I was reading this article in the Globe and Mail. It recounts the history of a small canadian firm, TakingITGlobal which...does something involving youth and connecting them to changing the world. In the words of the founder "social networking for social change." Hmmm. Formally, "Our mission is to provide opportunities for learning, capacity-building, cross-cultural awareness and self-development through the use of Information and Communication Technologies."
I know very little about TakingITGlobal. The article is part of the G and M's "business incubator" series which examines and solicits solutions from consultants to problems faced by small businesses.
TIG, like almost all not-for-profits, would like to secure and increase their revenue streams and membership, as the majority of their funding is from government or foundation sources. I discussed the demands made on not-for-profits to secure grants this week in connection to the Wellesley Institute's report, We Can't Afford to do Business this Way.
The solutions offered to diversify revenue:
Typical not-for profit solutions:
Last comment on the article: I was suprised at the vitriole directed at the organization in the comments section. They can't see why the organization exists at all and generally see it as a charity that sucks money away from 'real' cash-stricken charities. I have found that that is a constant and legitimate question about not-for-profits whose primary role is to direct people or information or funds to/about other not-for-profits.
I know very little about TakingITGlobal. The article is part of the G and M's "business incubator" series which examines and solicits solutions from consultants to problems faced by small businesses.
TIG, like almost all not-for-profits, would like to secure and increase their revenue streams and membership, as the majority of their funding is from government or foundation sources. I discussed the demands made on not-for-profits to secure grants this week in connection to the Wellesley Institute's report, We Can't Afford to do Business this Way.
The solutions offered to diversify revenue:
Typical not-for profit solutions:
- seek sponsorship (that hopefully won't conflict with your mandate and values). Sponsorship is often suggested as a way of underwriting not-for-profit enterprises but has great potential with TIG because of their global reach and sizeable membership. (this was mentioned)
- more government/foundation funding
- earned revenue (institutions: ancillary revenues i.e. gift shops and restaurants; cultural groups: merchandise; corporate fees; service providers: membership fees, product sales, other ancillary revenues)
- on-site advertising. I am surprised they don't have advertising on the site, as hasn't this been the major revenue stream for internet businesses? And, with an estimated 200,000 members, guaranteed clicks)
- create and collect fees for "premium" membership. But will people pay? My personal experience: I blanche at paying for content. Why pay when there is so much good content for free? I really despise when I am forced to watch a video ad before reading an article, but I will put up with it if it means not having to pay! One of the more brutal responses to the G&M article summed it up like this: "only think[sic] people pay for online is gambling, porn and ebay. how many people pay to read newspapers online?" But I know Nerve and Salon have gone this way.
- rebrand in order to attract new members (which would involve redoing parts of the site, I assume). I personally find the site has no point of entry for new users. I'm 26. Am I considered youth or not? Is the site for me or not? It's hard to tell. Confused at the point of entry, I do not waste time going further.
- also to attract new members: use other social networking sites, ie. Facebook. I found out about this wonderful micro-lending organization through Facebook. Funnily enough, my friend whose page it was on wasn't even a lender, but now I am.
Last comment on the article: I was suprised at the vitriole directed at the organization in the comments section. They can't see why the organization exists at all and generally see it as a charity that sucks money away from 'real' cash-stricken charities. I have found that that is a constant and legitimate question about not-for-profits whose primary role is to direct people or information or funds to/about other not-for-profits.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment