing budget. ‘CLE+’ was used based upon specific criteria, such as similar mission, region, and concept of creating a brand to attract businesses to a common hub, Northeast Ohio, or network, business’ in Northeast Ohio, with the intent to draw upon synergies that can exist once in the community. Nevertheless, in the business plan, the cash flow curve timeline was very long to achieve positive cash flow and demonstrated that an annual deficit was going to occur based upon the large marketing budget and limited number of revenue sources. After considerable debate, the budget for GSC, was created to move away from philanthropic institutions as sole funding sources and to operate with less dependency upon governmental assistance or grants. Therefore, it was then the realization occurred, supported by the financial figures, that the concept, GSC, as defined initially, was to fail, the intent to get funding not realized. One of the M.B.A. students considered an alternative scenario might improve the chances for sustainable income. That scenario first required feedback to demonstrate how multi-stakeholders would respond to a renewable energy brand campaign. Therefore, as the project for the GSC business plan drew to a close, this master’s thesis began and was to focus on branding a non-profit, the concept of the network, an interactive web-based community, for connecting supply chains for the renewable energy and energy efficiency in buildings. At the time of this writing, the mass market has not adopted renewable energy and energy efficient technology for many reasons, of which will be the primary discussion of   8 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA this paper. As one reads this analysis, consider that most if not all, technology follow an ‘S-curve’ in their market share development, therefore, a key statement to make is why is the distribution of electrical energy different? Is the energy network commodity not ruled by market forces just as other commodities, products, and services? This paper will focus on looking to the gap that has formed between multi-stakeholder expectations, the market demand, and market supply related to renewable energy and energy efficiency current product and service offerings. Secondly, it will expand upon the evolving discussion around the innovation community concept, identifying the benefits in promoting networks and furthering the supply chain connectivity, specifically related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. A critical goal of this research is to begin a discussion to determine whether these open innovation communities truly channel latent innovation at the stakeholder level into realistic economic activities? Furthermore, it is extremely important to identify the specific stakeholder brand dimensions to create this engagement, attempting to close the gap between multi-stakeholder demand and market supply in this U.S.A energy sector. Throughout this discussion, will be looking to the activity of branding in the context of a renewable energy in a not-for-profit innovation community. The goal being, that to truly impact and make the most gains in terms of financial and social reward, the mainstream stakeholders must feel a connection to this renewable energy technology and begin to consider the commodity of energy similar to other consumer products where the illusion of choice is plentiful. This, in turn, would move society towards a more efficient path when considering the resources on the planet, striking a balance between the Carson and Smith points of view. Maybe an innovation community for renewable energy can consider a fresh method to communicate energy and energy efficiency ideas, for instance what makes the most efficient use of resources: a market or central planning? Possibly a brand is the tool that could assist in cultivating the demand embedded in the marketplace. The rationale for organizing as an innovation community and looking to the value of the user contribution model as a means to incubate technologies and connect unique value chains; “without departing from the sense of urgency required to address the pressing needs for sustainable energy systems, it is imperative that the involvement of   9 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA people at the grassroots level is harnessed and sound commercial and technical criteria are applied” (Jefferson, 2008). As grass roots activities involve organizing various disciplines around a common-mission or goal, and relying on time and talent from volunteers contributing to the mission of the non-profit. In addition, this research seeks to understand the perception of the stakeholders on issues surrounding a renewable energy non-profit. This is based on the puzzling perception, surrounding the latest push of the ‘green’ buzz, in the U.S.A. by the corporate and political elite. Despite this enormous push, there continues to exist a lack of proliferation of energy production as renewables, and mainstream efficiency implementation into buildings. The increased usage, by mainstream media, of the word ‘green’ gives the perception that the stakeholders are interested in adapting the way in which energy is consumed and produced. However, status quo on both side of the value chain, for electrical energy, remains dominant in the U.S.A. marketplace. The confusion on this point is echoed by the McKinsey (2009) Group in their report titled ‘Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US Economy.’ The preface of the report introduces the topic as such: “How is it that so many energy efficiency opportunities worth more than $130 billion annually to the U.S. economy can go unrealized, despite decades of public awareness campaigns, federal, and state programs and targeted action by individual companies, non-governmental organizations and private individuals” (McKinsey, 2009). Therefore, the scope of the research will focus on the following hypotheses: Renewable energy products and solutions can gain market share in absence of governmental support if non-profit innovation communities develop strong brands. Furthermore, branding is the tool that can create engagement between the market and information (supply) to make environmentally balanced decisions related to energy consumption. See Section D in appendix for the historical motivation for this paper and the connection to Northeast Ohio, U.S.A. 1.2 Research Objectives It was seen from the GSC business plan that the concept of a market incubator will not function; sustain revenue, as a brick and mortar entity, at least in Cleveland, OH   10 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA U.S.A. Either, attracting clients as a B2B hub or an end-user network center or even as means to connect suppliers with end-users; it seems the concept is not financially favorable. There is no incentive, as initially proposed in GSC business plan (Norman 2009), in the first instance to attract broad-based clients, the potential community members, to the center. Therefore, the objectives for this paper are to analyze the concepts: 1. Non-profit branding to create high level of stake-holder engagement 2. Innovation communities to drive innovation 3. Current U.S. energy market and its branding implications 4. Emerging trends in this area of open innovation and 5. Give recommendations for branding of non-profit organizations involved in renewable energy. The research questions are: • What are the stakeholder’s perceptions of a renewable energy (RE) innovation community? • What method of promotion of the RE innovation community will maximize network growth? • What is U.S.A. market forecast for energy alternatives? • Do innovation community’s assist in promoting RE solutions to the market? 1.3 Research Framework and Methodology     11 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Figure 1: Research Framework       The focus of the research will be to determine if the weak penetration of renewable energy and energy efficiency products, mainly in the U.S.A., despite high degree of product and service differentiation, can be corrected to meet the growing segment in this commodity sector, by branding a renewable energy innovation community. The following will be the process to achieve this goal.   1. Perform literature review in the relevant areas 2. Create and distribute a stake-holder perception survey on the topic 3. Analyze the results, quantitatively and qualitatively 4. Draw conclusions from evidence considered in context of theory 5. Make recommendations   12 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Literature Review – overview Figure 2: VENN-Diagram: Literature Review “Classic” Articles Survey Details Insight into stakeholder perception on problem statement was to be addressed by distribution of a survey. The survey was conducted utilizing an online survey tool. The survey was opened on the 10th of March 2009. It was advertised and distributed on the author’s personal Facebook and Linked-in pages and through personal emails to colleagues. Two personal responses were gained from participants working in the renewable industry; both were given the renewable energy portion of the survey. The survey was closed online, on the 23rd of March 2009 with 81 respondents initiating the survey. The survey was intended to determine the perceptions of the end users of electricity and renewable products. A non-attribute approach was used. The twenty-two   13 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA statements made in the survey gauged the respondent’s opinions on a one (low) to seven (high) Likert scale ranging from least agreement (low) to most agreement (high) with a four rating as neutral on the statement.   1.4 Limitations and Scope for Further Research The primary strength of the research was the competence of respondents. Social networking tools were used to obtain a wide variety of respondents as the network used had a wide variety of opinions, cultures, and locations. In addition, various groups of respondents from different nationalities and industry backgrounds responded to the survey. Countries of the respondents were recorded for geographical clustering purposes. A weakness of the data collection is that a more targeted audience (stake-holders) in the form of a Quota sampling would potentially provide more specific details in the actual brand construction and brand dimension for a potential value proposition. Furthermore, the research was unable to get at the critical factors of a realistic brand launch program. To achieve this, the survey requires revision and a more costly distribution to target segments that would be potential members in the non-profit business concept. Finally, this activity if placed more specifically, in the context of brand perception, referencing other non-profit brands would possibly yield more specific details on brand dimensions required to accurately address the problems of creating the brand personality. With the introduction, rationale, and framework established, the analysis will now begin. The literature review will explore three primary areas, Branding, Innovation Community, and Energy in the U.S.A. The section 2.1, branding, is a composite of research based in theory throughout the 1990’s to the present, at the time of this writing. 2.0 Literature Review     14 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 2.1 Branding “Steve Case co-founder of America Online stated in a May 2005 Wall Street Journal article,that brand programs can contribute to ‘significant social change.’ I can't agree more, but would add this: These programs (non profit-branding) will drive social change that will endure” (Chiagouris, 2005).   2.1.1 Brand Fundamentals Brand definitions include brands being a logo, legal instrument, image in the consumer’s mind, risk reducer, value system, adding value, personality, relationship, shorthand an evolving entity, a company and an identity system (Dickenson & Barker, 2007). Branding, endowing services and products with the power of a brand, is currently and has in the past been an effective way to communicate meaning. The meaning communicated often was important to the establishment of a shared set of values between the individuals that recognized and respected the brand. For example, to brand is literally to label, burn or mark. Even to place indelibly in the memory or stigmatize. Originating in pre-Roman livestock, pottery, and medieval trades, brands marked identifiable distinctions in property as proof of ownership or marks of infamy (Room, 1998) and established differentiated and recognizable identities for goods and trades in competition (Tregear, 2003). Brand names, signs and logos evolved to identify and articulate the character of goods and services (Riezebos, 2003) and reassure consumers of quality (Pike, 2009). Furthermore, successful brand managers “recognize that people do not respond to objective reality but to their perception of reality” (Boulding 1956; Stride and Lee, 2007). Therefore, if put into context of a brand campaign, a brand does not need to provide the appearance of being connected to the product or service offered. This statement is based upon the concept that, “a brand is used as an expression of one’s personality” (Aaker, 1996). Branding, currently, can be a costly endeavor. For example, the cost of introducing a new brand in some consumer markets has been estimated to range from $10 million to more than $200 million (Kolter &Amstrong, 2004; Kwon, 2006). Branding is extremely costly when gender specific brands are utilized. Instead of double branding to   15 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA meet the gender preferences, “ a growing trend of companies is using the same brand name to target both sex segments” (Kwon, 2006). Figure 3: Study 2 Mapping MBP and FBP (Grohmann, 2009)     As the figure 3 above demonstrates, contemporary brands are located in what could be considered, in the range of slightly masculine to nearly neutral gender. The grouping cluster on the chart in Figure 3 is measured by the y axis of masculine brand personality [MBP] and x axis of feminine brand personality [FBP]. Research of the critical role of gender in a brand demonstrates a strong factor that men will almost reject feminine brands while women will most likely accept masculine brands (Kwon, 2006). To go further on this, men tend to exaggerate the differences in brands more markedly than women (Kwon, 2006). Essentially, men identify with a male oriented brand and will reject a female oriented brand.   16 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Brand ranking from 2009 demonstrates the value of equity in a brand. The data in Table 1 can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but what should be noted, relevant to this study; brand equity is extremely important for products that exist in markets where threat of substitution are high and for products that are attempting to ‘pull the market up’ based on the price point, which are dependent on the targeted segment’s image of social class.   Table 1: Best Global Brands 2009 (Interbrand) Rank Company Country of Brand Value ($m) ownership 1 Coca-Cola USA 68734 2 IBM USA 60211 3 Microsoft USA 56647 4 GE USA 47777 5 Nokia Finland 34864 6 McDonalds USA 32275 7 Google USA 31980 8 Toyota Japan 31330 9 Intel USA 30636 10 Disney USA 28447 11 HP USA 24096 12 Mercedes-Benz Germany 23867 13 Gillette USA 22841 14 Cisco USA 22030 15 BMW Germany 21671 16 Louie Vutton France 21120 17 Marlboro USA 19010 18 Honda Japan 17803 19 Samsung Republic of Korea 17518 20 Apple USA 15433   “Over time, branded objects and branding processes accumulate histories that are social and spatial and matter to their evolution.” (Pike, 2009) Brands are essential for communication in a society where value is exchanged. These brands are costly to cultivate and thus typically drive to engage across gender lines. “Similar to cultural or country stereotypes, gender stereotypes should influence the perception and judgment of any object, including consumer products and brands” (Alreck, Settle and Belch, 1982). Keller (1998) also argues that some brands in the marketplace possess certain gender-specific associations so that consumers associate the individual brand’s user as specifically from either sex. Nevertheless, the concept of the brand and the relevance to the target segment is of extreme relevance. The brand is “imbued with its own unique qualities and   17 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA characteristics, a brand can provide emotional and self-expressive benefits to the consumer” (Stride and Lee, 2007). To engage the target, the brand must drive to the core instinct, connecting with the inner self. “An understanding of the complex value dimensions operating within the brand relationship provides the consumer with an opportunity to express symbolically an actual self” (Belk, 1988), or an ideal self (Malhotra, 1988). Brand image, or how the consumer perceives the brand, plays a central role in the Customer Based Brand Equity model (Keller, 1998) where it is claimed that the power of a brand lies in what resides in the minds of customers (Stride and Lee, 2007). Moreover, valued brands achieve this inner brain, emotional, connection with the consumer. Branding is primarily conducted to grab and maintain the attention of the consumer. This activity, the grabbing attention, is an effect of the market that the product or service resides within. Typically in markets where multiple products are competing for attention, differentiation or the appearance of being different is natural. Being different and expressing this difference, individuality, is the forward movement in the social human experience. In the arena of product and service competition, the brandscape, brands exhibit very similar characteristics. These characteristics beam to the consumer the attempt to convey a difference, an attempt to stand-alone from the others. However, whilst differentiation remains the key objective of branding (Kapferer, 1992), the focus of branding has shifted from the tangible aspects such as name and logo to intangible elements such as brand personality and emotional benefits (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1998). With advances in technology that made it possible for companies to replicate high quality products of their competitors it was no longer sufficient just to promote a product, it had to be enhanced in some way (Kotler, 1997). Brands therefore acquired an emotional dimension that reflected buyers' moods, personalities, and the messages they wish to convey to others (de Chernatony and Dall'Olmo Riley, 1998; Stride and Lee, 2007). 