Dream > Believe > Pursue Earning Revenues. Dream > Believe > Pursue 2 Nonprofit income sources, 2002

Dream > Believe > Pursue

Earning RevenuesEarning Revenues


2

Nonprofit income sources, Nonprofit income sources, 20022002

Government funding, 33%

Private donations, 20%

Fee income, 47%


3

OutlineOutline

• Earned income typesEarned income types• PricingPricing• Competition and Competition and

commercializationcommercialization• The government as customerThe government as customer


4

Earned income typesEarned income types

Commercial endeavors Other activities

Direct programs TransactionsSeparately-incorporated

ventures

Earned income

Licensing Joint-issue ventures


5

Commercial fee incomeCommercial fee income

More likely to be directly-produced

More likely to be separately incorporated

Good or service appeals to purchasers’ goodwill

Buyers motivated entirely by self-interest

Primary motive for production: mission

Primary motive for production: revenues

Sales do not cover program costs

Sales generate a positive profit stream

Volunteer participation Employees are paid

Suppliers subsidize operations with donations

Suppliers charge normal rates


6

CollaborationsCollaborations

• Transactions: Transactions: For-profits buy or For-profits buy or sell with social enterprises on sell with social enterprises on favorable terms or dedicate a favorable terms or dedicate a share of profitsshare of profits

• Licensing: Licensing: Enterprises allow the Enterprises allow the use of their nameuse of their name

• Joint-issueJoint-issue promotion: promotion: For-profit For-profit takes on part of the endeavortakes on part of the endeavor


7

How not to collaborateHow not to collaborate

• 1997: AMA licenses Sunbeam 1997: AMA licenses Sunbeam Corp to add seal of approval to Corp to add seal of approval to medical devicesmedical devices

• AMA does not test actual devicesAMA does not test actual devices• Scandal ensues, AMA backs outScandal ensues, AMA backs out• Sunbeam sues for $20mSunbeam sues for $20m• Settlement: AMA pays $9.9mSettlement: AMA pays $9.9m


8

Money and missionMoney and mission

High mission impact

Low mission impact

Positive profit Stars Cash cows

Loss-making Saints Dogs


9

Membership incomeMembership income

Organization typePercentage of income

from dues

Labor organizations 66%

Social clubs 60%

Business leagues 40%

Public charities 0.9%


10

Trade and professional Trade and professional association membershipassociation membership

association membership

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1974

1975

1977

1978

1980

1983

1984

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1993

1994

2000

2004

2005P

erce

nta

ge

of

adu

lt p

op

ual

tio

n b

elo

ng

ing

to

a

pro

fess

ion

al a

sso

ciat

ion


11

Pricing Strategies: For-profitsPricing Strategies: For-profits

• Competitive firmsCompetitive firms– P=MC (marginal cost pricing)P=MC (marginal cost pricing)– Price is bid down to unit-cost levelsPrice is bid down to unit-cost levels– Profit=0Profit=0

• Non-competitive firmsNon-competitive firms– P is set where MC=MR (equimarginal P is set where MC=MR (equimarginal

pricing)pricing)– Price is set so that profit is Price is set so that profit is

maximizedmaximized


12

Pricing Strategies: Social Pricing Strategies: Social EnterprisesEnterprises

• Usually, competition is limitedUsually, competition is limited• Pricing schemesPricing schemes

– MC=MR (monopolistic pricing)MC=MR (monopolistic pricing)– P<MC for favored activities or favored clientsP<MC for favored activities or favored clients

• Cross-subsidization from other activities, donations, Cross-subsidization from other activities, donations, or governemnt subsidiesor governemnt subsidies

– Price discriminationPrice discrimination• Classical price discrimination: clients are charged Classical price discrimination: clients are charged

according to characteristics (e.g. kids free)according to characteristics (e.g. kids free)• Voluntary price discrimination: P<MC to induce Voluntary price discrimination: P<MC to induce

donations (e.g. voluntary payment)donations (e.g. voluntary payment)• Intertemporal price discrimination: Price depends on Intertemporal price discrimination: Price depends on

day or time (e.g. weekdays free admission) to induce day or time (e.g. weekdays free admission) to induce participationparticipation


13

Competition with the For-profit Competition with the For-profit SectorSector

• Where is competition?Where is competition?– Areas of main competition: health, Areas of main competition: health,

educationeducation– Less competition: Social service, Less competition: Social service,

environmentenvironment• UBIT restricts competition in the U.S.UBIT restricts competition in the U.S.• Competition may drive NPOs to Competition may drive NPOs to

suboptimally-high levels of unfavored-good suboptimally-high levels of unfavored-good productionproduction– NPOs lose “core mission”NPOs lose “core mission”

Ref. Rose-Ackerman 1996


Who Has the Edge?Who Has the Edge?

