Posts Tagged: ‘nonprofit change’
Funding ideas, motivational nuggets and stories from For Impact.
Browse All | Topics | PodcastsNuggets Feed

My Social Entrepreneur Identity Crisis… And, Philanthropy is Sustainable

December 11, 2008 | Nick Fellers

Lately, I’ve been having something of identity crisis with respect to ‘social entrepreneurs’ and ‘for impact leaders’. A consensus definition is forming that a social entrepreneur includes using some sort of earned-income model. Moreover, I see a general attitude from those consensus circles that fundraising/philanthropy is somehow ineffective or even, in some cases, undesirable because (as I was told by someone last week) ‘it’s not sustainable’.

The traditional nonprofit paradigm needs to change (and is changing). Tom and For Impact have been sounding that horn for a long time along with many others – I don’t think we’re the first and we certainly are not the only.

I have a slightly different take on what a social entrepreneur is–the definition. To me, it’s someone that thinks like an entrepreneur and puts his or her efforts into changing the world. It’s not about the business model, it’s about the attitude. It’s not about earned-income, it’s about ‘changing the performance capacity of society’ (Drucker’s definition).

Social Entrepreneur v. (For) Impact
I was working with an org that’s actively implementing a ‘hybrid model’ including a revenue stream and some private funding support. This organization is tackling poverty and has a pretty kick ass approach (making a HUGE impact). The leaders of this organization run in the social-entrepreneur-world there was a huge romance with finding sustainability through earned income. So much so that that became their message and focus. My question: Do you want to be best in the world at building a hybrid or do you want to be best in the world at ENDING POVERTY?

This is a VERY IMPORTANT question.

On Philanthopy.
It’s sustainable. That is, there is plenty of money and I think many are wrong (fools?) to shun this as a readily available resource to be leveraged. What’s not sustainable is working with that capital and not being able to communicate the impact, the ROI.

  • Last year the US gave away $306 Billion. According to the Giving USA this number has gone up every year since 1987. Even this year it was going up (just not at the same rate as previous years).
  • We’ve also done work in Europe and while I’m not as familiar with the climate I can offer a field-level view that philanthropy is exploding. In Ireland, for example, they’ve changed laws to make giving tax-deductible. While this isn’t the REASON people give it does elevate awareness and the culture of philanthropy.

  • Last January Businessweek interviewed the worlds top philanthropists who said their number one challenge was giving away money effectively, not making money. Think about that… plenty of money… challenge is to do good.

  • I’ve attended Social Enterprise gatherings and am always struck by this point (made by a speaker – I forget the attribution), “It’s hard enough to start a business with people that have their lives together than to try to pull that off with those that are struggling.” More

So what is the answer?
Philanthropy is VERY sustainable for those that show ROI in terms of IMPACT. To offer one example, it can come in the form of long-term strategic partnerships (think City Year and Timberland).

And, to be clear, I am an entrepreneur. I LOVE creative revenue streams. I just want to raise the point about focus, return-on-energy and the trend I’m seeing.

We need to show communicate impact – always.

I’ve been with the foundations and funders that say things like, “We only like to start programs because we don’t want the organization to be dependent on us for operating.” I’ve asked these same funders: “WHAT IF we could show you how that money saves lives every year?” They look at me with a loss for words… as if no one has ever presented this challenge and quickly assure they would more than happily look at such an investment.

Rockefeller… Gates… Google.org. It ain’t going anywhere. I think a real entrepreneur would always leverage these resources. It’s quite sustainable so long as we’re having an impact.


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



New Faces of Philanthropy (For Impact)

December 8, 2008 | Nick Fellers

Last week’s Barron’s weekly magazine featured a story on the New Faces of Philanthropy. It’s a look at Gen X and younger/generational philanthropists (’Next-Gen Givers’).

The article is worth a read if only for this excerpt (my bold caps):

These younger givers—entrepreneurs, executives and latter-day members of old-money clans—are intent on leaving a mark now, not in their 50s and 60s. Some are even dropping the p-word itself. “We don’t call what we are doing philanthropy; we call it having an IMPACT,” says Peter Kellner, 39, managing partner of Uhuru Capital Management.

