This article got me thinking a bit. Thanks for posting it. Some scattered thoughts: Thinking of Internet projects, tons of them are run as volunteer nonprofit side projects by some person,...
This article got me thinking a bit. Thanks for posting it. Some scattered thoughts:
Thinking of Internet projects, tons of them are run as volunteer nonprofit side projects by some person, subsidized by that person's personal funds and/or day job.
It's a massive transition going from side project to a business able to pay a salary. When talking about sustainability as defined in the article, it seems like this step is a necessary part of the equation.
The article comes at this from the angle that you know in advance, even from the outset, that you'll be running a business—but that's not always a given. Maybe in the context of journalism there's enough precedent and people see enough intrinsic value in the work that they know there must be cash flow from the beginning. But in other contexts, like Internet projects of varying and unknown value, it can be very difficult to know if they are even monetizable.
Wikipedia is the poster child of successful Internet nonprofit. It's sustainable. They prove it can be done. Obviously it's the How that trips people up. That and luck.
If people don't know from the start that there will be demand for sustainability for the Internet Thing they made, and some years down the line they realize that people will benefit if they make it sustainable—that's an extremely hard position to transition out of. Business was the last thing on their mind; they might not have any business skill or interest whatsoever.
IMO a nonprofit is Hard Mode from the start, but if someone manages to get far enough that becoming a fixture like Wikipedia is imaginable, then it's a win for everyone in the long run. No tug-of-war between investors and customers, with employees in the middle forced to take sides. If a nonprofit succeeds, it can reinvest in its products and employees and customers and everyone wins.
This article got me thinking a bit. Thanks for posting it. Some scattered thoughts:
Thinking of Internet projects, tons of them are run as volunteer nonprofit side projects by some person, subsidized by that person's personal funds and/or day job.
It's a massive transition going from side project to a business able to pay a salary. When talking about sustainability as defined in the article, it seems like this step is a necessary part of the equation.
The article comes at this from the angle that you know in advance, even from the outset, that you'll be running a business—but that's not always a given. Maybe in the context of journalism there's enough precedent and people see enough intrinsic value in the work that they know there must be cash flow from the beginning. But in other contexts, like Internet projects of varying and unknown value, it can be very difficult to know if they are even monetizable.
Wikipedia is the poster child of successful Internet nonprofit. It's sustainable. They prove it can be done. Obviously it's the How that trips people up. That and luck.
If people don't know from the start that there will be demand for sustainability for the Internet Thing they made, and some years down the line they realize that people will benefit if they make it sustainable—that's an extremely hard position to transition out of. Business was the last thing on their mind; they might not have any business skill or interest whatsoever.
So a lot of projects either shut down or get bought up by for-profit businesses. The recent news of Android app maker Simple Mobile Tools being acquired by ZipoApps comes to mind.
IMO a nonprofit is Hard Mode from the start, but if someone manages to get far enough that becoming a fixture like Wikipedia is imaginable, then it's a win for everyone in the long run. No tug-of-war between investors and customers, with employees in the middle forced to take sides. If a nonprofit succeeds, it can reinvest in its products and employees and customers and everyone wins.