
The One Big Mistake: Why Many Nonprofits Fail
As the great Aretha Franklin once sang, leaders have to 'think.' But for some reason, many nonprofits reduce themselves to just asking for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T, expecting support without critically assessing their own sustainability.
In the for-profit world, it's widely accepted that startups face an uphill battle, with high failure rates defining the landscape. Entrepreneurs understand this reality and often pivot, adapt or overhaul their business models to survive.
However, in the nonprofit sector, there's an underlying assumption that if the cause is noble, support should naturally follow. Many organizations operate under the belief that 'the world needs the help we are providing,' and therefore, they are entitled to funding, volunteers and sustained operations. Unfortunately, this mindset can be a fatal mistake.
Over the past 15 years, I've seen countless nonprofit projects emerge with great enthusiasm, fall in love with their mission and then collapse when circumstances changed—whether due to a global pandemic, shifts in government policy or evolving donor priorities. In many cases, these organizations pointed fingers at external forces rather than examining their own adaptability and resilience. The blame was placed on decreased funding, lack of awareness or insufficient government backing. Rarely did leaders ask: Are we structured to withstand change?
The Nonprofit Sector's Resistance To Change
When we look at for-profit corporations, we see a long history of reinvention. Companies like IBM, Sony and Microsoft are unrecognizable from their origins. These businesses have survived by continuously adapting to shifting consumer habits, new technologies and market demands. It's almost a given that survival depends on evolution.
Yet in the nonprofit world, many organizations operate as though social needs, donor behaviors and funding models are static. They build a single strategy and cling to it, even when clear signals indicate the need for transformation. Many nonprofits rely on the same fundraising methods, outreach techniques and service models they used decades ago, assuming that because their cause is important, their approach must still be relevant.
But when one pillar of their organization collapses—whether it's government funding, corporate sponsorship or donor engagement—the entire structure often crumbles. The result? Communities that relied on these services are left abandoned, and the people running these initiatives, despite their good intentions, are left questioning why things fell apart.
Are We Asking The Right Questions?
Survival in the nonprofit world demands the same level of critical thinking and adaptation as it does in the corporate world. Nonprofits should be constantly asking themselves:
• Who is our audience, and how is it changing?
• Are we offering services in a way that makes sense for today's world?
• Are we too attached to our own ideas, rather than focusing on what actually works?
• How can we evolve our funding models to ensure long-term sustainability?
When I founded the organizations I lead, I committed to running them as long as they made sense. That means staying open to change, embracing new perspectives and ensuring our work remains relevant not just for the beneficiaries but also for the donors, the volunteers and the broader society that sustains us.
Falling In Love With The Mission Versus The Execution
One of the most common traps nonprofits fall into is becoming infatuated with their mission statement rather than the actual impact they deliver. In the business world, there is extensive literature warning against this—companies that refuse to adapt to market needs go extinct. Yet in the nonprofit space, we sometimes act as though we are exempt from these same realities.
Nonprofits exist to solve problems, not just to perpetuate their own existence. If the world around us is changing, our organizations must change with it. That means listening to our communities, our funders and even our critics. It means being flexible, reevaluating our strategies and sometimes making difficult decisions about whether to pivot or even shut down in favor of a more effective approach.
A Call For Evolution
Sustainability in the nonprofit sector isn't just about securing funding. It's about creating a model that can weather storms, adjust to new realities and remain relevant. This requires:
• Embracing Innovation: Whether through technology, new outreach methods or creative funding approaches, nonprofits must be willing to evolve.
• Building Diverse Revenue Streams: Relying on a single source of funding is a recipe for disaster. A healthy mix of grants, corporate partnerships, earned income and individual donations increases resilience.
• Evaluating Impact Regularly: Just because a program worked five years ago doesn't mean it's still effective today. Nonprofits need to measure and adjust their strategies continuously.
• Being Willing To Reinvent: If the landscape shifts, so should the organization. Whether that means modifying services, restructuring leadership or changing focus areas, adaptability is key.
The fundamental truth is this: Passion alone won't keep a nonprofit alive. Just like in business, adaptability, strategic thinking and a willingness to evolve are what determine long-term success.
So, perhaps it's time we take a lesson from the classics. Aretha Franklin warned us long ago: 'You better think.' It's advice we should take to heart if we want to build nonprofits that don't just start strong but stand the test of time.
