giving

Is the Five-Dollar Donor a Philanthropist?

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 30 Apr 2010 14
five dollars

Does “philanthropy” need a re-brand? The question is one that keeps rearing its head, and earlier this week while participating in a conversation hosted by the One Percent Foundation, it really got me thinking.  My instinctive reaction was to say “of course it does” Philanthropy is a stodgy term that needs to be rebranded kind of like civic engagement needs a good facelift – it just doesn’t seem to resonate with the rising generation of do-gooders. At the Case Foundation we often talk about how the present and the future of philanthropy is not a bunch of rich people writing checks, but it’s in the power of the five-dollar donor, just as much as it is the fifty-thousand dollar donor.

After all, the power of micro-donations is making each of us philanthropists -- and indvidual donors typically account for three fourths of charitable giving each year. Yet, still very few of us consider ourselves to be such – we don’t like that word or we don’t think it applies to what we’re doing. If you want to make philanthropy something that engages the next generation (or as Rosetta Thurman challenges, the NOW Generation) while we’re still young, then philanthropy must be relevant to the way we live our lives. When you think about it, a philanthropist is simply someone who cares about a cause, and uses what they have to help. And now there are more ways than ever for people to exercise this power – be it texting, tweeting, or even embedding it into every day acts like buying products.

I just came across an interview that Sean Stannard Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy did for McKinsey’s new Learning For Social Impact Series.  Sean suggested (and I paraphrase) that in 1982 only 6% of people in the United States owned stock.  Two decades later more than 50% of us do –and the same thing could very much hold true for philanthropy. Its becoming main stream, and if the culture of investing which has taken hold in the United States can take hold in philanthropy and become an everyday habit, then you’ll find more nonprofessionals becoming engaged in philanthropy.  Sean’s broader point is that we need to put in place greater social impact assessments, and I certainly agree – but do we also need to bring the word philanthropy into the 21st century? Something to show we're not talking about our parents style of philanthropy (more significant dollars but later in life).

Ironically, just a few short years ago the world was inundated with philanthropic advisers – people tasked with helping the rich give away their money.  When the recession hit suddenly philanthropic advisers were hit with a branding problem and according to Robert Frank in a recent Wall Street Journal post, “some philanthropy advisers started rebranding themselves as “generosity coaches,” making the whole business seem more a matter of good morals than big money.”

No matter what we call it - giving, generosity, philanthropy or something completely different -- it seems there is a gap in the communications efforts by nonprofits which causes a good portion of people who have the ability to give regularly, to give only during crisis situations.

So, what you do you think? Is philanthropy positioned in people’s minds as something that everyone can be part of, or just the elite?

tags:

$35 Million Donated to Haiti Via Text...Now What?

by Kristin Ivie on 28 Apr 2010 6
Cell Phones

The mobile giving response to the Haiti earthquake signaled a clear shift in the public's willingness to use their phones as quick donation devices. The number of campaigns, the more than $35 million raised via this method, and the number of people who participated by kicking in $5 or $10 at a time are all impressive and meaningful data points. The ease and immediacy of text donations will surely continue to make it a go-to method for crisis response. But I wonder if it was really all it could have been.

At the time, some wondered if the mobile giving campaigns were a bit of a handicap in disguise because they might give someone the psychological satisfaction of having done their part by donating a quick $5 or $10, when they might have otherwise donated much more online, by mail or in person. It can be argued that it’s simple and small ask might have drawn in many people who might not have given at all.

The work in Haiti is far from done, but with crazy Icelandic volcanoes, a historic healthcare bill and continued concern over the global economy, it’s fading from the headlines already. And the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, for example, continues to actively raise money for long-term rebuilding efforts. But I wonder how many of the people who contributed text donations during the first few days after the earthquake have even considered giving again. It seems none of the organizations employing mobile giving campaigns have figured out how to promote continued engagement.

I’ll offer myself as an example. I made two donations in the days following the earthquake – one to the Red Cross via text and one online to Partners in Health. Partners in Health has sent me three email updates on what my money has been doing and information about opportunities to continue being a part of the recovery effort. So far, I have received nothing from the Red Cross since the day I confirmed my donation via text – even though the terms and conditions of the donation stated I could receive up to four texts from them per month. I asked around a bit and heard of only one organization, based in Canada, that has done any follow up so far via text.

