Comments on: Conservation Nonprofit Revenue http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4472 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: martha http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4472&cpage=1#comment-10478 martha Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:26:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/conservation-nonprofit-revenue-4472#comment-10478 these numbers need to be studied in conjunction with the growth of issue-image departments in corporations and the continued decline fo teaching as the central role of universities in favor of "institutes", "centers", and applied doctrine bureaucracies. ----------- http://www.dissertation-help.co.uk/literature_review.htm these numbers need to be studied in conjunction with the growth of issue-image departments in corporations and the continued decline fo teaching as the central role of universities in favor of “institutes”, “centers”, and applied doctrine bureaucracies.

———–
http://www.dissertation-help.co.uk/literature_review.htm

]]> By: George Tobin http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4472&cpage=1#comment-10477 George Tobin Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:21:46 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/conservation-nonprofit-revenue-4472#comment-10477 I think you are trying to read too much into the data. Ultimately those numbers reflect the caliber and sophistication of fund-raising efforts more than what anybody actually does with the money. The Nature Conservancy does not mau mau corporate America for its crimes and instead offers uncontroversial PR opportunities with a very tangible product. This has proven to be significantly more successful than the traditional generic blackmail approach. However, the traditional activist mau mau approach will never go out of style. As corporate America becomes (a) ever-more bureaucratic and (b) more populated by well-indoctrinated recent college graduates, the collective sensibility regarding un-PC activities will likely increase. These numbers need to be studied in conjunction with the growth of issue-image departments in corporations and the continued decline fo teaching as the central role of universities in favor of "institutes", "centers", and applied doctrine bureaucracies. We are evolving away from the idea that making, growing and selling things is the essence of the social order and that knowledge-based activities were meant to serve those activities. Now the new order is that making-growing and selling exist to serve the aesthetic of the knowledge class. So, in sum, the product, specific activity or efficiency of the activist organization is irrelevant (sorry, Peter Drucker) so long as they can sell satisfying and highly visible participation in a validation of the new dominant aesthetic. I think you are trying to read too much into the data. Ultimately those numbers reflect the caliber and sophistication of fund-raising efforts more than what anybody actually does with the money. The Nature Conservancy does not mau mau corporate America for its crimes and instead offers uncontroversial PR opportunities with a very tangible product. This has proven to be significantly more successful than the traditional generic blackmail approach.

However, the traditional activist mau mau approach will never go out of style. As corporate America becomes (a) ever-more bureaucratic and (b) more populated by well-indoctrinated recent college graduates, the collective sensibility regarding un-PC activities will likely increase.

These numbers need to be studied in conjunction with the growth of issue-image departments in corporations and the continued decline fo teaching as the central role of universities in favor of “institutes”, “centers”, and applied doctrine bureaucracies.

We are evolving away from the idea that making, growing and selling things is the essence of the social order and that knowledge-based activities were meant to serve those activities. Now the new order is that making-growing and selling exist to serve the aesthetic of the knowledge class.

So, in sum, the product, specific activity or efficiency of the activist organization is irrelevant (sorry, Peter Drucker) so long as they can sell satisfying and highly visible participation in a validation of the new dominant aesthetic.

]]>