Can you expand on what you dislike about the marketing? When looking at their website I was just dazzled at all the animations, my developer brain was trying to figure out how they worked ;)
At launch—per the Gawker article—their priorities seemed to include lining up a bunch of famous people (who may or may not have known they were involved...) and hiring a PR firm for a glizty launch with lots of meaningless buzzwords, but apparently not having any clue about what the organization would actually accomplish. That strikes me as a prime example of performative charity.
At present, the website is very well-done, but is awfully light on what the organization has accomplished. For example, the second project on their website is “Shield,” accompanied by a long (and generally accurate) description of electrical-grid vulnerability. But people have been engaged in that issue for a while, and it’s unclear what Helena actually accomplished other than promoting two largely symbolic pieces of state legislation. The feel of their marketing doesn’t line up with their 990, which shows low-six figure spend in this area. It doesn’t dispell my impression that the organization is too interested in looking good rather than being firmly focused on doing good.
There is great focus on the “members,” but it is rather unclear what they do—so it comes across as mostly name-dropping. None are listed as employees or contractors on the 990s, which suggests that their involvement is highly limited. (Although you don’t have to list all employees, you have to specify the number, and that number seems to be filled by “our team”). Again, it feels very flashy but without real substance.
Of course, I could be wrong—I am not evaluating them for a grant, so didn’t read everything or read as carefully as I would if I were making a decision on my analysis.
Can you expand on what you dislike about the marketing? When looking at their website I was just dazzled at all the animations, my developer brain was trying to figure out how they worked ;)
At launch—per the Gawker article—their priorities seemed to include lining up a bunch of famous people (who may or may not have known they were involved...) and hiring a PR firm for a glizty launch with lots of meaningless buzzwords, but apparently not having any clue about what the organization would actually accomplish. That strikes me as a prime example of performative charity.
At present, the website is very well-done, but is awfully light on what the organization has accomplished. For example, the second project on their website is “Shield,” accompanied by a long (and generally accurate) description of electrical-grid vulnerability. But people have been engaged in that issue for a while, and it’s unclear what Helena actually accomplished other than promoting two largely symbolic pieces of state legislation. The feel of their marketing doesn’t line up with their 990, which shows low-six figure spend in this area. It doesn’t dispell my impression that the organization is too interested in looking good rather than being firmly focused on doing good.
There is great focus on the “members,” but it is rather unclear what they do—so it comes across as mostly name-dropping. None are listed as employees or contractors on the 990s, which suggests that their involvement is highly limited. (Although you don’t have to list all employees, you have to specify the number, and that number seems to be filled by “our team”). Again, it feels very flashy but without real substance.
Of course, I could be wrong—I am not evaluating them for a grant, so didn’t read everything or read as carefully as I would if I were making a decision on my analysis.
Love that analysis Jason, my impression as well!