Session purpose
This session explored how think tanks can strengthen financial resilience by developing income streams beyond traditional core funding and project grants. It focused on practical examples from different contexts — Peru, Mexico, Indonesia, El Salvador, Armenia and others — showing how think tanks are experimenting with survey units, corporate partnerships, philanthropic services, subscriptions, public events, training programmes and commercial advisory offers.
The session did not present diversification as easy or risk-free. Instead, it asked how think tanks can generate new revenue while protecting their independence, credibility and mission. A recurring theme was that successful diversification requires clear value propositions, internal buy-in, transparency, patience and a realistic assessment of organisational capacity.
Main conveners and contributors
This session was convened by:
- Jorge Morel, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos
- Liliana Alvarado, Ethos
- Anthea Haryoko, CIPS Indonesia
- Margarita Beneke De Sanfeliu, FUSADES
The programme framed the session around the difficulty of securing core funding and the need for think tanks to explore alternative income streams, such as membership programmes, polling services, consulting, event sponsorships, and training activities — without compromising autonomy, credibility, or mission integrity.
The discussion also included examples and reflections from other participants, including Sharmagh Shakounts from Armenia, Damien King from CAPRI, Jun from Korea, and OTT’s own experience with events, training and failed fundraising experiments.
Main presentation and framing
The session was framed around a blunt reality: core funding remains the ideal, but it is increasingly scarce. Think tanks, therefore, need to look for revenue models that can support their mission without making them overly dependent on a single donor, a single grant, or a single political moment.
The examples showed that diversification often begins by asking: what does the organisation already know how to do well, and who else might value that capability?
In Peru, the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos built a public opinion survey unit. In Mexico, Ethos is exploring services for philanthropic foundations. In Indonesia, CIPS has developed corporate partnerships around policy dialogue. In El Salvador, FUSADES has combined trust-fund income, rental income, legal services, AI training, and public events.
Main debates
1. Diversification should build on existing strengths
One of the clearest lessons was that successful income streams rarely come from inventing an entirely new organisation. They usually come from repackaging existing capabilities.
IEP’s survey unit built on its reputation for academic rigour and political analysis. FUSADES developed paid legal services from its existing policy and legal expertise. Its AI Academy drew on research, legal analysis and emerging policy debates around data protection and ethics. CIPS used its convening role and policy expertise to create value for companies interested in technology, markets and regulation.
2. Academic rigour can be a market advantage
Jorge Morel’s example from IEP showed how research credibility can differentiate a think tank from commercial providers. IEP launched an academic survey unit in 2019, with initial support from the Ford Foundation’s BILD programme. During COVID, it shifted to telephone surveys, leveraging Peru’s high mobile phone penetration.
The unit has since become one of Peru’s most recognised survey organisations, generating income from international organisations, media partnerships, private-sector clients, and evaluations. Its reputation was strengthened by its performance during elections and by registration with electoral authorities.
3. Philanthropy can be a client, not only a funder
Liliana Alvarado described Ethos’s emerging model in Mexico: offering services to philanthropic foundations seeking help to improve their effectiveness. These services include organisational strengthening, gender integration frameworks, and disaster resilience advisory services.
The discussion highlighted a shift in mindset. Foundations do not only give grants; they may also need policy, strategy and implementation support. Think tanks can provide that support if they understand foundations’ incentives and can demonstrate value. However, the model requires patience, as some foundations remain culturally conservative and prefer visible donations to strategic investments.
4. Corporate funding requires clear boundaries
Anthea Haryoko explained CIPS Indonesia’s strategy for engaging corporations while maintaining independence. CIPS positions itself as a neutral platform where companies can engage in policy discussions without lobbying directly.
Its flagship event, Digiweek, attracts corporate sponsorship by focusing on technology policy and its effects on society and the economy. Corporate-funded work is accompanied by transparency and disclaimers, and projects are selected where there is a clear public interest, such as consumer protection in fintech.
The broader debate was how think tanks can accept corporate support without becoming captured by corporate agendas. The answer was not to reject corporate funding outright, but to define red lines, disclose support and ensure alignment with mission.
5. Political context shapes what is possible
Margarita Beneke’s example from FUSADES showed how political change can force innovation. In El Salvador, shifts after 2019 restricted tax incentives and made partnerships with private donors more difficult. Reputational risks also limited corporate giving.
FUSADES responded by developing new offers: community leadership programmes framed as corporate social responsibility, paid legal monitoring services for corporate lawyers, AI ethics and data protection training, and a large televised annual event with sponsorship. These initiatives generated revenue and increased visibility while adapting to a more difficult political environment.
6. Events are risky as fundraising tools
The session included a warning about events. While conferences, gala dinners and public events can raise visibility and build community, they are not always good fundraising vehicles. They require significant staff time and can lose money.
OTT’s failed gala experience was mentioned as a cautionary example. The lesson was that events should be assessed honestly: are they meant to raise income, build relationships, create visibility or serve the community? Confusing these purposes can lead to disappointment.
7. Staff need to adapt, not necessarily be replaced
Several speakers emphasised that diversification often requires retraining existing staff rather than hiring entirely new teams. IEP trained staff to deliver new survey services. FUSADES trained lawyers to engage with AI-related legal and ethical questions. Ethos is working internally to help its team understand and sell new services to foundations.
This is important because new income streams can create internal anxiety. Staff may worry about mission drift, commercialisation or unfamiliar client relationships. Early involvement and change management are therefore essential.
8. Subscription and membership models are promising but demanding
Participants discussed subscription services for embassies, companies or other institutional clients, as well as digital memberships and monetised content. Sharma from Armenia described subscription models that provide exclusive analysis, closed events and memos.
These models can create a steady income, but they require a clear value proposition, regular high-quality content and a sufficiently large or committed audience. They are not passive revenue streams; they need sustained product management and client engagement.
9. Collaboration can reduce risk
Several participants suggested that think tanks could collaborate to access new markets, share expertise and avoid overextending themselves. Smaller organisations may not have all the skills needed to pitch, deliver and manage new services, but partnerships can combine complementary strengths.
This also points to a broader opportunity: diversification does not need to mean every think tank building every capacity internally. Some services could be developed through networks, consortia or joint offers.
Main takeaways
- Diversification is increasingly necessary, but it must be strategic. Not every income stream is worth pursuing.
- The best diversification models build on what a think tank already does well: research, analysis, convening, legal expertise, training, polling or policy communication.
- Credibility can be monetised, but it must also be protected. Transparency, methodological rigour and clear red lines are essential.
- Corporate funding can be useful when aligned with public interest and handled transparently, but it carries reputational risks.
- Philanthropic foundations may become clients for advisory and capacity-building services, not only donors.
- Political context matters. In restrictive environments, think tanks may need to carefully reposition their services to maintain space and revenue.
- Events can build visibility and community, but they are not automatically profitable.
- Internal change management is central. New revenue models require staff buy-in, retraining and clarity about mission alignment.
- Subscription, membership and exclusive analysis models can work, but only where the value proposition is clear, and the organisation can deliver consistently.
- Collaboration between think tanks can help reduce risk, share capacity and open new markets.
- The strongest message of the session was that financial resilience is not just about finding more money. It is about understanding the organisation’s value, translating that value for new audiences, and building income streams that strengthen rather than dilute the mission.