Forbes Nonprofit Council is an invitation-only organization for chief executives in successful nonprofit organizations. Do I qualify?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fast Company
21 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Crowdfunded companies are ‘ghosting' investors. Changing the rules could restore trust
Imagine you invest $500 to help a startup get off the ground through investment crowdfunding. The pitch is slick, the platform feels trustworthy, and the company quickly raises its target amount from hundreds of people just like you. Then—silence. No updates, no financials, not even a thank-you. You've been ghosted—not by a friend, but by a company you helped fund. This isn't just an unlucky anecdote. It's happening across the United States. And while it may violate federal law, there's little enforcement—and virtually no consequences. Thanks to a 2012 law, startups can raise up to $5 million per year from the general public through online platforms such as Wefunder or StartEngine. The law was intended to 'democratize' investing and give regular people, not just the wealthy, a chance to back promising young companies. But there's a catch: Companies that raise money this way are required to file an annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and post it publicly. This report, intended to show whether the business is making progress and how it is using investor funds, is a cornerstone of accountability in the system. As a professor of business law, I wrote the book on investment crowdfunding. And in my recent research, I found that a majority of crowdfunded companies simply ignore this rule. They raise the money and go silent, leaving investors in the dark. In most cases, I suspect their silence isn't part of an elaborate con. More likely, the founders never realized they had to file, forgot about the requirement amid the chaos of running a young business, or shut down entirely. But whether it's innocent oversight or deliberate avoidance, the effect on investors is the same: no information, no accountability. This kind of vanishing act would be unthinkable for public companies listed on the stock market. But in the world of investment crowdfunding, limited oversight means that going silent, whatever the reason, is all too easy. It's not just 1 or 2 victims When startups go dark, they don't just leave their investors behind—they undermine the entire crowdfunding model. Investment crowdfunding was meant to be an accessible, transparent way to support innovation. But when companies ghost their backers, the relationship starts to look less like an investment and more like a donation. It's not just unethical—it's illegal. Federal law requires at least one annual update. But so far, enforcement has been almost nonexistent. Concerned state attorneys general have encouraged the SEC to ramp up enforcement actions. This could work in theory, but it's unrealistic in practice, given the SEC's limited resources and broad mission. If nothing changes, the crowdfunding experiment could collapse under the weight of mistrust. Incentives work—let's use them Fortunately, there's a low-cost solution. I propose that crowdfunding platforms hold back 1% of the capital raised until the company files its first required report. If it complies, it gets the funds. If not, it doesn't. It's a small but powerful incentive that could nudge companies into doing the right thing, without adding bureaucratic complexity. It's the same principle used in escrow arrangements, which are common in finance. In a home sale, for example, part of the money goes into a neutral holding account—escrow—until the seller meets certain agreed conditions. Only then is it released. Applying that approach here, a small slice of crowdfunding proceeds would stay in escrow until the company files its first annual report. No report, no release. Unfortunately, crowdfunding platforms are unlikely to adopt this voluntarily. They compete with one another for deal flow, and any rule that makes fundraising slightly harder at one platform could send startups to a rival site. However, the SEC has the legal authority to update its rules, and this change would be easy to implement—no new laws, no congressional fights, just a bit of regulatory will. I've even drafted a proposed rule, ready-made for the SEC to adopt, and published it in my recent article, 'Ghosting the Crowd.' The idea behind investment crowdfunding remains powerful: Open the door to entrepreneurship and investment for everyone. But if that door leads to silence and broken promises, trust will disappear—and with it, a promising financial innovation. A tiny tweak to the rules could restore that trust. Without it, investors will keep getting ghosted. And the market might ghost them right back.


Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
5 UX Principles That Make Or Break B2B Startups
During the Korean War, the Soviet-designed MiG-15 was, on paper, the better aircraft - faster, higher-climbing, and more powerful than the American F-86 Sabre. Yet U.S. pilots consistently dominated the skies, winning dogfights at a ratio of nearly 10 to 1. The difference wasn't raw performance - it was usability. The F-86 had hydraulically boosted controls that made it far easier to maneuver under pressure, giving pilots a faster 'OODA loop' (Observe–Orient–Decide–Act) and ultimately air superiority. In other words, it had better UX, and that advantage in control and responsiveness proved decisive. In B2B startups, UX is crucial for the same reason. Even if a piece of B2B software is in theory extremely powerful, but in practice hard and unintuitive to use, then it is very likely to lose to competitors with better UX. While internal friction is invisible, inefficiency compounds fast. In this article, we'll explore how companies like Linear and Retool won their niches through exceptional UX, and we'll draw 5 important principles from their stories so that we can use them when building products. 1. Linear's Design-Driven DNA Linear didn't become the darling of engineering teams just by offering issue tracking. Jira and countless others already did that. What made Linear stand out was its obsession with design: fast keyboard shortcuts, buttery-smooth interactions, and interfaces that felt like they belonged in a modern productivity stack. In other words, in this story, Jira was the MiG-15, and when Linear came in as the F-86 Sabre, it won the dogfight in this particular B2B market battle. The principle: speed is UX. When your product helps users accomplish tasks faster than any alternative, you win not by having more features, but by removing friction. For B2B products competing in crowded markets, this focus on responsiveness and clarity is often the single biggest differentiator. 2. Retool Eats Internal Tooling Complexity For Breakfast Internal tools are notoriously painful. Engineers don't want to build them, and teams don't want to use them. Retool succeeded because it absorbed the complexity of building dashboards, integrations, and workflows, so customers didn't have to. The principle: good UX hides complexity. The more difficult the underlying problem, the more crucial it is to make the interface simple. Retool won by giving teams drag-and-drop building blocks while abstracting away APIs, databases, and permissions logic. In B2B, complexity is often unavoidable, but if your product absorbs it instead of dumping it on the user, you create exponential adoption. 3. Retention Starts With Your Team A truth founders underestimate - your first and most critical 'users' are your own employees. Linear's founders famously obsessed over their internal experience before shipping anything. Retool built its own internal processes using Retool, stress-testing usability before unleashing it on the world. The principle: dog food to survive. When your team uses the product daily, you discover pain points far faster than any customer feedback loop. And if your own people don't love it, why would anyone else? UX-led retention begins at home. This is a crucial principle for prototyping any product in the early stages of your business, not just B2B tools. If you don't use what you're building yourself, it would be very hard to have a realistic expectation of the usefulness of what you are building. 4. UX Principles Aren't Limited To Customers B2B startups often treat UX as something external-facing, but the reality is that partners, admins, and support staff are users too. Stripe built legendary momentum not just with developers but also with accountants and finance teams who relied on their dashboards. Retool invested in admin usability so IT teams could manage permissions without headaches. The principle: every touchpoint is UX. The onboarding flow for an admin matters as much as the workflow for an end user. B2B products live in ecosystems, and neglecting secondary users is how adoption stalls. 5. Design As Retention, Not Decoration It's tempting to see design as a final polish step - something layered on top of the 'real' product. But in companies like Linear, design is the product. Every pixel, animation, and shortcut is tuned for efficiency, not vanity. The result? Teams feel an emotional pull to keep using the product, not because it looks pretty, but because it feels better than the alternatives. The principle: design drives stickiness. When software feels like a tool users want to open, retention becomes organic. In B2B, where churn kills startups, design isn't a coat of paint. It's a retention strategy.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Most Anticipated Stock Splits of 2025 May Be Members of the "Magnificent Seven"
Key Points In addition to the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), excitement surrounding stock splits has played a key role in lifting the broader market. Two members of the Magnificent Seven have significant retail investor ownership, which can spur the need for a forward split. Furthermore, these two Mag-7 components offer cash-rich balance sheets and well-defined competitive advantages. 10 stocks we like better than Meta Platforms › Since the mid-1990s, investors have almost always had a game-changing innovation to garner their interest. At the moment, nothing has earned more hype than the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. But every so often, more than one next-big-thing trend can exist at the same time. In addition to having AI lift Wall Street's major stock indexes to new heights, stock-split euphoria has played a key role in boosting valuations for some of the market's leading businesses. Excitement surrounding stock splits has taken hold on Wall Street A stock split is a tool public companies have at their disposal to adjust their share price and outstanding share count by the same factor. These adjustments are purely surface-scratching and have no impact on a company's market cap or its underlying operating performance. Even though these changes are cosmetic, investors view the two types of stock splits as polar opposites. On one hand, reverse splits are typically avoided. This type of split, which is designed to increase a company's share price, is often something you see from struggling businesses that are attempting to avoid delisting from a major stock exchange. In comparison, investors gravitate to businesses announcing and completing forward splits. Companies that have to reduce their share price to make it more nominally affordable for everyday investors who can't buy fractional shares are, in many instances, out-executing