1. Brief introduction

2. Problem statement

3. Swot analysis

4. Recommendation plan (short-term, medium-term and long-term)

5. Continence plan(backup plan).

The case is below please read the case below and write.

BREASTCANCER.ORG: FUNDRAISING CHALLENGES OF A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IN A CROWDED MARKET

More than 20 years ago, Breastcancer.org has founded on the principle that everyone deserves the best care possible for their unique breast cancer situation. When I hear from people that Breastcancer.org has been their lifeline during the most difficult time in their lives, I know we are fulfilling our mission and will continue to deliver on the promise we made from the start.

Marisa C. Weiss, MD, Chief Medical Officer and Founder of Breastcancer.org

Fundraising at Breastcancer.org (BCO) had become increasingly difficult in 2020. Rita Lusen, vice president of partnerships and development at BCO, was preparing for the fiscal year-end in late May 2020 with Hope Wohl, the chief executive officer (CEO), and the board of directors (see Exhibit 1). As a non-profit 501(c)(3) global corporation, BCO wanted to expand global reach and programming for its members. However, to do this, it needed funds and had to find waysto increase itsrevenue. At the upcoming board meeting, Lusen would be expected to make a compelling presentation on revenues and plans for the continued growth. She was carefully and pragmatically evaluating her options to generate needed funds and wondering just how she was going to accomplish the organization's goal.

BREASTCANCER.ORG AND ITS FOUNDER Breastcancer.org was founded in 2000 by Dr. Marisa C. Weiss in response to the growing need for information surrounding breast cancer diagnosis. BCO was an expert resource on breast health and breast cancer based in Ardmore, in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It reached nearly 150 million people globally, 1 providing breast cancer patients2 with the information and support necessary to manage risk and guide treatment decisions. BCO also offered personalized support for patients and their families as they worked to adjust their lifestyles. Its focus was entirely on the digital delivery of care, providing comprehensive medical content in English and Spanish within a robust patient community. BCO's mission was to provide resources for patients and their loved ones 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. With more than 30 years of active practice, Dr. Weiss was Lankenau Medical Center's director of breast radiation oncology. She held a seat on BCO's board and was regarded as a visionary for her innovative approach to informing individuals about their breast health. Dr. Weiss also served on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's federal Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women, and she was a book author on breast cancer and breast health

RITA LUSEN

Lusen joined BCO as its vice president of partnerships and development in 2011. She came to BCO with over 25 years in advertising sales and marketing, which included work in print and online advertising in a wide variety of industries and non-profit sectors. One of Lusen's many responsibilities at BCO was to lead the organization's fundraising activities. She was key to expanding and diversifying the organization's funder base, which included both individual and corporate donors. The position required that Lusen develop and implement a strategic development plan while working closely with BCO'sleadership team. She had to collaborate on strategiesfor well-researched priorities, effective fundraising, strategic communications, and grant writing in accordance with BCO's strategic plan and the donors' priority areas. She also had to test and validate new ideas in programming and philanthropy. In her role, Lusen served as a sounding board, thought partner, and key adviser to the CEO. To this end, she wasresponsible for helping to identify opportunitiesfor BCO to serve specific unmet needsin the community.

VALUE PROPOSITION AND BRAND

BOC was a digital-only non-profit. It was the first mover in the digital non-profit space that provided an online, virtual community for breast cancer survivors and their families, which offered a place where members could interact with each other. 4 Consisting of a "family of connected friends," much like Facebook, the virtual community felt like home for many people. 5 Those who wanted to be a part of an online community had to become members through the organization's website. Once they were members, participants had access to specific content and links. A branded community provided people with a way to gather around a shared experience or purpose for collaboration.6 As a breast cancer survivor herself, Lusen was intimately familiar with and passionate about BCO's mission and cause. She reflected on her own experience: Thinking of my life 13 years ago, I lived on the site. At the time that I was diagnosed, I was a mom of two boys; they were young teenagers [at the time]. I was also very busy at work. I worked for a large newspaper in Philadelphia. In terms of family, I am one of sixso, a lot of family members. And while I had a lot of family by my side, when I was diagnosed, I really didn't have a lot of people [who] could answer the questions that I had. She continued: So, I found myself online. And as you know, the Internet was quite different . . . than it is today. At the time, I was 45 years oldwhich is fairly young for being diagnosed. And I really needed answers. BCO was my lifeline. I truly don't know how I would have made it through the diagnosis, the treatmentslet alone the emotional turmoilif it hadn't been for BCO. Because of BCO, I felt informed and felt that I was be able to make decisions all the way through the process. And I knew that I wasn't alone. The ability to share information with and hear stories from people [like me] going through it all was huge. BCO members posted questions and thoughts and commented on discussions. The members gave advice and collaborated with each other. Through its medical advisory board, BCO provided medical advice or specific health care research. Since its founding in 2000, BCO's community was best known for providing peer-to-peer support to over 219,000 members globally (see Exhibit 2). Its audience was dominated by female visitors (96 per cent), with an average age of 55 (see Exhibits 3-4). Not surprisingly, the members of BCO's community were also on Facebook (see Exhibit 5).