2.1.2 The Non-Profit Brand Brands are the natural response of a desire for engagement in a competitive environment. Competition for awareness or attention has been a constant for most brands   18 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA observed in the for-profit sector. Increasingly, as the climate of human consciousness shifts to an increase in social concerns, many for profit companies are not prepared to meet the new social requirements from an overly informed and aware market. Recently, as of this writing, more and more non-governmental organizations have been increasing their presence, attempting to meet a demand not being filled by the for profit companies. With the rise in non-profit organizations, many of these organizations have overlapping missions. While resources and capital are typically derived from the same sources, the burden to standout, to attract the resources and capital, falls on the non- profit organization. This requirement of needing resources and capital puts downward pressure on the organization to meet its mission. “One of the ways in which non-profits are responding to this increase in competition is by adopting branding techniques developed in the corporate context” (Stride and Lee, 2007). This shift in thinking, branding a non-profit, moves the organization away from the typical cycle of dependence upon philanthropic donations and governmental funding. Again, the branding activity seems to be a natural posture when value differences exists and resources are limited. However, while branding a non-profit may seem natural in a competitive world, it is argued by some, that brand orientation helps voluntary organizations develop trust across key stakeholder communities (Tapp, 1996; Ritchie, Swami et al., 1998), strengthen awareness amongst target audiences (Hankinson, 2000) and build charity loyalty within donor and supporter groups (Ritchie, Swami et al., 1998), other academics and practitioners have expressed concern that the unquestioned adoption of techniques developed in the for-profit context has contributed to the charity sector becoming over-commercialized (Sternberg 1998; Salamon 1999; Stride and Lee, 2007). Despite the grumbling from the academics and pure practitioners, branding a non- profit is extremely practical in terms of budget efficiency, if people are going to donate time or money or become members, they want to know what the brand is all about; they want to know the mission statement (Chiagouris, 2005). More importantly, “a compelling brand image is more important to non-profits than commercial sector companies for one fundamental reason: Nonprofits do not have the resources to send their messages to large numbers of people through the media. They cannot solve awareness   19 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA challenges with more advertising weight, but must define and execute their branding objectives right out of the gate” (Chiagouris, 2005). Perhaps the academics and practitioners are concerned about the subtle differences in branding between the for-profit and non-profit sector. The initial reaction from the academic is first and foremost, skepticism. This skepticism is not unwarranted, as the nuances between the profit and non-profit sector must be managed. Effective brand management in the non-profit context is more complex than simply satisfying donor needs. To be truly effective, non-profit brands need to address a number of additional organizational objectives. The most widely cited include lobbying (Hankinson, 2000), education and the communication of the cause itself (Tapp, 1996) and image and reputation management (Polonsky and Macdonald, 2000; Stride and Lee, 2007). The non-profit is thought to be meeting needs that focus on the common good, where return on risk (financial) is not possible to be recovered. The common good is structured or rather rests upon a foundation of a clearly defined value system. This value system is what the non-profit typically promotes through its operations, working to fulfill its mission. “For an organization to work towards a specific charitable purpose that is of benefit to society, it must have a value system that both underpins and indeed drives the charity's operations. This implies that the values are not optional or negotiable but are integral to the organization itself” (Stride and Lee, 2003). This contrasts with the more flexible nature of values in the commercial context, the objective of which is to ensure survival in an external environment (Schein 1985; Stride and Lee, 2007). Promotion of nonprofits typically come in the form of some benefit or activity that generates interest based on personal gratification or social event but also has the additional benefit that the money generated from the registration is destined for the mission of the nonprofit. Athletic events typically bring the participants together and thus their participation promotes the brand of the nonprofit furthering the mission. The Unique Selling Proposition (USP). The USP is central to the brand message. Some call it the brand promise; others refer to it as the net impression. Whatever the label, it is the   20 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA primary thought the target audience should take from encounters with the brand, a composite of brand attributes and benefits (Chiagouris, 2009). In this instance the non-profit with limited financial resources can now reach and engage a customer base that will associate the mission favorably based on the already existing equity in the commercial brand. These brands or products can be represented physically (e.g. bundled package of two or more brands) or symbolically (e.g. advertisement) by association of brand names, logos or other proprietary assets of the brand. Various terminologies have been used to describe these alliances including cause branding strategies (Cone et al., 2003) cause-marketing alliances (Till & Nowak, 2000), co-branding (Dickinson & Ramaseshan, 2004a, 2004b), cross promotion, joint branding and symbiotic marketing (Adler, 1966). Brand alliances generate a relationship that is not necessarily ‘cause' specific (as in cause-related marketing) and as such, are an overall collaboration between two partner brands without necessarily referring to a specific charity drive event (Dickinson & Barker, 2007). Lastly, whilst concentration upon mission and vision achievement and core values is crucial to successful branding, so to remains the ability to differentiate through image in a competitive and increasingly cluttered marketplace. The majority of non-profit branding commentators would agree, is first achieved through effective logo, tagline and identity design (Ind and Bell 1999, Naddaf 2004; Stride and Lee, 2007). 2.1.3 The Commodity Brand Commodity branding is the alternative approach to marketing that could potentially have value for the RE, renewable energy, innovation community. Observations in other sectors demonstrate the success of this particular type of branding. For example the, ‘got, milk?’ branding campaign was a tremendous success, in that it influenced demand to meet the over production on the supply of milk in the US dairy farmer market. Awareness of the ‘got milk?’ branding campaign rated of 90% nationally (US), making it a highly successful brand (Christensen, 2008). “A commodity is a good with very little differentiation. Beef, milk, cell phones, and PV, photovoltaic, are all examples of commodities. When it comes to marketing a commodity an individual company’s marketing expenditures tend to have a poor return.” (Renewable Energy   21 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA World, 2008). Furthermore, “Instead of putting so much emphasis into nickel and diming the cost effectiveness of solar, perhaps the solar industry would be best served by utilizing a collective branding effort in order to bring solar to the mainstream” (Renewable Energy World, 2008). Note the chart below to gauge the stark difference between commodity and branded markets. Figure 4: Price and Product/image differentiation in commodity and branded markets (Pike, 2009) 2.1.4 Co-Branding Brand alliances build brand equity by transferring new associations between partner brands and increasing familiarity across established as well as new markets. From a commercial entity perspective, developing brand capital is a financial burden making branding alliances appealing as they result in image enhancement because nonprofit brand knowledge structures usually have higher levels of trust and confidence that can be transferred to the commercial entity (Austin, 2000; Dickenson & Barker, 2007).   22 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Alternatively, “The twenty-first century will be the age of alliances. In this age, collaboration between non-profit organizations and corporations will grow in frequency and strategic importance (Dickenson & Barker, 2007).” Possibly the largest hurdle for the branding of a non-profit is financing the brand program. To meet this challenge, a particular technique, co-branding, is introduced to further the brand of the non-profit to the market. Brand extension theory provides a strong basis to understand evaluations in the context of co-branding. The key assumptions of this theory are that if respondents view a match' or 'fit' between the original brand and the extended brand (or in this case two individual partner brands) then the positive associations that the respondent holds towards the original brand (each individual partner brand) may be transferred to the new extension the brand alliance (Aaker and Keller, 1990) and there may be resulting spillover effects on original brand attitudes (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Dickinson & Barker, 2007). Partnering with a commercial brand can introduce the less known non-profit image to an already existing, ready and waiting audience. “Non profit entities can acquire financial resources from the commercial partner through long term alliance sponsorships, together with cause-related donations that the commercial brand may choose to support as well as benefits of more favorable brand attitudes due to positive associations derived from the commercial partner brand. Similarly, commercial entities want to gain more from their brands and one way to do this is to form branding alliances with non-profit organizations where response to their brand is attenuated as a result of the alliance associations” (Porter and Kramer, 2002). Ultimately, by having a brand alliance, organizations are able to transfer original brand attitudes from a partner brand to their own brand, which is a more economical way of managing brand knowledge (Dickinson & Barker, 2007). Given that a key motivation of commercial entities is to transfer positive affect between a non-profit brand and their commercial brand, the measure of how great an impact the brand alliance has had is ultimately the spillover effects. These spillover effects relate to changes in brand attitudes, brand image and brand equity (Javalgi et al., 1994; Dickinson & Barker, 2007). The brand must be promoted in networks beyond the do-it-yourselfers, the early   23 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA adopters of RE technology. Various terminologies have been used to describe these alliances including cause branding strategies (Cone et al., 2003) cause-marketing alliances (Till and Nowak, 2000), co-branding (Dickinson and Ramaseshan, 2004a, 2004b), cross promotion, joint branding and symbiotic marketing (Adler, 1966). Brand alliances generate a relationship that is not necessarily ‘cause' specific (as in cause-related marketing) (Dickenson & Barker, 2007). Perceived fit between two brand partners in an alliance has been seen to be important for positive brand alliance evaluations (Keller and Aaker, 1992; Simonin and Ruth, 1998). Indeed, the majority of the literature reviewed suggests that the most important condition for brand enhancement is the fit between the core brand: and the extension. Past research has shown that consumer perceptions of how well the products together influenced attitudes toward the joint offering of the partners (Yadav, 1993; Simonin and Ruth, 1995 Park et al, 1996; Simonin and Ruth, 1998; Dickinson & Barker, 2007). With an increasing interest in non-profit and commercial alliances such as recent high profile alliances between McDonald's and Diabetes Australia as well as Toyota and Planet Ark, an understanding of how consumers receive these alliances is important. Brand alliances rely on 'transfer’ affect (Dickenson & Barker, 2007). The synthesis of the two forces is the brand and thus the promotional atmosphere must incorporate participants from both of these factions in a non-compromising or non-threatening way. The fundamentals of branding, in both a profit and non-profit framework are important to the analysis underway in this document. Branding is the tool to connect to the market. In this next section, will discuss the ‘what’ is suggested to connect to the market. Therefore, the discussion will now turn to the innovation community or the network and open innovation. 2.2 User Contribution Systems 2.2.1 Innovation Community The concept of user contribution isn’t new. However, both the Internet highfliers (E-Bay, Amazon, etc.) and the old-economy behemoths (General Motors, General   24 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Electric, I.B.M. etc.) – have actively created something called a user contribution system. That is, they’ve created methods, usually internet-based, for aggregating and leveraging people’s contributions or behaviors in ways that are useful to other people (Cook, 2008). In an innovation community, user content is the commodity or the currency that is in circulation. The value of the community is made by the volume of subscriber content, user contribution, in circulation in the respective network. “The discussion of user contribution systems, a.k.a. innovation communities, involves two types: active and passive systems” (Cook, 2008). Figure 5: Taxonomy User Contribution Systems (Cook, 2008)   Active systems, such as these, focus the image of the network on specifically attracting subscribers to contribute content. Conversely, passive systems tend to rely on a   25 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA technology or infrastructure that is designed to collect and log data and determine trends in consumer behaviors. User contribution systems turn to the consumers for the concepts that will generate value. “These systems pose a challenge to the long unquestioned beliefs about management and the role of management (in an organization), the value of experts and the need for control of the customer experience and the importance of quality assurance (Cook, 2008). User contribution systems inverses the traditional organization information flow in that it, “creates value for a business as a consequence of the value it delivers to users” (Cook, 2008). The innovation community leverages a synergy that can naturally occur in a community, the sharing and knowledge transfer between non-official partnerships, facilitating the organic growth of a network. Once members, of the community, exist utilizing and adding content to the network, the value of the network increases at a rate greater than one for every new member (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007). This rate of increase of membership is driven by a low entry barrier to join the network. A low, financial, barrier to enter the community often drives the high subscription rates in these communities because, for a user contribution system, payment can destroy participation by undermining a sense of collaboration and trust. Rather, these systems rely on motivations intrinsic to humanity (Cook, 2008). The concept of the innovation community challenges the conventional thinking in respect to the core drivers of value creation and human economic activity. The challenge is that, “we are not only acquisitive economic beings but also inquisitive social beings with a desire for other forms of interaction, oriented around shared identities, values and community spirit, which enable us, in varying degrees, to shape our lived experience outside the realm of commodities and prices” (Currah, 2007). An open innovation platform is a framework that channels the user contribution to value creation. In active systems, motivation by the participants is extremely critical to developing the community. To attract members who would like to contribute, a certain level of organization structure needs to be in place to allow the contribution to be   26 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA channeled effectively. The five factors that are important for facilitating participation in an open source community are (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007): • Value Proposition • Community Expertise • Governance of the community • Processes for co-creation • Technology Figure 6: Open Source Model of Wiki-Based Customer-Centricity (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007)   These factors are considered the critical reference for the open source or wiki- community to grow and cultivate value from the community. With these factors in place, can then characterize the types of open and closed innovation platforms. Defined, passive systems tend to be more ‘in-house’; where active systems lean towards a   27 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA community-driven approach. “If we are to make strategic sense of innovation communities, ecosystems, networks, and their implications for competitive advantage, we need a new approach to strategy—what we call open strategy” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). Figure 7: Open and Closed Innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007)   An open innovation system creates value when community-driven. However, the open innovation presents a challenge to the conventional method of conducting business because “shifting the focus from ownership to the concept of openness requires a re- consideration of the processes that underlies value creation and value capture. Our notion of openness is defined as the pooling of knowledge for innovative purposes where the contributors have access to the inputs of others and cannot exert exclusive rights over the resultant innovation. In its purest form, the value created through an open process would   28 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA approach that of a public good. It would be ‘non-rival’ in that when someone ‘consumed’ it, it would not degrade the experience of a subsequent user. It also would be ‘non- excludable’ so all comers could gain access...” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). Open innovation takes confidence and self-assurance on the part of the management to allow value creation processes to become non-linear and incorporate the intangibles of social interaction. However, the open innovation user contribution system still must possess some structured role to utilize the value created in the community, as noted in the model. Management of the company retains control of the system and may choose to modify its design, the system, converting inputs into useful outputs in real time with little or no intervention by the company (Cook, 2008). The company and management processes become the conduit to channel innovation rather than being the driver of innovation. “All of the traditional views are based upon ownership and control as the key levers in achieving strategic success. All focus largely within the firm, or within the value chain in which the firm is embedded. None take much notice of the potential value of external resources that are not owned by the firm in question, but may nonetheless create value for the firm. These external resources, such as volunteer contributors, innovation communities and ecosystems, and surrounding networks represent growing sources of value creation…” (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). An effective open strategy will balance value capture and value creation instead of losing sight of value capture during the pursuit of innovation (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007). The members of the community are thus bound by sharing the value that unfolds from their contributions. The circulation of gifts leaves a series of interconnected relationships in its wake which imbues the community with a form of decentralized cohesiveness (Hyde 2006: Currah, 2007). This cohesiveness begins to form a commons not only of resources but also of shared values (Hess & Ostrom 2007; Currah, 2007). Gifted information from a community member has higher content value based upon the social value exceeding the commercial value (Currah, 2007). Which supports the statement, “today we see communities with evolving patterns of participation, value derived from co-created knowledge rather than software artifacts, knowledge that evolves as it is used rather than treated as an object that is periodically   29 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA released, and technologies specifically suited for co-creation rather than adopted for discussions and version control...” (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007). Open innovation is a balance, a balance between the two extreme poles of extreme commercial interests and those of extreme social connectivity. For example, “an excessive degree of commodification and control (through property rights) risks the enclosure and under-utilization of creative works ; while an excessive degree of sharing and freedom (through gift exchange) risks the implosion and underproduction of creative works…” (Currah, 2007). Determining this balance is where the role of management is to be asserted in this emerging innovative environment. Similar to current transactions, “the emergence of the digital networked environment has sparked a battle between, on the one hand, the corporations and, on the other hand, advocates of digital freedom, free culture, and cyber liberty…” (Currah, 2007). As a result of the user contribution system a new economy is burgeoned to form. This environment where users transfer ideas self-generated or a derivative of a copy righted are collectively known as the realm of the gift economy. “These gift economies operate within virtual spaces of social interaction that have been opened up by Internet- based communications protocol… as a result the Internet actually comprises a network of myriad gift economies, which continue to undergo expansion and diversification, both in parallel and at the intersection of different communication protocols…” (Currah, 2007). The gifts created by the users in a sense are advertisements. The contributions lead to the formation of the contributor’s brand. Each contribution that is created for the network or shared with the network has in a sense the elements of a personal advertisement. Three dimensions motivate consumers to create advertisements: Intrinsic enjoyment, Self Promotion and Change Perception (Berthon et al, 2008). These gifts allow for cross-pollination between the centrally controlled market structures. This mixing of markets based now on the preference of the actors within the networked communities drives consumer preference at the source. The innovation community can be the market place for most distant of market actors. This activity has been defined by O’Reilly (2005) as web 2.0 or e-commerce.   