Katherine Watier

March 26, 2001

CCTP 722-01 Marketing on the Internet

Internet Presence and Marketing Strategies of Three Environmental Non-Profit

Organizations: Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace

Most non-profit websites target a diverse range of audiences. The three sites in this

analysis are no exception. What ties these sites together is their work to educate and encourage

environmental activism on the issues of clean water, clean air, endangered species, climate

change, and habitats. They all use some form of community to engage and increase member

involvement with the organization, and some form of basic rule-based personalization along with

viral marketing strategies to increase the number of potential supporters and activists. All of the

sites deal with international environmental issues, but two of the sites (World Wildlife Fund and

Greenpeace) are more internationally focused. They use the web site as a portal to the field

offices that have their own branded web sites.

The three sites are engaged (or are constructing the technology to engage in) Silverstein’s

“Seven Proven Marketing Strategies”:

1. generating and qualifying leads

2. promoting products and services
3. executing e-fulfillment
4. building customer relationships
5. establishing business communities or exchanges
6. creating and managing partner programs and
7. selling goods over the Internet. (Silverstein, 2001:103)

They all use these strategies to enhance donor relationships, cultivate interest in non-

donor/non-members, promote services, streamline members’ activism and information gathering

(especially among educators), encourage community, and promote and sell branded product

through ecommerce. This analysis will determine which site is most successfully engaged in the

1
seven strategies and explain why. The answer lies in the visitor’s ease of use, the clarity of the

branded experience and the demonstrated involvement in an established virtual community.

World Wildlife Fund www.wwf.org or www.panda.org (international site) or www.wwfus.org (US

site)

The World Wildlife Fund was founded in 1961 and, partially due to its strongly

recognized panda logo, is the largest privately supported international conservation organization

in the world with more than 1 million members in the U.S. alone. Since 1961, World Wildlife

Fund has invested in over 13,100 projects in 157 countries. In its effort to increase awareness for

preservation efforts, World Wildlife Fund utilizes a full range of membership services and

benefits (both through virtual and physical incentives) and also engages in a range of donor

acquisition and solicitation techniques. It has truly developed multiple points of access for a

supporter of the organization through the acquisition of individual donations, information about

major and planned gifts, corporate support, ecommerce and retail support via its website. Its

audience receives a highly personalized experience through its direct mail and online one-to-one

marketing efforts. The site is designed as an informational introduction to the organization with a

few enhanced options for repeat visitors.

World Wildlife Fund has multiple websites which all branch off from www.wwf.org.

This analysis will focus on the international and US site. Both sites are brightly colored and full

of images of endangered species and nature scenes. Each issue area is branded with its own

color, though the corporate logo is present throughout. The international site (Appendix W.1)

targets at adult audience and their motivations for visiting the site. There is a press section for

reporters to learn about the organization’s stance and research on a number of issues, a large

2
educational section, a resource section, a corporate information section and an action section.

This international site is also offered in French and in Spanish. Unlike the US site, the youth

section on the international site is targeted at adult educators and teachers, not the youth, and

primarily provides curriculum.

The international site is designed primarily for their unqualified prospect audience – the

casual surfer who is driven to the site in search of research, current press or curricula. The site is

focused on generating leads (i.e. interest) in the organization. Even though the site is

dynamically generated and the content refreshes daily, there are no personalization techniques in

place throughout the bulk of the site to make the return experience different from the first. They

have attempted to create a minimal amount of relationship-building content for their repeat

visitors by developing a “What’s New” as well as”Story of the Day” sections. The main site is

designed as a first level relationship-building device for WWF to generate leads and promote

their products and services. It utilizes a one-to-many marketing strategy with the more

personalized experiences (utilizing personalization techniques) occurring once the user becomes

involved in cyber activism and grassroots marketing.

The US site has targeted their audiences more specifically within their navigational

structure. They address each of their audiences specifically (educators, kids, members, etc.) and

as a result are more focused on using the site as a way to sustain and build their donor and

partner relationships (Appendix W.6). At the same time, the US site has more general content

targeted to a wide range of audiences in an attempt to create a diverse prospect pool. It is

beginning to develop a member’s corner where members of World Wildlife Fund can receive

virtual incentives in exchange for becoming a critical part of their grassroots marketing strategy.