I’ve been reading more and more about the ‘impending leadership gap in nonprofit management’. I find it difficult to relate to these reports for two reasons. First, pick any point in history and the most-senior leaders will probably be about ready to retire. Secondly, (as a biased gen-x person) it’s just not consistent with what I’m seeing in the field. Although this article spotlights the resource end of the chain it illustrates leadership in the late 20’s through early 40’s noting:

  • Gen X Millionaires doubled the size of giving by their parents and grandparents.
  • Giving is global. “In contrast to grandparents who might have defined “giving back to the community” as contributing to local churches, hospitals and schools, many younger philanthropists think the most compelling projects are overseas.”
    Note: I think ‘The World is Flat’ but don’t agree with this assessment wholesale.
  • The new lens is not just about ‘business models’ but about effectiveness. Horahh! This is HUGE. I think the conversations about social entrepreneurs are focusing too much on ‘business model’ (means) and not enough on impact (the end) AKA–FOR IMPACT.

Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



Trends v. Fundamentals in Nonprofit Funding

November 26, 2008 | Nick Fellers

We’re asked to talk about ‘trends in philanthropy’ or ‘trends in fundraising’ which troubles me because the social sector needs more discussion about fundamentals – not trends. If you ask me to talk about ‘trends’ I will use this as a lens to highlight the lack of fundamentals – think of it as me spinning the conversation – it’s all good.

Every business in and sector lives and breaths by fundamentals, first.

  • A clear vision/direction (illustrated a clear MESSAGE).
  • A clear revenue MODEL.
  • A clear PLAN including an understanding of the MATH (impact math and income math) to get there (e.g. goals, levels, etc.)

As I’m writing this to compare and contrast trends and fundamentals I realize most of the trends (that get discussed) are really fads because too often they’re ‘the next big thing’ and don’t have staying power. These could include:

  • Earned Income (Social Enterprise)
  • Lance Armstrong’s bracelets
  • 5K races
  • Social Networking Funding (The Obama effect)

Maybe if they were backed on a case-by-case basis with fundamentals they would be true trends and not fads.

Example - Earned Income: I went to a Social Enterprise Alliance gathering four years ago. What I witnessed were some orgs starting earned income ventures without attention to fundamentals, no clear plan and no willingness to do the math to see that they were losing $50 on every widget they produced. On top of that, one speaker cautioned, “It’s hard enough to start a business with people that have their lives together let alone those that don’t.” Four years later 16 out of 17 orgs I interviewed abandoned the earned income stream – each for the lack the fundamentals outlined above.

The reason most small businesses fail is because they don’t have a grasp on fundamentals. Nonprofits often don’t ‘fail’ in the same sense that for-profit businesses do [running out of money]. Instead, they limp along for years longer, subsidized by passion, volunteerism and employees on the fast-track to burnout (human capital model)… this unique resource model is often a masking agent for a lack of fundamentals.

If you’re a board member, a senior staff person or development officer you can do a great service to your organization, your team and your cause by leading a discussion on the fundamentals… by leading a discussion to clarify the direction or purpose of the organization, by clarifying the model and by working through the math. This discussion is simple, not easy.


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



New e-book: Change (the) Rules

November 7, 2008 | Nick Fellers

Yesterday, Tom was in Colorado Springs speaking to the AFP with Robbert Egger about Change. Today, I’m at AFP in NW Ohio talking about more of the same. However, I think Tom had more gumption. He put together an entire e-book on change :)

Change (the) Rules (DRAFT) includes all the ‘no-mores’, quotes on change and lots more vocabulary. Tom and I have both been framing our discussions around this quote from Tim Kight:

“Every Organization is Perfectly Designed to Get the Results that it’s Getting.”

Our message, this book and just about everything else we’re doing is about CHANGE, specifically the CHANGE we make to get different results…. Change RULES!


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



Stop Being a Not-for-profit

October 30, 2008 | Nick Fellers

Stop being a not-for-profit.

Why do we define our selves in the negative? It makes no sense. Does your organization exist to ‘not make any money’? Or, does it exist to save lives, change lives and impact lives?

