MeyerBros

things we think

For-profit shops to subsidize radical non-profits?

4 Responses to “For-profit shops to subsidize radical non-profits?”

1. eric Says:
   

   July 17th, 2006 at 2:52 pm

   i think there’s something to what they/you are saying, but here’s a few observations about it in our context:

   1. offering ourselves up to another external existing organization with its own mission as a subsidiary is not bucking the philanthropic grant-giving system - it is the system. we would simply be choosing one funder rather than looking for several. we still don’t run our own budget, mission and agenda. in order to do what they recommend we simply add a political agenda to a for profit business.

   2. seems to me a web development firm is just that for-profit business. all we need now is a political agenda behind it. i don’t think that should be too hard for us to come up with. i have several.

   i’ve actually been thinking about something like this for a while. I’ve even considered the insane possabilities of a for-profit design firm fronting a not-for-profit theatre. and, hell, why not throw in a magazine on top of it all? that, of course, is one particular agenda of mine….

   the point, for me at least, has to do with controlling the entire flow of money under a single vision. support your own art/politics instead of begging all the time. controling the money allows you to control the vision. but as long as you are subsidized from the outside - i’d be even more weary of having my (in this case artistic) vision monitored by one omni-supporter than by many less monopolizing sponsors. i can stand to lose a donor or two here and there if i have more of them.

   just thoughts.

2. michelle Says:
   

   July 19th, 2006 at 7:33 pm

   but what makes a nfp theatre supported by a fp design firm any different? unless it is exactly the same people running both (which would be pretty difficult to pull off, even if some people overlapped), wouldn’t the theatre have their “vision monitored by one omni-supporter” (the design firm)? isn’t your idea the same one that tim suggested, or am i missing something?

3. eric Says:
   

   July 20th, 2006 at 1:30 am

   it’s the idea of the same people starting both that i’m picking up on. i’m thinking more of a unified vision - an idea i actually got from you at one point. you talked about integrating design and theatre and possibly a magazine into one artistic vision with multiple outlets. it had to do with topical connections between articles and plays and the way both are presented. single vision.

   i think how something is started has a large impact on where it can go - so even if the same group of people can’t run both organizations, they can be founded together with a vision that includes their unity. if the design firm and theatre are founded together as different aspects of the same vision - that seems much more stable than joining two seperately founded organizations with one a subsidiary of the other.

   does that answer the question?

4. michelle Says:
   

   July 20th, 2006 at 6:48 pm

   Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I had suggested such a thing and still think it could potentially work (although a magazine and a theatre both draining the funds means the design firm better be pretty darn successful!). I was only confused about why it was that different from what Tim was suggesting. But now I see your point about starting the organizations under the same vision to begin with vs. combining after both are in place, with potentially different visions. And I (think I) agree. So there.