|
Hello Frito, and thanks for getting back.
Irony, no. But I see where you might see a contradiction of business philosophy.
First, a quick primer about 'charity' in regards to business and law.
There's a huge misconception that non-profit or charities, whether online of off, can make money. In fact, they can make huge money..it's how it's distributed at the end of the day that matters.
In other words, 'non-profit' doesn't mean 'no income'. It means that net revenue after expenses is given away, and no dividends (or profits) are shared by the owners.
Paul Newman's company..the one that makes salad dressing is technically a 'for-profit' entity. They make hundreds of millions of dollars on salad dressing and pasta sauce, and after salaries and expenses, give it all away to his foundation. The customer gets a product, the company gets a profit. And the profit is donated.
The end result is the same. The only difference is that anyone making a donation to Newman Inc. gets no tax benefit. But if they donate to Save the Children, a 501c3 non-profit corporation, they get the deduction.
In both cases, money is raised, and money is given.
Now, to our case.
If we get millions in donations, or millions in monetization, it matters not. It's all going to the charity.
If you click on my site and make a donation to the charity, you get a tax benefit. If you click on my site and enroll in Netflix, you get a tangible benefit, and we get the commission, which will go to charity.
So you see? The whole idea that 'non-profit' means 'no commerce' is incorrect.
Hope that makes sense...
Jump
|