profiting from the non-profit
I confess to having an occasional (well, perhaps frequent, but often repressed) affinity for fashion magazines (e.g. Vogue, In Style, Lucky etc…), and am momentarily allured by the pages of fashion and glamour -- the illusion, that perhaps if I bought the right clothes, and wore the right make up, I might actually look socially adept.*
In recently looking at the “Improper Bostonian”, a humor/fashion/rich people magazine that proliferates on the doorstep of my far-too-expensive corporate apartment that I do not pay for, I was glancing through an article on the “10 with style: Meet 10 stylish Bostonians”.
For one profile, the reporter writes “The wife and collaborator of best-selling mystery writer Robert B. Parker is a supporter of numerous charitable causes and always appears looking smashing at fundraisers, receptions and opening nights.”
This little snippet reveals the culture surrounding philanthropy—social status, fashion, and the purchase of morality. Sometimes, it seems that there is much less concern about the actual charities (and the various challenges and problems associated with the causes they are supporting), than about the people who are giving and what they’re wearing.
This seems to further confirm conversations I’ve had with people who currently work or have worked in philanthropy and non-profits. Donors are often insistent on the importance of having their names recognized according to the amount of money they’ve donated. Non-profits often are forced to function as corporations, with donors as their customers. The products they offer are social status, moral righteousness and personal acclaim. As a result, so many well intentioned non-profits are forced to spend time and energy on pleasing their donors than focusing on their actual causes.
[By no means am I saying that it is bad that money is given towards various good causes (nor am I implying that every philanthropist is like this), but it’s sad to see generosity tainted by the pursuit of status and personal glory. Since when did your clothes matter more than the organization that you’re giving to? It makes it seem as though the only part of ‘anthropy’ being loved in philanthropy is oneself. And it makes me wonder if philanthropists ever really experience the rewards of humble and anonymous giving.]
* I usually stop reading once I realize that first of all, they’re rather high school and every issue says the exact same thing; and that second of all, the more I read them, the less content I am with what I have and who I am.
3 comments:
There are philanthropists who don't care for their name to be attached to a building or NGO. There are a few at Penn! While they are rare, it's nice to know the world isn't all that bad...capitalizing on morality. I liked this entry a lot, Linshuang, haha probably because I will end up working for an NGO after graduation.
i agree largely with what you say about philanthropy often being the purchase of morality. however, i wonder if in the end it matters. i don't know that i agree with the statement that much of a charity's time would be wasted on trying to please its donors/customers rather than its root cause - I know that often Mariya and I talk muse about microfinance or other non for profit arms that really end up needing to be FOR PROFIT in order to be sustainable. yes, profitibility can, in a sense, distract the microfinancing organization from doing all it can to lend money to the lowest of the lower class, but in the end, when microfinancing stop being such a fashionable cause for rich people to donate to, how effective can the non for profit microfinancing be in the long term?
your thoughts?
hmmm good points...
initial thoughts:
I would say that being profitable and self-sustainable for a microfinance institution might be one of their goals for helping people. Charities/development organizations need money in order to run operations, it may be better for some to do that through generating enough profit through their operations. Which is basically what you're saying. (Which I think is actually better... I'm a bigger fan of teaching someone to fish, rather than giving fish. E.g. not donating sweaters... but giving sweaters so that a store can be set up and the sweaters can be sold cheaply, providing income to those who work at the store)
Arguably, you could say that all the time charities spend trying to please their donors, isn't a waste of time because it's giving them the proper acknowledgement so that they will continue to give money in the future. I guess what I was referring to as a waste of time -- is all this work at non-profits to make sure that donors appear in the appropriate 'giving bracket', to appease donors if they've accidently been omitted etc...
I think the question of profitability also really depends on what the non-profit is trying to do (and also where those profits are going... e.g. more loans for people!)
so does it matter in the end? I guess that depends on what you mean by what matters. To the people who are receiving the benefits/products of the non-profit, maybe not (though maybe they could get more if the people at the non-profit weren't so busy pleasing donors). But it probably does matter for the donor. If the donor isn't really donating money to the non-profit, but rather trying to purchase some sort of social status with his or her excess money, then he isn't really receiving any of the joys of genuine giving. Too bad for the rich guy.
okay.. i don't even know if all of that made sense. haha :)
Post a Comment