30 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The innovation community, which has been facilitated by improvements in technology, from the centralized corporations, is the driver that has formed what is called the web 2.0 commerce. The core competencies (of a web 2.0 business) O’Reilly listed are: • The company provides services, not packaged software, and they can be cost-effectively scaled • They have control over the content in their database, which gets richer the more people use it • They trust users as co-designers • They harness collective intelligence • They leverage "the long tail" of the Web through customer self-service, • Their software is not platform specific, • Their user interfaces, development models and business models are ‘lightweight’ and can be "snapped together" and ‘mashed up,’” (O’Reilly, Christopher, 2007) The Web 2.0 based market tells the story of the natural or organic capacity of human interaction, and that is witnessed through the myriad’s of web-based commercial and social transactions daily. O'Reilly calls hyper-linking ‘the foundation of the Web’ because users add new content and new sites and as other users discover them, they create hyper-links that bind them together into the network. The web of connections grows organically (O’Reilly, Christopher, 2007). “Simply put, commodities and gifts are both vital to the expression of creativity in its myriad forms” (Currah, 2007). From this point in the literature review, the theory is in place for the business concept of the scope of this document. However, it is also of extreme importance to place these concepts in a practical setting where it will serve the market. Therefore, the next chapter will briefly address regulatory and market mechanisms from a historical reference to what is currently attempting to meet the market’s demand for alternatives in energy market in the U.S.A.   31 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 2.3 Energy “Externalities are defined as benefits or costs generated as an unintended by- product of an economic activity that do not accrue to the parties involved in the activity. Environmental externalities are benefits or costs that manifest themselves through changes in the physical– biological environment” (Owen, 2006).   2.3.1 Market Trends   “We are currently witnessing one of those rare events in history when there arises a head-on conflict between a line of development in a society and a new social attitude. Consider these alternatives: • On the one side, we have a vigorous growth in energy consumption, closely related to a rising standard of living. • On the other side, we have a widespread public concern with preservation of the environment, which has been translated into restrictive standards and regulations” (Netschert, 1973). The above was written in the early 1970’s. Below is the current prediction of fuel consumption.   32 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Figure 8: U.S. Energy Consumption by fuel (EIA, 2009) The irony is that after a generation of awareness, the topic of energy production and consumption remains under debate with no equitable solution for both sides of the equation concretely developed. The social-bio concerns echoed by the ‘Carson’ philosophic view are being addressed by an attempt at a ‘race to the top’ global legislation, yet the commercial burden of this will be passed onto the consumer in the form of taxation. While the commerce business first, Laissez-faire market advocates remain challenged and insecure as the transaction costs, the social costs to the commons, of energy production remain debated. However, this area is currently under much debate and the outcomes at the time of the writing have not been completely defined. The energy market in the U.S.A. has been a tightly state regulated sector. However, despite the strong controls imposed by state regulation related to the production and transmission and distribution of electrical energy, only a handful of private firms or holding companies manage the operations of these capital-intensive activities. This oligopic control of the energy commodity, which in general allows growth and progress, has brought unification to the U.S.A. market place, but has also been slow to adapt to the changing social demands, related to conservation and efficiency. “Consider first the matter of energy growth. The aggregate consumption of energy in the United States has increased in almost every year of this century except during the depression years in the 1930's. One of the causes of the growth in energy consumption is, of course, population increase…” (Netschert, 1973). Also it was recognized then that “the energy growth rate has been faster than that of population, indicating that per capita consumption is also increasing. This is due in large part to the increasing ‘electrification’ of energy use. The growth in electricity consumption has consistently exceeded that of aggregate energy consumption: the compound growth rate during the 1960's was 7.57%; per-capita use increased at an annual rate of 6.2% (Netschert, 1973). In large measure, this reflects general affluence, in which householders continue to acquire high-load appliances and equipment such as electric dryers, quick-recovery water heaters, self- cleaning ovens, frost-free refrigerators, color TV sets, air-conditioning, and electric space heating (Netschert, 1973).   33 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA While holding the historical mirror to face of the U.S.A. policy makers and to the politicians engaged in the control of energy in the U.S.A. (is somewhat enjoyable), the scoff of pious disdain shouldn’t be left un-challenged. To be fair, there has been some movement in the energy marketplace to address the concerns of Netschert’s (1973) article addressing the Carson point-of-view concerns. The increasing presence of renewable energy production demonstrates the means to produce energy can be achieved in balance with environmental concerns. Figure 9 below provides a breakdown of the energy sources in terms of BTU (British Thermal Units) for the U.S.A. in 2008. “Thus, the promotion of renewable alternatives to fossil fuels involves a complex process of interaction among a variety of actors” (Ogihara et al, 2007).       Figure 9: U.S. Energy Mix 2008 (EIA, 2009)   34 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The planned centralized grid for 2020 provides a mix of energy production sources of which renewables are expected to become 10% (EIA, 2009) of that production mix. To achieve this increase there are to be regulatory instruments to assist this energy production mix target. Feed in tariff, Renewable Portfolio Standards, Smart Grid, and a possible Carbon Tax are regulatory techniques that are devised to proliferate market penetration of energy from renewable sources along with improving the management of individual building energy usage. The method least discussed to achieve higher renewable energy production sources is a technique called decentralized energy, a.k.a. Micro-grid. Much of the literature on this topic states that the penetration of renewable energy and energy efficiency lags far behind the stakeholder perspective in the first instance, and in the second, in terms of financial gains made in energy savings. For example, “surveys consistently reveal customer preference for green power.” (P&GJ, 2002) However, despite the technologies for energy efficiency and production being readily available “the consumer adoption has been slow…” (Caird & Roy, 2008). In addition, according to the McKinsey (2009) report, the energy efficiency sector, if executed at scale, a holistic approach would yield gross energy savings worth more than $1.2 trillion. For example, just taking one portion of the renewable technologies production portfolio, photovoltaic (PV) at $2 to $2.50 per installed watt, the annual market potential for grid-connected residential and commercial building PV applications is estimated at 2,900 MW, representing an annual market of about $6.6 billion, including equipment and installations (Renewable Energy World, 2005). Nevertheless, the bottom line for renewable energy systems, the starting points (for renewable energy systems) are very low. Even 30% per annum increases in rated capacity (it) takes many years to make a big impact at the global level (Jefferson, 2008). From a financial rational perspective, slow adoption of renewable or green technologies is slow, simply stated, because the risk premium of investment in these technologies on conventional scaled implementation is too high. Energy as a commodity has remained largely produced by non-renewable sources for the reason that non- renewable commodities are non-stochastic, whereas renewable sources contain uncertainty in supply, which increases the risk premium during investment planning.   35 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA This “uncertainty, of renewable resources, reduces rent and increases the rate of extraction of the resource but has implications for the degree of regulation when property rights cannot be assigned and maintained…” (Pindyck, 1984). However, if demand for the nonrenewable “resource is elastic so that the extraction rate falls when the stock is low, then less regulation may be needed…” (Pindyck, 1984). From the stakeholder perspective, the basic human need to feel secure dominates the discussion on energy and less about determining the risk premium on a stochastic resource. Nevertheless, “the conventional wisdom has been that ecological uncertainty increases the need for regulation” (Pindyck, 1984). In the USA energy market the beginning of regulatory and policy level techniques are being introduced as a method to meet the socio-ecologic concern from the market. The following are a few of the predominant policy level techniques that promise to bring higher penetration of renewables and energy efficiency to the market. However, it remains difficult to predict that any of these techniques are reacting to the market demand appropriately. This is based upon the fundamentals that, the speed of the development of alternative energy is limited by the laws of physics and economics. Regardless of their good intentions, legislators cannot circumvent these engineering and market realities by simply ordering the purchase of specified percentages of RPS (renewable portfolio standards) qualifying energy on a politically developed schedule (Greenwald, 2007).   36 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 2.3.2 Conventional Energy Process Figure 10: Renewable / Nonrenewable Energy Centralized Grid Percentages taken from EIA (EIA, 2009) FIT = FEED IN TARIFF (FIT Coalition, 2009); RPS = Renewable Portfolio Standard (FIT Coalition, 2009) 2.3.3 RPS - Renewable Portfolio Standard After reviewing the research on this subject the following definition provides the most straightforward definition. “A Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires utilities to generate an increasing percentage of their electricity from renewable resources” (Goldstein, 2007). These standards are typically introduced, in the U.S.A., at the state legislation level. Politicians and policy makers drafted the RPS targets and their associated time frames to compliance.   37 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA From the research there demonstrates much lack of faith or credibility in the ability of the RPS to meet social and economic demands. For example, “these initial RPS initiatives have served their purpose: jump-starting the desired rejuvenation, and promoting the accelerated development, of alternative energy projects. However, imposition of RPS standards by themselves will not achieve the desired transition away from our fossil fuel dominated generation facilities. In fact, exclusive resort to increasingly more exacting RPS standards, along with a series of other regulatory and utility practices, could actually inhibit the development of renewable resources, deprive consumers of their benefits and, ironically, preserve thermal dominance…” (Greenwald, 2007). The research continues to uncover that, one predominant theme in American energy and electricity policy is the idea of a ‘portfolio approach’ or that society must embrace an assortment of different energy technologies simultaneously. This strategy, in practice, is (a) biased, since fossil fuel and nuclear technologies have been heavily favored; (b) opaque, obscuring the different full social costs of energy systems; (c) inequitable, promoting technologies that contribute to climate change; and (d) unsophisticated, ignoring important qualitative differences among technologies (Sovacool, 2008). If indeed RPS is driving for a variety of sources for energy production, possibly the proliferation of energy from a multiple sources would be greater. However, “the fact that most hydroelectric resources are excluded from RPS-eligible status reveals an unfortunate political reality: RPS status often reflects local political and competitive situations, rather than objective scientific criteria. The California statute that generically denies RPS eligibility to all combustion municipal solid waste generators, but for one located in Stanislaus County and... operation prior to September 26. 1996, epitomizes the partisan influences permeating RPS programs...” (Greenwald, 2007). At the time of this writing there is no federal level RPS for the U.S.A. 2.3.4 FIT – Feed in Tariff Recognizing the slow progress of RPS programs, an alternative known as a feed- in-tariff (FIT) is promoted as the most effective and practical method for integrating   38 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA renewables onto the energy grid. A much simpler and comprehensive policy structure known as the Feed-in-tariff (FIT) is able to achieve greater developments in renewable energy, but at a far lower cost and with greater economic and social benefits to the local environment. The FIT does this by establishing a pre-determined price for renewable energy high enough to attract investment without being so exorbitantly high that it allows for windfall profits. Instead of mandating a specific quantity of renewable electricity based on the overall electricity consumption and leaving the market to determine the price with a plethora of financial mechanisms and incentives, FITs mandate a specific price (tariff) for renewable electricity sufficient to attract investors and leaves the market to determine quantity (FIT, 2009). The FIT is the technique utilized in Germany and Denmark, which allows for more rapid penetration of renewable energy sources. “European nations additionally require utilities to take responsibility for interconnecting renewable energy projects on demand to higher voltage transmission lines and require them to offer uniform contracts that include these interconnection requirements so that projects are guaranteed a grid connection. A FIT thus provides a long term contract at a fixed price sufficient for a reasonable return on investment (ROI)…” (FIT, 2009). FIT is promoted as the regulatory technique that cuts through the beauracracy meeting the needs of the market. Because of the stability, straightforwardness and transparency of the FIT, the net costs and benefits of transitioning to renewable energy generation are shared more uniformly between all rate payers and involved parties. Prioritizing renewables and ensuring their rapid deployment with the FIT will bring the net costs down quickly and in doing so will mitigate the need for peaking plants and help ensure that the benefits of renewable energy will be substantial and far-reaching (FIT, 2009). It is found that investor risks are much lower in a FIT system, and that innovation incentives are larger (Fouquet & Johansson, 2008). “Renewable power feed in laws which give renewable power producers access to the grid with a guaranteed price for the power specify a minimum amount of renewable energy that must be included in the portfolio of energy resources of licensed electricity suppliers serving a state or country...” (Ogihara et al, 2007).   39 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The predictions currently are that energy demand is expected to increase by 20% by 2020 (EIA, 2009) Therefore, maintaining the current non-renewable energy production capacity will continue to suffice for day-to-day operations of the grid. The renewables then as they come on line and connect to the grid can then be controlled to meet this predicted 20% increase in demand. In conjunction with the planned increase in demand and the increased penetration from renewable sources the smart grid technology will curb the demand side, allowing the peaks or energy demand spikes to be flattened or moderated in a controlled manner, reducing the demand side. The analysis is based on recent development in EU with different models for support of installations based on renewable energy. These include feed-in models with guaranteed minimum tariffs, tender models for different bands of technologies, and green certificates trading models with obligatory consumer quota. This describes the market situation in selected European countries, including Germany, the UK, Holland and Denmark (Meyer, 2003). 