While I understand the constraints of 160 characters, I’m surprised and disappointed. I hoped we would see creative ways, or at least attempts, to continue engaging this mobile audience who sent $35 million to Haiti. Especially with more than 40 percent of Americans on smart phones, it seems these organizations could have sent a photo, a sentence, a link to their website with the promise of an update for those who click through. Had they done so, they probably could have found some repeat donors and advocates for their organizations and additional help for the people of Haiti. In some cases, the nonprofits may not yet be able to obtain the phone numbers of the people who gave or they may not have decided how to walk the line between maintaining engagement and annoying these donors in the relatively uncharted territory of mobile giving. Either way, I hope nonprofits are able to continue to move this ball forward soon. 

With all the capabilities of social media and technology, donors are beginning to feel more and more like empowered consumers and shareholders, who expect follow up. If the thousands of people who donated via text to Haiti aren’t engaged or asked again, they might not send another dollar to Haiti – a country that will need support for some time to come. When another crisis happens and organizations launch mobile giving campaigns in response, I trust that they will still succeed in raising a new record-breaking amount, but I hope to see some additional innovation by these organizations to help mobilize and engage people who want to give more than $10.

tags:

Social Citizen Sighting: Daniel Kaufman

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 15 Mar 2010 2
Daniel Kaufman

This interview is part of our "Social Citizen Sightings" series, in which we highlight how people are using their creativity, idealism, and digital fluency to support their causes every day.

Name: Daniel Kaufman

Organization where you spend a lot of your time: One Percent Foundation

Describe yourself in one tweet…or at least give it your best shot:  I am building a broad-based movement around next gen philanthropy by engaging Millennials+ in collective giving. #kindofcrazybutitworks

What’s currently uploaded to your kindle or on your nightstand?

Better by Atul Gawande and Let the Great World Spin by Colum McCann. Really enjoying both of them.

What was your inspiration for creating the One Percent Foundation, and what are you hoping to achieve?

I created the One Percent Foundation with a good friend after we realized that despite being socially conscious and engaged, we had never really thought about what we wanted to achieve with our own philanthropy. We started talking to our friends and heard the same three responses over and over:

  • I don't give because I can't afford it.
  • I don't know which organizations to support. There are so many out there--how am I supposed to distinguish between them?
  • Whatever I give will be so small that it will be meaningless for the organization I give to.

We created the One Percent Foundation to solve these problems.

First, we ask people to make a baseline commitment of giving at least 1% of their annual income to philanthropic causes each year, half of which we ask to be given through OPF. We encourage monthly recurring donations to ease any financial burden and make it easier to budget. Giving $30/month is a lot easier than writing a $360 check in December for someone making $36,000 year that is paying rent and has student and credit card debt.

All money given through OPF is placed in a grant pool that is given out to nonprofits selected through a participatory grantmaking process. Everyone that makes the 1% Commitment (joins OPF) is invited to nominate, assess, and help select grant recipients. The process is entirely bottom up so grant recipients reflect the will of the community.

Finally, because we give out a limited number of large grants, participants are able to be part of making large grants to organizations. This means that they are making a substantial impact on the grant recipients. Ultimately, OPF is trying to create the infrastructure to support and engage Millennials in meaningful giving. This is a $16 billion market, an amount that dwarfs even the largest foundations. To put that in perspective, the Gates Foundation gave $3 billion last year. We believe that by democratizing philanthropy, we can empower our generation to be a powerful funding source, supporting innovative, creative, and exciting ideas, people, and organizations.

Is the Millennial Generation responding to this new form of collective philanthropy? How can people participate?

Definitely. Millennials, more than any other generation, seem to emphasize integrating good into everything they do and are comfortable with collective action, especially through leveraging their social networks. There is always a moment when I speak to Millennials when it clicks: "Wait a second, you mean I can give that little and have that big of an impact?" Becoming part of the One Percent Community is easy. You can check out the OPF website here and you can join here. We would love to have the Social Citizens community join us.

What do you see as the role of social media in enhancing opportunities for people to give back? Is it making it easier, or are people overwhelmed with choices?