There are also two options for educational materials – one for the educator, and a completely

3
different branded site for young people. The US site offers youth an opportunity to play games,

take quizzes and sign up for a youth oriented newsletter as well as other incentives (Appendix

W.8). The activist section for the US site is also a separately branded sub site, which offers fewer

options for incentives after the user participates in one of their campaigns that the international

site (Appendix W.9). The Action Center is placed within the template of the rest of the site and

the user is easily able to navigate back and forth.

World Wildlife Fund International’s Action Center is distinctly different creating an

environment that illustrates their emphasis on utilizing their membership as grassroots marketers

and activists (Appendix W.4). Each issue section had an activism list with calls to action and a

link to the user’s “Panda Passport” where the heavy-duty activism begins. Once a user logs onto

their personalized passport, their activities are recorded and presented in a printable certificate

(Appendix W.5). New campaigns are automatically filled in with the user’s information and the

viral marketing techniques used to enable the user to spread the word about the campaign are

seamless (Appendix W.3).

Both the international and US sites offer e-fulfillment of donations, however the offline

speed of acknowledgement of a gift leaves something to be desired. (It took this researcher 4

weeks to receive a hard copy acknowledgement for an online gift). Both have e-giving

capabilities, which present the potential donor with a case statement followed by a secure credit

card form which the user submits (Appendix W.2 and W.7). The user is then thanked for their

gift and immediately offered free online screensavers. A confirmation email is then sent to the

donor, and the hardcopy follow-up thank you letter follows weeks later.

4
 The multiple World Wildlife Fund sites are confusing to a casual browser. Only after an

extensive stroll through their site does the user realize that the international site was not the US

web presence, though the visitor never feels as though they have left the World Wildlife Fund

family. From a donor perspective, however, it is easy for the user to be confused about what

exactly his/her donation supports (nationally versus local) and how that donation might be

affected by what level of the website they give through. If a user decides to donate to World

Wildlife Fund International, a user can become “trapped” and is unable to browse to other areas

of the site due to the fact that there is no navigation on that page.

Even though users of the newsletter are asked to fill out address information in order to

access the different action centers, the user isn’t automatically put on the house list to receive

print solicitations and direct mail campaigns. This researcher has been an e-activist for 4 months

and has yet to receive World Wildlife Fund print publications. E-activists are also not asked for

their support via a direct appeal (email for instance). Whereas asking over email is a relatively

new approach, it might be one that these sites would want to consider.

Greenpeace www.greenpeace.org

Greenpeace began in 1971, when a small but determined group of activists boarded an

aging 80-foot boat, slowly making their way through the cold North Pacific waters off Alaska.

Their mission was to "bear witness" to the destructive nuclear weapons testing planned for

Amchitka island (www.greenpeace.org ). It is an independent campaigning organization that

uses non-violent direct action to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions.

Greenpeace differs from the other non-profits in the sense that it does not accept financial

support from corporations, governments or political parties. Eighty-one percent of its financial

support comes from individual donors. The reasons behind this deliberate revenue source

5
restriction are explained within the organization’s annual report: “Greenpeace neither seeks nor

accepts donations, which could compromise its independence, aims, objectives or integrity.

Greenpeace relies on the voluntary donations of individual supporters and on grant support from

foundations” (Greenpeace Annual Report, 1999).

Greenpeace is primarily an activism-based organization. It is possibly one of the first

environmental non-profits to utilize Internet technologies to aid its activists and increase

communication internationally for the organization. Greenpeace’s use of technology has been

deliberate and strategic. Its history of launching onto the Internet, which it started in 1994, can

be found on its website (www.greenpeace.org/history.shtml). True to its organizational culture,

when it first established its first website, it utilized shareware and freeware (Linux) on a donated

computer. Unfortunately, the feel of the early Internet beginnings with Gopher and newsgroups

are still present in the current International website making (the activism section), and it is a little

difficult to understand from a user’s perspective.

The design of this site is pointedly different in that it graphically looks as though a non-

professional designed it in comparison to the other more corporate looking sites. (Appendix G.1)

It has a definitive home-ground look with a nature-patterned background (which changes upon a

refresh though the content does not). The drive to becoming active is much stronger on this site

with the largest section being a column for Campaign News, and big buttons for Activism and

Join.

The navigation along the top is a brief insight into Greenpeace’s customer cycle with

(from left to right) options for information, interacts and joins. The navigation clearly

illuminates Greenpeace’s Internet marketing objectives. The first step is to educate the visitor

about Greenpeace and how the organization works to support environmental issues. The next

6
step is for the visitor to join the organization as an activist and interact via their online

community. The final step is for them to join the organization via a financial donation.

