Business Models

Info You Can Use: So You Think You Want To Merge

by

It seems discussion of non-profit mergers is becoming more prevalent of late. I recently became aware of a research document created by Wilder Research and MAP for Non Profits looking at what factors contribute to or inhibit the successful merger of non profits in the pre-merger, merger and post-merger phases.

There were actually some parts of the document, What do we know about nonprofit mergers? Findings from a literature review, focus group, and key informant interviews, that were very familiar. So much so I thought perhaps I had already written a blog post on it already. It doesn’t seem that is the case. However, since their report includes a literature review in addition to surveying they conducted themselves, it is likely I read some of this before.

They raise some good questions and provide some interesting advice on many aspects of a merger on issues like the name of the new organization, getting a third party involved to shepherd the process, doing due diligence on each other, issues about conflicting organizational cultures, creating a clear time line for the process.

One suggestion they had was to involve your top five funders in the process in order to gain their investment. That may be very sound advice as at least one case they mentioned found that most funders treated the merged organization with its newly expanded capacity as if it were one of the constituent entities effectively cutting their support in half.

Many organizations chose to merge as a result of some sort of crisis, either the loss of leadership, financial problems, change in the operating environment, etc. According to the research, one of the worst times/reasons to merge is if one organization is at the brink of financial ruin. Other than the fact that the new organization will inherit the problems of the troubled organization and that it is not prudent to negotiate anything from a position of weakness, research shows that even mergers between relatively sound organizations don’t necessarily result in a financially stronger combined organization.

The following are areas that they identify as needing to be addressed during the merger phase. There is a similar list for the pre- and post- phases.

2A. Key stakeholder involvement
2A1. Executive staff champion
2A2. Board commitment to the merger process
2A3. Client, consumer, and funder involvement in planning

2B. Role of staff in merger process
2B1. Staff involvement in planning
2B2. Communications with staff throughout process
2B3. Staff’s perception of the effect of the merger

2C. Integrating formal and informal structures
2C1. Attention to cultural integration
2C2. Attention to board and mission integration

2D. Providing due diligence to the process
2D1. Clear decision making process
2D2. Clear and realistic time frame

They provided the following factors which contribute to a merger’s failure:

-Lack of capacity, sophistication, or skill in the board or executive leadership
-Leadership’s inability to communicate well or to effectively influence others
-A weak or declining balance sheet or imminent financial collapse of one organization
-Programs or services that are not particularly unique or of distinctive value to the community
-Organization’s fear of losing autonomy or change
-Differences in governance, culture, or mission
-Board and staff opposition to the idea of merger
Engagement purely for survival, not from strength
-People involved do not see the real work involved in a merger
-Loss of key leader during the process

Crowdfunding Become Crowdinvesting?

by

In the “stuff you aren’t supposed to do” theme of yesterday’s post, is a piece from Slate about legal restrictions on crowd funding.

While thousands of people can donate to your cause via sites like Kickstarter, SEC rules prevent those same people from investing in your company. If you figure people will donate to people in return for tshirts or other small thank you gifts/services, there is probably a fair bit of potential in getting people to invest in the same project with the possibility of financial return. But the rules say no way.

“Under current law, that is often illegal. A longtime Securities and Exchange Commission rule, designed to protect unsophisticated investors, limits the number of stakeholders certain private companies can have. If you hit 500, you often have to go public. That means opening your books to additional scrutiny and your business to the whims of the market. And being public is just not a feasible option for a tiny business looking for start-up funding. Thus, an artist can receive thousands of $5 donations on a site like Kickstarter, but an incorporated farmer cannot accept investments from thousands of interested small-timers.”

These are some of the same rules that govern investing in Broadway shows and are meant to prevent people from losing large amounts of money because they were not entirely aware of the risks of investing. There is certainly some wisdom in having them.

There are some moves to change this situation. President Obama included such a revision in his American Jobs Act. Even though the act failed to pass, the basic idea has bi-partisan support and some law makers are asking the SEC to change the rules. One petition to the SEC asks for an exemption for investments made in $100 increments as a way to prevent people from losing their life savings. Given that the exemption would mean less oversight of the activities, there is good potential for unscrupulous operators to take the money and run.

