On 8/9/11 10:27 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would
give a chapter the
right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by
the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to
want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own
fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on
top of that. It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be
sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to
follow; but there's nothing particularly "normal" or "fair" about
it.
Just to be clear, this is more or less the model that I personally
advocate: that the WMF turn over a portion of its revenue to chapters
every year, without question, based on a simple and non-controlling
framework of accountability and responsibility.
Delphine has wise things to say about this. It is healthy all around if
the chapters have incentives to care about the fundraiser. They can and
will do a great deal of work as donor liaisons, local message
customization, getting positive press coverage in local papers (which
surely tends to positively affect donations), etc.
A model in which the Foundation simply makes grants solely based on
programmatic needs would be flawed if it completely removes chapters
interest in making sure that donors are well taken care of. (And, of
course, a model in which chapters are encouraged to care only about
maximizing donations would also be not healthy!)
--Jimbo