The International Greenpeace site is driven more toward motivating the visitor toward

direct action versus just receiving information or current news. However, by limiting their focus

to sustaining existing relationships (and there are issues with their approach in this area as well

which will be discussed later), Greenpeace International is hampering its growth as an

organization. Customer cycles for business and non-profits are similar in that one gathers a large

number of prospective supporters/customers and then qualifies those leads by virtue of their

demonstrated support and their potential for support based on demographic research. Customer

and donor relationships are often not lifetime relationships, and thus requiring the organization to

continually develop new prospects. Without this pool of new potential supporters, the

organization becomes stagnant and Greenpeace’s web strategy is feeding this deterioration of

their prospect base by making their website difficult to navigate for a new user and with content

that is only focused toward their qualified audience.

The Greenpeace activism site does not appear coordinated with each of its different

campaigns taking on different cosmetic appearances based on the partnership that is involved in

that campaign (Appendix G.2). For instance, the Lapeyre.org protest was a direct link from

Greenpeace’s site, yet it is difficult to return to the main activism site. This is an example of

Greenpeace’s effort to encourage business partnerships

One of the main ways that Greenpeace attempts to encourage community and enhance

their members’ benefits is through their Cyber activism community section. Unfortunately, on

Greenpeace International site is not much better in regards to usability. The site simply contains

a list of threaded discussion boards (Appendix G.4 and G.5). The user can create a personalized

7
protest letter, but there is not an option for the user to send news about the campaign to their

friends on either the international or the USA site. The International site does not utilize

personalization techniques (the user would have to remember if they completed a campaign or

not) and there are no personalization techniques in place that record the user’s personal

information so that in the future the user can just hit a submit button. (These features are utilized

on the USA site, Appendix G.7). Also, once a user enters the other areas of the International

site’s cyber activist section, it is not abundantly clear how one would return to the Greenpeace

main page. The “home” button on the page routes the user back to the top page of the cyber

activist’s section and not to the main page of the entire site.

Partially due to the fact that US Internet users are accustomed to a more corporate look,

the US site is strikingly different in its design, navigation and content than the International

Greenpeace site (Appendix G.6). The US site has an easier navigation system and displays the

content in a cleaner and more corporate fashion. This site does offer the user a personalized

activism experience, but only after filling out extensive personal information (more than was

asked on the other two sites) the technology was mal-functioning (Appendix G.7).

Greenpeace USA has a feature not found on the other two sites: the user of a members

only section where members can renew their membership, change their online profile and view

the Greenpeace Magazine. This section of the site utilizes personalization techniques that

enhance the user experience. The US site is also working on installing an ecommerce feature

that is not yet fully functional, and it will be interesting to see what kind of strategy they employ.

This site has also developed a very small licensed products section (Appendix G.8).

The activism section of the US site is also much more cleanly displayed than the

International site, though the experience is still not as seamless and as easy to use as the other

8
two web sites in this analysis. This site does, however, attempt at real time support with a link to

a “Quick Response” center that is displayed wherever the user has to fill out and submit a form.

It is not clear whether or not the response is available 24 hours a day or just during business

hours.

Defenders of Wildlife www.defenders.org

Defenders of Wildlife was formed originally to protect wolves and their habitat and have

since grown to protect other animals and their environments (Appendix D.1). This site is

targeted at an adult population of largely activists. Its curriculum section is rather small, and its

youth section is entirely encapsulated in a youth-centered site where you can play games and

learn about conservation at www.kidsplanet.org (Appendix D.7).

From the organization’s 1999 Annual Report, Defenders surveyed its members and

discovered that nearly one half of the members spend at least some time on the Internet. In

response to that, Defenders has enhanced its technology driven membership benefits over the

past year such as its push e-newsletter, and its online activism section (Appendix D.5 and D. 2).

One of their efforts to engage its activist audiences was through the creation of the Denlines.

Denlines, a free bi-weekly e-mail newsletter was activated in October of 1999 and had more than

130,000 subscribers by year’s end (Defenders of Wildlife Annual Report, 1999) (Appendix D.5).

The organization utilizes both an improvement-based business model and revenue based

business model for their website with a small ecommerce site where they sell trademarked

products and have a donation agreement with other online retailers (Appendixes D.6 and D.4).

