Comments on: Pity the Poor Nonprofit, a Damsel in Distress if E’er There Was One

By: Tom Durso

Tom Durso — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:20:24 +0000

Jed and JP: Welcome to the discussion, and thanks for your very interesting thoughts.

By: Nonprofit lipstick on a startup pig? «

Nonprofit lipstick on a startup pig? « — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:06:34 +0000

[...] lipstick on a startup pig? Jump to Comments In the midst of a conversation on the 501(c)Files among skeptics about “venture philanthropy,” the following comment appeared, suggesting [...]

By: JP Burnes

JP Burnes — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:04:54 +0000

What reporters should be questioning about Venture Philanthropy is whether it’s one of the last few tax right offs or tax advantageous schemes–or ways to help buddies get rid of dogs or other unwanted investments. Here’s how it works, and the article regarding ePals, which mentions an investment by National Geographic, makes one think of such a strategy. It happens something like this, a non profit like Nat’l Geoph, and many others like it, creates for-profit entities to generate revenue to help support the non-profit parent. But such arrangements open up more possibilities. So lets say a for profit company, a startup in technology, needs an investment from a known brand, a respected brand, to make it attractive to other investors. But the known-brand knows it won’t get anything for its investment in the startup. So the primary backer of the startup, a VC, donates a few million to the name-brand’s parent non-profit. The brand then turns around and invests nearly the same amount into the startup…….lots of favors all around. There should be far more critical analysis of what’s going on with venture philanthropy. Yes it can do a lot of good. But, yes it opens up more schemes to help a few buddies out. Not saying that’s what happened with anyone mentioned in the NYTimes venture phil story, but that story wasn’t really thorough was it?

By: Jed Whale

Jed Whale — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:07:13 +0000

Thanks for pointing out that the NYT’s piece was a low moment in that paper’s history. The reporter bent over first and then swallowed what was charmingly pumped into him. Or else, an editor hacked the piece and lost any ressemblance of objectivity. Am I the only technologist who read the piece, then went to the ePals and intobooks sites and then wondered what I had just read about after looking under the hood? Nothing made sense. So what gives? The elearning world doesn’t go by the NYTimes biz section. Who does? People and companies who buy ads and potential acquirers. The angle of that story was pitched…it was misdirection, a manipulation of the Times, to have a piece written under the guise of Venture Philanthropy. But the real story is that it was a story, a message meant to impress a small world of former AOL executives and potential buyers. Eight years after the AOLTW merger, and here we go again…same MO.

By: Tom Durso

Tom Durso — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:42:19 +0000

Thanks for reading, NP. Been a tough couple of weeks for the Times, huh?

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:14:58 +0000

Thanks so much for highlighting the content-free nature of this article–which didn’t merely reiterate the mindless worship of the for-profit sector but acted like it was brand new. It’s a shame the New York Times has such difficulty finding anyone to put on the nonprofit beat who actually understands the sector s/he’s covering.