Nonprofits generate a lot of income from their core services. Think "state contracts" and fees for services like counseling. Such service provision is central to mission and while not usually enough to make all ends meet, the income generated represents the springboard for survival.
But beyond the essentials, some nonprofits come-up with additional revenue generating producs and services. Think Newman's Own salsas and chips or in Connecticut, the University of Connecticut sports chips and salsas. These are tangentially or brand related products that after expenses, most times, make a financail contribution to the bottom line.
But an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer moves me to ask: is there a product or service that no matter how lucrative, it just sends the wrong message for some nonprofits to accept the income? Or do we go back to the other phrase I occasionally refer to: the only thing wrong with tainted money is there 'taint enough of it?
The article, actually a blog, is about the 'Walk of Shame Kit'. The kit provides young women with the "necessities" pertinent to spending an unplanned overnight with a partner and upon leaving, being more ready to begin the day. And, some portion of the sales benefits a charity (one of those "buying this makes you a better person and is good for you" pitches.
So, what do you think? Would you, a women's organization for instance, want a product like the Kit to generate income for your organization? And, who in your organization would decided? Does such a question just get flown upto the board where questions of ethics and values maybe get asked and answered?
Comments