Stop defining yourself by what you’re not. Start defining yourself by what you are for: impact.

More than a shift in language we need a different way of being.

This shift is about attitude. It’s about your purpose (the WHY). It’s about re-thinking an entire sector (or two).

In 1950 Earl Nightingale wrote The Strangest Secret to Success. The secret (common to many beliefs, all sectors and all definitions of success): "We become what we think about". What becomes of us when our entire thinking is about nonprofit? What if we think instead about changing the world?* What becomes?

Then there is some great thinking from Peter Drucker who wrote, "Every organization has to prepare for the abandonment of almost everything it does." That’s powerful. We agree. A lot of ’stuff’ needs to be abandoned**.

Think not and be not about: Think and be about:
  • Charity, 501c3

  • Tin Cups,
    Begging

  • Not-for-profit OR for-profit

  • A cool business/entrepreneur- changing the world.
  • “Selling your Vision”

  • For Impact!

*The Movement: We’ve been sharing this message for the last 15 years and living it for longer than that. The past few years has given rise to an incredible conversation around this VOCABULARY and CHANGE: Social Benefit (Drayton). Social Entrepreneurs/Enterprise. Pierre Odimyer and other change agents are putting resources into ‘for-profits’ that change the world. Google.org comes out and says they will have a ‘for-profit’. It’s no longer about not-for-profit vs. for-profit. It’s about For Impact.

**Abandonment (a start): Direct mail. Lengthy Case Statements. Feasibility Studies. "Volunteer Solicitations". Survival Pitches. Small thinking. Cultivation. Special events (that aren’t special and don’t raise money). Letters that read “We are a 501(c)3” (who cares?). Committee Reports….


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



Timing is Perfect for Impact

December 12, 2006 | Tom Suddes

There has never ever been a better time to move from being a not-for-profit ‘begging’ for money to a For Impact Organization ‘begging’ for change!!!

A Very Important Message:

Thirty days or so left before the end of the ‘06. I’m driving back from Notre Dame after meeting with Jim Davis and Melissa Paulsen (Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies) about Social Entrepreneurism, Micro Ventures, etc. (By the way: Great people. Great program. Great place.)

Here’s my MOTIVATIONAL YEAR-END MESSAGE for every member of the FOR IMPACT COMMUNITY:

THERE HAS NEVER EVER BEEN A BETTER TIME TO MOVE FROM BEING A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ‘BEGGING’ FOR MONEY TO A FOR IMPACT ORGANIZATION ‘BEGGING’ FOR CHANGE!!!

Never, at least in my lifetime (57 years), has there ever been such a
ConfluenceCongruenceComing-together … around this whole idea of PHILANTHROPY, GENEROSITY, SOCIAL IMPACT, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURISM, SOCIAL INNOVATION and more.

This ‘PERFECT STORM’ … this ‘TIPPING POINT’ … this ‘(put in any other metaphor/analogy you want that helps you get it)’ should make everyone who’s engaged in this 3rd Sector, Social Sector, Philanthropic (Friend of Mankind) World very, very EXCITED! [This includes not just the staff who deliver, but the Boards, Volunteers and Volunteer Leaders and Investors who make it happen.]

My BOTTOM LINE: IF … you are actually making an IMPACT … making a DIFFERENCE … CHANGING the WORLD (or a small part of it) …

THEN there are plenty of people, prospects and potential investors who will help FUND that VISION, those GOALS and your OPERATION!!!

WHY?? Because it makes them FEEL GOOD! GREAT! HAPPY! FULFILLED! It allows people to move from SUCCESS to SIGNIFICANCE!!! (It’s been scientifically confirmed that ‘giving/helping’ is good for you! In addition, the MORE you GIVE … THE MORE YOU GET! (I’ve personally witnessed this thousands of times and still don’t understand HOW it works, but it does.)

This whole thing began, at least in my mind, with Bill Gates, in the shower, realizing he had more money than he’d ever need … and that he could make a HUGE IMPACT if he focused on BIG world (and U.S.) problems (health and education). Then, he brought in Melinda, his dad, and Patty Stonecipher.