Laura Horton at the Legality website has a post that discusses all the legal issues and the efforts to change the rules at length. She reports that the legislation being introduced in Congress, (as opposed to the petition for a rule change to the SEC), would allow a business to raise “$5 million in capital, with a limit on individual investments of the lesser of $10,000 or ten percent of an individual investor’s income.” Horton notes that these companies would be exempt from some of the usual reporting. Hopefully at $10,000 a person, they wouldn’t be exempt from as much as a company getting funded $100 at a time.

Crowd funding at these levels could open the doors for a lot of possibilities, including starting an arts related business. This model might provide a viable alternative to the non-profit structure. It could provide the tools to not only to get an organization started, but also to sustain it over time.

As for how fraud will be prevented, Horton says,

“those in favor of crowdfunding find that investor protection rests on a fundamental aspect of this financing, opening it to lots of people for investment. This “crowd” aspect creates transparency, which may temper the effects of deregulation. There is also a stronger sense of community support through this style of investing. Crowdfunding makes venture capital accessible to small-scale business owners.”

I have to confess some skepticism about this approach being viable in the long run. A crowd can provide good oversight in a small geographic community or when it is performed by investing clubs who meet to research and decide who to fund. My suspicion is that if this type of investment is going to reach any sort of scale, people are going to be doing it over the internet and will rely on Amazon.com type reviews to make their decisions. Presumably, the rating mechanism will be a little more rigorous and have better protections against those who might try to game the system than most online rating websites. It is still likely the system will still be vulnerable to some degree of subversion.

But who knows, it may create a burgeoning industry of companies who meet those soliciting funding and perform objective evaluations and audits. They could post all their findings online accompanied by video interviews, photos of operations, etc for investors to use in their deliberations.

Info You Can Use: Commerciality Doctrine (What The Heck Is That?)

by

Hat tip to Non-Profit Law blog for providing the link to Charity Lawyer Ellis Carter’s 2009 post about the Commerciality Doctrine. As you can probably tell from the title of this entry, I wasn’t really aware of this doctrine at all, but it is actually very important in terms of an organization’s 501 (c) (3) status.

According to Ellis,

Commerciality Doctrine has evolved in the courts and is applied to determine whether an organization complies with Section 501(c)(3)’s requirement to operate exclusively for exempt purposes. A key factor indicating an organization is operating in an excessively commercial manner is that its activities are in competition with those of for-profit commercial entities.

Reading what criteria the courts use as a test for whether a non-profit organization is operating in an excessively commercial manner, I start to get a little nervous:

-pricing to maximize profits;

-generation and accumulation of unreasonable reserves;

-use of commercial promotional methods, such as advertising;

-sales and marketing to the general public;

-high volume of sales;

-the organization uses paid professional staff rather than volunteer labor;

-the organization discontinues money losing programs; and

-the organization does not receive significant charitable contributions.

Most organizations probably don’t have to worry about accumulation of unreasonable reserves and seating capacity may limit high volume of sales. If arts organizations start to adopt dynamic pricing for shows, they may have to watch how high they push prices. But a lot of non profit arts organizations have professional staffs who have replaced volunteers somewhere in their history. Even those without professional staffs use advertising, sales, marketing and discontinue money losing programs. How do you not flirt with violating your status under this criteria?

So is it actually good to keep those money losing programs around? Apparently so…

Factors evidencing the absence of a commercial purpose include the following:

-lack of competition with for-profit entities;

-below market rate pricing;

-relatively insubstantial reserves;

-lack of commercial advertising practices;

-the absence of sales to the general public;

-low volume of sales;

-use of volunteers and low-paid non-professional staff; and

-significant charitable contributions.

This list almost makes a virtue of incompetence and lack of ambition.

But the first thing I thought of after reading this list was, what about the Roundabout Theatre? How the heck have they avoided being shut down on this basis. Except for requiring as significant charitable contributions as anyone else, they are a non-profit that essentially fails on every one of these measures.

