Executive Summary
This analysis summarizes the Marketing Survey responses, comparing MissionWorks (MW) and MissionNext. The consensus is that while the core mission and relational connections are strong, significant strategy improvements are needed, particularly in digital consistency, unified branding, and leveraging digital media for storytelling and fundraising. Use the tabs to explore the detailed findings.
Key Consensus: Strengths
- Core mission and values are strong and clear internally.
- Strengths center on "Connecting" and "Matching."
- Personal, relational connections are the primary driver for donors.
Key Consensus: Weaknesses
- Lack of a unified, proactive marketing strategy; ministries operate in silos.
- Digital presence is dated, fragmented (too many sites), and ineffective.
- Fundraising is too reliant on personal staff connections and lacks a digital strategy.
Brand Identity, Values, & Qualities
This section compares the brand perceptions and core values of MissionNext against the broader MissionWorks (MW) entity. While MissionNext has a clear, well-liked identity, the main MW brand is seen as confusing and unappealing to new visitors.
MissionNext (MN)
Current Brand Perception:
- Colors: Inviting, trustworthy, global.
- Fonts: Legible, modern, warm, approachable.
- Logo: Suggests movement, pathways, global reach.
- Imagery: Uses real people, videos, and testimonials.
Values & Strengths:
- Focus on: Pathways, Mobilization, Connection, Accessibility.
- Marketable Quality: "Anyone, anywhere, at any stage of life."
- Matches existing professional skills (teachers, nurses, etc.).
MissionWorks (MW)
Current Brand Perception:
- Primary website is "unattractive" or "unappealing."
- Homepage is an "overwhelming collage."
- Fails to quickly state who they are or what they do.
- Appreciated for continuity, fonts, and concise copy.
Values & Strengths:
- Focus on: Impartial (Switzerland), Unique, Enablement, Excellence.
- Marketable Quality: "Matching" people to opportunities.
- Promotes "Self-discovery."
Brand Improvement Recommendations
- MissionWorks: Homepage *must* state who they are and what they do in one screen. Needs to explain how the family of ministries are related and work toward the same goal.
- MissionNext: Shift to storytelling-driven images that evoke action and hope. Incorporate more short-form video (Reels, testimonies) for social media.
- Both: Integrate MissionNext into the broader MissionWorks structure.
Audience and Donor Profile
Both entities target a diverse range of candidates and rely heavily on donors who have a personal connection to the team.
Ideal Missionary Candidate Profile
MissionWorks
- College students (short-term).
- Working Professionals (skills in business, law, medicine).
- Core requirement: Willing to "surrender ALL" and live a spirit-filled life.
MissionNext
- Broad Age Range: College (18-25), Mid-career (30s-50s), Retirees (60+).
- Attributes: Faith-driven, adventurous, adaptable, resilient.
- Specialty: Mobilizing professional backgrounds (teachers, engineers, IT).
Donor Profile
Common Profile (Both MW & MN)
- Includes monthly, one-time, large, and small donors.
- Key Trait: Most donors are *personally connected* to one or more members of the team.
- MissionNext also notes funding from mid-size churches.
Digital and Marketing Strategy
The most significant finding is the lack of a unified, streamlined strategy. Both entities operate reactively and in silos, with major gaps in website effectiveness and social media presence.
MissionWorks
- Operates as separate ministries in "silos."
- "No overall marketing strategy for a unified organization."
- Lacks print/visual media for conferences and donors.
- Each division sends its own newsletter (4-6 total).
MissionNext
- Relies on word of mouth, partner networks, and church connections.
- Strategy is "organic and reactive," not proactive.
- Budget restricted.
- Needs to leverage storytelling as "marketing currency."
MissionWorks
- "Too many websites with a variety of strategies."
- Must be improved to "clearly articulate MW’s story."
MissionNext
- Design is "somewhat dated."
- Copy is "informational rather than inspirational."
- Recommendations: Shift to audience-centered navigation (e.g., "I'm a teacher"), stronger storytelling, and a mobile-optimized modern refresh.
MissionWorks
- "Small social media presence" (FB, Instagram only).
- Presence is "very limited" (e.g., 7 posts in Sept).
- Posts "do very little to inform" or prompt action.
- Needs to expand to platforms for Gen Y and Z.
MissionNext
- Mostly informational, promoting services, not transformation.
- Uses static graphics and text.
- Opportunity: Shift to a "video-first strategy" (Reels/Shorts) and create persona-specific content for different audiences.
Fundraising Strategy and Projected Return
Fundraising mirrors the marketing strategy: it is relational, reactive, and lacks a unified digital approach. This creates significant risk and limits scalability.
Current Fundraising Approach & Risks
MissionWorks
- "No official fundraising strategy."
- Risk: Heavy reliance on staff's personal connections (donors may leave if staff person leaves).
- Risk: "Too reliant on major gifts/donors" for future projects.
MissionNext
- Highly "relational, trust-driven, and church-centric."
- "Minimal digital footprint for fundraising."
- Risk: Labor-intensive, limits scalability, misses digital givers.
Fundraising Recommendations
MissionWorks
- Engage people/churches matched to an opportunity to become financial supporters of the unified MW ministry.
- Develop a "case for support" tool for the major donor software project.
MissionNext
- Layer in digital storytelling (videos, social snippets).
- Broaden giving channels (recurring, peer-to-peer).
- Strengthen donor cultivation (thank-you videos, impact reports).
MissionNext Projected 3-Year Return
Implementing these strategies is projected to double funding and placements.
Consolidated: Key Gaps & Weaknesses
This section consolidates all major weaknesses, gaps, and "needs improvement" areas identified across the entire survey, providing a clear checklist of problem areas that require strategic attention.
1. Brand & Messaging
- MW website is "unattractive" and "overwhelming."
- MW homepage fails to state "who we are or what we do."
- MW ministries are not clearly related to each other.
- MN copy is "informational," not "inspirational."
2. Marketing Strategy
- "No overall marketing strategy" for a unified MW.
- Ministries operate and market in "silos."
- MN strategy is "organic and reactive," not proactive.
- MN is "budget restricted."
- Lack of print/visual media (brochures) for events.
3. Digital Presence (Web)
- "Too many websites with a variety of strategies."
- MN website design is "somewhat dated."
- Need for better mobile optimization.
- Need for audience-centered navigation (e.g., "I'm a teacher").
4. Digital Presence (Social & Email)
- MW has a "small" and "very limited" social media presence.
- MW posts "do very little to inform" or drive action.
- MN social media uses static graphics, not transformation stories.
- Need for a "video-first strategy" (Reels/Shorts).
- Need to expand to platforms for Gen Y and Z.
- Too many independent newsletters (4-6 from MW).
5. Fundraising Strategy
- "No official fundraising strategy" for MW.
- MN has a "minimal digital footprint for fundraising."
- MN approach is "labor-intensive" and "limits scalability."
6. Fundraising Risks
- Heavy reliance on staff's personal connections.
- Donors may leave if a staff member leaves.
- MW is "too reliant on major gifts/donors."
- MN misses the entire "digital generation of givers."
