George Steinbrenner was widely known as a philanthropist, especially in Tampa, where he lived much of his life. That was the usual brand of philanthropy and his reputation is well deserved.
I’m positing something different.
Could his lavish spending on the Yankees franchise be a form of philanthropy? It benefited the public and philanthropy is a public good. His Yankees spending brought all kinds of division and World Series titles to New York City and gave fans enormous boasting rights.
Is that not a public good? Especially considering the team’s miserable condition when he bought it in 1973, when it was more a reason for embarrassment than a source of pride.
I don’t mean, “was it legally philanthropy,” or “charitable” as in the Internal Revenue Code. I’m not suggesting his expenses were deductible, or anything of the sort.
But since his money brought so much joy and pride to a city’s people, can we say his private spending was philanthropic? Weigh in and let me know what you think.
Every nonprofit faces these issues. Big nonprofits have experts in all areas.
The other 95% have The Tony Martignetti Show. Trusted experts and thought leaders throughout the country join me to take on the tough issues facing small and medium size organizations.
This week:
I Welcome You To My Show (so new it’s not branded yet)
Starting Your Planned Giving Program; guest Steve Imperato, Future Funds.
Cloud Computing is Perfect for Smaller Nonprofits; guest Scott Koegler, editor, Nonprofit Technology News.
Boards: Recruiting; Retaining; and Releasing Recalcitrants; guest Michael Davidson, board coach.
Listen: Friday, July 16th, 1-2 Eastern, and every Friday or listen to the podcast; coming to iTunes soon.
Courtesy of TW Collins on Flickr.Our country’s nonprofits are swiftly becoming more like their for-profit corporate counterparts.
Recently, Reuters told us nonprofits mimic the language of Wall Street, but for years donors have demanded to be treated as investors, and the institutions have obliged, referring to “returns on investment” and negotiating gift arrangements as contracts. More recently, foundations and individual donors have insisted on outcome metrics, best practices, benchmarking, social impact and performance standards. All of this was unheard of 7 to 10 years ago in nonprofit communities.
Donors and grantors are not alone in creating this change in culture and enterprise organization. Federal and state governments also unite our nonprofit and profit-making corporations. Since Sarbanes-Oxley reforms were levied against the profiteers in 2002, serious talk about identical improvements has trickled down to those with a calling higher than profit. (I’m uncertain what tone to take about this: lamentation; resignation; pride; excitement; exhilaration.)
To my recollection, “board development” didn’t exist 10 years ago. At the least, it wasn’t nearly as much a part of the nonprofit lexicon as today.
Our Internal Revenue Service, through its agents and tax-exempt commissioners, measures, and pronounces about good governance, accountability, financial integrity, transparency and oversight.
State Charity Registration laws, which I study, write and speak about a lot, have been enforced more in the last 18 months than anybody I know can remember. The IRS stepped in here, too, probing more directly in its heavily-revised Form 990, an unusual instance of a federal agency asking about compliance with purely state laws.
Even the legal form of the nonprofit enterprise is becoming indistinguishable from its counterpart. Several states have adopted the Low-profit Limited Liability Company, or L3C. Profit is allowed but must not be the primary objective. (By the way, you should pay attention to Gene Takagi, publisher of the blog at that last link.)
Nonprofits are becoming more like companies.
Part of me longs for the charming days, when do-gooders came together, appointed their parents and friends to boards, raised money, and did their best with heart and head to make a difference in their community. We cannot return to that time, and we shouldn’t. But I partly miss it. It was so much easier.
I’m between resignation and excitement, closer to the latter. Funders and governments demand change and nonprofits are complying, looking more like for-profits, at a pace that is accelerating and will not reverse.
This brings enormous, promising opportunity for smarter, more efficient execution of charitable missions, which should mean better service to those in need throughout the world. (That sentence hits on several subjects debated by bigger thinkers and more august personages than me.) Look at organizations like charity: water and The Center for High Impact Philanthropy to discover the possibilities. (At The Center, I commend Autumn Walden to your attention.)
What examples do you see of the corporatization of nonprofits? Are you excited by what we’re witnessing? Do you miss the old days, or am I alone?
A recent lunch makes me think about how we all should always be promoting. A vendor colleague asked me to arrange lunch with a mutual client. I have the stronger relationship with the client, so I was happy to do it and our client was obliging.
The other consultant never turned the conversation to how he could be more helpful to our client and how they could do more business together. The client was fully expecting to have that discussion and was open to it. I heard three or four statements from the client that could have been made into openers about expanding business, and I offered one myself. The guy just wasn’t going to promote his business and talk about an expanded relationship, although that was a reason for the lunch. (The other was to say “thank you for your business,” which emerged half-hearted.)
As a professional fundraiser, you should always be promoting your nonprofit. It really doesn’t matter whether you’re on the phone or in person, talking to a donor, prospect, board member, colleague or audience. I hope you work for a nonprofit you’re proud of, and whose good work you want to tell everybody about. You’ll convey enthusiasm about the mission and as your zeal becomes habit, others will want to join you, and expand their relationship with the institution.
It won’t happen overnight, but it won’t happen ever if you ignore opportunities.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy asks how Boys & Girls Clubs of America should react to the controversy around ESPN’s donation of advertising revenue from the LeBron James TV spectacle.
They should take the money and run.
If James, ESPN, other media and the NBA have embarrassed themselves, that’s a matter for their CEOs, consciences and PR agencies. The Boys & Girls Clubs of America was the recipient of a donation and press attention that are enviable.
The nonprofit doesn’t look bad. It looks like an agency accepting gifts to support its good work. The controversy swirling around the donation shouldn’t stand in the agency’s way of graciously thanking Mr. James for his support.