This site does a good job engaging their activists in their campaigns through a daily e-newsletter.

Through using a highly effective rule-based personalization technique, Defenders is able to

9
remember the user’s personal information and automatically match their zip code to their correct

congressmen and representatives. Once the user logs onto the activism site, the letter is ready for

a quick personal note and with a click of the submit button, the user has become an activist. The

system is by far one of the smoothest and most effective activism programs.

Users are offered many ways in which to financially support Defenders of Wildlife,

through either a direct donation (and they offer information for online or offline donations),

through “sponsoring” an animal, shopping through their portal or buying trademarked products.

Their revenue model is similar to World Wildlife Fund, except that a donor can better understand

what the donation is supporting through the Defenders of Wildlife site.

The Comparison

This comparison will begin with a general overview of the sites different features and

technologies used to attract and retain their supporters followed by an analysis of which site used

each feature most effectively.

10
 Organization World Wildlife Fund
Mission Focus (under About Us)
WWF’s goal is to stop, and
(mission statements eventually reverse the
and FAQs that are worsening degradation of
easy to find are the planet’s natural
useful to first time environment, and build a
visitors and aid in future in which human live
the generating of in harmony with nature.
leads) WWF is working to achieve
this goal through:
• Preserving genetic,
species and ecosystem
diversity
• Ensuring that the use
of natural resources is
sustainable both now and
in the longer term
• Promoting action to
reduce pollution and
wasteful consumption to a
minimum.
Number of 1.2 million (FYE ’00)
Members (1999)
Total assets and net $111.8 million (FYE ’00)
assets (1999)
Scope of Physical International- site offered in
Presence three languages
Viral Marketing 1. E-newsletter with link to
Strategies activism forms and refer a
friend
2. Referral technologies- e-
Greenpeace Defenders of Wildlife
(DoW)
Impossible to find, not (under About us)
under “About us” or in DoW is dedicated to the
“Annual Report”. protection of all native
Under “Information” wild animals and plants
there was supposed to in their natural
be a FAQ, but this communities. We focus
researcher could not our programs on what
find the FAQ scientists consider two
of the most serious
environmental threats to
the planet: the
accelerating rate of
extinction of species and
the associated loss of
biological diversity, and
habitat alteration and
destruction. Long
known for our
leadership on
endangered species
issues, DoW also
advocates new
approaches to wildlife
conservation that will
help keep species from
becoming endangered.
Our programs encourage
protection of entire
ecosystem and
interconnected habitats
while protecting
predator that serve as
indicator species as
ecosystem health.
Impossible to find, 381,568
unable to retrieve with
search
$110,009 thousands of $16,664,265
Euros ($122,805
thousand US)
International- site National –English Only
offered in native
language of each
country
1. E-newsletter with 1. E-newsletter with
link to activism forms link to activism forms
and refer a friend and refer a friend
2. Referral 2. Referral technologies-
11
 stamp option that rewards
activist for referrals
3. Online activism section-
separately branded with
incentives
Co-branding Yes
Opportunities
Educational Yes
Materials Section
Corporate Strategy Yes
Personalization Yes within Panda passport.
Strategy Establishing members only
section on website
Branded Products Yes
Navigation/Search Well developed, more
Capabilities specific search. Does not
include other country sites.
Sitemap well developed
Level of Customer No phone number or email
Service on donation page if the user
(with online and has problems. “Contact us”
offline interactions) is only an online donation
form. No phone number.
Ease of navigation 5 2
(Scale of 1 to 5, 5
being the highest)
technologies- weak, no Easy to circulate articles
incentives on website and petitions within site
3. Online activism 3. Online activism
section- Difficult to find section- section within
direct action branded section.
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
No No
No Yes
Not a very specific Sitemap coming soon,
search, sitemap not search only available on
helpful and does not top page, not very
include country sites specific search.
High level of customer No direct assistance on
support on donation donation page. “Contact
page including chat page” has address,
capabilities. “Help” phone number and
leads to unhelpful email.
Sitemap. “Contact us” is
developed with graphic
rollovers that may not
be accessible to all
users.
4

The customer base for all three of these non-profits consists of donors, potential donors,

educators, students and/or youth, and journalists. These organizations generate leads and build

relationships through their program, press and activism sections; and they all have e-fulfillment

options through either a direct donation or e-commerce section. With such similar organization

structures, it is how these sites brand each of these sections and focus them to their audiences,

which clearly illustrates the focus of their Internet marketing strategies.

