People need to make a living, and I don't think that there is much difference in making a living by drawinga salary for working for a nonprofit or drawing a profit from working for a nonprofit - or many nonprofits.

The real issues, in terms of attitude, are how honest and committed to really helping out are they. How far are they willing to go for a dollar (or few)?

The main issue, in terms of practicality, is how well do they REALLY understand the sector? Some folks are so immerssed inteh sector that they have a real sense of what works inthe realworld and what only works in theory. My experience is that many folks in the for-profit sector do run into that gap on a regular basis. There are exceptions, mostly people who have been IN the nonprofit setor before moving to nonprofit or are in situations where all of their business is in the non-profit sector - usually providing a service which is is fairly specific o nonprofits.

Whatever the case, I don't think it very fair or sensible to stigmatize people in the for profit sector, merely for being in the for profit sector.

I don't really understand an organization that serves non-profits exclusively but isn't a non-profit itself.

So the mission is "help non-profits achieve their missions by providing a great database package". But isn't the org helping the non-profit achieve their mission by charging them the least amount possible, i.e. making no profit off their client? I mean, any for-profit company that doesn't deal with non-profits per say is really just in business to make money.

Take Coke, for example. Right off their website, I read: "The Coca-Cola Company exists to benefit and refresh everyone it touches." That's vague enough that it caused me to do some more probing, to find: "When we bring refreshment, value, joy and fun to our stakeholders, then we successfully nurture and protect our brands, particularly Coca-Cola. That is the key to fulfilling our ultimate obligation to provide consistently attractive returns to the owners of our business." And that's the real reason Coke exists. To provide consistently attractive returns to the stockholders of Coke. I'm sure America would be sad if all of a sudden Coke had to close its doors - an American icon gone. But I would be any amount of money that if Coke stopped making a profit, they would indeed shutdown their business.

So personally I see little difference between a Coke and another for-profit that has non-profit clients. But maybe my view is naive?

I don't buy the equation for-profit = bad, non-profit = good. I can show you examples of good and bad outcomes in both sectors. The business model does not, by itself, determine the ethics or value of a vendor or product.

I think the important questions are:
1) Does the vendor or their product do what you need?
2) Does the vendor understand your needs? (If not, you probably answered No to #1.)
3) Will you need ongoing support from the vendor? This is particularly important if the vendor created a software product. If so, is support available? This might be a customer service number staffed by real people who understand the needs of your type of organization. If it’s a software product, it might be documentation, training, and a help desk.
4) Does the vendor have the capacity to grow so they can continue meeting your needs for the foreseeable future? Can they build and sustain their operation? Some wonderful non-profit vendors have foundered due to lack of capital when grant funding has dried up. Conversely, some wonderful for-profit companies have imploded or dropped their non-profit products when VCs stopped investing.
5) Are they solving a real problem for you?
6) Can you afford (and support, if it’s software) whatever it is they’re selling?

For some, this is a religious issue, like Mac vs. Windows. But if you’re “agnostic,” and you can answer these questions to your satisfaction, I don’t think it matters whether the vendor operates for profit or not.

Robert