Then we got the whole West Coast ‘V.C.’: Social Venture Capital thing happening, from Paul Shoemaker in Seattle to Jeff Skoll in San Francisco. (This wasn’t the full ‘answer’, but it created great ‘DIALOGUE’ around investing, return-on=investment, effectiveness, duplication of efforts, and more.

On the East Coast, this MOVEMENT got even more traction when large foundations were challenged on their giving goals and policies. [Huge endowments, giving away only '5%', and only for new programs, never for 'operations', etc.]

Then … WHAM: 9/11. KATRINA. TSUNAMIS & HURRICANES. And we realized that AMERICA … and AMERICANS … are the most incredibly GENEROUS people on the planet!

Then, Pierre Omidyar (eBay) ‘invests’ $100 Million in micro-lending opportunities and other programs, and doesn’t care if you’re a ‘for profit’ or a not-for-profit’, as long as you are FOR IMPACT!

Then, Warren gives Bill and Melinda ‘a few bucks’ ($38 Billion!) … to have an IMPACT! (While he’s still alive.)

Then, the MEDIA. SLATE magazine recognizes the LARGEST GIVERS. So does BUSINESS WEEK. Stanford launches the SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW. FAST COMPANY, with Michael Porter, creates the Social Capital Awards. The ECONOMIST comes out in February of 06 with a first ever survey on philanthropy, social impact, etc. WALL STREET JOURNAL picks up on the ‘theme’.

Last week, John Stoussel does an entire 20/20 on the GENEROSITY of AMERICANS. [Eli Broad tells Stoussel that it's not about 'CHARITY'. It's about an INVESTMENT! He goes on to say basically he can't find enough GOOD ORGANIZATIONS ... making an IMPACT!]. USA TODAY follows up next day with an editorial.

And then there’s OPRAH. She not only covers, encourages , inspires this MOVEMENT … but this year (in lieu of personal gifts/cars to the audience) she gives each of her 342 audience members $1,000 … and CHALLENGES them to ‘PAY IT FORWARD’ (give it away) … to feel the JOY of helping others.

And then there was the BUSINESS, SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE CORPORATIONS, CAUSE MARKETING phenomena that is now ready to EXPLODE! The funny thing? Social responsibility, fair trade, workers rights and the BIGGIE (that’s going to change the world as we know it) ‘GREEN’, eco-friendly, environmentally-conscious … all end up making more money for these ‘do-gooders’!

Starbucks. Wal-Mart. Timberland. IBM. Companies are now willing to step up and say ‘SHAREHOLDER VALUE’ is not just ‘QUARTERLY PROFIT’ but a COMMITMENT to the COMMUNITY and the PLANET. [You must read CAPITALIZING ON CONVERGENCE at Stanford Social Innovation Review.]

And then, a huge WOW! Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank win the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE … for his micro-lending, micro-entrepreneur, micro-IMPACT model! (I was there. In Bangladesh. Saw what goes on with these mostly women and their micro-enterprises. It’s absolutely incredible.)

The biggie here? He gets the ‘PEACE’ prize because ELIMINATING POVERTY is one of the best ways to fix social problems in the 3rd world!!!

What does this all mean to you?

We live in the most GENEROUS country in the world … and perhaps in the history of the world.

Next year, Americans will give well over $300 Billion.

McKinsey says there is $100 Billion of OPPORTUNITY (money left on the table) because of the high cost of fundraising or the lack of ability to communicate our IMPACT/MESSAGE.

Finally, there is going to be $100 Trillion passed on by us old people in the next 30 years give or take.

From my perspective, all this means that THE MOST COMMON ‘NONPROFIT’ PROBLEM/CHALLENGE/ COMPLAINT is totally ‘MISGUIDED’ (read WRONG).

“We don’t have any money.”

“We need more money.”

“We don’t have any prospects.”

“We have no relationships.”

That thinking is sooooo wrong!!!

If you ever, ever, ever read or heard our For Impact MESSAGE, then you’ll know that the BIG ‘POINT’ here is that it’s not about your ‘fundraising’ and ‘prospects’ and ‘money’ … it’s about your IMPACT.