All of these sites use the Internet as a “sustaining” rather than “disruptive” technology.

World Wildlife Fund and Defenders of Wildlife have also developed user based revenue

12
strategies for e-commerce. Online giving universally is not a highly successful venture for most

non-profits (except for the Red Cross’s disaster campaigns) and therefore these non-profits are

utilizing the web as a relationship enhancement tool that could lead to a successful philanthropic

relationship rather than a direct solicitation vehicle. Most of their direct support is likely to come

through traditional solicitation vehicles versus online donations (The Chronicle, 6/15/2000). In

their efforts to leverage their websites as a relationship-building tool, these three non-profits have

focused on using the Internet to 1) Increase activism; 2) Increase revenue via traditional

ecommerce arrangements; 3) Increase communication among its members and the organization;

and 4) Increase brand recognition.

Activism

The easiest way to monitor the effectiveness of the relationship enhancing features on

each website is to analyze the web trends for those activism pages to determine if users are

leaving the page and/or if they are staying long enough to reap a benefit from the service.

Whereas Greenpeace International publishes a summary of their web trends on their site, the

information was not pertinent to this question and connecting with a live person at the

headquarters of each of these organizations proved nearly impossible.

All three sites have some form of activism or community building strategy in place of

varying degrees. What is interesting is that the organization that is most highly engaged in

activism (Greenpeace) has the poorest community building technology. Where a listserver does

allow its activists to communicate with each other it requires a high level of motivation to

become fully engaged. There are no clearly defined instructions and the threaded discussions are

not easy to engage in if the user is not familiar with threaded discussions.

13
 World Wildlife Fund has two different activism sites for which you can register. The

form on the international site is a bit frustrating from a user perspective. It requires the user to

enter personal information before he/she is able to select a user name and password. If that user

name has already been taken, then the user is dumped back to the beginning of the process and

none of the previous information has been retained. The e-newsletters, which arrive on a

weekly basis, are visually very appealing and the “fill out the form” protest letters that it has

developed are very painless way to spread the word about the campaign. It is as easy as just

filling in an email address.

World Wildlife Fund US has developed a Conservation Action Center, which is the

cleanest and most efficient action navigation out of the three examples of technologies that

enable activism in this analysis. This site utilizes personalization techniques (greets the user by

his/ her full name for example). It keeps track of the actions that the user has already been

involved in through its “Action to Do List”. Within that page the user can modify his/her profile,

join World Wildlife Fund and tell their friends about the Conservation Action Center. Once the

user has completed sending a letter of protest to his/her political or business leaders, he/she is

then offered a range of free animal screen savers as a “free gift”.

The international site also has an action center, which is called the “Panda Passport”.

Once registered, the site becomes slightly more personalized (the user is greeted by their full

name) and user campaign participation is summarized and displayed. The results can be printed

in a certificate that states the users campaign status (Appendix W.5). The user can change his/her

profile, take advantage of the free screensavers and other virtual products, and play the water

game on the WNF Watersite.

14
 Defenders of Wildlife is very similar to WWF with its e-newsletter and activism

capabilities. The experience is easy and convenient. It is easy for the user to pass the message on

to others. The activism experience is a separate event as with World Wildlife Fund. It is not

quite as effective due to the absence of certain membership benefits.

Due to Greenpeace’s organizational commitment to not accept funds from corporations, it

does not have a strategy to solicit funds from corporations. Nor does it have a strategy for

licensing its organizational logo for corporate products. In some ways its use of the website to

generate individual donations is weak because its mission is difficult to locate and there is no

clear visible explanation for what a donation supports. What Greenpeace does implement, which

the other sites do not, is easy access and contact through email, chat and phone with the

fundraising staff. The staff is available to help with online donation processing.

World Wildlife Fund is a gorilla environmental non-profit that uses corporate

sponsorship, donations and licensing for revenue production. Its strategies for revenue

production and enhanced marketing opportunities are far beyond what the other two

organizations are doing. For example, the content on World Wildlife Fund's international site

focused on soliciting corporate support. Lafarge, Canon and Ogilry are “Corporate Conservation

Partners” with World Wildlife Fund International as well as Groth AG (a company who produces

World Wildlife Fund stamps and coins) and IBTT BV, which produces a range of plush toys

with the World Wildlife Fund brand. Its e-commerce strategy is also beyond the scope of the

other two organizations. World Wildlife Fund launched its first global retail campaign in

December of last year titled, Save Wildlife: Grab a Mouse. The Internet effort was coordinated

among offices in all five continents. However, access to customer support information can be

15
difficult. The only way to get help with an online donation is via a web form, which may or may

not suit the donor’s needs.

