>

Weird Nonprofit Science

Ars Technica posted in Weird Science finds marriage can kill an interesting tidbit about the perception of nonprofits. Apparently, in this University of Chicago Journal of Consumer Research found that people see nonprofits as incompetent.

If you're not in it for the money, you must be incompetent: It's a two-fer of weirdness from the Journal of Consumer Research. US society as a whole is based on the assumption that the profit motive drives all sorts of creativity and competence. Apparently, we've internalized that message so well that we assume nonprofits are incompetent. Consumers feel warmly towards nonprofits, but aren't especially interested in buying anything from them. Sending subtle signals that suggest the nonprofit is good at what it does can overcome this effect, at which point the warm feelings make consumers even more likely to buy. 

Why does having a very specific mission and not paying the CEO million dollar bonuses mean that your incompetent? I would think that being a nonprofit means that they have their values in the correct place. The world relies on nonprofits everyday; look at who is helping in Haiti and Chili right now. Yes, there are some government services, but a majority of donations and help are coming in through the Red Cross and other nonprofits. I agree that with any donation you should research the organization, but how in the world can you generalize that just because they are a nonprofit, they are incompetent? How?