3 ms·

I used to buy videogames at a Gamestop next to my neighborhood supermarket. At one point, they had an employee that seemed to love to make unnecessary negative

I used to buy videogames at a Gamestop next to my neighborhood supermarket. At one point, they had an employee that seemed to love to make unnecessary negative comments about my taste in games. It's a manager's prerogative to fire the employee for providing a bad customer experience, just like it was mine to just get my games somewhere else. Ultimately donors are think tank customers, and this is all perfectly fine: A world where I am forced to go to the same store, or a Gamestop manager has to tolerate an employee that tries to deter people from buying non-microsoft products, is probably worse than one where someone on a think tank has to measure what they say. There's learnings to had here though: The case of a think tank relying on very few donors is no different than a B2B startup that relies on a single enterprise company: You have a tremendous risk, the funding can disappear at any time, and for any reason. Anything other than diversification puts you at risk, and it's not really the customer's fault if you put yourself in a very weak position. This also affects far bigger fish, like media companies and even legislators. And that's why we should have care when it comes to both media consolidation, or mechanisms where very few people can have a very big influence in the outcome of an election. But it's not as if we live in a world where the only way to have a think tank that produces policy proposals is to clear everything with Google.

etjossem 9y ago
The retail example is an oversimplification. When the consumers of a company's product are also its primary source of revenue, nobody is under any illusions about who that company is responsible to. You are the person most impacted by Gamestop's customer experience, and you are also the main way Gamestop makes money. Your satisfaction is paramount, so it makes total sense for a company to fire people who don't deliver. Similar example: there's nothing irresponsible about insisting your public relations firm writes you a flattering press release, because everyone understands that a press release is paid for by the company it concerns. A think tank is a different sort of animal. The donor is not the main entity impacted by the policy proposals the think tank produces. Just like a responsible media outlet must have a notion of journalistic integrity, or a legislator's office should feel beholden to its constituents, a think tank has a responsibility to provide sound policy advice to its readers. You can take the position that "think tanks do not have any level of responsibility to the people who consume their policy proposals" but I certainly would not follow you there. Policy institutes present themselves as rigorously data-driven nonprofits and write with an impartial air. If criticism / negative results are known to lead directly to a loss of funding, then it is disingenuous for the think tank to present itself as impartial, and I would consider it compromised. We tend to solve this problem with regulatory agencies that represent the impacted consumer (and not the source of revenue), though I would note that this is the very solution the author was fired for praising.

etjossem 9y ago

The retail example is an oversimplification. When the consumers of a company's product are also its primary source of revenue, nobody is under any illusions about who that company is responsible to. You are the person most impacted by Gamestop's customer experience, and you are also the main way Gamestop makes money. Your satisfaction is paramount, so it makes total sense for a company to fire people who don't deliver. Similar example: there's nothing irresponsible about insisting your public relations firm writes you a flattering press release, because everyone understands that a press release is paid for by the company it concerns. A think tank is a different sort of animal. The donor is not the main entity impacted by the policy proposals the think tank produces. Just like a responsible media outlet must have a notion of journalistic integrity, or a legislator's office should feel beholden to its constituents, a think tank has a responsibility to provide sound policy advice to its readers. You can take the position that "think tanks do not have any level of responsibility to the people who consume their policy proposals" but I certainly would not follow you there. Policy institutes present themselves as rigorously data-driven nonprofits and write with an impartial air. If criticism / negative results are known to lead directly to a loss of funding, then it is disingenuous for the think tank to present itself as impartial, and I would consider it compromised. We tend to solve this problem with regulatory agencies that represent the impacted consumer (and not the source of revenue), though I would note that this is the very solution the author was fired for praising.