Embedded Philanthropy: Will it Ever Really Add Up?
by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 26 May 2009
This blog post is part of the Embedded Philanthropy Blog Series, sponsored by Telecom for Charity. The blog series was launched in May 2009 to highlight expert thinking and encourage discussions on the state of embedded philanthropy in today’s economy.
In my unscientific Memorial Day weekend poll, I asked some friends and a few strangers if they were familiar with the term embedded philanthropy. The result was a unanimous “huh?” But, when I explained what it was – almost everyone could identify a personal example from the past week. So, let me take you through my past week, and see if any of this sounds familiar.
On Monday, I ordered my regular low fat grande mocha and was asked if I wanted to purchase a pound of coffee -- for every pound purchased, Starbucks would donate a pound to a patient in the AIDS ward of the hospital down the street. On Wednesday, I went to the grocery store and while checking out was asked if I cared to add a dollar to my purchase to support a local food bank. Both of these examples took place when I was out and about in my daily life, but these days my daily routine seems to include more hours in front of the computer than anywhere else.
Fear not, embedded philanthropy is taking place more and more right there (or here for that matter). Take for example the platform GoodSearch. You enter the name of a charity you’d like to support, and then every time you perform a search a donation is made to that organization. GoodSearch grew from a realization of what a fraction of the $8 billion generated annually by search engine advertisers could do if it were directed towards organizations trying to make the world a better place. GoodSearch donates 50 percent of its revenue to charities and schools designated by its users.
The new URL shortener good.ly is also getting into the online embedded giving game –donating a portion of the referral fees it receives to a nonprofit whenever someone clicks through a shortened URL and then purchases the product.
Simply put, embedded philanthropy is really just a form of charitable giving in which an act of philanthropy is built into regular everyday transactions. As Nathaniel Whittemore of Change.org explained last week, “In some ways, it's like moving a piece of corporate social responsibility to the user side, and making it a part of the commercial relationship between the company and it's client (or user, for the case of online products).”
So, why does this matter? Or as Sean Stannard Stockton at Tactical Philanthropy asks, “does it matter at all?”
These days it seems there are countless opportunities to give a dollar here or reduce your carbon footprint there. Take for example the sponsor of this blog series, Telecom for Charity. They have a business model based on embedded giving – as they explain, “the Telecom for Charity Initiative puts forth five percent of your monthly telecom spend towards whatever cause you wish to support.”
Individuals tend to “give where they live" but more specifically, they give to causes in which they have a personal relationship. A smart donor wants to see him/herself as a key stakeholder. At the Case Foundation, we believe strongly in promoting everyday philanthropy and broadening the use of new technology to make giving more informed, efficient, and effective – and I like to think, easier.
So, while all of this transactional giving behavior surrounds us, is it making us more thoughtful philanthropists? Are we really giving because we are compelled to support an organization? Are we stopping to ask whether our couple of dollars will really make a difference? Or, do we feel pressured by the barista behind the counter?
Let’s face it, “doing good” has never been trendier. We can wear "good," shop "good," drive "good," but these trends come and go. When doing "good" is as easy adding a few bucks to your grocery bill, are people really connecting to the cause they are giving to?
I think the real question is how can we convert a new era of embedded philanthropists into passionate advocates for the causes to which they donate? If we can take the mindset of the conscious consumer and translate this kind of behavior into our giving habits, then embedded philanthropy will be more than a trend for "good." It has the potential to drive a deeper kind of philanthropic engagement.
Comments
Kari, what a great post, one that helps to "making the invisible visible." I've been reading this entire series as it unfolds, and until reading your post I hadn't fully recognized just how ubiquitous these philanthropy-requests have become.
The very first step towards advocacy, towards "connecting to the cause," is to be aware. At the very least these opportunities to give to one another make us more aware of each other, of what we can do to help one another. In the aggregate, I think that expanding that place-of-awareness to include where we shop is a good thing.
Going forward, I expect that the potential for embedded philanthropy to engender real advocacy and deeper engagement will only be realized when these giving-invitations include more than just an invitation: when they include much more information about the nonprofit that's benefiting, when they give the customer more than just a "yes or no" choice, when the corporate becomes less of a gatekeeper and more of a conduit where the giving is concerned.
Sharon Schneider posted some great suggestions for the actions corporations can take towards those ends:
http://thephilanthropicfamily.com/2009/05/26/best-practices-for-embedded...
Your post motivates me to think about what all of us can to do encourage 'best practices' for a conscious consumer. We have the opportunity to ask for more information, more context, more proof-of-impact, more reasons for supporting organization A over organization B.
We also have the opportunity to ask for more control. Take the Starbucks experience you share -- where if you buy a pound of coffee, your Starbucks will give a pound away. It's really easy, technically, to allow the customer to decide where that free pound will go. Or even whether they'd prefer the cash-equivalent to be donated to the nonprofit or beneficiary of their choice instead.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful comment, Christine. Organizations are increasingly depending on individual donors and with that, individuals want to find both an emotional connection and an understanding that their contribution matters and is really making a difference.
Embedded giving is a bit different, and it doesn’t always allow for that level of interaction. For some, the convenience of being able to give where you are and in a simple transaction is important - and all that one might be able to do. I certainly don’t want to diminish the importance of that. However, for those who are looking for a way to make a deeper connection, I agree with you -- they should have access to more information about the organization and other ways to support it.
As nonprofit organizations partner with corporations and embark on embedded philanthropy initiatives - they need to think more strategically about how to look at the consumers of the product or service as potential advocates for their cause. They should be more deliberate about collecting email addresses and phone numbers so that people who want to "opt-in" can get more information about how to engage in an ongoing basis. Not everyone will choose to do this, but I bet we would be surprised by the number of those who would.
Kari, very interesting post. I sit on the Board of the I Do Foundation (www.idofoundation.org), an organization that helps people make charitable giving an integral part of their weddings and other life events. We have very popular wedding programs that enable couples to raise money for their favorite charities. For example, we have a partnership with the WeddingChannel where they donate a percentage of each gift bought on the couple's gift registry to their charity of choice.
Charitable choice seems to be critical to make embedded giving a part of thoughtful philanthropy. Charitable choice is much easier when the transaction is online. The big challenge I see is creating meaningful transactions at the checkout line and other types of embedded philanthropy where it may not be feasible to offer charitable choice.
Monisha, thanks for your comment. As a side note, I love what the I Do Foundation does to help newlyweds and newly engaged couples think about their own giving habits, and how philanthropy can play a role in their lives together.
Charitable choice as you suggest, is much easier when the transaction takes place online. So, what can we do to bring a similar level of engagement to the checkout line? Does anyone have good examples that we could learn from?
I like one of your picture. Can I use one of them
Aloe Vera, All of the pics on the Social Citizens website can be found under creative commons on Flickr - so, yes feel free to use any of them.
I like to help and at the moment I help children in thailand without any parents
Post new comment