2.3.5 Smart Grid On the consumption and distribution section of the value chain, a tool or process called ‘Smart Grid’ is to be deployed to bring about improvements on the efficiency of the energy consumption devices. Smart Grid will allow homeowners or businesses to use electricity as economically as possible (Caskey, 2008). The term ‘Smart Grid’ refers to a modernization of the electricity delivery system so it monitors, protects and automatically optimizes the operation of its interconnected elements—from the central and distributed generator through the high-voltage network and distribution system, to industrial users and building automation systems, to energy storage installations and to end-use consumers and their thermostats, electric vehicles, appliances and other household devices (Tuite, 2009). “The Smart Grid will be characterized by a two-way flow of electricity and information to create an automated, widely distributed energy delivery network. It incorporates into the grid the benefits of distributed computing and communications to deliver real-time information and enable the near-instantaneous balance of supply and demand at the device level…” (Tuite, 2009). The RPS and FIT techniques are the regulators attempt to promote wider renewable penetration onto the grid (FIT Coalition, 2009). They, RPS and FIT, are a   40 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA process or sequence of taxation or output quality standards that control the proliferation of renewable energy onto the grid. These smart grid proposals would create a flexible, interactive relationship between energy producers and consumers. "The grid needs to evolve from one-way wires and cables to something where each power line would send power in either direction — to or from homes, businesses, or industry. We need the marriage of energy technology and information technology...” (Grant, 2010). The Smart Grid will be mainly promoted by what is currently the service provider’s portion of the value chain. The goal is to streamline consumption devices usage through an elaborate communication network. The entire system is to set up to ensure the base load, production from non-renewables are maintained. Smart grid is seen as a more realistic alternative to building new power plants and transmission lines, which are expensive in themselves and even more expensive if not impossible to build, considering the difficulties in obtaining licenses (Tuite, 2009). Therefore a base-load of non-renewables must be maintained until the market produces technologies that can produce higher efficiency and less variable energy production. This base load is to ensure predicted daily demand on the grid is factored to have ample supply to accommodate for non-routine demand spikes. The Smart Grid would allow a sort of auction in which rates would change minute by minute based on present capacity and the cost of operations. Those rates would be regularly fed over the grid to all users, whose electrical equipment would use complex algorithms to decide whether or not to turn on (Tuite, 2009). 2.3.6 Micro-grid A ‘micro-grid’ is a collection of energy sources that provide the location utilizing them, to produce and consume energy more efficiently, as a distributed energy resource rather than solely downstream from the central electricity energy grid. “Micro-grids are a future power system configuration providing clear economic and environmental benefits compared to expansion of legacy modern power systems. It is clear that development of micro-grid concepts and technologies requires considerable effort to resolve numerous economic, commercial, and technical challenges. Extensive RD&D efforts are therefore   41 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA in progress, especially in Europe, the United States, Japan, and Canada, to provide efficient solutions and to demonstrate micro-grid operating concepts in laboratories and in pilot installations…” (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007). As an alternative to central grid planning, advocates of a decentralized electrical energy system argue that micro-grids are more suited to hosting renewable energy and as such could make a significant contribution to the overall reduction of carbon emissions (Wilcox, 2009). One of the key advantages experienced in decentralized energy is in the improved efficiency of the process during the transition from production to transmission. For typical grid tied production sources, the power rating capacity of the production source drops, as a large portion of the energy generated is lost as heat, sometimes referred to as carbon. In addition, the presence of generation close to demand can increase the power quality and reliability (PQR) of electricity delivered to sensitive end uses. Indeed, DERs (distributed energy resources) can be used to actively enhance PQR. In general, these three perceived benefits, increased energy efficiency through combined heat and power (CHP), reduced carbon emissions, and improved PQR, are the key drivers for DER deployment, although many other benefits, such as reduced line losses and grid expansion deferral, are also often discussed (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007). Micro-grid as a technology incorporates the already marketed energy production sources like photo voltaic (PV) and wind while the connection to the grid remains the area under development. A method of transient suppression is required during the switching in and out of the centralized grid, and it is in this area that much of the research projects continue. “One of the events producing major transient interaction between a WTG (wind generation) and a local grid is the grid connection itself” (Quinonez-Varela, 2008). Despite this area of on-going development, “there has been significant progress toward developing small (kW-scale) CHP applications. These systems, together with solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, small wind turbines (WTs), other small renewables (such as biogas digesters), heat and electricity storage, and controllable loads are   42 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA expected to play a significant role in future electricity supply. These technologies are herein collectively called distributed energy resources (DERs) (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007). Figure 11: Schematic of an example CM (Hatziagyriou et al, 2007)   Above, in Figure 11, is a model that represents a decentralized energy source system with central grid connection, know as CERTS Microgrid [CM]. CERTS stands for Consortium for Electric Reliability Technology Solutions and was formed in 1999 primarily to focus on energy alternatives in the area of improving the energy reliability for the U.S.A. (Nikkhajoel & Lasseter, 2009). Micro-grid a.k.a island networks, stand as the alternative for greater penetration of renewable, alternative energy. The development of the ability to switch in the variable renewable source to the grid will gain the ability for a truly independent market-demand-based and a resource optimized power generation system. See Figure 12 for the energy efficient energy flow within a Microgrid. “While the application of DERs can potentially reduce the need for traditional (power generation) system expansion, controlling a potentially huge number of DERs creates a daunting new   43 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA challenge for operating and controlling the network safely and efficiently...” (Hatziargyriou et al, 2007). Figure 12: Energy Flow within a Microgrid (Hatziargyriou et al, 2007) Micro-grid’s are being deployed in developing nations and the impact of continuous and reliable power is tremendous on the society. For example a “micro-grid in rural Kenya, demonstrated that access to electricity enables the use of electric equipment and tools by small and micro enterprises, resulting in significant improvement in productivity per worker (100–200% depending on the task at hand) and in a corresponding growth in income levels in the order of 20–70%, depending on the product made (Kirubi et al, 2009).” In another example, Stiren Hermansen, director of the Energy Academy on the island of Samso, says, “Denmark decided to focus on many different sources of decentralized energy production…” (Nielsen, 2009). Today Denmark is perceived to be a leader in renewable energy production partly based on the governance and the leadership’s ability to leverage the power of distributed energy   44 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA resources. “The amount of decentralized electricity generation (DG) connected to distribution networks increases across EU member states. This increasing penetration of DG units poses potential costs and benefits for distribution system operators (DSOs). These DSOs are regulated since the business of electricity distribution is considered to be a natural monopoly” (De Joode et al, 2009). 2.3.7 Carbon Tax Carbon trading has been occurring in the European Union since 2005 (Jaehen & Latmathe, 2010). The carbon is traded at a per ton price. Since the inception the price per ton has traded between one and 30 Euro, which was an unpredicted volatility (Jaehen & Latmathe, 2010). The trading scheme was billed to act as market solution to curb ‘dirty’ contributors in the energy business, specifically non-renewable sources of energy production. The historical volatility in this market has given rise to speculation surrounding market power, specifically on the influence of price. Besides market power, the combination of information asymmetry and price interdependencies (between prices of primary goods, especially electricity, and allowances) plays an important role in explaining the emission trading paradox (Jaehen & Latmathe, 2010). Figure 13: Climate Change Targets, US World Resource Institute (National Grid, 2008)     45 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA In addition to the regional GHG (green house gas) related activity, there is a growing consensus at the national level] that the United States should reduce its GHG emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050 to support the global efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The leading proposals currently before US federal lawmakers recommend a cap-and-trade system to reach GHG reduction goals. The figure above shows the potential impact of the leading proposals on future emissions, according to an analysis published by the World Resources Institute in December 2007. The Lieberman-Warner bill, for example, proposes a 70 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2050. The 2005 emissions were just over 7 billion metric tons CO2. 34 percent of 2005 emissions were from electricity generation. Lieberman-Warner is not the most stringent proposal on the table, but has received support from multiple parties to the debate. This bill was debated and rejected in the US Senate in June 2008 (National Grid, 2008).” At the time of this writing there is no US federal level Carbon tax in place. 2.3.8 Technology Trends The multi-discipline nature of the renewable energy and energy efficiency sector make it difficult to create goods and services by a single company. The idea of creating a learning hub for renewable energy is not so radical as can be seen in the state of Indiana in the USA. This ‘experiment’ is occurring elsewhere, such as in the community of 1,100 called Chew Magna, south of Bristol in the UK. There, residents of that community are changing the way they shop, eat, travel, and think about rubbish: the goal in that community is to be the first in the UK to cause no planet damage (BioCycle, 2005). These communities are in essence taking the environmental challenge directly on and bringing it to their locality. Instead of waiting for federal level regulation, bringing greater market penetration pricing, their communities want to be recognized as leading the environmental and energy efficiency charge. The community-based initiatives are examples of government partnering with commerce and community to drive change to meet environmental and green demands. Additionally, these initiatives demonstrate a demand meeting supply on the topic of environmental awareness and commerce. However to achieve full market capitalization, the many claims made for the benefits of community RE suggest that a more holistic   46 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA evaluative frame needs to be adopted. Indeed, a key question is whether or not the outcomes of government support for small-scale, localized community energy projects can add up to more than the sum of the small parts of renewable energy generation (Walker et al, 2007). Despite this gap in the mainstream market’s preference, attempts are being made to incorporate a synergy across the disciplines of renewable energy and energy efficiency. For example, in the US state of Indiana, the governor of that state wants to create a ‘BioTown’ in the community of 550 people, which is 25 miles north of Lafayette. Deborah Abott, in the state’s agriculture department writes, “We want to make this a model for other communities in the future…”(BioCycle, 2005). Perhaps the legislators in this small Indiana community realize the market potential and desire to be ahead of the market wave, as early adopters, and want to innovate their community and become attractive to the capital markets, in addition to becoming a market incubator for the burgeoning energy related technologies of the future. In this regard, this small town in Indiana could capitalize upon deindustrialization and create the boom-town that might just sustain the next wave of economic activity, by redefining the usage of energy. Lastly, to date most RE products and energy efficient building technologies are not user-focused products. Renewables and energy efficiency products have not been designed for, or centered on, the customer. A key barrier to the massive scale distribution is non-user centered design. “User-centered improvements are required to improve functionality, ergonomics, inter-connectedness with other systems and symbolic value, and to reduce cost and payback…” (Caird & Roy, 2008). Furthermore, the third instance when demand generation occurs is when created wants are promoted to the market for the product or service, typically appealing to emotions of the potential customer (Renewable Energy World, 2003). To create the connections or connect supply chains of the various different specialties for a centralized corporation; to create source information on a product or service would be extremely costly and the return sketchy at best. Instead of seeking information from corporate sources, the product producers or service providers,   47 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA customers increasingly turn to other customers or customer-centric, third party web sites (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2007). A similar approach to implement into a business concept is to become more customer-centric. Customer Centricity is an alternative marketing approach that can be utilized for planning of new products and services (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2006). Wiki’s are relevant in an era when business’ look to reduce overhead and large expansive cost centers. Wiki’s are primarily web based. Since much of commercial activity is currently accessed or transacted via the Internet, the relevance of wiki as a viable method for channeling brand messages is becoming an increasingly important vehicle for marketing departments. To achieve these ambitious and expensive targets, a well branded non-profit RE innovation community could potentially augment existing programs in community RE. “There was widespread support for local generation and use of renewable energy, with respondents expecting benefits from a project in terms of increased community spirit and conservation of natural resources. However, desire for active involvement was lower and residents viewed themselves participating as consulters, rather than project leaders. We suggest community renewable energy projects are likely to gain public acceptance but are unlikely to become widespread without greater institutional support…” (Rogers et al, 2008). The innovation community in proposal could be the institutional hub for these forces to coordinate, compete, and cooperate for best position and attempt to uncover the dominate design for the global energy network of the future. An RE innovation community with the focus or centered concept on the consumer or user of energy “supports new product-system design and development to promote more rapid adoption and carbon-saving use of energy efficient and renewable technologies in homes...” (Caird & Roy, 2008). The literature review concludes the theoretical framework portion of this document. The proceeding chapter will describe the measurement utilized to address the research questions.   48 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 3.0 Dimensions of User Perceptions Whereas a literature review can show ‘objective’ facts, see above analyses of renewable energy market and user contribution systems, it is equally important to look at perceptions. Users may not see things as they are. For this purpose a questionnaire was developed. As statistical method Factor Analysis was chosen because it is appropriate, for data reduction it was used to condense 22 branding for non-profit organizations related statements, see Table 2. Table 2: Total Variance Explained Com Initial Eigen values  Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings  Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings  pone Total  % Of  Cumulative %  Total  % Of Variance  Cumulative  Total  % Of  Cumulative  nt  Variance  %  Variance  %  1  3.125  14.207  14.207  3.125  14.207  14.207  2.171  9.867  9.867  2  2.309  10.497  24.704  2.309  10.497  24.704  2.128  9.672  19.539  3  2.064  9.380  34.084  2.064  9.380  34.084  1.984  9.017  28.556  4  1.792  8.144  42.228  1.792  8.144  42.228  1.928  8.764  37.320  5  1.473  6.696  48.924  1.473  6.696  48.924  1.733  7.877  45.197  6  1.401  6.366  55.290  1.401  6.366  55.290  1.694  7.698  52.895  7  1.245  5.657  60.948  1.245  5.657  60.948  1.500  6.818  59.712  8  1.222  5.554  66.501  1.222  5.554  66.501  1.494  6.789  66.501  9  .967  4.395  70.897              10  .849  3.860  74.757              11  .843  3.832  78.589              12  .694  3.156  81.745              13  .690  3.137  84.882              14  .610  2.773  87.656              15  .570  2.592  90.247              16  .464  2.108  92.355              17  .423  1.924  94.279              18  .369  1.676  95.955              19  .285  1.297  97.251              20  .237  1.079  98.331              21  .197  .893  99.224              22  .171  .776  100.000              Extraction Method: Principal Component              Analysis    49 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. The statements centered around two main concepts: branding and user contribution systems. Above result, after Varimax rotation, showed that 22 statements can be narrowed down to 8 major dimensions explaining 66.5% of variance. The range of variance explanation ranges from (6.8%) for factor eight to (9.9%) for factor one in the rotated (Varimax version). Besides the importance of the factor itself it is even more interesting, looking at the statements that loaded high on each factor, see Table 3.       50 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Table 3: Rotated Component Matrix Component Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Designers .697 -.045 -.153 -.020 -.002 .223 -.189 .028 Supplychain .695 .092 .133 -.029 -.098 .082 .013 -.131 Handson .678 .038 .157 .100 -.020 -.039 -.019 .117 User_content .487 .442 -.195 .019 .040 .132 -.036 -.168 Leave .122 -.838 .002 -.006 -.117 .191 .103 -.012 Brand .198 .733 .127 .269 .078 .126 -.077 -.134 Webinars .144 .550 -.179 .340 -.163 -.120 .343 .066 Brand_televlsion .083 -.025 .865 .132 -.125 .069 -.017 .177 Brand_advertising .025 .004 .858 -.060 .122 -.002 .131 -.019 Residential .036 .274 .069 .724 -.131 .224 -.138 .201 Tradeshow .222 .134 -.274 .699 -.002 -.269 .159 -.067 Renewables -.130 .023 .256 .692 .086 .160 -.216 -.116 NONPROFIT_Brand -.088 .031 -.189 -.093 .881 .066 .076 .038 Brand_important -.061 .179 .182 -.012 .724 -.108 -.304 -.055 Control_brand .091 -.145 .197 .260 .456 .142 .307 -.262 network_cost .108 -.032 .065 -.031 -.116 .812 -.095 -.127 Brand_comp_adv .138 -.048 -.007 .167 .174 .784 .073 .201 all_ok -.129 -.142 .086 -.099 -.043 -.084 .753 .013 need_gov .440 -.305 -.057 .247 .038 -.155 -.537 -.005 Networkcost .256 .141 .260 .141 .188 -.184 .084 .660 Network -.142 -.308 .084 .035 -.084 .124 .237 .649 NONPROFIT_Compete .092 .019 .064 .136 .151 -.085 .308 -.578 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Design, Supply chain and Hands-on show high loadings. They constitute factor 1, the most important dimension.   As mentioned, Factor Analysis resulted in 8 dimensions. High loadings are marked in bold, see Table 3. In the following chapter, the author named these dimensions and tried to find explanations. The interpretation of the results from the measurement will follow in the next chapter. Defining the user perception dimensions uncovered from the measurement results will determine the practical usefulness of this discussion. 4.0 Interpretation of Dimensions 4.1 Innovation Community - Product The term ‘Innovation Community’ maybe a good representation for the high loadings of Designers / Supplychain / Handson, see Table 3.   51 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Designers drive the integration of the RE technology (demand), the supply chain and distribution of the products, the channels drives integration of technology (supply), and the ability to have full access to the technology to experiment will drive technology into the marketplace (laboratory). The ‘designer’ statement was: ‘The actual Architects / Electrical Designers / HVAC designers will drive the integration of renewable energy products into mass market in the U.S.A.’ Apart from ‘Designers’ two more variables correlate highly with factor 1, i.e. the dimension Innovation Community. Designers and supply chain members working together creating a dynamic learning environment that revolves around the basic function of learning by doing. Linking innovation community with renewable energy is positive. The multi-stakeholders would be open or accepting of these two items. The product and service concept is large in scope. The product or service of this innovation community is information on how to create an alternative to the centralized power grid and how to implement the massive scale change required to make building structures increased efficiency. Innovation Community will regulate the product of information within the network on the topic of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The stakeholders perceive this to be a dimension of a renewable energy non-profit. Need to determine the segment in the market that wants an enhanced product in terms of energy; or as marketing expert Theodore Levitt once (Forbes, 2003) told his M.B.A. students at Harvard: "People don't want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole." The Renewable Energy innovation community is perceived to be congruent with the stakeholder’s perceptions. This community will incorporate the critical segments involved in the decision making of buildings, their suppliers all put connected by the way of hands on learning lab environments. The stakeholders perceive this to be the RE innovation community that will yield positive impact. Looking to literature this could be considered an active system. Furthermore, this community could implement more user centric labs as discussed in the literature, the use of wiki’s would be extremely valuable to the RE innovation community.   52 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 4.2 Illusion of choice - Placement Illusion of choice <= leave / brand Illusion of choice, consists of the variables that consumers in certain cultures are often responsive to brand placement in movies. Combined with, the current energy commodity being controlled by ‘big’ business, no illusion of choice for the stakeholders. Branding and movies is big business just look to Iron Man, Dark Night, and Avatar – most recent movies that were box office marketing partnerships. Iron Man got synergies from its marketing partners and an estimated $50 million of additional marketing exposure. It worked with notable companies such as Audi, LG, Burger King and 7- Eleven and ultimately gave back more to its sponsors with highly visible branded integrations in the movie. ‘The Dark Knight’ had a wider list of marketing partners that included Nokia, Verizon, Comcast, Domino's, Giorgio Armani, Xbox 360, Hershey and General Mills, and incorporated highly organic brand integrations on its website (Young, 2008). The high loading suggests that stakeholders could respond to renewable energy brands if integrated into a movie context. Therefore the Non-profit – innovation community should brand and invest appropriately in marketing partnerships. The stakeholders want to have a ‘choice’ in the energy sector and they demand change in the energy market place. Therefore, RE companies can invest in marketing their mission in a movie or any civic event, the stakeholders will respond. The brands are familiar and the movie setting is attractive in that it furthers the brands emotional connection to the audience. Specific cultures may respond greater than others to branding in movies. “First, brands are entangled in an inescapable spatial association. As an identifiable kind or variety of good or service, a brand is constituted of values or ‘equity’…” (Aaker, 1996) such as associations, awareness, loyalty, origin and perceived quality –that are imbued to varying degrees and in differing ways by spatial connections and connotations. As a process that works to articulate, connect, enhance and represent the facets and cues embodied in brands in meaningful ways, branding too is enmeshed in and cannot rid itself of geographical associations and contexts (Pike, 2009). The stakeholders want to make a choice on the energy product and would respond to branding placed in a movie.   53 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Movies, if crafted properly, appeal or connect to the human emotions. Depending on which emotions are favored based on cultural perceptions and ideologies, will determine the amount of sales recorded for the production. Extending brands into a movie is then to consider an appropriate placement of the brand to further the customer engagement. Furthermore, the stakeholders want to be engaged on the topic of energy and that engagement can come in the form of a brand placed into a movie setting. Being the stakeholders perception of the energy market is in need of change, and should not be left to big business, perhaps introducing or familiarizing the stakeholders in the setting of a movie would attract them to the RE innovation community brand. Connecting with the stakeholders in the movie theater is a very discrete method to enter and connect on an emotional level on the sensitive subject of energy alternatives. The concept of combining the stakeholders openness to change in the energy market combined with the setting of a movie fits well together. The stakeholders perceive this to be a setting that would yield a response to the brand if placed in this setting. 4.3 Signal Processing – Placement Signal Processing <= Brand Television / Brand Advertising Signal Processing consists, of the variables, high brand awareness can only be communicated by way of advertising combined with, brand awareness is best communicated by television. Consumers are now bombarded with choices. They are ‘commercials veterans’, inundated with up to 1,500 pitches a day. Far from being gullible and easily manipulated, they are cynical about marketing and less responsive to entreaties to buy. "Consumers are like roaches," says Jonathan Bond and Richard Kirshenbaum in their book ‘Under the Radar, Talking to Today's Cynical Consumer’. "We spray them with marketing, and for a time it works. Then, inevitably, they develop an immunity, a resistance..."(Economist, 2001). The means by which a brand is delivered to the consumer base for the most return on a marketing budget has been historically by television advertisements. The Branding activity for much of the 20th century has been predominantly via television and advertising. Television, by nature, was technology that limited the interactivity from marketer to end-user, and therefore placement of the advertising was   54 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA critical to match the entertainment content. Consumers that tuned into nightly content for entertainment paid for this service with their attention to the brand containing advertisements (Godin, 2003). As such only a few participants could promote or place advertisements communicating to the audience as the time allotment was limited and the price for this time was sold at a premium. Conversely, in an age of increased interactivity from product to consumer the innovation communities central brand placement on television is less of a requirement. The web 2.0 long tail of the web connections displaces the reliance on television advertising communicating brand information. Furthermore, “at a time when the big six US television networks have recorded absolute falls in ad spending, online social network ad spending is forging ahead — a current spend of $ 525,000 on MySpace and $ 200,000 on other general social network sites like Facebook, Bebo, Piczo and Friendster, and all the signs are that these sums will grow exponentially in the coming years…” (Uncles, 2009). However, "hybrid ads," as IAG (Hampp, 2008) labeled them, allow the network to plug a show, as well as the marketer's involvement, during the first commercial in the pod. Bravo scored five of the year's top 20 most-recalled hybrid ads, while BlueFly.com's sponsorship of this season's ‘Project Runway’ scored the highest brand recall of 2007, with a score of 195 on IAG's index. (According to IAG, 100 is an average recall score on the index) (Hampp, 2008). Possibly a two stage process to circulate the brand message via the web is the first step to gain attention, grow the network, and engage consumers. Second step would occur at the point when the network brand recognition garners a value that translates to a substantial equity of the brand. Then at that time, the innovation community can promote the brand via the centralized and very high priced television medium, either as full-length traditional ad spots or as hybrid ads. Therefore, the goal is to determine the preferred manner in which the current stakeholder processes the brand information, either by single source or by the network. “The democratization of access to information means that consumers have enhanced self- confidence in their ability to perform behaviors related to consumption” (Uncles, 2008).    This increased connectivity and low barrier to information challenges the previous format for signal processing of brand information and puts new requirements on specifically   55 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA how, when, and where the brand message will be accepted. The stakeholder perception tells that getting the placement of the RE innovation community brand correct is critical. Television advertising is very influential in terms of positive feedback. However, as the literature stated, non-profits have many concerns that differ from the for-profit company. Advertising first and foremost is influential and advertising by television is influential and costly. These two points could prove to be a hurdle for the non-profit RE innovation community. Possibly, looking to commodity branding and partnering with a for profit company and creating the advertising for television of the non-profit RE innovation community would prove to get achieve high response rates. 4.4 The RenewShow - Placement The RenewShow <= Residential / Trade show / Renewables The RenewShow, consists of the variables residential home demand is considered a critical driver for the integration of new renewable energy and energy efficiency products. Combined with, trade shows have been an effective medium to connect suppliers of emerging technology to market needs. Lastly, renewable energy products involve tweaking or adapting a residence or building to vertically integrate the concept of energy in one’s home or business. The trade show is the safe zone the fabricated arena under which the producers or service providers can showcase their brand presence in a controlled and regulated manner (Friedman, 2004). Each one of the members that typically would attend the trade show for the particular product need to conduct a similar promotion campaign to connect with the market needs. The network can capitalize on improved connection efficiency and less overhead by the web-based innovation community. Tradeshows are the product of business needs for social interaction and relationship building, via brand engagement to complete the sales process, at last count there were more than 14,000 trade shows held in North America annually (Hosford, 2007). The key deliverable of a trade show is not the booths or the hundreds of pieces of promotional junk that one walks away with, but rather the real message of the trade show is in the social networking that occurs by the participants running the booths and how   56 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA exactly they communicate with the customer, supplier or distributor, and the need to follow up on the contacts made (Hosford, 2007). An experiment to move away from traditional tradeshow environment has already been attempted when, “…engineers and chipmakers from 40 different countries recently gathered for the first virtual tradeshow ever held within the semiconductor community. Roughly 1,200 participants from 600 different companies met over the internet during the week of May 22...” (Demers, 2000).   Placement of a RE innovation community brand at the residential home consumer level would yield considerable customer engagement. Point of sale placement is extremely important to the RE innovation community brand to reach a broader audience. The renewshow dimension to the stakeholders is the wiki concept brought to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Bringing the products to focus more upon the customer and the ‘how-to’ needs in the home and utilizing the trade show atmosphere for the brand placement would be accepted by the stake holder perceptions. 4.5 B^3 - Promotion B^3 <= Nonprofit Brand / Nonprofit important B^3, consists of the variables, a non-profit should have a recognizable brand, and branding a renewable energy company is important. Branding is one method to promote the mission of the nonprofit, as literature confirms. Currently, many renewable energy promotion organizations exist, but only targeting selected segments within a narrow geographical region. Therefore once the segments are studied and understood, promotion events to bring the two segments together for common innovation will be the natural or evolutionary step. The RE Non-profit should consider branding at all costs, as the stakeholders will respond. Therefore for high engagement for the RE innovation community it should just brand its service. Literature uncovers the different types of branding that can be implemented for this non-profit. Possibly a mixture of the different types can be implemented for the largest return on financial and social investment. The RE innovation community could chose to brand as a commodity and select a for-profit brand and leverage the transfer effect from the co-branding experience. The RE innovation community could leverage   57 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA the for-profit’s financial resources and established equity to create space in the brand- scape promoting its mission. A brand for the RE innovation community will be accepted by the stakeholders as the response from the perception survey indicates. Further research would need to be conducted to directly pinpoint which specific brand attributes would yield the most engagement from the targeted segments. However, simply looking to the literature as guide leads the RE innovation community to brand as a gender-neutral brand, attracting both gender’s to the brand. 4.6 Real Deal - Price Real Deal <= Network_cost / Brand comp adv Real Deal, combines the variables of, network can increase the cost of membership if the brand is valued and a strong brand is a source of competitive advantage. The price barrier to enter the network is critical to the subscription rate increase. As the literature stated joining a group that has a core product and service of circulating information should not have a cost, if there is a cost for membership the group or network becomes like all other linear entities that already exist, exclusive and will limit the amount of content of information. Which potentially will leave the door open for missing mistakes in the information.   The cost is the gatekeeper to the network. Justice is accepted as central to the well functioning of society with fairness being an expectation in day-to-day interactions. Outcomes that are perceived to be unfair can result in protests, damaged relationships and divided communities particularly when decisions are made which benefit some sections of the community at the perceived expense of others (Gross, 2007). Setting a price to membership to the community reinforces the concept of innovation is gained only through a centralized controlled organization. The feedback cycle of a price exclusive group is too long for the speed of information. “Effective open strategy will balance value capture and value creation, instead of losing sight of value capture during the pursuit of innovation. Open strategy is an important approach for those who wish to lead through innovation” (Chesbrough &   58 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Appleyard, 2007). The previous system of feedback was governed by the centralized and hierarchical information and price exclusivity, product and social structure, which fostered the in-group and out-group and cost was typically the reinforcing this condition. Setting the price at the appropriate point is extremely critical for the RE innovation community. While the literature continually states that price to entry will destroy the community (Cook, 2008), it must be also understood that a community with value can garner compensation for the value gained by access to the community. For example having different access rights to the community can create the ability for different price points. The ability to read and write information could effectively be one level of price point. Whereas to read a specific set of information could be another albeit, lower to none price point for access the community. The price points will effectively create the in-group and out-group and hierarchy structure that typically defines centrally controlled organizations, and therefore it is hyper-critical that the RE innovation community define from the beginning the access rights and price point structure to the users and potential network members. The data suggests that stakeholders perceive the price of the potential RE innovation community of extreme importance. Therefore, based upon the operational cost structure of the RE innovation community and the value proposition and perceived value to the network member, a pricing model could be established and published for the potential community members. The transparency in the cost structure at how the price was derived could potentially create even more value for the potential network member. The transparency would compliment the non-profit’s mission in that it would reinforce the agenda of incubating RE and energy efficiency technologies to the market place. 4.7 The Man – Incumbent power The Man <= all ok The Man is a single variable, stated as the current energy and energy efficiency market functions appropriately. Make no changes to the energy and energy efficiency market. The stakeholders, do they consider that the energy market is malleable like information, in a web content-based economy? “Before you believe the naysayers who   59 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA lambast the government’s efforts at revamping our nation’s energy infrastructure, it is important to remember that over the last one hundred years the federal government has consistently provided financial support to promote the development of new energy technologies deemed critical to our national security and the national interest. As critics of government support of renewable energy so often ignored, over the last six years alone the fossils fuels industry has had a little help from the federal government — nearly $73 billion worth in tax breaks — while the renewable energy industry has received less than half that…”(Plaza, 2009). As information has permeated into many of the sectors of the market place causing many of the marketers to at least get on the internet and look up the term social networking. The incumbent in the energy distribution has had the fortunate position of simply creating a brand image, similar to milk or beef. As long as the lights continue to stay on the brand matter of fact and it is what it is. And further more, with no real competition and heavy subsidization along the value chain as long as electric per hour remain relatively manageable within the average working persons monthly income, typically no one in the mainstream is really itching to switch away from this time and trusted brand. The grid as it is known today is the off shoot of years of trial and error and years of on going subsidies that has propped up the centralized power grid in the name of national security. “Would the dams at the Niagara Falls or Grand Coulee have been built by a group of ambitious entrepreneurs and a handful of angel investors? It took a combination of entrepreneurial spirit, back-breaking labor, long term vision and investments by the federal government to create a network of regional — and ultimately national — power generation facilities that literally supplied the energy for our country‘s growing economy and helped propel us to global leadership and prosperity” (Plaza, 2009). There is data that demonstrates the viability of competition to the centralized grid in regions or nations where power quality is not a high as in the North American market. The power typically has periodic outages and as such the alternatives for power generation locally become more of a market competitor. So what is the cost of continuous power, the real cost in terms of economic and social value? For example, in Yilmaz’ s (2008) article there is mention of an educational campus located in Gebze, Turkey. Here, the investigation is looking into, “a supply-side option with existing time   60 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA of use tariff may provide a cost effective energy production, particularly for the high penetration level of the renewables” (Yilmaz et al, 2008). This is in reference to ‘grid connected renewable energy plants’. The brand of the RE innovation community must demonstrate the incredible cost of centralized power, in terms of impact on the individual. The brand must be able to communicate more than just being green, it must truly embody what centralized power is, freedom. Power alternatives meeting multiple segments provide more options improving efficiency. The brand must educate the consumer to the fallacy of low end user cost of centralized continuous power. In the U.S.A., an individualistic based society, having a critical component to personal freedom centrally controlled, seems very at odds with the dogma of democracy. The RE innovation community brand has a very large opportunity to take market share from incumbent by promoting this brand element. This user perception dictates the specific personality of the brand for the RE innovation community. Based upon the value proposition, once defined, of the RE innovation community this would determine the starting point for the brand that is to directly challenge the status quo, the incumbent in the energy sector. Based upon the geography of the location where the brand for the RE innovation community is to be promoted this user perception will dictate the brand element to harness the most engagement from the market stakeholders. The market’s local perception of energy and its relationship to energy consumption will effectively be the driver for this user perception. Globally, this user perception will vary dramatically.   4.8 Value for you – Price / Promotion Value for you <= Network cost / Network Value for you, consists of the variables: network membership should always be low and a network or association provides no value to an established company. The point is then what value does the network actually provide, all the connections are defined, the network we are referring to is typically a network in an established industrial sector, like the builders association, the products and the skills and the client base network is already established the goal of the trade association is then to act as the connector to support   61 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA business in the association with the perks of membership maybe a quality statement or brand that communicates authentic service or product. That brand or association logo communicates a reliable and trusted partner for the potential client to perform a business transaction. The trade association is the network of the linear un-networked information in a controlled economy. The linear annual revision type of innovative structure centrally controlled allowing consumers incremental glimpses of improvement instead of continuous improvement. The associations had membership fees and that was seen as a cost of doing business for the member business, similar to paying taxes. But as the association grew in size and members, the hierarchy mechanism consumes the association and the loudest members voice is head and thus communicates the direction or issues the association will tackle. Perhaps the cost or price point to be admitted to the association is the limiting factor. The trade association, fosters the in and out group which reinforces central control by a few which reduces the heterogeneity of the information which essentially reduces the strength or ability for the association to adapt to change and reduces flexibility on dynamic issues. The in-group promotes the status quo. The out-group out wants change and the information and power to effect change remains centralized to a selected few to maintain the status quo system. The RE innovation community brand must address this and leverage the numbers of individuals in the out-group and demonstrate the power that is available to them in the innovation community. One form observed of an in and out group in the measurement results is along gender lines. The following chapter will discuss the user perception differences along gender lines. 5.0 Gender Differences Factor analysis results showed that user’s perception could be broken down into 8 major dimensions. The results were based on the whole sample. Literature review, see figure 3, leads to hypothesis that relevant gender differences, in the context of this research topic, exit. To determine whether male and female differences are statistically significant (at a 95% level) a t-test was conducted. For detailed results, see Section B.   62 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The result of this test was that the variables leave and network are viewed differently by men and women see Table 4. • The variable, Network = A network or Association provides no value to an established company. • The variable, Leave = Energy, renewable or non-renewable is a commodity that should be left to big business and government. Women have, are, and continue to be the minority in the big business of energy. Compared to their male counterparts, they think that networks/associations can provide value (‘group orientation’), and the energy issue should not be left to the government/big businesses (‘involvement’). Possibly this difference demonstrates the significance of the power of the current energy business and how the incumbents wield control. These incumbents and key supply chain members are organizations that historically are male operated industrial sectors. Therefore, women more strongly disagree that energy business should NOT be left to the status quo men, but rather perceive the concept to allow for change to have a chance and a woman’s perspective or sensibility to approach this portion of this economy. The difference here could possibly be that women responded more strongly to disagree with this statement based on the word NO in the original statement in the survey. The combination of the word network and association and no could possibly signal to woman a strong negative reaction. Based upon already performed research women are more collective in general than men. A network or an association could represent more the female interests than that of the man. Perhaps renewable energy products and organizations should have marketing directed to women. The innovation community RE could brand in the male centered version, but the brand must fit so that a feminine extension will fit as well. The brand of the RE innovation community must meet both genders. More research is needed here to identify stakeholder reaction to specific RE community brands.   63 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Table 4: Gender Differences Gend N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error er Mean NONPROFIT_Compete M 46 5.24 1.608 .237 F 28 4.89 1.750 .331 NONPROFIT_Brand M 46 5.93 1.511 .223 F 28 6.14 1.268 .240 Brand_important M 46 6.35 .971 .143 F 28 6.43 .836 .158 User_content M 46 5.59 1.343 .198 F 28 5.64 1.224 .231 Brand_advertising M 46 4.00 2.076 .306 F 28 3.71 1.922 .363 Brand_televlsion M 46 3.46 1.906 .281 F 28 2.89 1.663 .314 Networkcost M 46 4.80 1.544 .228 F 28 5.11 1.449 .274 Brand_comp_adv M 46 6.26 1.144 .169 F 28 6.18 1.249 .236 Control_brand M 46 5.17 1.717 .253 F 28 5.00 1.540 .291 network_cost M 45 4.53 1.358 .203 F 28 4.86 1.737 .328 Brand M 45 5.18 1.248 .186 F 28 5.57 1.814 .343 Network M 46 2.04 1.316 .194 F 28 1.96 1.201 .227 Supplychain M 46 5.41 1.185 .175 F 28 5.25 1.236 .234 Tradeshow M 46 4.93 1.237 .182 F 28 5.50 1.374 .260 Webinars M 46 5.13 1.222 .180 F 28 5.54 .962 .182 Renewable M 45 4.67 1.477 .220 F 28 4.18 1.362 .257 Residential M 46 4.22 1.474 .217   64 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA F 28 4.86 1.458 .276 Handson M 46 5.15 1.282 .189 F 28 5.11 .994 .188 Leave M 46 2.11 1.320 .195 F 28 1.89 1.166 .220 need_gov M 46 4.98 1.667 .246 F 28 5.25 1.578 .298 Designers M 46 4.50 1.574 .232 F 28 4.86 1.008 .190 all_ok M 45 2.62 1.642 .245 F 28 1.93 1.184 .224 Included in the analysis of the measurement results, geographical groupings were discovered. The following chapter will interpret graphically as well as with text the geographic clusters discovered during the analysis. 6.0 Geographical Grouping Method for grouping was a cluster analysis resulting in two clusters country clusters. The Netherlands (NL) is predominantly represented in cluster ONE as is the United States (U.S.A.) in cluster TWO. The results are based on a Likert scale ranging from one to seven for each survey statement. Seven being most agreement and one being least agreement with, and four being neutral to the statement. As mentioned, cluster ONE is dominated by NL (including some other European countries) cluster TWO by U.S.A. see Figure 14.   65 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Figure 14: Cluster country distribution The following analysis looks at significant mean difference between cluster one and cluster two.   66 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 6.1 Gift Economy Figure 15: Cluster variable User_content User generated content (ex. YouTube videos / Facebook content) can add value to a brand. User generated content is directly from the individual, the consumer of energy. One, NL respondents do not react favorably to words Youtube and Facebook possibly other user generated sites are used. Whereas in the U.S.A., the respondents react more positively to this statement that states user generated content adds value. Could be the difference manifested between managerial oriented societies, process driven like NL versus entrepreneurial oriented society like the U.S.A. This qualitative data point looks to state that the U.S.A. stakeholder response to brands will be more positive than NL via social media in the area of RE innovation community brands.   67 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Potentially, the respondents from these two unique cultures view social media in different manners. In the U.S.A., the respondents are more likely to utilize social networking sites for business and learning. 6.2 Community Cost Figure 16: Cluster Networkcost A network can increase the cost of membership if the brand is valued. The difference in the clusters demonstrates that NL respondents react with more neutrality than the U.S.A. respondents. The U.S.A. respondents may feel with value there always exists a cost! NL may simply not see the link between value and cost as written in the survey statement and may simply focus on the word cost and react more negatively as the data demonstrates.   68 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Another perspective on this distinct difference between the clusters is that U.S.A. respondents feel culturally any time a group gathers under an institutionalized logo, a brand, that it is acceptable to hand over hard-earned money. The data could suggest that if an organization desires to earn money, get money, from stakeholders in the U.S.A. all it really needs to do is to create a nice looking brand. Conversely, in the Netherlands, the respondents response to a membership or group gathering strictly on the grounds of the gathering is supported by a logo, a brand, that event is less likely to take in revenue. This qualitative data point could suggest that the two countries respondent’s differing perspective on the core of what brings community together. The higher response from the USA respondents suggests that in order for people to be together, if they are not family, they must be spending money. This concept could be explored further in a study area called ‘third place’. The areas in people’s lives are dominated by two areas mainly, one’s home and the area where one does commercial activity (the place of business or procurement of goods and services). However, there exists this concept of a third place, and the understanding of this concept could be supported by this data point difference between the two country’s respondents. A branding program for an RE innovation community possibly will not be as successful in the Netherlands as compare to a potentially higher success rate in the U.S.A.     69 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 6.3 Brand Figure 17: Cluster Brand Placement of a renewable energy brand in a movie would be cool. Respondents from the U.S.A. like to be entertained, spoon-fed choices to select from, whereas Dutch are more ideological and like information in the pure and appropriate setting, not packaged in a movie or so the assumption goes. The commodity of energy or energy efficiency is not a topic to promote to the Dutch in the setting of a movie, as their responsiveness will be less than brand engagement than in the U.S.A. Dutch perhaps are less responsive to product positioning and advertisements in movies. Whereas U.S.A. respondents identify with the product placement or brand in the movie setting and react positively, thus purchasing or giving more value to the brand promoted in the movie setting. Brands to U.S.A. respondents are viewed to be tacitly implied in one’s reference frame as breathing air during exercise. Brands in the institutional framework sense are   70 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA viewed by U.S.A. respondents to be the emotional engagement for connection to the commercial world. Brands for the U.S.A. respondents are viewed as the guide to comfort in a chaotic world. Therefore, it is a logical step for the U.S.A. respondents to accept brand placement in a movie that they will be attending. The brand placement in the movie creates the experience that the concept communicated by the logo, is real to the emotional sense from which they make a majority of their commercial decisions. Whereas in the Netherlands a brand placed in a movie will be less well received than the U.S.A. counterpart stakeholders. 6.4 Renewables Figure 18: Cluster Renewables New renewable energy products are easy to implement into building construction designs. Dutch could have reacted more neutral less positive to the word ‘easy’ as the   71 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA respondents may not be informed and thus gave the honest opinion. Where as the U.S.A., even if equally uninformed responded more positively, the ‘glass half full’. The myth that American’s will rally quickly and unite around a central cause if the message is ‘easy’ and understood in basic terms could be revealed in this data point. 6.5 Residential Figure 19: Cluster Residential Residential home demand drives the integration of new renewable energy products. The NL stakeholder response is more negative to the statement ‘residential’ could be attributed to a few things. One item that could influence in particular is the idea of the residential home driving demand in the U.S.A. Homeownership and specifically residential is often seen to be the driver of much of the economic activity in the US. The tax structure and incentives are not set up the same as in the U.S.A. The taxation system in the U.S.A. encourages debt to gain financial wealth and one sure method to go into   72 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA debt is to take on a home mortgage. In the U.S.A. the home was always promoted by the banking sector as a tool for the homeowner to leverage the equitable value and thus treating their home as a bank to increase their net asset value of their personal financial status. The residential home to Americans is considered to be equivalent to one’s identity. The home for most American’s is the personal brand identity., that personal statement of independence and personal freedom. For American society, the home, collectively, is a barometer for the health of the society. For the NL counterparts, this same sentiment is not echoed. Perhaps for the NL stakeholders, the idea of independence begins first within one’s own thoughts, the concept of self. The home is a place for the family and to raise a family. This key difference could be demonstrated in the data point on this particular statement. 6.6 Learn by doing Figure 20: Cluster Handson   73 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA ‘Hands on’ product application training is the most effective means to increase familiarity of renewable energy technology. Possibly the data confirms the U.S.A. promotion of workshops that actively engage the participants such as, promoting learning by doing. This is the opposite of the practice of the Dutch. Learning is not necessarily best by doing. Doing causes or consumes resources, and resources are less plentiful in the mind of the Dutch as opposed to the mind or culture of the American. Resources are more plentiful in the consciousness of the American and thus learning by doing is a very natural extension to be promoted to gain growth in an area that is not currently performing optimally. This explanation plays well with the data found in the cluster above. The Americans more positively respond to the ‘hands on’ and training statement than the Dutch respondents.   