To continue with yesterday’s thought experiment about a “PHC Stock Market,” what would happen after a large number of under-performing PHCs began to cease operations?
I believe that all available pro-life philanthropic capital in the Pro-Life Business Industry would start to flow, in a concentrated manner, to a handful of organizations that consistently proved by their results, as measured by market share, that they had business models worthy of attracting capital that enabled expansion of those businesses.
Imagine if that happened, and over time there came to be three proven-effective (as measured by market share against Planned Parenthood), nationally-recognized (branding!!) Pregnancy Help Center organizations, each having successful businesses established in the top 20 largest cities in the United States.
Now I don’t know if three organizations is the right number, it could be one.
Whatever the right number, the point is that these Pregnancy Help Center businesses would cause some serious problems for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business.
And serious problems for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business would mean that many preborn babies’ lives were being saved – exactly what pro-life philanthropic investors are looking for as a return on their investments (ROI).
Shout It From the Rooftops!
Notice that I underlined “business models” above.
One glaring weakness that I have noticed in the Pro-Life Business Industry is that there are very few PHCs – only a handful really – that build their businesses with a comprehensive business plan that, if proven effective once executed in the market place, could then be scaled to expand that same success into other markets.
I find it odd that there are some successful (as measured by market share) Pregnancy Help Centers that have no plans whatsoever to expand their operations.
In the for-profit world where investors seek maximum financial return, it is almost inconceivable that a business model – owned by investors – that proved very profitable in one city, say here in Austin where I live, would not then be expanded into other cities.
Imagine if a research facility here in Austin found the cure to cancer.
Would they then only want to bring that cure to hospitals in Austin?
Of course not!
They would take that cure everywhere they could, and as quickly as possible.
The reality that very few PHCs with proven-effective business models have any plans to expand, I believe ties back to the fact that there is no information mechanism that lets pro-life investors know about these successful business models.
If all pro-life investors knew about these Pregnancy Help Center businesses that are effectively battling against Planned Parenthood, I believe many of them would move heaven and earth to help expand the operations of those PHCs.
Tomorrow, I will share with you an example of one proven-effective PHC organization that I believe has proven itself worthy of expansion capital.
Until then…
Regards,
Brett
Ed
A couple of thoughts:
1. Many pro-life investors want their money to first go to saving lives in their local community. This is true of other philanthropic endeavors like the local arts scene, or food banks or homeless shelters. So this aspect of giving will not likely go away.
2. While it makes sense to have one or, better yet, a few nationwide PHC brands to combat PP’s nationwide presence, , there could still be many local PHCs who could be very effective on their own. As long as they implemented “best practices” and continued to attract capital ( donations) because their metrics were in the top quartile , they may be better off as an independent organization or a collection of 3 to 4 regionally based PHCs like a franchise in fast food. Sometimes big, monolithic organizations come with bureaucracy and all of the other downsides of big organizations.
3. What a future, effective pro-life “market” could look like is a few (2 to 4) nationwide brands that have economies of scale are very well run, and have nationwide ( or regional) recognition. These would augmented by a much larger number of smaller or medium sized PHCs who adopt best practices and are well run themselves but have more nuanced local presence and delivery capability, e.g. rural areas, or perhaps Mormon- run PHCs in Utah, or geographically remote States like Alaska or Hawaii, or any number of special circumstances . This would be a broad, healthy ecosystem rather than a potentially monopolized one.
Just a thought.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thank you for your comments Ed. You are speaking my language!
I agree with you that one all-powerful nationwide PHC monopoly organization is probably not the way to go – for the reasons you stated.
One of the primary reasons I would like to see several PHC brands become nationally known is because that achievement, in itself, will raise awareness about the existence of PHCs as a category. Currently, research shows that about 50% of women in the U.S. don’t even know that such a thing as a pro-life PHC exists.
I can’t imagine how many lives are lost every year because of that.
It breaks my heart when I hear women who had abortions long ago say that if they had only known that there was a place like a PHC to help them, it might have led to them choosing life.
That is a massive failure in category branding by the Pro-Life Business Industry.
The emergence of nationally recognized PHC brands would accomplish two objectives with one marketing budget: brand both a recognizable PHC brand name(s) as well as raise awareness about the pro-life PHC category in general.
I agree with your point number 2 as well. However, I would claim that those “best practices” have not emerged at the local PHC level, in general, precisely because there isn’t a powerful group of national brand PHCs that force all PHCs to up their competitive game.
In my experience, most local PHCs still tend to operate in a vacuum, and because pro-life philanthropists don’t know that there are more effective models for PHCs to use, they don’t demand accountability to results.
I think it is fine if a pro-life philanthropist wanted to keep his/her money invested locally, but if he/she knew what the world-class standard was for PHC operations, as would be demonstrated by those national PHC brands, then the philanthropist could then hold the local PHC accountable to a similar level of performance.
Ed
A couple of thoughts:
1. Many pro-life investors want their money to first go to saving lives in their local community. This is true of other philanthropic endeavors like the local arts scene, or food banks or homeless shelters. So this aspect of giving will not likely go away.
2. While it makes sense to have one or, better yet, a few nationwide PHC brands to combat PP’s nationwide presence, , there could still be many local PHCs who could be very effective on their own. As long as they implemented “best practices” and continued to attract capital ( donations) because their metrics were in the top quartile , they may be better off as an independent organization or a collection of 3 to 4 regionally based PHCs like a franchise in fast food. Sometimes big, monolithic organizations come with bureaucracy and all of the other downsides of big organizations.
3. What a future, effective pro-life “market” could look like is a few (2 to 4) nationwide brands that have economies of scale are very well run, and have nationwide ( or regional) recognition. These would augmented by a much larger number of smaller or medium sized PHCs who adopt best practices and are well run themselves but have more nuanced local presence and delivery capability, e.g. rural areas, or perhaps Mormon- run PHCs in Utah, or geographically remote States like Alaska or Hawaii, or any number of special circumstances . This would be a broad, healthy ecosystem rather than a potentially monopolized one.
Just a thought.
The Real Person!
The Real Person!
Thank you for your comments Ed. You are speaking my language!
I agree with you that one all-powerful nationwide PHC monopoly organization is probably not the way to go – for the reasons you stated.
One of the primary reasons I would like to see several PHC brands become nationally known is because that achievement, in itself, will raise awareness about the existence of PHCs as a category. Currently, research shows that about 50% of women in the U.S. don’t even know that such a thing as a pro-life PHC exists.
I can’t imagine how many lives are lost every year because of that.
It breaks my heart when I hear women who had abortions long ago say that if they had only known that there was a place like a PHC to help them, it might have led to them choosing life.
That is a massive failure in category branding by the Pro-Life Business Industry.
The emergence of nationally recognized PHC brands would accomplish two objectives with one marketing budget: brand both a recognizable PHC brand name(s) as well as raise awareness about the pro-life PHC category in general.
I agree with your point number 2 as well. However, I would claim that those “best practices” have not emerged at the local PHC level, in general, precisely because there isn’t a powerful group of national brand PHCs that force all PHCs to up their competitive game.
In my experience, most local PHCs still tend to operate in a vacuum, and because pro-life philanthropists don’t know that there are more effective models for PHCs to use, they don’t demand accountability to results.
I think it is fine if a pro-life philanthropist wanted to keep his/her money invested locally, but if he/she knew what the world-class standard was for PHC operations, as would be demonstrated by those national PHC brands, then the philanthropist could then hold the local PHC accountable to a similar level of performance.