Innocent Smoothies Richard Reed - Inspiring Entrepreneur
Great video to watch.
As a side note: it’s interesting for me to see people combining charity and entrepreneurship like this. While I think the only way to make money is to help people, the goals of a non profit and a for profit company are not always in alignment. I wonder if by combining the two you just end up with something that’s not very good at making profit and not very good at charity. I’d say make your money in a for profit company and then pursue a charity as a separate project, like Bill Gates. What do you think?
Want to get 3 of the top 10 books ever written on building wealth for FREE? Think and Grow Rich, The Richest Man In Babylon, and The Way To Wealth are yours for free when you subscribe to get updates from StartBreakingFree.com!
Stewart Macdonald said,
Wrote on July 13, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
“…not very good at charity.”
The company in the video is donating 10% of profits to charity. I can’t really see how donating to charity in any capacity could be seen as being “not very good at charity”.
Stewart
Side note: 110% of the profits from my web site are donated to an Australian environmental charity: http://www.bushheritage.com.au/
[Reply]
Brian Armstrong reply on July 15th, 2008 2:19 am:
What if the 10% profit was the difference in cash flow that could have helped you stay afloat in a down turn, or reinvest in a new product line to grow the company. What if you had to decide between donating the 10% to charity or giving your employees raises to retain good talent?
My point is just that there is a conflict of interest to both want to donate and make money at the same time.
[Reply]
Nick said,
Wrote on July 14, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
If you are capable of MAKING money (as opposed to TAKING) by inventing a better product or providing a better service you are already doing humanity a huge service.
I’m not concerened with helping others in the first place, but if you feel compelled at least look at logically. You always talk of how businesses scale, and the same holds for charity. If you are a “great person” and nurse thousands of people thats fine. If you are an “asshole” and invent a product that helps every single person in the world for your own profit, regardless of what anybody thinks about you, you are in reality a much better person than the first. Henry Ford was a better person than Mother Teresa etc etc.
[Reply]
Brian Armstrong reply on July 15th, 2008 2:28 am:
Thats true Nick, many have argued (and I tend to agree) that capitalism often does far more good than any charity could…in terms of providing jobs, giving people wealth, propelling technological breakthroughs in medicine, etc.
John Stossel had an interesting piece where he argued that Michael Milken (the guy who invested junk bonds) actually did far more good for the world than Mother Teresa, primarily because of the jobs he created and wealth that he built.
Here is a great talk of his:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1876894381231272307&q=john+stossel&ei=XkN8SICBNZ6sqgOD_5CeCw
[Reply]