On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 22:02:00 +1900,
Richard Shockley  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>While it is true not-for-profits may be introducing an element of competition
>into the marketplace, I don't believe it is unfair.  First of all I do not know
>of a single not-for-profit museum that is paying its own way (at least here in
>Canada).  All revenues accruing from admissions, gift shops and so-on are
 plowed
>right back into the museum.  Nobody takes home the profits and there are
>[stuff deleted]
>certainly no shareholders looking for returns on their investments.
>The assertion that not-for-profits are no longer not-for-profit I think is
>false.  We are a not-for-profit museum with three revenue points.  If we did
 not
>generate revenue to offset our operational costs, we would not receive even the
>limited municipal support that we now enjoy.  We have yet to make a profit.
>[more deleted]
Richard begins to make a central point: non-profit does _not_ preclude the
*making* of a profit . . . only the *distribution* of a profit is
regulated--it can not go to individual(s). An excellent treatment of this
concept can be found in an article published in _Harvard_Business_Review_,
a 1984 issue (I think, I couldn't put my hands on it tonight). A
fundemental premis is that a non-profit should fill the "gap" between
service and product (desired by a portion of the populus) supplied by
government and that supplied by the commercial sector. Remembering that
these sectors (gov't, independent, and commercial) are symbiotic is also
important to the system's health.  Best, Jim