Photo courtesy of Oberazzi.
Competition is the American way. It keeps organizations accountable and spurs them to continue to improve their products and services and/or decrease their prices, creating a significant benefit for consumers. When there are few options in – oh, I don’t know – the airline, cell phone or cable industries, we can find ourselves with inferior services and high prices. Competition is good because it prompts innovation and improvement. But when it comes to competition in the nonprofit sector, is there a time when more groups jumping in to provide another option is no longer helpful?
I’m intrigued by Chris Hughes’s announcement about the soon-to-be revealed Jumo platform – yes, intrigued enough to take a little quiz for the promise that they would be in touch “soon” with the perfect opportunities. Jumo, which will actually launch in the fall, is in an information-collecting period right now, asking people to answer questions about their interests and preferences. And while Jumo’s collection of offerings isn’t yet clear, it will essentially help to match people with volunteering opportunities that suit their talents, interests and resources – and word on the street is that’s what a few other sites thought they were doing pretty well already.
If I were the folks at Idealist, VolunteerMatch or All for Good, I might not have been totally thrilled to read about Jumo last week. According to the LA Times, Chris Hughes has already raised more than half a million dollars (of a targeted $2.5 million) for his project. This news comes right in the middle of a half million dollar fundraising campaign to save the 15-year-old Idealist.org. And the more than 30 years of combined experience of Idealist, VolunteerMatch and All for Good could be of help as Jumo is in its research and building phase. While I'm sure they aren't close to a cut-throat corporate brand battle, what do you bet they aren’t all picking out new drapes and china patterns together either?
And I’m certainly not picking on Jumo. Chris Hughes is brilliant, he’s established a solid track record of getting things done and I’m thrilled that he wants to put his time and talent toward helping people find meaningful ways to give back. It’s just a broader question about whether or not increased options and competition are always good for our sector - or if they lead to better services and greater impact. Jumo might be a little taste of déjà vu. The volunteering mega-hub All for Good prompted similar questions and conversation last summer when it launched with the backing of Google and the Obama administration. And while I’m sure that Jumo will be different and innovative, and I’m excited to see what it is, I find myself wondering if the best product for all might have been created more quickly through one of the existing tools....I honestly don't know.
Likewise, there are now an almost overwhelming number of clubs, professional organizations and affinity groups where nonprofit workers can seek development, networking and resources. There are so many slightly different groups with similar goals and services that it’s becoming difficult for individuals to find the time for all these groups and similarly difficult for these groups to find enough active members to maintain their chapters.
My colleague Michael Smith and I were marveling today about the fact that if, for example, you are a young(ish), black foundation professional in DC, you could participate in Young Nonprofit Professionals Network, Independent Sector (and its NGen), Council on Foundations (and its NextGen), Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, Association of Black Foundation Executives, Black Philanthropic Alliance, Washington Grantmakers, Grantmakers for Effective Organizations…and the list goes on. And while these groups do team up for events and programs, they all have their own conferences, newsletters, resources and membership fees. Are we benefitting from so many choices or does everything get kind of muddled?
What do you think? In the nonprofit sector, does competition always spur the most innovation and best result? And do more options for good actually lead to more good?