and out-innovating their peers. To date, three influential businesses have completed a forward split in 2025. However, investors are eagerly awaiting the first true blockbuster stock-split announcement of the year. It's quite possible two members of the "Magnificent Seven" could answer the call. Two Magnificent Seven stocks appear primed to announce a forward split The Magnificent Seven ("Mag-7" for short) consists of seven of the most influential businesses on Wall Street, as well as seven of the 10 public companies on U.S. exchanges to have ever reached the trillion-dollar valuation plateau: Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA) Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL)(NASDAQ: GOOG) Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META) Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) What better place to find Wall Street's next blockbuster stock-split stock than among its most prominent businesses? But just because these are some of the most influential and high-flying stocks on Wall Street, that doesn't mean they're all automatically primed for a forward split. For instance, Nvidia completed a historic 10-for-1 forward split in June 2024 and will currently set investors back around $182 per share. Likewise, Amazon and Alphabet conducted respective 20-for-1 forward splits in June and July 2022, which brought their share prices down from the stratosphere to approximately $225 and $202, as of the closing bell on Aug. 13. It's unlikely that retail investors are being restricted from buying shares of Nvidia, Amazon, and Alphabet. On the other hand, the respective share prices of Meta Platforms and Microsoft have become prohibitive for some investors who lack the ability to purchase fractional shares. In other words, Meta and Microsoft both have a strong case to become 2025's blockbuster stock-split stocks. Meta Platforms Social media colossus Meta Platforms is the most logical of all Mag-7 stocks to announce a forward split, given its nearly $800 share price. It's also the only member of the Magnificent Seven that's never completed a split. But there's more to identifying a stock-split candidate than just a high share price. Since institutional investors aren't in need of a lower nominal share price, companies often need meaningful retail investor ownership to encourage a split. More than 27% of Meta's outstanding shares are held by everyday investors, which is a sizable enough figure for Meta's board to consider taking the plunge. Aside from the almost $800 price tag accompanying Meta's shares, what could prompt a split announcement is the company's bright future and the growing likelihood that its stock will head substantially higher over time. Though Meta's future is dependent on the evolution of AI, it remains a powerhouse in the advertising realm. Meta's social media sites -- Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Threads, and Facebook Messenger -- were responsible for attracting 3.48 billion daily users to its family of apps in the month of June. Since no other social media company comes close to these figures, Meta is afforded exceptional pricing power for ad placement. Artificial intelligence is helping Meta Platforms deliver double-digit growth in ad sales. Giving businesses access to generative AI solutions, which can help tailor messages to specific users and improve ad click-through rates, is a practical way AI investments are paying off almost immediately for Mark Zuckerberg's company. Furthermore, AI will be relied on to fuel growth in the metaverse, which is the 3D virtual world where users can interact with each other and their surroundings. Zuckerberg's aggressive metaverse investments should allow his company to be a primary on-ramp to this virtual environment in the years to come. Don't overlook Meta's cash pile, either. It closed out the midpoint of 2025 with more than $47 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities and is pacing more than $99 billion in net cash generated from operating activities this year. It has the balance sheet and operating cash flow that affords risk-taking. Microsoft Although Meta has the highest nominal share price among members of the Mag-7, it would be no surprise if software juggernaut Microsoft became the blockbuster stock-split stock of 2025 that investors are waiting for. Microsoft is no stranger to splitting its stock. Since going public in March 1986, it's completed nine forward splits, which would have turned one share at its initial public offering into 288 shares currently. However, the stock market's second-largest company by market cap hasn't completed a split since February 2003. But with its share price now well above $500, and over a third of its outstanding shares held by retail investors, the impetus for a split is stronger than ever. Similar to Meta, Microsoft's long-term outlook is bright, which strongly suggests its share price will head even higher in the years and decades to come. That provides even more of a catalyst for the company to announce its first split in 22 years. Microsoft is very much relying on artificial intelligence to grease its growth engine. Introducing generative AI solutions and tools that allow clients to build and train large language models within Azure have boosted sales for the world's No. 2 cloud infrastructure service platform. During the fiscal fourth quarter (Microsoft's fiscal year ends on June 30), Azure delivered a year-over-year sales jump of 39%, signaling just how powerful AI is as a growth driver. While AI and cloud computing are proving instrumental to Microsoft's sustained double-digit growth rate, investors shouldn't overlook the importance of the company's legacy Windows and Office segments. Though the growth heydays for these divisions are long gone, they continue to generate high-margin operating cash flow that Microsoft can use to make acquisitions or reinvest in other high-growth initiatives. It also offers one heck of a capital-return program. Though its dividend yield may not be much to look at, Microsoft led all public companies with more than $24 billion paid in dividends to its shareholders in fiscal 2025. It also added north of $18 billion in share buybacks, which can boost earnings per share over time. Microsoft and Meta are ideally positioned to be the most anticipated stock-split stocks of 2025. Should you invest $1,000 in Meta Platforms right now? Before you buy stock in Meta Platforms, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Meta Platforms wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Sean Williams has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Most Anticipated Stock Splits of 2025 May Be Members of the "Magnificent Seven" was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data