This reader comment on a New York Times article about electric cars caught my attention:
“Just get NASCAR to change its rules to only allow electric powered cars to race and see how quickly the technology becomes not only affordable, but mainstream as well…”
WAKE-UP CALL: The thought highlights the need for nonprofits to think beyond their traditional base, and to forge partnerships with groups that are on the opposite side of the spectrum in order to create large-scale change.
Amidst all the recent financial gloom and doom, I thought it’s worthwhile to report a blip of good news on the fundraising front and relate the lessons that can be learned from it. The New York Times reported today that its Neediest Cases Fund has increased its contributions significantly over last year. The number of donors has jumped 53% from 2,955 to 4,518, and the fund is $500,000 ahead of where it was this time last year (a total of $3.7 million was raised so far). Apparently the heightened awareness of the needs of those living in poverty has touched the middle class, despite their own financial concerns.
This entry is in response to an op ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times on December 24, 2008: The Sin in Doing Good Deeds.
Easing our insistence on low overhead ratios for charities, will help them to co-opt the profit motive. One reason that nonprofits are not as effective with their own in fundraising is not specifically the profit motive, but the fact that the public insists on nonprofits maintaining low overhead ratios (such as 85%). On the face of it, it makes sense that donors don’t want to see their money spent on administration or fundraising costs – they want it to go directly into programs.
This entry is in response to an op ed piece by Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times on December 24, 2008: The Sin in Doing Good Deeds
A new concept in business is the Triple Bottom Line: Profit, People, and the Planet. By paying attention to all of these elements, we create more responsible corporations, and in turn, a more responsible society. Just as businesses are expanding their outlook from merely profit to include social and environmental responsibility, it is time that we allowed nonprofits to expand their focus as well to incorporate a bit of the profit motive.
Earned income ventures is the name that nonprofits are giving to their business pursuits, allowing them to derive revenue from sources other than purely altruistic donations. This trend is on the rise and is here to stay, so let’s embrace it and allow nonprofits to take advantage of the market forces that have rewarded those in the private sector.
WAKE UP CALL: To what extent does your nonprofit take advantage of market forces to achieve its mission?
In their book, Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits, Leslie R. Crutchfield and Heather MacLeod Grant describe the key practices they uncovered in studying a cross section of nonprofits that achieve large-scale results. Their key findings:Continue reading
The population is aging at a rate faster than anyone had anticipated. In less than three decades from now, the number of people globally under the ages of five years and those above the age of 65 will criss-cross. That means that there will be more elderly people around than younger ones. Projecting another 30 years forward and the number of elderly will double their younger cohorts.Continue reading
The trend toward accountability in the nonprofit sector and the resulting need for performance evaluation is a problem facing the substance-abuse treatment sector, according to an article in The New York Times on Dec. 22, 2008. The article explores the concept that few rehabilitation programs have the evidence to show that they are effective. Continue reading
Red Rooster Group recently worked with a nonprofit organization that had multiple tiers of sponsorship naming — the entire building as well as specific wings of the building, its departments and individual programs, as well as a book series — all named after people.
Their series of brochures, are typically named for their respective programs. Given that these sponsors names, some of which were quite long, had to appear in the nameplates of the various publications, a plan was needed in order to handle them appropriately.
We identified the following three considerations for addressing sponsorship names:
1. Political – how the name is treated based on the donor’s request balanced with the needs of the organization. The size of the donation, the clout and influence of the donor, and the need and fortitude of the organization will come into play.
2. Relative – the size, nature and payout of the donation relative to other contributions for that organization. It is easiest to set up this hierarchy before soliciting contributions in order to set the standards for the appropriate recognition and treatment of sponsors’ names.
3. Logistical – the practical considerations that will determine how a sponsor’s name is treated. Each media will tend to have its own limitations. Building names, for example, may require a significant capital investment and have a fairly long lifespan, while links from an online recognition can provide quick means additional information.