Again, (repetition is a good thing) IF … you are actually making an IMPACT … making a DIFFERENCE … CHANGING the WORLD or a small part of it …THEN there are plenty of people, prospects and potential investors who will help FUND that VISION, those GOALS and your OPERATION!!!

*The BIG ASSUMPTION here is that you actually KNOW what that VISION is … and that you’re able to ARTICULATE your GOALS and your MESSAGE in a Clear, Concise and Compelling fashion … Consistently!

CALL TO ACTION:

  • This is the perfect time of the year and the perfect time in history for you to sit down with a committed group of CHAMPIONS and work on your VISION and your MESSAGE! DO IT!
  • THINK BIG. BUILD SIMPLE. ACT NOW! (’Nuf said.)
  • Then … go forth and JUST ASK!!!

Special Note: In this forum, I rarely talk about what we at For Impact/The Suddes Group can do to help you. This is that rare exception.

  • If you need help with ‘BOARD TRAINNG’ to better understand the For Impact Message and Methodology … we can do that.
  • If you need help CLARIFYING YOUR MESSAGE, GAINING CONSENSUS ON YOUR PRIORITIES, and CREATING A FUNDING PLAN … we can do that.
  • If you need help with ‘SALES’, MAJOR GIFTS, CAMPAIGNS or anything related to significantly increasing your INCOME … we can do that.

Just email or call Nick … nick@forimpact.org/614-352-2505.


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



More Vocablary Changes

November 21, 2006 | Tom Suddes

Wherever we go people really seem to be impacted by the For Impact Change in Vocabulary. This week, I wanted to leave you with more word changes …

“Words are Important!!!”
Tom Peters
OLD THINKING
NEW THINKING
Fundraising Sales
Tax Deductible Success to Significance
Manage Build & Maximize
Fundraiser Opportunity Presenter
Beggar Matchmaker
Peer-to-peer Professional Presentation
Solicitation Any other Word!!!
Trading Dollars Want to Help
Cold Calls Predisposition
Appointment Visit
Face-to-face Shoulder-to-shoulder
Solo Selling Team Selling
Debate Dialogue
Telling Selling
Talking Listening
3-Ring Binders Presentation Tools
Powerpoints Napkins
Objections Challenges
A Job A Calling
People-Oriented Talent-Focused
Skills Passion
Bureaucracy Social Entrepreneurship
No Risk Failure
Perfection Prototype
Sustainability Put Yourself out of Business

I would encourage you to share these vocabulary changes with your entire team including your board. Go one step further and develop your own ‘team vocabulary’ or team language.

How does this change the way you FUND your Vision??


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



Sustainability

October 14, 2006 | Tom Suddes

I see and hear and review a lot of organizations’ plans for “funding”, for a “campaign” and for “fundraising”. It seems like they’re always FOCUSED on a big word, for them: SUSTAINABILITY. For some reason, I hate that word.

SUSTAINABILITY” is a function of IMPACT! (Not INCOME.)

It seems like every “nonprofit” in the world is looking for “ENDOWMENTS” for “SUSTAINABILITY”.

Rather, if you FOCUS on your IMPACT… and your DELIVER on your IMPACT… there will always be INVESTORS who will help you FUND YOUR VISION.


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



Good to Great: Another View

March 24, 2006 | Tom Suddes

Special Offer: I’ve never done this before, but I will personally guarantee the ‘IMPACT’ of this book.

Not only will I buy it back from you if you don’t find the VALUE; I’ll send you a $100 ‘CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION’ (if you get my meaning) if you send me back this book and tell me it didn’t have an ‘IMPACT’ on your FOR IMPACT ORGANIZATION.

Since I’ve spent my entire life in this sector, I would like to respectfully offer another view of some of Jim Collins’ thoughts and comments. (It’s certainly not because he is ‘WRONG’, but rather, I think, because his primary FOCUS has been in the world of BUSINESS.)