THE PINK LANDSCAPE BCO, a source of 24/7 online information for patients with breast cancer and their family and friends, competed for dollars with a myriad of organizations in the breast cancer marketspace (see Exhibit 6). This included regional, national, and global organizations, such as Susan G. Komen, Living Beyond Breast Cancer, and others. Some organizations exclusively focused on breast cancer, while others supported people dealing with all types of cancer. Even those dedicated specifically to breast cancer had different missions. Some were focused on research for a cure for breast cancer; others were dedicated to improving the lives of those with breast cancer by providing them with information, inspiring them, and connecting them to communities of support. There were so many names and logos associated with "pink"the hallmark colour and branding for breast cancer awarenessthat it was challenging for people to know where to go for help and where their money went when they wanted to support breast cancer research initiatives. Individuals on BCO's site relied heavily on BCO's content as a source of information (see Exhibits 7-8). Lusen expanded on this need (see Exhibit 9): Breastcancer.org stands apart [from the crowd] for our global reach, comprehensive medical content, and robust patient community. We are entirely focused on the digital delivery of care that millions of people need now. Many organizations that we "compete" with strive to find "the cure." Breastcancer.org, itself, is not about research or providing research for a cure; it is, as our mission states, about complex medical and personal information about breast health and breast cancer so the women and men affected by breast cancer can make the best decisions for their lives.

THE EFFECT OF COVID-19 ON NON-PROFITS The spread of COVID-19already a concern early in 2020 and declared a pandemic in March 2020 required that many businesses either adapt to the new environment or shut completely. Most in-person business and social gatherings and activities were prohibited or at least restricted. Events from coast to coast had been postponedindefinitely.7 The COVID-19 outbreak caused BCO to pause all its in-person fundraising events for the foreseeable future. Non-profits, like for-profit companies and organizations, were deeply impacted by COVID-19. 8 Pervasive shutdowns and restrictions meant that non-profits had to cancel in-person events, including critical fundraisers. This cut deeply into planned revenues that were badly needed to maintain organizations' abilities to meet the needs of those they served. A market research study from WealthEngine Fundraising reported that 75 per cent of non-profits were negatively impacted in revenues and funding as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and had to make cuts to their budgets; yet 35 per cent of non-profits experienced an increase in demand for services.9 In 2019-2020, BCO's revenue fell 7.36 per cent, from US$5.87 million to $5.43 million.10 Non-profits that successfully navigated the pandemic relied heavily on digital marketing as well as unique and creative fundraising tactics. Those organizations that were not already digital needed to find ways to embrace alternatives like social media, email campaigns, and digital content marketing. Another effect of the pandemic for non-profits was limiting in-person interactions between organizations and their donors. Cancelled in-person fundraising events drove a need for more digital interactions. As a digital-only organization, BCO was well positioned in this new virtual environment.

RAISING FUNDS

Money was a frequent topic of conversation within the BCO offices and among the board of directors. The organization was constantly looking for ways to raise money. Lusen and her team evaluated BCO's sources of funding and relative success over the previous few years, looking for the best sources of revenue for the coming year. BCO's 2019-2020 total revenue was $5.43 million, which was a decrease of 7.36 per cent from the previous year, although revenues had been increasing before that. Discussions about finances often became heated during economically unstable times. BCO had cut programs and expenses in 2019-2020 to grow the bottom line, but the cuts had limited the organization's ability to fulfill its mission to provide more programming. Now that the organization needed to finalize a budget for the 2020-2021 fiscal year in just a few months, there was even more urgency to determine the best combination of funding options BCO relied on revenue from several key sources (see Exhibit 10). In the past, the organization had raised money using traditional methods, such as fundraising drives to potential donors, which were heavily reliant on phone calls and direct-marketing emails. Individual donations, not tied to events, consisted of one-time gifts. According to research conducted by the National Philanthropic Trust, individual contributions were one of the highest sources of revenue for non-profits (71 per cent) in 2019.11 Even without considering the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, financials from 2019 showed that donors and their contributions were strained. BCO needed to examine other avenues for raising funds. Looking back to 2018, perhaps one of the most notable fundraising tactics for BCO was hosting large-scale galas and events. These events commanded premium dollars for entry.

CONSIDERATIONS Lusen had a lot of experience in marketing and advertising. She had a vast network of contacts with whom she could share ideas and generate valuable programs and partnerships to generate funds. There was a multitude of funding models for Lusen to consider, from events to corporate sponsorships to individual fundraising drives. Lusen contemplated her options, including recommendations provided by the rest of BCO's leadership team. She was anticipating a mix of several funding options to create a diverse range of sources. This would enable BCO to reach people and organizations and encourage them to donate at levels in keeping with what type of donor they were (i.e., corporate versus individual, and if individual, in which donation category).

