August 03, 2007
What's in a Name?
Social-investment organizations? Social-profit groups? Citizen-sector organizations?
Prompted by an opinion article in The Chronicle, readers of Tactical Philanthropy are debating whether the term “nonprofit” needs to be tossed in the dustbin of history.
The author of Tactical Philanthropy, Sean Stannard-Stockton, who works for an investment-management company in Burlingame, Calif., has remained somewhat agnostic in the debate.
“I don’t have a firm name in mind. I think the sector is still evolving and prefer an inclusive word like social enterprise with the broad definition of enterprise,” he writes. “But I’m open to other ideas.”
Mr. Stannard-Stockton has invited others to pitch new names on his blog.
Though perhaps there are some charity officials who will say it’s best to remember the words of Shakespeare: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: How a Member of Generation X Made Her Way in the Nonprofit World
Next: Philanthropy In The Wake of Disaster
The connundrum is that there’s no alternative naming yet that doesn’t seem to insult the for-profit sector by inference. As though we’re saying: “They’re moneygrubbers who don’t care about people and society.”
This is also the same sector that has several other names in current use: nonprofit, non-profti, not-for-profit, charity, third sector, NGO, etc.
— Michael L. Wyland Aug 3, 12:28 PM #
Perhaps we could find labels that distinguish large corporations (like museums, universities, and hospitals) that happen to plow some of their profits back into their mission, from community-based organizations that make money only so they can keep on serving people?
— Dennis Fischman Aug 3, 01:15 PM #
This is one of those “Pepsi Fried Chicken” moments.
When Pepsico bought Kentucky Fried Chicken (now KFC), they did not rename it “Pepsi Chicken,” for absolutely solid marketing reasons. It already enjoyed a solid brand position.
“Nonprofit” is a widely, nearly universally known “brand” and there’s no reason to “fix” it. I suspect that those who sit around dreaming up silliness like this have way too much time on their hands.
— Sam Davis Aug 3, 01:42 PM #
This seems to be a reoccurring discussion in nonprofit land. Of course any organization, or even a whole sector, can promote itself however it likes, and perhaps from a PR standpoint it makes sense to speak of “social enterprise” or “social profit.” I would point out that “nonprofit” (or “not-for-profit”) has long since been incorporated into state and federal statues and codes, and is a “known quantity”. The term refers to a broad category of entities, but in general, it means an entity organized for specific purposes, which does not distribute income to shareholders. It is a meaningful and useful term and it would be foolish to toss it out in favor of more fashionable language. Of course other terms can be used as missions and purposes vary, but it seems to me they are all species of the broad category called “nonprofit.”
— Patrick Aug 3, 03:18 PM #
I like Sam’s logic. Sure, it’s odd that we define ourselves by what we are not. But people know what we mean when we say “I work for a non-profit.”
If we begin saying “I work for a community-owned organization” or “I work for a social enterprise,” people on the ‘outside’ will not understand. And people on the ‘inside’ will likely think we’re just well-funded elitists with too much time on our hands.
— Jeremy Gregg Aug 4, 07:35 PM #
Call me idealistic, but in a world of market hegemony I have been, and remain, a staunch advocate of the not-for-profit world. And I certainly don’t worry about “insulting” the for-profit sector. I like that society still has a robust sector that is concerned with something beyond increasing shareholder value and selling as many widgets as possible.
— Flaneuse in DC Aug 6, 08:43 AM #
I posted a response to a number of these comments on my blog www.tacticalphilanthropy.com
— Sean Stannard-Stockton Aug 7, 06:52 PM #