  • 18‘: Any GOOD TO GREAT measurement that is primarily based on 18 LARGE PUBLICLY HELD COMPANIES does not always produce the results that can be of value to smaller entrepreneurial organizations.In our world, if I were to use the COUNCIL OF 18 (interesting that they’re both 18!) as the model for a GREAT FOR IMPACT ORGANIZATION … it would be a joke. Most of these ‘18′ are huge bureaucratic, command and control, impact-less organizations. They can’t CHANGE. They can’t let go of sacred cows or baggage. And, they’re getting their lunch handed to them by smaller, nimbler mavericks and social entrepreneurs.
  • The term ‘SOCIAL SECTOR’ is too narrow a term. It doesn’t imply education, healthcare, art, etc. Obviously, I’d love to call this entire sector the FOR IMPACT SECTOR. At the very least, we ought to go with the ‘3rd SECTOR’, which acknowledges that there is a PUBLIC and a PRIVATE and a NON-PUBLIC/NON-PRIVATE/’NONPROFIT’.
  • SOCIAL SECTOR ‘CONSTRAINTS’. I really think these are more about ‘BAGGAGE’ and ‘BOXES’ and ‘SACRED COWS’ than they are true CONSTRAINTS.This is particularly important relative to (TALENT) STAFFING CONSTRAINTS’. Getting the ‘right people on the bus‘ is still paramount, as is ‘getting the wrong people off the bus‘ and the ‘right people in the right seats‘.I have never found ‘SALARIES’ at great ‘NONPROFITS’ as any kind of true CONSTRAINT. In fact, the CAUSE usually allows for an offset. My take on this is summarized in TALENT SPECTRUM, and supported by just about everybody who writes about ‘BOOMERS’, ‘GEEZERS’, and moving from ‘SUCCESS TO SIGNIFICANCE’.
  • 3 CIRCLES/ECONOMIC ENGINE/MONEY. Of everything that Collins wrote, I found this to be the most disheartening.His 3 CIRCLES (Passion, Best in the World, Economic Engine) are perhaps the most powerful visual, framework and guiding principle for ANYONE and ANY ORGANIZATION.Anybody who ‘rebelled’ against the ‘3rd Circle’ (Economic Engine) terribly misunderstood Collins’ point (and my point).

    In my world, it’s all about IMPACT DRIVES INCOME. Which is also translated into Covey’s “No Money. No Mission.” And my corollary, which is “No Mission. No Money.

    Pastor Morgan was way off base when he talked about the ‘root of all evil‘.

    I have never been with any For Impact Leader, Social Entrepreneur or Board Member or Volunteer Leader who doesn’t understand the concept of:

    FUNDING A VISION
  • SUSTAINABILITY. This section also brought up the ‘SUSTAINABILITY’ word. (This goes back to one of the premises/basic concepts in BUILT TO LAST.)A big, big part of me tries to help For Impact Organizations come up with a great SOLUTION … delivered with great DISCIPLINE … and then, basically try to put itself OUT OF BUSINESS! The organization may disappear but the SOLUTION remains. (A great example of this is Rotary and its incredible impact upon POLIO.)

Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



The Big Old (Nonprofit) Dinosaurs Are Dying

February 17, 2006 | Tom Suddes

The dinosaurs are dying.

Who wants to be a >”BIG GIANT”?

These business behemoths are fighting for survival. General Motors. Ford. Every major airline. Hewlett Packard. Sears. Motorola. Federated. Etc. etc.

Most of their “BUSINESS MODELS” just don’t work.

They’re being out flanked, outmaneuvered, and outthought … by MAVERICKS … INNOVATIVE START-UPS … ENTREPRENEURS and RADICAL THINKERS.

In the FOR IMPACT WORLD, you can see it happening with the same “GIANTS OF YESTERDAY”. They, too, have outdated “BUSINESS MODELS”.

Granted, some of these “NONPROFIT BIGGEES” have tried to change. Multiple times. Not only are they failing to “turn the battleship”, but in many, many cases, they’re just more “comfortable” with keeping things the way they are/they way they’ve always been.

My virtual mentor, Tom Peters, calls these people DSGYs (Designated Self-Appointed Guardians of Yesterday).

My own politically crude acronym is BOWGs (Big Old White Guys), which is kind of a personal euphemism for “traditional, bureaucratic, corporate, hierarchical thinking“.

Two quick examples:

AMERICAN RED CROSS.

