See updated comment: I stand corrected and I apologise for my mistake. An earlier article I wrote sounded like this was PFG (the way I read it is that they gave away 30% of the stock to a foundation), but this is basically a founders pledge. The 30% might diminish with dilution with new investor rounds.
Still great, but not exactly what we called PFG when we envisioned it, and next time I will read more carefully.
Old comment: @Marcus Abramovitch 🔸 how do we reconcile this profit for good success (8 billion estimated future value to effective charities) with criticism on profit for good being an inefficient way to fund charities?
I expect 99% of Canva users and most of its employees to choose Canva because of price/quality and pay, but even then there’s a small and compounding upside to adopting this model over a Canva with no charity beneficiaries?
In what way is Canva a PfG company? They’ve had 7 (depending on how you count, up to 19) funding rounds from traditional venture capital firms. Equity is entirely ownership by private individuals, not charities.
I stand corrected and I apologise for my mistake. An earlier article I wrote sounded like this was PFG (the way I read it is that they gave away 30% of the stock to a foundation), but this is basically a founders pledge. The 30% might diminish with dilution with new investor rounds.
Still great, but not exactly what we called PFG when we envisioned it, and next time I will read more carefully.
Canva strikes me as something other than “classic” Profit for Good (at least as I’ve understood it). That understanding has involved the vast majority of profits / enterprise value being devoted to charitable purposes, which in turn makes it nearly impossible to secure sufficient traditional venture capital interest. Canva has been able to attract plenty of VC interest, so doesn’t strike me as very relevant to the “classic” model as I understand it.
Moreover, from a glance at its homepage, it doesn’t seem to me that Canva is marketing heavily on its charitable pledge. (From a consumer perspective, I haven’t been aware of Bosch doing so either, despite owning one of their dishwashers). So I don’t have an update here on the extent to which advertising a corporation’s very strong charitable commitment would radically affect consumer choice.
See updated comment: I stand corrected and I apologise for my mistake. An earlier article I wrote sounded like this was PFG (the way I read it is that they gave away 30% of the stock to a foundation), but this is basically a founders pledge. The 30% might diminish with dilution with new investor rounds.
Still great, but not exactly what we called PFG when we envisioned it, and next time I will read more carefully.
Old comment:
@Marcus Abramovitch 🔸 how do we reconcile this profit for good success (8 billion estimated future value to effective charities) with criticism on profit for good being an inefficient way to fund charities?
I expect 99% of Canva users and most of its employees to choose Canva because of price/quality and pay, but even then there’s a small and compounding upside to adopting this model over a Canva with no charity beneficiaries?
In what way is Canva a PfG company? They’ve had 7 (depending on how you count, up to 19) funding rounds from traditional venture capital firms. Equity is entirely ownership by private individuals, not charities.
I stand corrected and I apologise for my mistake. An earlier article I wrote sounded like this was PFG (the way I read it is that they gave away 30% of the stock to a foundation), but this is basically a founders pledge. The 30% might diminish with dilution with new investor rounds.
Still great, but not exactly what we called PFG when we envisioned it, and next time I will read more carefully.
Thanks for not deleting the comment. Apology accepted, all good.
Canva strikes me as something other than “classic” Profit for Good (at least as I’ve understood it). That understanding has involved the vast majority of profits / enterprise value being devoted to charitable purposes, which in turn makes it nearly impossible to secure sufficient traditional venture capital interest. Canva has been able to attract plenty of VC interest, so doesn’t strike me as very relevant to the “classic” model as I understand it.
Moreover, from a glance at its homepage, it doesn’t seem to me that Canva is marketing heavily on its charitable pledge. (From a consumer perspective, I haven’t been aware of Bosch doing so either, despite owning one of their dishwashers). So I don’t have an update here on the extent to which advertising a corporation’s very strong charitable commitment would radically affect consumer choice.
Indeed; seems more like founding to give.