[DDN] I make no profit, therefore I suck

[tom abeles]

Hi John and all

This is an interesting discussion and deserves serious consideration.
First, the for-profit world does well understand the role of the non-profit 
organizations. This can be seen in the large amounts raised regularly by the 
for-profit sectors, many of which have committed a percentage of profits for 
sponsored work.

There are many issues here, not all black and white:

1) The nfp's often think their clients are the communities in which they 
work. In reality, they are a bridge between their real clients, the funders 
and the people who are the ultimate recipients. Like brokers, or middle 
persons, they take the raw material, money, and add other ingredients and 
then provide these to the beneficiaries.

The idea that the for-profits or other donors have no say, or should have no 
say is a prevalent attitude that needs to change, particularly in an 
internet world where the use of these resources and their effect are made 
visible and not just indirectly by a report from the nfp.  Accountability 
and communications changes the game

2) Like any sector, not all nfp's with birght ideas and enthusiasm have the 
right or ability to survive. The funders, like any savvy buyer, now has a 
choice of whom they wish to support. With good communications, the funders 
can selectively choose, when, where, with whom and for what they want to 
expend their funds.

There will be fall outs as expected in any area. And therein lies a problem 
since even big, successful enterprises may, in the long term, not survive. 
And the small may survive as a boutique or, in the end, die, sometimes still 
born

John's analogy of the America's Cup is great. It works for automobile 
racing, bicycle racing and any other competitive sport. There are sponsors 
and sponsored. Many an aspiring competitor will have to pay their dues until 
they reach a level of competition that attracts a sponsor. Those that do, 
stand a chance of getting others. Many who aspire, die in an aspire mode

The same holds for any enterprise, regardless of whether it is 
entertainment, like golf or tennis, businesses or nfp's serving a variety of 
underserved communities.

Putting up a sign saying that an org is a nfp or has a worthy cause is no 
guarantee of success or attracting funding.

Its not that the funders don't understand. Its the nfp's that need to 
understand

thoughts?

tom

tom abeles


>From: John Hibbs <skipper at bfranklin.edu>
>Reply-To: The Digital Divide Network discussion 
>group<digitaldivide at digitaldivide.net>
>To: The Digital Divide Network 
>discussiongroup	<digitaldivide at digitaldivide.net>
>Subject: Re: [DDN] I make no profit, therefore I suck
>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:27:41 -0700
>
>There may be on this list a few followers of the America's Cup, just
>completed. For those unaware, this is the icon of all sailing events
>-- there are about 20 competitors each of whom puts up about $100
>million U.S. dollars to build what is hoped to be a competitive
>entrant. All of them are successful at getting corporate sponsorship,
>even though the viewership is fairly small.
>
>What do they sell?  I think they sell "ego" -- made easier to "buy"
>based on the proposition that the viewership is mostly of fairly rich
>people mostly in positions of influence and/or power.
>
>That's a long way to comment on Dave Chakrabari's post, which raises
>tough questions -- of a kind the America's Cup competitors also face?
>(Not snipped -- and hopefully not snipped by Andy or those in charge
>here--- worth re-reading, methinks.)
>
>Can those doing not-for-profit work "sell" the idea that they reach
>Movers and Shakers? That while it is hard to provide benchmarks and
>absolutes it is "easy" to make the claim that "good work supported by
>good (for profit) companies" is a /profitable/ undertaking? That the
>direct links between the work itself might be hard of precisely
>substantiate; but the linkage by way of conversation, dialogue, press
>release, blog, list serv, video uploads have impact as favorable to
>the sponsor as a Coke ad behind home plate during the World Series.
>
>If Coke can make the claim more people drink their beverage based on
>people interested in a baseball outcome, why can't non profits make
>the same kind of claim?
>
>John Hibbs
>http://www.bfranklin.edu/johnhibbs
>
>At 1:12 PM -0500 6/8/07, Dave Chakrabarti wrote:
> >Greetings, list folk,
> >
> >At the NetSquared conference recently, there was a comment made by a
> >venture capitalist that "Some nonprofits just suck". This was
> >partially attached to a discussion of nonprofit sustainability
> >models, with a very large portion of participants taking it for
> >granted that "sustainability" meant charging for services. There is
> >an entrenched view that foundation grant funding and other donations
> >can never be "sustainable", and that there must be a return on
> >services offered that eventually sustains the organization financially.
> >
> >I responded to much of this. There's a synopsis on the Nonprofiteer:
> >http://nonprofiteer.typepad.com/the_nonprofiteer/2007/06/
> >dear_nonprofite.html#comment-72142198
> >(thanks, Nonprofiteer, for the kind words).
> >
> >The continuing debate lives here: http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/
> >2007/05/some_nonprofits.html#comment-71226258
> >
> >and here: http://www.tacticalphilanthropy.com/2007/06/
> >philanthropic_c.html#comment-72140764
> >
> >...and other comment threads on the Tactical Philanthropy site and
> >elsewhere.
> >
> >Coming under fire for offering services for free, by nonprofit
> >funders who do not seem to understand the difference between "mission-
> >driven" and "profit-driven", forces me to suggest that we, as a
> >sector, need to develop stronger language regarding these issues.
> >Most of all, we need to work towards a different model of
> >sustainability, so that we can pose alternate definitions when a
> >potential funder equates "sustainability" with a system based on
> >marginal returns for services offered.
> >
> >So my question is: "How do we measure sustainability if we're mission-
> >focused (nonprofit) instead of profit-focused (for profit)?".
> >
> >And related: "How do we communicate the difference to the venture
> >capitalist, foundation, and other donor communities who we're hoping
> >will support our work?".
> >
> >In both cases, by "we" I mean all of us mailing list denizens, not
> >our organization in particular.
> >
> >Responses appreciated. Backup on Tactical Phil would be awesome (I
> >think I'm outnumbered).
> >
> >    Dave.
> >
> >------------------------
> >Dave Chakrabarti
> >Director of Programs
> >Grassroots.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
>DIGITALDIVIDE at digitaldivide.net
>http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
>To unsubscribe, send a message to digitaldivide-request at mailman.edc.org 
>with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.

_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com