I’d like to start by a great “cause” and “mission”. Wonderful staff. Impossible turnaround.

  • Chartered by Congress (Think BIG Government)
  • 125 Years Old (Think set in their ways.)
  • 50 Board Members; 30 Representing Local Chapters
  • 1 Million Volunteers and 35,000 Employees

Bernadette Healy, former Red Cross President who resigned in 2001, says “… making serious changes in the Red Cross is critical to its survival as an organization serving a crucial function for the American public”.

Yes, but … how can you possibly do that “CHANGE” with the deadly triumvirate of CONGRESS/BIG GOVERNMENT + incredible size + outdated business model???

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY.

First, let me tell you that I love the people who work and volunteer at ACS.

With that said, it’s another “HUGE” organization.

  • Almost 100 Years Old.
  • 13 Divisions (”Fiefdoms”).
  • 3,400 Local Offices Nationwide
  • 2 Million Volunteers

And, a hierarchical bureaucracy in Atlanta.

In this case, though, something is happening. Along come the RADICALS … the CHANGE AGENTS … the INNOVATORS … who believe is there is a different and better way to tackle the BIG ‘C’: CANCER.

Nancy Goodman Brinker creates the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (her sister) and has made breast cancer awareness a big, big deal, primarily through the National Race for the Cure.

Michael Milken and Andy Grove and others have taken a “business-like” approach to cancer, research and a cure.

Rob Emrich of Road of Life is a passionate maverick attacking the “problem” of nutritional/lifestyle roots in grade schools.

There’s the “crazy” (my highest compliment) people at the HUTCH, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, doing some incredible cutting-edge innovative work.

Then, of course, there’s Lance. Through his ubiquitous YELLOW “Live Strong” BRACELET, (70 million and counting) he has created a $100 Million Foundation that is small, nimble and productive. MAVERICK? It’s Lance Armstrong, the man who does everything his own way. INNOVATION? His bracelets have spawned an entire “COTTAGE INDUSTRY” within the fundraising world. THINK BIG? What would you expect from a 7-time Tour de France winner? In this case, it was a PARTNERSHIP with NIKE (the biggest, baddest, best marketing and brand machine in the world) to help “SELL” the LIVE STRONG motto.

Nancy Goodman Brinker. Rob Emrich. Andy Grove. Mike Milken. Lance Armstrong. Plus a host of others tackling this whole “CANCER” thing in a thousand different ways.

Bless them. More power to them. I only wish they were all “HOOKED TOGETHER” to EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE THEIR IMPACT. (Much like Google harnessing the power of thousands and thousands of computers to drive their incredible search engine.)

Here’s a thought. There are supposedly over 6,000 “NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS” with the world ‘CANCER’ in their name or their mission. Sure, some of them are scams, but most are well meaning attempts to do something about this killer disease.

WHAT IF … we could somehow figure out a way to CONNECT/HOOK UP all of these CANCER-FIGHTING organizations into a giant “GOOGLE-LIKE” NETWORK … working COOPERATIVELY as opposed to COMPETIVELY???

EVERYONE has been … is … or will be … “TOUCHED” by CANCER. We might as well work together.

A SOAP BOX moment? I wonder if any “INVESTORS” would like to see this COLLABORATION? Maybe they just want to continue to fund DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.

SPECIAL, SPECIAL NOTE to Larry and Sergey (Google) (who are clearly looking to change up the Google Foundation):

Get together Pierre, Jeff and Meg (e-Bay) and you all can probably get this COLLABORATIVE NETWORK done in the next 48 hours!

Bill and Steve (Microsoft), Jerry and Tim (Yahoo), Michael (Dell), et al., please feel free to jump on this idea as well.


Email This Nugget Email This Nugget | Comment



Funding Boot Camps:

Transform your funding. 2009 schedule now available.

  • April 22-23
  • June 24-25

Tom Suddes' Book

image

Campaign Manifesto. 33+ Years of campaign wisdom in one guidebook. Save thousands of dollars and months of planning.

Order Now

Do you Twitter?


If you don't know what that means sign up for email. Otherwise, twitter.com/forimpact.