Today is a day I treat much like Memorial Day, with the difference that I’m not uncomfortable about receiving greetings today. (Memorial Day is for fallen servicemembers; I’m not in that category nor have I been in harm’s way. Many others have; think of them today.
This LinkedIn question asked about mission drift for non-profits. There are a couple different layers of answer, depending on what’s going on and who’s asking.
First, the fundamental concern: will the change of mission jeopardize nonprofit status (and that typically means jeopardize 501(c)(3) status, which means deductibility of donations by donors)? The answer depends on whether the new mission falls within the law’s requirements to qualify for 501(c)(3) status. Easy example: an organization dedicated to educating children about music switches to educating children about art: no problem. Hard example: an organization that switches from operating a homeless shelter to advocacy, lobbying, and litigation about homelessness issues. Maybe that change would institute a review by the IRS to determine whether the rules were all still being followed, but the inquiry is always going to be fact-specific unless the organization changes so dramatically that you already know the answer to the question. (Example: the homeless shelter converts to a bed and breakfast.)
The trap you should not fall into is confusing the mission (“charitable purpose” is the catchphrase) of the organization with its operating model, financial structure, or even “mindset” about the issues. Many nonprofits charge money to at least some of the people who benefit from their programs or services. I gave a talk at a conference this past weekend for AutismNJ, which charges parents, educators, and professional members for attendance. That alone has no determinative effect on their nonprofit status.
Second concern: does this change affect our donors’ view of the organization?
Third concern: does this change affect our employees’ and volunteers’ view of the organization?
These last two concerns are readily handled together because they are essential components of any strategic planning exercise: determining the effects of a proposed strategy on the ecosystem around the organization. This question arises for nonprofits and for-profits alike. The answer for any group is going to be different, based on the particular history, composition of these stakeholder groups, and the rationales for the proposed changes.
I take the original questioner’s point of view to be best expressed as “I don’t like the new changes and so I’m going to complain.” And then that person will probably leave, looking for a new organization with similar goals and models and operations to the old group before it changed.
This interesting Neuromarketing post on a proposed Australian law to eviscerate the branding value of cigarette packaging is a doozy.
Separate from the inherent interest in the notion that the pack may be far more powerful than the cigarette (and I like both Why We Buy and Call of the Mall by Paco Underhill as modest introductions to some of these ideas) is the question that doesn’t occur to the author but matters a lot to us here.
Could the federal government impose similar restrictions on cigarette manufacturers in the US? We know some labeling requirements are permitted (the Surgeon General’s warning), but what about the rest? Is the design of the package constitutionally protected speech? What “message” is there, or is the “expression” enough?
I’m not a commercial speech guru, but I’m sure some of you are: what’s the story on limits on packaging regulation, and has it changed because of Citizens United?
And for the non-lawyers, would requiring bland packaging be an acceptable compromise to (1) allow smokers to continue smoking, i.e., not outlawing them entirely, (2) reduce uptake by new consumers, i.e., people who are now our children, and (3) allow adults the opportunity to make bad decisions? And if we can tax the price of a pack as much as we want (and do), why not do this too, or instead? After all, if we’re not going to outlaw cigarettes, what can we do that works to reduce smoking?