74 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 6.7 Support Figure 21: Cluster Leave Energy, renewable or nonrenewable is a commodity that should be left to big business and government. The energy markets in Europe and the U.S.A. have been historically considered a concern of the state. However, in the U.S.A., the respondent data from the stakeholders desires the power to be in the ‘market’ and less in the government. In the U.S.A., the belief is to be a market function is most efficient and most effective at meeting the needs of the individual. This again is based upon the taxation structure for individuals. The state through regulation and taxation finalizes a price that is suited to the level of income of the people. Perhaps the government of the Netherlands is held to more closely resemble the electorate demands. The best interest of the overall population is actually being served by the choices made at the governing level. The government is more representative of the general population; this could be the   75 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA race to top approach to regulation of the Netherlands, or the perception of the race to the top (note recent articles on Netherlands being a tax haven). Where as in the U.S.A., the opposite is commonly perceived. The race to the bottom is the perception of the peoples place with the government regulation. As such the people or stakeholders have less of trust or confidence in the government doing what is best for the individual. As a ‘race to the bottom’ regulation put forth by a government, does not represent the people’s best interest and thus, by leaving the government in charge to centrally manage and direct local energy policy is indeed out of line with personal benefit. 6.8 Need for Government Figure 22: Cluster Need_gov Renewable energy needs governmental support to be viable and integrate into the market place in the U.S. U.S.A. respondents are demanding an expansion of government   76 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA when clearly the U.S.A. is typically a market-based, laissez-faire belief system society. Where as the NL feels ‘everything’ is working ok. This demonstrates the reality and view of the government in both societies among a general sample size. But as the qualitative finding preceding this statement found this too could be a representation of the stakeholder’s perception of the manifestation of the race to the bottom regulation in the U.S.A. vs. the race to the top regulation in the Netherlands. Expanding of the government not for corporations but expanding to suit the individual needs could be the meaning behind the above data. The U.S.A. stakeholders are demonstrating in the data that currently the governmental support is supporting the infrastructure of the incumbents in the energy industry. The incumbent’s motives and agenda is not representative of the people’s best interests. That is what the data could be saying. The Dutch feel on the other hand that less government support is needed to integrate RE technologies, perhaps the government is already large enough and taxing heavy enough and this already is the right size to roll out RE technologies if it is best for the Dutch citizens.   77 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 6.9 Designers Figure 23: Cluster Designers Architects / Electrical Designers / HVAC designers will drive the integration of the renewable energy products. Again, the Dutch do not feel qualified to answer such a specific question and answer in the neutral. Whereas, in the U.S.A., the stakeholders look to the glass half full.   78 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 6.10 Conventional Wisdom Figure 24: Cluster All_ok   The current energy and energy efficiency market functions appropriately. Make no changes to energy market. In NL heavy tax burdens historically have made the oil economy costly. Energy and renewable solutions could be viewed more likely as a function of the state in NL. And truly see the energy market for what it is, or is it the effect of the heavy taxation of the oil economy in Europe with less taxation of the oil economy in America. Possibly because the US the government does not have the individual at the primary of the policies on energy, the response from the US cluster is much more negative than the Dutch cluster. The Dutch have the benefit or burden of taxation and through that heavy taxation the people’s demands are met. In the US the tax burden is on the individual of middle income, but the benefits of this taxation are not realized, uniformly. Thus leaving the system more influenced by the volatility of the market. This volatility directly impacts communities. Further reinforcing the in-group vs.   79 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA out-group conflict. Fostering the endless hope of entering the in-group or creating their own in-group based off their personal contribution or creation. The energy grid in NL is moving progressing away from non-renewable production with a higher penetration of decentralized energy production. This data point could represent the difference between the differences in economic cost burden loading. A front load, pay all social and state tax burdens up front or a back load, with hidden or selectable costs. The concept of living in a trailer park in the U.S.A., to avoid taxation burdens could be an exemplary example of this in action. To live with least burden of taxation, it is possible in the U.S.A., if a life style, is chosen. In the Netherlands, there is no choice of lifestyle, the tax burden is inescapable. More research is needed in this area. Defining and describing the qualitative results was important to the analysis it is very important for the author’s to demonstrate the practical application of the results. This application was in the form of an equation. The network equation is an attempt to serve as a reference for organizations starting a firm in an area where no market for their product or service exists. This equation combined with a regression plot is to demonstrate the ‘real world’ application of the data analyzed and or begin the discussion of an area where this type of analysis could be used in future research. 7.0 Further Qualitative Findings   To further understand the implications of branding upon the community network, the respondent data was used to create the beginnings of measurement for looking to network value. The formula was designed to use the stakeholder responses as independent variables and use the respondent data as the range over which the output would be measured against. The independent variable utilized for this first pass at the measurement were brand equity combined with value of the innovation community. The dependent variables were brand_important, control_brand, network_cost, and supply chain. The theory of the formula is that network membership (equity and value) is a function of branding of the RE innovation the method of control for the brand of the community. In addition, the cost of the network membership, barrier to entry for information and which target segment’s contribution will add value.   80 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 7.1 Network Equation   The author analyzed whether networks and associations are considered as helpful. The original statement was: ‘A network or association provides no value to an established company’ on a 1-7 Likert scale. A linear regression analysis showed following predictors:   Network = 2.354 – 0.79 Brand_important – 0.464 Control_Brand + 0.016 Network_cost – 0.566 Supplychain     A network has a value and adds that value to an organization seeking value under specific conditions. The formula demonstrates that the value of a network will respond inversely to the quantities described by the remaining variables in the equation. A network has less value when a brand is centrally controlled and the brand is important and there exists a well-connected supply chain. Description of variables: • Network > Network can add value to a company • Brand_important > Brand’s are important for renewable energy companies • Control_Brand > Marketing departments should or should not control brand internally • Network_cost > As value of network increases cost should increase also • Supplychain > A well-connected supply chain will add value to a network   81 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Figure 25: Network Value Cycle (Estimated)   Table 5: Network Value Cycle (Estimate) Network Brand Control_brand Network_cost Supply Important Chain 1806.354 -1000 -1000 -1000 -1000 1838.354 -1000 -1000 1000 -1000 674.354 -1000 -1000 -1000 1000 706.354 -1000 -1000 1000 1000 -905.646 1000 -1000 -1000 1000 -873.646 1000 -1000 1000 1000 -1801.646 1000 1000 1000 1000 The values from Table 5 create the graph in Figure 25, which is an estimate for a graphical ‘analogy’ for the process of moving from network to a fully branded institution. The estimated values in Table 5 display chronologically the cycle of the potential network as it transforms into an integrated branded organization. Time zero on the left of Figure 25, represents the start of the network community in the marketplace. The dark   82 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA line interpolates the value of the network variable with time as a function of the Network Equation in Section 7.1. If the sequence is repeated over an infinite time variable, the graphical analogy can begin to validate assumptions on the transition from a network to a branded organization. Further research is needed in this area, but the graphical analogy could be used to reduce speculation for an organization as where to specifically make investments in the growing organization. See appendix C for a more direct mathematical translation of the network equation. Model fit is not very good. R square is 0.224, Figure 26 shows the residuals (observed – actual) of the model.   Table 6: Coefficients Regression Model Un-standardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig. Coefficients B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 3.531 1.500 2.354 .022 Brand_important -.128 .163 -.099 -.790 .433 Control_brand -.047 .101 -.059 -.464 .644 network_cost .002 .107 .002 .016 .987 Supplychain -.083 .147 -.077 -.566 .573 renewables -.050 .124 -.056 -.401 .690 Residential .074 .117 .086 .631 .530 handson .136 .160 .118 .852 .397 need_gov -.063 .098 -.082 -.645 .521 designers -.094 .127 -.104 -.738 .463 a. Dependent Variable: network   83 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Figure 26: Regression   Now that the analysis, quantitative and qualitative have been completed, will begin the conclusion. The conclusion will link the results to the literature review and provide recommendations for future research in this area of study. 8.0 Conclusion and Recommendations The analysis began based upon a rational, that market needs in the energy and energy efficiency sector were not being met by the current market supply and or regulatory instruments. The concept of the innovation community was proposed as an option to connect the existing fragmented suppliers in this sector to the possible latent stakeholder demand. To attract participants into this on-line community, a value proposition had to be conveyed or made known to the stakeholders via some branding effort. Which led to the starting point that based upon competitive elements for attention in this sector, a brand was needed to raise a level of awareness and engage the customer.   84 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The stakeholder perception data combined with the literature review in this area begins the dialogue, at a minimum, to rationally discuss the viability of this type of innovation community if specific branding elements are deployed. The analysis has shown that stakeholder perceptions can be boiled down to 8 major dimensions. Geographical (country) as well as gender differences do exist. Predicting the perception of the participants on the usefulness of networks was inconclusive due to a low level of model fit. However, the analysis can serve as preliminary finding for further research in this area. In the literature review, it was found that most brand programs must consider the gender perspective and design brands to be more masculine than feminine. To add to this, the stakeholder perception data did uncover specific gender differences related to the control of the energy market, specifically if a network adds value or not to an organization. There is a characteristic uncovered here that needs to be analyzed further, possibly in the area of determining the specific brand and stakeholder perception characteristics that unite the genders on the topic of renewable energy engagement. Further findings in the literature were related to co-branding and how the 21st century will be the age of alliances. Branding initiatives related to brands in movies as the stake-holder perception demonstrated is an area that needs more research to determine the specific elements of promotion for an RE innovation community. As the literature explained, many for-profit companies are looking to find the appropriate non-profit to align with, leveraging the transfer effect and engage broader market participants. These two brand elements are areas where continued research would benefit and RE innovation community brand. In addition, the literature uncovered that commodity branding is a specific technique to engage customers in markets where product differentiation is low. This is an enormous opportunity for a potential RE innovation community brand, in that currently the commodity of energy is only beginning to form a brand identity in terms of green or non-green energy. The McKinsey (2009) group echoes this sentiment as well in that much in the way of sales annually and savings from improved efficiency continues un-realized. Branding, as the stake-holder perception data demonstrated, can be an   85 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA acceptable method to communicate an RE innovation community for the purpose of promoting alternative energy techniques, but clearly more research is needed here to quantify the brand elements to achieve this. Continued in the literature review, the details related to an innovation community were discussed. It was analyzed that the innovation community value grows when open innovation strategies are deployed. Different types of systems, active and passive, were discussed by Cook (2008). These two types of user contribution systems provide the beginnings of a solid framework from which to develop the RE innovation community. To uncover the details, for the actual construction, more research is required before concrete steps can be taken to create a user contribution system for a RE innovation community. Open innovation strategies will further the confidence for a possible RE innovation community in that the building blocks for open innovation were also discussed in the literature covered. The RE innovation community will benefit from the open innovation platform and e-commerce framework that O’Reilly (2005) has discussed. Open innovation is critical for the potential RE innovation community, and by creating the balance between social and commercial needs in this sector, value capture can be achieved in these types of systems. The information shared with in the potential RE innovation community will be the foundation of the gift economy acting as an incubator for the real economy in renewable and alternative energy systems.   86 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Figure 27: Renewable Energy Innovation community model In the model displayed, see Figure 27 a single transaction is shown connecting the community members along a common problem and arriving at a solution best suited for the consumer, in the middle of the circle. The amount of connections possible are a factor of the amount of member contribution in the community. The innovation community serves to educate those within the network on the rational use of energy. Based on the network equation, when there exists no other commercial structure, the network is at its strongest. The strength of this potential RE innovation community network will be in the circulation of gifts related to new innovations and basic understanding instructions for end user of electricity. Together the complex problem of living sustainably begins to take a manageable form once the information to achieve the individual network member goal’s are in a common medium, the RE innovation community. With these elements, traditional engagement devices that harness value become less of a requirement.   87 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The long tail of the internet allows the increasingly socially separated world to find the common spaces, on the network, to create and rediscover the core of humanity, social interaction by the way of exchanging digital gifts demonstrating to the other, the recipient, one’s own social value. Furthermore, the mixing of ideas in an open source forum to solve project-based problems should augment existing programs with a reduced cost and learning curve for the end user. The literature review covered the framework of the energy market in the U.S.A. While this analysis was alarming in that it is difficult to understand the gap that has occurred between technology and product implementation in this sector. However, looking to the framework of the centralized energy grid, the answers become apparent as to the source of the lack of penetration of renewable energy. Pindyck (1984) in his work on the subject stated, it is simply a result of the increased risk premium that is dependent on a stochastic supply and an assumption of in-elastic demand, that more regulation would be required to increase the present rate of deployment of renewable energy sources. For this reason, a generation of policy drafting and politics has ruled the energy market for the U.S.A. As was addressed in the literature review there are currently several options that policy makers and lobbyists have created to increase the penetration rate of renewable energy sources. However, it was also noted that many of the options on the proposal table deal specifically with increasing the regulatory environment. Decentralized energy as has been observed in the E.U. has rapidly advanced the deployment of renewable energy sources and has reduced the concern related to volatility from the environmental supply. It is specifically the microgrid concept that moves away from the Pindyck problem of in-elastic demand for the variable energy sources. The microgrid concept augments the central grid and begins to separate or segment electric loads, more research is needed to confirm this. This segmentation of the daily energy load begins to look at energy as no longer a one size fits all scenario but rather that by creating a technology that matches load to supply as a time of use, efficiency is gained and less strain is placed on the central grid, commonly referred to as demand flattening or spike suppression.   88 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA The key to engaging or awakening the market is by promoting these complex social and economic issues into a remarkable and familiar brand, which possibly can drive market actors to engage in discussions on this topic, solving RE implementation problems within the innovation community. With continued research in this area it is possible that a well branded RE innovation community is the gift economy’s answer to the real problems of the commercial world related to the energy resources of the planet. Appendix Section A – Survey (Likert Scale) For each survey statement the respondent had the following options. I completely disagree with this statement I somewhat disagree with this statement I slightly disagree with this statement I am neutral for this statement I slightly agree with this statement I somewhat agree with this statement I completely agree with this statement 1.Non-profits need to compete against other non-profits in the same industrial sector for influence to communicate their mission 2.A non-profit should have a recognizable Brand. 3.Branding a renewable energy company is important. 