This is not to say that Defenders of Wildlife website is not effective. It developed

significant corporate sponsorships through its branded credit card and online retail commissioned

donation agreement with major online retailers. It also has its own retail site where it sells

branded products. The biggest difference between the branded sales success of these two

organizations is the World Wildlife Fund’s recognizable logo. The plush panda is simply a more

appealing item then a plush wolf. The issue is larger than the sales of plush toys, however. The

root of the problem seems to be in the Defenders of Wildlife’s brand. Even though the

organization is older, it does not have as great brand recognition. Whereas a casual visitor might

quickly understand that it preserves wolf habitat, it is not as easy to grasp that it promotes the

preservation of other habitats and animals as well.

Increased Communication

Most non-profits that rely on private funding engage in intensive direct marketing

campaigns. Many of these non-profits use print personalization techniques in the direct

marketing programs. All three organizations are using the Internet as way to cut costs, enhance

communication and support their public outreach efforts.

Utilizing online communication and encouraging members to engage with the

organization on the website make sense for non-profits for many reasons. Cost reduction and

reductions of paper waste are the most obvious incentives. These sites are also utilizing the

websites to increase activism and to develop an intensive branded relationship with donors and

members. The websites also act as a first line of inquiry for non-members and the press.

16
Unfortunately, for those individuals who can’t find answers to their questions within FAQs

(Frequently Asked Questions) reaching a live person is often impossible.

Online Brand Enhancement & Customer Service

The most significant weakness of both Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund is brand.

The branding within WWF and DoW is clear, whereas Greenpeace’s attempt to merge many

national offices under an international branded navigational banner did not acheive the same type

of consistency. The issue of how to integrate the various national offices with an international

website is an issue both Greenpeace and WWF are struggling with, though World Wildlife Fund

does a better job of explaining the structure by providing a link to “World Wildlife Fund Family”

information off the top site.

Customer service within these nonprofits have been addressed with varying digital technologies

in order to reduce their overhead cost by staffing call centers. On Greenpeace’s e-giving site,

they list phone numbers as well as ICQ #s for technical support for any glitches (Appendix G.3).

The other two sites do not offer that type of support. World Wildlife Fund outsources its call

center, and users attempting to receive support for a technical or content related question that is a

bit out of the ordinary will be shuffled through many extensions without at time receiving an

answer. Greenpeace is obviously trying to address this issue with their Virtual Quick Response

feature.

The Successes

The establishment of websites for these organizations has been largely successful. The

memberships of these organizations have increased and the financial support has also increased

17
over the past three years. The increased membership benefits and opportunities for relationship

building and communication have helped to create this trend. World Wildlife Fund and

Defenders of Wildlife track the successes of each virtual campaign in order to inform their

members. Some of the campaigns have been extremely successful in garnering support. In

February of this year, Defenders of Wildlife’s Save the Arctic Refuge campaign overwhelmed the

White House’s e-mail system. In only the first month of Defenders’ electronic petition drive to

save the refuge, supporters sent more than 650,000 e-mails to President Bush and Congress

(www.defenders.org).

The most successful site is World Wildlife Fund because of its use of the web to integrate its

marketing and reach out to new audiences. Though the multi-layered sites are a bit confusing,

visitors are definitely involved in the branding experience no matter what level they enter. Its

online activism section is highly personalized. The Internet revenue models are diverse and

strongly supported by its corporate strategy. The strongest use of e-newsletters as a push

technology to encourage activism, however, is Defenders of Wildlife. Its success was proven

When it helped to halt legislation by over-burdening email systems at the White House.

Organizational values lack of disposable revenue and inadequate staffing limit a non-

profits’ ability to fully utilize the Internet as a communication and revenue-producing medium.

However, these three non-profits show selected Internet marketing strategies can be highly

effective in promoting message and supporting fundraising and activism efforts.

18
 Works Cited

The Chronicle. Big Charities Have Raised Very Little Online So Far. June 15, 2000.

https://philanthropy.com/premium/articles/v12/i17/17003801.htm.

Silverstein, B (2001). Business-to-Business Internet Marketing. Gulf Breeze, Florida: Maximum

Press.

19