Option #1: Micro-Donation Campaigns One strategy might come in the form of a subscription model, termed "micro donations." Micro donations introduced donors to the act of giving by gently soliciting small donations, usually ranging from $0.25 to $25.00. 12 Lusen felt that this would be a sustainable way to generateand continue generatingfunds. A benefit to micro donations was that the support was constant over time, even if at low levels. This option would cast a wide net across all community users, both domestically and internationally, and elicit a "pay to play" concept. BCO had a community of over 225,000 members. They did not pay dues; they could make micro donations as they chose. With the size of the community being so large, every donation of any size really would make a difference.13

Option #2: Corporate Sponsorships Another strategy might be to focus efforts on corporate sponsorships. Securing corporate sponsorships usually involved persuading for-profit companies to provide activities, programs, or events. Non-profits received the help they needed to continue serving their missions, and the contributing companies received tax deductions and positive perceptions of their brands.

Corporate sponsorships could come in varying forms: financial contributions; in-kind donations of services; paid media (money donated to purchase advertising); earned and owned media (social media, public relations); employee giving campaigns organized by the corporation; or volunteer, pro bono assistance.

Option #3: Events

A third option would be to organize special fundraising events. While in-person events were limited by pandemic restrictions, events were increasingly virtual, held online.15 The social benefits of in-person events were meaningful to both the non-profit and its corporate sponsors. The costs for attendees were quite high, but the events had large expenses that often cut heavily into the net amount of money raised. Expenses included gifts for high-level sponsors and donors; catering, food, beverages, and decorations; invitations and publicity; and entertainment, for galas. Hosted virtual events had grown in number since the onset of the pandemic. Unlike in-person events, virtual events had minimal costs since they did not require physical venues, food and beverages, and moree. They were offered for a much lower cost of entry yet yielded far more net revenue for many non-profits.

Option #4: Non-Sponsored Advertising Banner advertising revenue for online advertising was calculated at a rate per thousand clicks on a web page, known as cost per mille (CPM; see Exhibit 11). Using online advertising on a non-profit's website was a growing fundraising strategy for non-profits in general, especially with the rise of digital media as a method for sharing an organization's message. Monetizing BCO's site might be an innovative way to increase revenue for the non-profit. 16 Monthly incremental revenue could be calculated by using a CPM rate (see Exhibit 12).17 However, one concern with selling online banner advertising was that non-profits needed to maintain their 501(c)(3) status.18 Money raised by selling ads in the form of banner advertising could be considered unrelated revenue and could subject a non-profit organization to "unrelated business income tax." 19 BCO could consider this option to attract a broader list of corporations, such as those in the pharmaceutical trade or offering breast cancer drugs and treatments.

Option #5: Content Syndication As industry began to view technology as a critical factor in opening many doors and lowering hurdles to fundraising, content syndication became a source of raising funds.20 Any kind of digital content could be syndicated. A video, blog post, article, or infographic, for example, could be republished on one or more websites, spreading the original publisher's content on multiple forums. Website hosts also liked syndicated content because it provided fresh information for the website's viewers.21 BCO could targetspecific audiences with focused messages or purposes, 22 which would then be republished by third-party websites. 23 The third-party websites would receive free, relevant content, and BCO would get free exposure and publicity of its proprietary content. Inserting backlinks to BCO's website in the content should also increase organic traffic on BCO's website.

Option #6: Grants BCO was already seeking grants, and that activity could be enhanced with focused grant writing efforts. Applications needed to be submitted to foundations, government, and private institutions and organizations for specific grants of money that were available to worthy causes for specific projects.24 Grants were different from general donations because people who donated money to a cause decided how they would allocate their money: they could donate nothing, to one cause, or to many. A grant, however, was a fund that was established for the purpose of providing funding to support various programs and causes. The money was going to be donated; however, many organizations competed for the grant money. If BCO were to seek grant money, it would be in competition with others doing the same; therefore, it would need to convince the grant organizers that BCO should receive funding over another organization.

Option #7: Earned-Income Strategies or Fee for Service A final strategy could be to earn income. Earned-income strategies were efforts a person or organization undertook to generate revenue for work, services, or products that they provided. For non-profits, earned income often came from mission-related sales.25 This option would be complex and could distract BCO's management team from the work that went into developing the organization's current content and shaping the messaging of its programs. RUNNING ON EMPTY BCO relied heavily on its donors to provide the funds necessary to sustain and develop its programming. However, while donor revenue was greatly valued, the organization needed to drive revenue growth through other sources to relieve the pressure of relying upon donors. What other revenue sources could Lusen access, and was there a way to convert community members to sustaining donors? The answers would aid Lusen in preparing a strategy that she could present to the board at the upcoming board meeting.