• Nonprofit Nonprofit enterprise enterprise advantagesadvantages– Tax benefitsTax benefits– Trust because of Trust because of

non-distributionnon-distribution

• For-profit For-profit advantagesadvantages– TechnologyTechnology– Sufficient Sufficient

financing and financing and staffingstaffing

– High-profile High-profile expertiseexpertise

– Political lobbying Political lobbying capacitycapacity

Nonprofit managers must trade on these

Ref. Frumkin ch 3 2002


15

Competition Among Nonprofit Competition Among Nonprofit enterprisesenterprises

• Competition for what?Competition for what?– Members/clientsMembers/clients– Donors/volunteers/donationsDonors/volunteers/donations– Inventory (e.g. books, art works, etc.)Inventory (e.g. books, art works, etc.)

• Competition with whom?Competition with whom?– Other NPOsOther NPOs– For-profitsFor-profits– GovernmentsGovernments

• Identifying competitionIdentifying competition– Similarity of prizes (management perspective)Similarity of prizes (management perspective)– Similarity of services (client/donor perspective)Similarity of services (client/donor perspective)– Common competitor: inaction (e.g. no medical Common competitor: inaction (e.g. no medical

care)care)


16

Social Enterprise Social Enterprise CommercializationCommercialization

• ReasonsReasons– Increasing competition with for-profitsIncreasing competition with for-profits– Increasing competition with other social venturesIncreasing competition with other social ventures– Growing reliance on donations and earned incomeGrowing reliance on donations and earned income– Corporate partnershipsCorporate partnerships– Demand for accountabilityDemand for accountability– Nonprofit culture becoming more “corporate”Nonprofit culture becoming more “corporate”

• RisksRisks– Loss of core missionLoss of core mission– Decreased attention to need, more on bottom lineDecreased attention to need, more on bottom line

Ref. Salamon & Young 2002


17

Privatization: A Common Privatization: A Common Opportunity to Earn RevenuesOpportunity to Earn Revenues

•The practice of delegating public The practice of delegating public duties and responsibilities to private duties and responsibilities to private organizations (nonprofit and for-organizations (nonprofit and for-profit)profit)

•A frequent revenue-generating A frequent revenue-generating opportunity for social entrepreneursopportunity for social entrepreneurs

•Governments are often the customer Governments are often the customer for an enterprise’s servicesfor an enterprise’s services


18

Why Privatization?Why Privatization?

• Reduced costsReduced costs• Specialized expertiseSpecialized expertise• Increased qualityIncreased quality• Smaller government Smaller government

and less bureaucracyand less bureaucracy• Market based Market based

incentives resulting incentives resulting in efficienciesin efficiencies

• Competition vs Monopoly

• Greater reliance on free enterprise - market based principles (assumes competition)

• Greater use of voluntarism

• Politics


19

Dangers to Social enterprises from Dangers to Social enterprises from Partnerships with GovernmentPartnerships with Government

• Loss of nonprofit autonomyLoss of nonprofit autonomy• VendorismVendorism• BureaucratizationBureaucratization

Source: Frumkin ch 3 2002


20

Types of PrivatizationTypes of Privatization

Source: General Accounting Office, 1997

Form of Privatization Percent of StatePrivatization Cases

2.95

78.06 8.48 4.11 3.32

0.96 0.91 0.58 0.46

Public-private partnerships

Contracting outGrants

VouchersVolunteerism

Private donationFranchise

Service sheddingDeregulation

Asset sales 0.17


21

Necessary Conditions for Necessary Conditions for Contracting OutContracting Out

• Competition among potential Competition among potential providersproviders– Multiple bidders and bidsMultiple bidders and bids

• Ability and willingness to Ability and willingness to monitor providersmonitor providers– CapacityCapacity– Political willPolitical will


22

Privatization in Competitive Privatization in Competitive IndustriesIndustries

• More competitionMore competition– GarbageGarbage– Snow removalSnow removal– TowingTowing– Data processingData processing

• Less competition– Foster care– Domestic

violence– Chemical

dependency

Documents

Dream > Believe > Pursue Earning Revenues. Dream > Believe > Pursue 2 Nonprofit income sources, 2002