The Effect of Social Missions On Tech Innovation

The New York Times is running a piece on how some emerging companies in the tech industry are focusing on social missions rather than profits despite having successful business methods. The startups are modeling themselves after organizations like Mozilla and TechSoup, who have both grown to significantly affect their respective markets. The article also discusses some of the non-profit support groups, such as the EFF, who contribute specific services to the field. Quoting: "'There is a lot of discussion taking place right now about a whole new organization form around social enterprise,' said James Fruchterman, president of Benetech, a social enterprise incubator based in Palo Alto. 'Many of these efforts can make money; they will just never make enough to provide venture capital rates of return.' The new stream of technology-centric and successful nonprofits, however, appears to be driven in part by a set of microelectronics technology trends that have sent shock waves through many industries, from publishing to music and movies. 'Computer technology and the Internet are lowering the cost of doing business,' said John Lilly, the chief executive of Mozilla."

Comments

Finally...

[ZerothOfTheLaw]

My business partner and I have been talking about stuff exactly like this, but I never knew companies were actually doing this. It always seemed a major problem that companies must be devoted to profit... and that leads to issues, like Microsoft changing their billing practices, etc. When a company is the undisputed leader in their niche, they had to do something to increase their profits. Usually thats when companies do stupid things like use the RIAA, put spyware on CDs, etc. So its actually bad for a company to focus on profits. Oh well, still too many greedy people.

Re:Finally...

[Plunky]

The problem, if there is one, isn't that corporate executives MUST seek profits, it's that shareholders prefer to buy into corporations that are structured to seek profits.

and that the majority of the money that comes from shareholders to buy shares is not from people, but corporations whose charter includes only profit aims.

Such as banks.

Hmmm....

[mpapet]

The last time I checked, a company (versus an OSS software project) needs, to pay someone to answer the phone. (Pay the phone bill too.)

Yes, there are exceptions when it's a *really* small business, but we're talking about company sizes that include paying an accountant and have many talented employees.

It's a marketing angle to create some differentiation. Whole Foods Markets is a very well-known example. Guess what? Investors were mad as hell when their profits did not come in as targeted.

Re:The Visionary Geek

[hey!]

Oh, that's just being blunt. It may also be being a bit socially awkward.

You're not an asshole if you tell your female coworker she looks fat in that dress. You're just a jerk. You're an asshole if you tell her if she helps you on this project you'll share the benefits, then renege.

In any case, people don't have a right to what is in your head. So when she asks you before a meeting whether she looks OK in that dress, you don't have to say, "It makes you look really fat." You can say "You look as lovely as ever." or "Green is not your color." And you don't have to add, "If you do have a color it must be one that can't be perceived by the human eye."

Failing to keep those little truths to yourself makes you a jerk. Failing to tell her she tucked the back edge of her skirt into her underwear so that she'll make a fool of herself and you'll get the promotion -- that's being an asshole.