4.User generated content (ex. Youtube videos / Facebook content) can add value to a Brand/ 5. High brand awareness can only be achieved via advertising. 6. Brand messages are best communicated via television   89 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA 7.The cost of network membership should always be low (Network membership is similar to being enrolled in a Trade association) 8. A strong brand is a source of competitive advantage. 9.Branding of an organization should be controlled internal to the organization. 10. A network can increase the cost of membership if the brand is valued. 11.Placement of a renewable energy brand in a movie would be cool. 12.A network or association provides no value to an established company. 13. A well-connected supply chain in the building and construction industry can influence training to designers and architects 14. A tradeshow effectively connects suppliers products to market needs 15. Webinars and online content are effective in the communication of renewable energy product details. 16. New renewable energy products are easy to implement into building construction designs 17. Residential home demand drives the integration of new renewable energy products. 18.”Hands on” product application training is the most effective means to increase familiarity of renewable energy products. 19. Energy, renewable or nonrenewable is a commodity that should be left to big business and governmental control and distribution. 20. Renewable energy needs governmental support to be viable and integrate into the marketplace in the USA. 21. Architects / Electical Designers / HVAC designers will drive the integration of renewable energy products into mass market in the USA. 22.The current energy and energy efficiency market functions appropriately. Make no changes to the energy and energy efficiency market. 23. Please indicate in the space provided the following information. Company   90 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA City / town State ZiP / Postal Code Country 24. Please indicate in the space provided the following information. Gender Age Business sector you work in Section B – Group Comparisons (T-Test) Table: Data Results NONPROFIT_Compete Equal variances .039 .843 .869 72 .388 .346 .399 -.448 1.141 assumed Equal Appendix A: Independent Samples Test, t-test variances not .851 53.423 .399 .346 .407 -.470 1.162 Levene's assumed Test for NONPROFIT_Brand Equal Equality of variances .540 .465 -.609 Variances 72 .544 t-test for Equality of Means.342 -.208 -.889 .473 assumed 95% Equal Confidence variances not -.636 64.804 .527 -.208 .327 -.862 .446 Interval of assumed Sig. the Brand_important Equal (2- Std. Error Difference variances F Sig. t 1.222 .273 -.365 df 72 tailed) .716 Mean -.081 Difference Difference Lower Upper .221 -.522 .360 assumed   91 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Equal variances not -.379 63.772 .706 .451 62.017 .654 -.081 .174 .386 .213 -.597 .945 -.507 .345 assumed User_content network_cost Equal - variances 2.997 .631 -.179 .232 .088 -.889 71 72 .377 .858 -.324 -.056 .364 .311 -.677 .565 .403 1.050 assumed Equal - variances not -.840 47.269 .405 -.184 61.324 .855 -.324 -.056 .386 .304 -.665 .553 .452 1.100 assumed Brand_advertising Brand Equal - - variances 6.294 .455 .590 .563 .014 71 72 .276 .557 -.394 .286 .358 .484 -.679 1.251 .321 1.098 1.108 assumed Equal - - variances not .602 60.634 .550 42.968 .319 -.394 .286 .390 .475 -.664 1.236 .393 1.009 1.180 assumed Brand_televlsion Network Equal variances .000 .988 .259 .999 .321 1.293 72 .796 .200 .079 .564 .305 .436 -.530 .688 -.305 1.433 assumed Equal variances not 1.337 63.186 .186 .265 61.239 .792 .079 .564 .299 .422 -.518 .676 -.279 1.406 assumed Networkcost Supplychain Equal - variances .046 .831 .565 .772 .382 -.837 72 .574 .405 -.303 .163 .289 .362 -.412 .418 .738 1.024 assumed Equal - variances not -.850 60.013 .398 .559 55.267 .578 -.303 .163 .292 .356 -.421 .409 .748 1.015 assumed Brand_comp_adv Tradeshow Equal - - variances .946 .334 .038 .847 .290 72 .072 .773 -.565 .082 .309 .284 -.484 .648 .051 1.828 1.182 assumed Equal - - variances not .284 53.278 .778 52.512 .081 -.565 .082 .317 .290 -.499 .664 .071 1.781 1.202 assumed Control_brand Webinars Equal - variances .481 .490 .162 .688 .439 72 .139 .662 -.405 .174 .271 .396 -.946 .135 -.616 .964 1.494 assumed   92 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Equal - variances not 71.769 .238 67.213 .118 -.357 -.405 .300 .256 -.956 .241 -.916 .106 1.190 1.584 assumed Renewable all_ok Equal variances 6.286 .014 1.941 1.706 .196 1.414 71 .056 .162 .694 .488 .357 .345 -.019 1.406 -.200 1.177 assumed Equal variances not 2.092 69.340 .040 1.441 60.940 .155 .694 .488 .332 .339 -.189 1.166 .032 1.355 assumed Residential Equal - - variances .142 .707 72 .073 -.640 .352 .062 1.818 1.341 assumed Equal - - variances not 57.656 .074 -.640 .351 .063 1.822 1.343 assumed Handson Equal variances 2.537 .116 .159 72 .874 .045 .283 -.520 .610 assumed Equal variances not .169 67.702 .866 .045 .266 -.487 .577 assumed Leave Equal variances .016 .900 .712 72 .479 .216 .303 -.388 .820 assumed Equal variances not .734 62.703 .466 .216 .294 -.372 .803 assumed need_gov Equal - variances 1.335 .252 -.694 72 .490 -.272 .392 .509 1.052 assumed Equal - variances not -.703 59.612 .485 -.272 .386 .501 1.045 assumed Designers Equal - - variances 7.374 .008 72 .287 -.357 .333 .307 1.073 1.021 assumed   93 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Section C – Network equation (variation) Formula – proposal for innovation community and branding relationship to gain market share. MS = ∫∫ (β(τ) ((Χ(ω))+Θ) + Ρ(α)) MS = Market Share capitalization β = Brand Χ = Non profit innovation community Θ = Renewable energy Products quality (assumed constant- high) Ρ = Governmental support τ = equity ω = value proposition α = US dollars   94 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Section D Brush Windmill (First Electric Generation) Cleveland, OH 1888 (Motivation for paper)   Bibliography   95 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Aaker, DA 1996, ‘Building Strong Brands’, New York Free Press. Aaker, DA & Keller, KL 1990, ‘Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions’, Journal of Marketing January, p.27-41. Adler, L 1966, ‘Symbiotic Marketing’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. November/December, p.59-71. Alreck, PL & Settle, RB & Belch, MA 1982, ‘Who Responds to Gendered Ads and How?’, Journal of Advertising Research, p.22, 25-32. Austin, JE 2000, ‘The Collaboration Challenge’, The Collaboration Challenge, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Belk, RW 1988, ‘Possessions and the Extended Self’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Issue 2, p.139-168. Berthon, P & Pitt, L & Campbell, C 2008, ‘Ad Lib: When Customers Create the Ad’, California Management Review, Vol. 50 (4), p.6-30. ‘Governor Wants to Turn Town Into Renewable Energy Model’, BioCycle, Vol. 46, Issue 11, p.14. ‘British Village Seeks to be First in the UK “to Cause No Planet Damage”’, BioCycle, Vol. 46, Issue 6, p.12. Caskey, J 2008, ‘What Language Does your Appliance Speak?’, Appliance Design, Vol. 56, Issue 9, p.64. Caird, S & Roy, R 2008, ‘User-Centered Improvements to Energy Efficiency Products and Renewable energy systems: Research on household adoption and Use’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, Issue 3, p.327-355. Chiagouris, L 2005, ‘Non Profit Brands Come of Age’, Marketing Management, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p.30-33. Chesbrough, H & Appleyard, M 2007, ‘Open Innovation and Strategy’, California Management Review, Vol. 50, Issue 1, p.57-76. Christopher, C 2007, ‘Understanding Web 2.0’, The Seybold Report, Vol. 7 (11), p.7- 8. Cone, CL & Feldman, MA & DaSilva, AT 2003, ‘Best Practice-Causes and Effects’, Harvard Business Review July.   96 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Cook, S 2008, ‘The Contribution Revolution: Letting Volunteers Build Your Business’, The Harvard Business Review, October, p.60-69. Currah, A 2007, ‘Managing Creativity: The Tensions Between Commodities and Gifts in Digital Networked Environment’, Economy and Society, Vol. 36 (3), p.467-494. Dickinson, S & Barker, A 2007, ‘Evaluations of Branding Alliances Between Non- Profits and Commercial Brand Partners: the Transfer Affect’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 12, Issue 1, p.75-89. De Chernatony, L & Dall’Olmo Riley 1998, ‘Defining a Brand: Beyond the Literature with Experts’ Interpretations’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, Issue 3, p. 157-179. De Joode, J & Jansen, J.C &Van der Welle, AJ &Scheepers, MJJ, 2009, ‘Increasing Penetration of Renewable and Distributed Electricity Generation and the Need for Different Network Regulation’, Energy Policy, Vol. 37, Issue 8, p.2907-2915. Demers, ME 2000, ‘Tradeshow Minus the Trip’, Electronic News, Vol. 46, Issue 25, p.52. ‘Who’s Wearing the Trousers?’, The Economist, Vol. 360 (8238) p.26-28. EIA 2009, US Energy Consumption by Fuel 1980-2030, viewed 20 October 2009, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html> EIA, 2009, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2008, viewed 20 October 2009, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.htm l> FIT Coalition 2009, Feed In Tariff: Making RPS Real, viewed 21 September 2009, <http://www.fitcoalition.com/> Friedman, H 2004, ‘No Business like trade show business’, Businessweek online, 9/22/2004, pN. PAG, 0p. Fouquet, D & Johansson, T 2008, ‘European Renewable Energy Policy at Crossroads- Focus on Electricity Support Mechanisms’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 11, p.4079- 4092. Forbes. 2003, Ceating A Killer Product, viewed 16 November 2009, <http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/082_print.html>   97 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Godin, S 2003, ‘In Praise of the Purple Cow’, viewed 15 November 2009, <http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/67/purplecow.html> Grant, A 2010, ’A Smart Makeover for the Electrical Grid’, Discover, Vol. 31, Issue 1, p.48. Greater Cleveland Partnership 2008, ‘Global Sustainability Center Assessment Executive Summary (Draft)’, Internal Publication, December 2008. Greenwald, S 2007, ‘Designing an RPS Program’, Electric Light and Power, Vol. 85, Issue 3, p.44-45. Grohmann, B 2009, ‘Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46, Issue 1, p.105-119. Gross, C 2007, ‘Community Perspective of Wind Energy in Australia: The Application of a Justice and Community Fairness Framework to Increase Social Acceptance’, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 5, p.2727-2736. Hampp, A 2008, ‘Why Brands win in reality competitions’, Advertising Age, Vol. 79, Issue 1 p.4-25. Hankinson, P 2000, ‘Brand Orientation in Charity Organisations: Qualitative Research into Key Charity Sectors’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 5, Issue 3, p.207-219. Hatziargyriou, N & Asano, H & Iravini, R &Marany, C 2007, ‘Microgrids An Overview of Ongoing Research, Development, and Demonstration Projects’, IEE Power & Energy Magazine, July-August. Hess, C & Ostrom, E 2007, ‘Understanding Knowledge as Commons: From Theory to Practice’, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hosford, C 2007, ‘Avoiding Trade Show Faux Pas Six Tips Exibitors Should Know’, Inc, Vol.29, Issue 6, p.33-34. Hyde, L 2006, ‘The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World’, London: Canongate. Ind, N & Bell, M 1999, ‘Freedom and Order: A Participative Approach to Corporate Branding’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7, Issue 1, p.19-26. Jaehn, F & Letmathe, P 2010, ‘The Emissions Trading Paradox’, The European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 202, Issue 1, p.238-254.   98 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Javalgi, RG & Traylor, MB & Gross, AC & Lampman, E 1994, ‘Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, p.47-58. Jefferson, M 2008, ‘Accelerating the Transition to Sustainable Energy Systems’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 11, p.4116-4125. Kapferer, JN 1992, ‘Strategic Brand Management’, Strategic Brand Management, New York Free Press. Karvonen, A 2008, ‘The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement’, Technology and Culture, Vol. 49, Issue 1, p.242- 244. Keller, KL 1998, ‘Strategic Brand Management’, Prentice-Hall. Keller, KL & Aaker, DA 1992, ‘The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extensions’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, p.1-11. Kirubi, C & Jacobson, A & Kammen, D & Mills, A, 2009, ‘Community-Based Electric Micro-Grids Contribute to Rural Development: Evidence from Kenya’, World Development, Vol. 37, Issue 7, p.1208-1221. Kotler, P 1997, ‘Marketing Management’, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kolter, P & Armstrong G, 2004, ‘Principles of Marketing’, 10th Edition, Prentice Hall. Kwon, J 2006, ‘Cross-Gender Brand Extensions: Effects of Gender of the Brand, Gender of the Consumer, and Product Type on Evaluation of Cross-Gender Extensions’, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, Issue 1, p.67-74. Malhotra, NK 1988, ‘Self Concept and Product Choice, an Integrated Perspective’, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, Issue 1, p.1-28. McKinsey 2009, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, viewed 10 November 2009, <http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/downloads/US_energy _efficiency_full_report.pdf> Meyer, N 2003, ‘European Schemes for Promoting Renewables in Liberlised Markets’, Energy Policy, Vol. 31, Issue 7, p.665. Naddaff, A 2004, ‘Branding by Design’, Communication World, Vol. 21, Issue 5, p.18-19.   99 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA National Grid, 2008, ‘The West’s Renewable Energy Future’, National Grid. Netschert, B 1973, ‘Energy vs. environment’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. Jan.- Feb. Nielsen, T 2009, ‘Blowing in the Wind’, Director, Vol. 63, Issue 4, p.34-36. Nikkhajoel, H & Lasseter, R 2009, ‘Distributed Generation Interface to the CERTS Microgrid’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 24, Issue 3, p.1598-1608. Norman, M 2009, ‘Global Sustainability Center Business Plan’, Internal Publication. Ogihara, A & Kamal Gueye, M & King, P & Mori, H 2007, ‘Policies to Ease the Transition to a Post-Fossil Fuel Era’, International Review for Environmental Strategies, Vol.7 (1), p.63-80. O’Reilly, T 2005, What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, viewed on 6 February 2010, <http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228> Owen, AD 2006, ‘Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Renewable Energy Technologies’, Australian Economic Review, Vol. 39 Issue 2 p.207-215. P&GJ, 2002, ‘Green Energy Gurus Say 10% Penetration Level Possible’, Pipeline & Gas Journal, Vol.229, Issue 3, p.38. Park, CW & Jun, SY & Shocker, AD 1996, ‘Composite Branding Alliances an Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, p.453-466. Pindyck, R 1984, ‘Uncertainty in the Theory of Renewable Resource Markets’ Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 51, Issue 165, p.289. Pike, A 2009, ‘Geographies of Brands and Branding’, Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 33, Issue 5, p.619-645. Plaza, J 2009 ‘The U.S. Government Has a Long History of Financing Energy Infrastructure’ Renewable Energy World online. Polonsky, MJ & MacDonald, EK 2000, ‘Exploring the Link Between Cause-Related Marketing and Brand Building’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 5, Issue 1, p46-57. Porter, ME & Kramer, MR 2002, ‘The Competitive advantage of Corporate Philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, December, p.5-16.   100 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Ritchie, RJB & Swami, S et al 1998, ‘A Brand New World for Nonprofits’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 4, Issue 1, p.26- 42. Renewable Energy World March 10, 2005, Solar Power Market Potential is on the Roof, viewed 20 September 2009, <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2005/03/solar-power-market- potential-is-on-the-roof-23585> Renewable Energy World 2009, US Installs 1600MW of Wind in Q3, viewed 17 October 2009, <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/us- installs-1600-mw-of-wind-in-q3> Renewable Energy World, 2008, The Solar Industry Needs Branding to Foster Mainstream Acceptance, viewed 20 September 2009, <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/04/the-solar-industry- needs-branding-to-foster-mainstream-acceptance-52090> Riezebos, R 2003, ‘Brand Management’, Harlow: Pearson. Rogers, JC & Simmons, EA & Convery, I & Weatherall, A 2008, ‘Public Perceptions of Opportunities for Community – Based Renewable Energy Projects’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 11, p.4217-4226. Room, A 1998, ‘History of Branding’, Branding, p.13-23. Salamon, LM 1999, ‘The Nonprofit Sector at a Crossroads: The Case of America’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, Vol. 10, Issue 1, p.5-23. Schein, EH 1985, ‘Organizational Culture and Leadership’, Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Simonin, BL & Ruth, JA 1995, ‘Branding as a Strategy for New Product Introduction: Effects on Consumer’ reservation prices for the bundle, the new product, and its tie-in’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, p219-230. Siminon, BL & Ruth, JA 1998, ‘Is a Company known by the Company it Keeps? Assessing the Spill-Over Effects of Brand Aliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, p.30-42.   101 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin Cannan ed. 1904. Library of Economics and Liberty. viewed 15 January 2010 <http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html>. Sternberg, P 1998, ‘The Third Way: The Repositioning of the Voluntary Sector’, Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 3, Issue 3, p.209-217. Stride, H & Lee, S 2007, ‘No Logo? No Way. Branding in the Non-Profit Sector’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Issue ½, p.107-122. Sovacool, B 2008, ‘The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American Energy Policy’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 41, Issue 3, p.245-261. Tapp, A 1996, ‘Charity Brands: A Qualitative Study of Current Practice’, Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 1, Issue 4, p. 327-336. Till, BD & Nowak, LI 2000, ‘Toward Effective Use of Cause-Related Marketing Alliance’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9, Issue 7, p.472-484. Tregear, A 2003, ‘From Stilton to Vimto: Using Food History to Re-think Typical Products in Rural Development’, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 43, p.91-107. Tuite, D 2009, ‘EPRI’s Smart Grid Report Offers Best Hope Ahead’, Electronic Design, Vol. 57, Issue 25, p.24-25. Uncles, M 2008, ‘Know thy changing consumer’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15, p.227-231. Wagner, C & Majchrzak, A 2007, ‘Enabling Customer-Centricity Using Wikis and the Wiki Way’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23 (3), p.17-43. Walker, G & Hunter, S & Devine-Wright, P & Evans, B & Frey, H 2007, ‘Harnessing Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating Community-Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy in the UK’, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 7, Issue 2, p.64-82. Yadav, MS 1993, ‘How Buyers Evaluate Product Bundles: A model of Anchoring and Adjusting’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, p.342-353. Yilmaz, P & Hocaoglu, H & Konukman, A 2008, ‘A Pre-feasibility Case Study on Integrated Resource Planning Including Renewables’, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 3, p.1223-1232.   102 
  • J.Flock - Branding Non Profits Euro*MBA Young, A 2008, ‘Iron Man VS. The Dark Knight’, Advertising Age, Vol. 79, Issue 29, p.8.   103