5 ms·

This is a great move for YC. They've never been about making ludicrous amounts of money which is one reason they've been able to be so successful. I loved tha

This is a great move for YC. They've never been about making ludicrous amounts of money which is one reason they've been able to be so successful. I loved that they funded Watsi and agree wholeheartedly that non-profits can benefit from YC/startup advice in general. As a side note, I think that we've as a culture have been approaching non-profits entirely wrong [0]. Instead of letting them build structure to actually maximise the help they can give, we require them to be stripped-down organizations so their metrics can show they're giving as much money away as possible. This is why we've seen such a surge in for-profit-but-that's-not-the-main-point companies like Tom's Shoes lately. It's simply the best way to do the most good. [0] http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about...

icebraining 13y ago
He was also in an hour-long episode of Econtalk: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.htm...
notahacker 13y ago
With donor funded nonprofits the "product" is fulfilling the donors' wish to see money spent on X, so the litmus test for spending the money for donor-funded organizations should be if donors knew we were spending on this, would they change their mind about the donation. Rational, reasonable people won't mind some of their donation being spent soliciting further donations, but they will mind nearly all the money being spent on fundraising activity, to the point where it's essentially a marketing matrix giving little more than an "image rights" fee to the good causes. Profit making companies like Tom's Shoes that see philanthropy as a core brand value, are a different matter. There's room for more of them irrespective of how the charitable sector organizes itself.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > With donor funded nonprofits the "product" is fulfilling the donors' wish to see money spent on X I disagree. With donor funded nonprofits, the product can be to fulfill the donors wish to see their money achieving outcome X, not seeing their money spent on outcome X (it can also be as you present; different donors have different motives.) I don't think that necessary challenges your conclusions, but I think it is an important distinction.

icebraining 13y ago

He was also in an hour-long episode of Econtalk: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.htm...

notahacker 13y ago

With donor funded nonprofits the "product" is fulfilling the donors' wish to see money spent on X, so the litmus test for spending the money for donor-funded organizations should be if donors knew we were spending on this, would they change their mind about the donation. Rational, reasonable people won't mind some of their donation being spent soliciting further donations, but they will mind nearly all the money being spent on fundraising activity, to the point where it's essentially a marketing matrix giving little more than an "image rights" fee to the good causes. Profit making companies like Tom's Shoes that see philanthropy as a core brand value, are a different matter. There's room for more of them irrespective of how the charitable sector organizes itself.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> With donor funded nonprofits the "product" is fulfilling the donors' wish to see money spent on X I disagree. With donor funded nonprofits, the product can be to fulfill the donors wish to see their money achieving outcome X, not seeing their money spent on outcome X (it can also be as you present; different donors have different motives.) I don't think that necessary challenges your conclusions, but I think it is an important distinction.