Most foundations are not making changes they and their grantees say are essential to supporting nonprofit success, but there is evidence of a gradual shift to more nonprofit friendly grantmaking practices, according to a new survey from Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.
The research, conducted by Harder+Company Community Research, was the second-ever comprehensive survey of the attitudes and practices of all staff ed grantmaking foundations in the United States. It builds on a similar study conducted in 2003 by the Urban Institute in partnership with GEO.
There is a pronounced disconnect between the ways in which grantmakers are supporting nonprofits and what nonprofits say could contribute most to their success. Further, many grantmakers have not adopted practices that they themselves see as important for effective grantmaking.
In focus groups through GEO’s Change Agent Project and in surveys conducted by colleague organizations, nonprofit leaders have consistently pointed to two critical areas where changes in grantmaker practice can lead to better support for nonprofits:
Red Rooster Group is a New York based graphic design firm that creates effective brands, websites, and marketing campaigns to increase your visibility, fundraising, and communications effectiveness. Contact us at info@redroostergroup.com.
I recently received an email that reinforced the importance of having a strong name for your nonprofit organization. Envirolution, a website leading the revolution for environmental jobs, was launching their latest project: The Win-Win Campaign — a youth-led small business energy and carbon efficiency campaign.The name Win-Win Campaign name made me grin — how can you go wrong with a name like that? It underscores the importance of the emotional impact that a name makes when people hear it. And face it, who would you rather support, The Association of Small Businesses for Carbon Efficiency (ASMCA) or The Win-Win Campaign? (I made up ASMCA to demonstrate how most nonprofits name themselves, that is, purely descriptive and not result-oriented.)
Envirolution’s e-mail also contained the names of other groups that they work with including Always Build Green, Make Me Sustainable, Global Kinect, and Urban Go Green — all names that have an immediate appeal. Always Build Green is powerful because it is an exhortation that is easy to understand. The name Make Me Sustainable is an invitation that is hard to resist. The names Global Kinect, and Urban Go Green are short, direct and sound progressive, but it is not entirely clear what they do, making them a little less powerful.
WAKE UP CALL: Make your organization’s name compelling and it will make it that much easier to achieve your mission. Align your programs, campaigns and events around the same theme for even more impact.
Tips for Naming Nonprofits
A December 15 recent radio broadcast on NPR highlighted the gap in how this country provides a social net for the poor. The “Hunger in America,” episode of On Point, hosted by Tom Ashbrook, featured guest Joel Berg, who is author of the book “All You Can Eat: How Hungry is America” and Executive Director of the NYC Coalition Against Hunger which represents more than 1,200 nonprofit soup kitchens and food pantries in New York City. Continue reading
This large upside-down image of the Mona Lisa holds some surprises. Modern viewers will have no trouble recognizing the iconic image, though pixelated as it is. We have been accustomed to seeing this famous painting altered, satirized and otherwise copied in so many ways that even the cliché has become banal.
However, this interpretation deserves another look. In fact, it requires one. Upon close inspection, the work of art is comprised of thousands of spools of colored thread carefully arranged to form the image. But to fully appreciate this piece, you need to view it through the glass globe stationed 10 feet in front of the work. Viewed through the sphere, the upside-down the work is both righted and sharpened into focus.
As if that weren’t clever enough, the artist portrays the image with a tourist’s hand holding a camera obscuring Mona Lisa’s face to show how most viewers would actually experience the world’s most famous work of art in person.
WAKE UP CALL: This piece holds lessons for us in giving new perspective and context in which to re-examine the familiar, subverting cultural clichés, and in the repurposing of materials in imaginative ways.
SOURCE: This piece is part of the exhibit titled Second Lives, on display at the Museum of Art and Design in Manhattan, running through April 19, 2009. The exhibit showcases artists who have breathed new life into mundane items such as buttons, beer bottle caps, plastic spoons, and discarded magazines – turning these utilitarian objects into works of great beauty or contemplation.