They actually may have run afoul these laws and I am just unaware of it. Plenty of commercial Broadway producers have expressed criticism about the way the Roundabout and other non-profits like Lincoln Center enjoy a competitive advantage over them. Back in 2000, long before he became chair of the NEA, Rocco Landesman wrote,

“increasingly the template of success comes from the commercial arena, which is, in the end, not dedicated to the art so much as to the audience. The uber-model for this trend is ”the American Airlines Roundabout Theater,” whose artistic director, Todd Haimes, saved a bankrupt institution by adapting contemporary, market-savvy, the-audience-is-king techniques of modern corporations. Pleasing the customers, giving them what they want in the form they expect, works for Coca-Cola –…It would, I suppose, be hyperbolic to say that Todd Haimes has had a more pernicious influence on English-speaking theater than anyone since Oliver Cromwell (and it wouldn’t be nice, either, since Mr. Haimes is a personable and honorable man)”

Now it should be noted that Landesman’s piece expressed regret that the non-profit theater movement toward a commercial orientation due to market forces has meant that little original work is created any more. Though he has “accused Haimes of running a wolfish commercial operation in the sheepskin of a publicly funded institution.”

The idea that decision making in non-profits shouldn’t be motivated by a need to compete with commercial entities is probably part of the basis for the criteria of the Commerciality doctrine. Although Carter provides an example of it, I wonder how often and strictly the Commerciality Doctrine is applied to non-profits. With cuts to arts funding at all levels and an oft repeated litany that performances should be self supporting or not occur at all, is it fair to require that non-profits ignore the pressure to support themselves with strategies that create more earned revenue?

Todd Haimes has said as much,

“I feel enormous pressure to generate income for our theater,’…`I’ll do anything within reason, as long as it goes back into the nonprofit purpose of the Roundabout,” Haimes said. “So I’m trying to be more creative.”

With a $40 million budget in 2008, $12 million in donated and needing $13 million in sales, most of us are not anywhere near Roundabout Theatre’s ability to raise scowls from commercial competitors. We do face similar pressure to perform well and might well find our ambitions causing problems for our tax status given that so many other aspects of non-profit operations are being examined.

Are We Being Nudged Toward Partnerships

by

I have started to wonder if there is going to be an increased emphasis on partnerships and perhaps even mergers in the non-profit arts. I often read about mergers by non-profits outside of the arts. Although the presenters consortium upon whose board I sit is in the middle of conducting a merger with a sister organization, I don’t hear about arts organizations doing it that often.

However, the Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation has recently announced a new granting program, Southern Exposure, which will support the presentation of artists from Central and South America. (By the way, you don’t have to be located in the Mid-Atlantic States to apply.)

Most of the program isn’t outside of what you might expect of such a program except that it will “support projects that are developed collaboratively by presenter consortia based in the United States and its territories and ensure that engagements take place in at least three different cities or towns.”

The Western State Arts Federation (WESTAF) used to have a similar program termed “hub grants” as part of its TourWest grant program up until a few years ago. From what I have heard (which may not be accurate) they discontinued it because of lack of wide spread participation. (We actually participated in a couple years.) But now that times are financially a little tighter, will arts organizations on a national level be more amenable to partnering?

But really, back to my original question of whether a trend might be developing in which organizations are encouraged to partner. One cause of my speculation is that this summer I saw a grant program sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities for community colleges that required recipients to involve up to 12 other campuses.

Looking at the Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation website, there are signs that they might be going in the direction of encouraging arts organizations to partner more often.

“Over the last five years, MAAF has built a core of program initiatives designed to address specific issues of regional arts support. The work of the Foundation has been focused on:
[…]
-Developing an infrastructure for touring and presenting
-Making connections beyond the region
-Developing partnerships
-Strengthening existing networks
[…]
-Exploring sub-regional initiatives and collaborations with subsets of MAAF state members
[…]
“

Now granted, the Southern Exposure initiative might have just fit their pre-existing efforts. Given that it does fit into their plans, if Southern Exposure proves successful, they may start to encourage similar collaborations more often.

Hawaii has an active presenting consortia (as do our brethren in the 49th, Alaska) so we are thrilled because this program plays to our strength. Plus, there is a project involving a group from South America we have been kicking around for a couple years. I will be the first to admit, this sort of cooperation isn’t easy to arrange and manage. It helps to have a little incentive. It would be great to see other groups adopt this practice. (Especially if you want to bring me out to consult with you! 😉 )