From the perspective of the One Percent Foundation, social media makes possible large scale implementation. Collective giving requires a sense of community and social media enables bridging the gap created through online organizing. It is critical that our participants realize that they are part of a larger movement and we have found social media to be an important tool in making that happen.

From a broader perspective, I do think that there is a bit of information overload created by social media, making it hard for organizations to really stand out. However, the ease of communicating and giving more than makes up for any overload. With one click, one text, one tweet, or one status update, you can spread the word to thousands of networks and leverage the power of small donors.

You just launched a new campaign in time for March Madness. Tell us a bit about it and how can our readers get involved?

OPF just launched Grant Madness, a March Madness pool with a philanthropic twist. Run just like an NCAA office pool, OPF is hosting a pool where participants can make a $10 donation (the entry fee) and enter a bracket into the tournament. Instead of playing for money, the Grant Madness winner will win the right to select a nonprofit organization to receive a grant funded by the entry fees.

Grant Madness is a fun take on March Madness and gives people an opportunity to direct their pool money to good (instead of a new flat screen TV for the IT guy who sits down the hall). We'd love for the Social Citizens community to get involved.

To learn more about the One Percent Foundation, you can follow them on Twitter, check out their blog or find them on Facebook.

tags:

Young Donors Want More than a Party!

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 19 Feb 2010 2
Party?
Today’s guest blogger, Derrick Feldman, is CEO of Achieve where he provides guidance to organizations to help them develop new fundraising strategies. Today, Derrick focuses on the importance of engaging young professionals as donors in a more meaningful way.
 

Walk into a hip bar in a metropolitan area after work and there’s a chance that you’ll be greeted by a table draped with a banner bearing the logo of a local nonprofit. Over the music pulsing in the background, two young staffers will welcome you and offer you a name tag. On behalf of the nonprofit’s Young Professionals Group, they’ll thank you for coming, encourage you to enjoy yourself and offer you information about the organization.

 
This has become an increasingly likely scenario, which is why, during a recent conversation with a university vice president, I listened as he expressed concern about such groups. “More than 10 organizations in the city have some sort of young donor group with an affinity to the organization,” he said. “They’re all competing with each other for attention.”
 
It’s true: The concept of the Young Professionals Group (aka, Young Donors Society or Young Donors Group) has spread faster than a funny video on You Tube – which explains why, when we speak on young-donor engagement, I’m always asked whether these groups work. Of course, as a consultant, I have a famous answer for this and many other questions: It depends.
 
Let’s first look at the positives:
 
Right idea. By establishing such a group, a nonprofit takes a step in the right direction, demonstrating that it recognizes the need to involve the next generation.
 
Front-line experience. Some Young Professional Group activities do engage young people in the work of the organization through group volunteerism and other opportunities, giving the young professionals an opportunity to have an impact on the organization.
 
Creative fundraising. These groups raise support for the organization, often in creative and nontraditional ways. It’s fun to see some of the fundraising ideas that come out of these groups – granted, some are a little tacky, but others are pretty interesting.
 
Energy boosts. Young nonprofit leaders can be reinvigorated by the organization’s interest in working with young donors, and they’re often excited to help craft activities and events to pull more young professionals closer the organization.
 
Now let’s break down some of the cons:
 
Poor substitutes. These groups too often act as substitutes for real relationships. Recently, when I asked a fundraiser how many of her donor visits were with young professionals, she said, “None … that’s why we have a young donor group: to create that relationship so I can focus on larger donors.” True, the Young Professionals Group is an opportunity to create new relationships, but real donor engagement goes beyond that. As donors, young people expect a call, a conversation and a personally meaningful engagement opportunity.
 
Social, social, social. Trust me: I like a party as much as anyone. But, social activities can’t provide real young donor engagement. It’s demeaning and disrespectful to assume that the key to engaging young professionals is throwing a party in a bar. Would you hold events at bars if you were pursuing your top 50 donors above the age of 40?
 
Benefits vs. Philanthropy. There’s a difference between a Young Professional Group and a dues-paying society. If you pay dues, you expect a personal benefit; with philanthropy, however, you expect to give for the benefit of the community or the beneficiary of services. If Young Professionals Groups are established with dues expectations – even if the contribution is to the organization – the donor will expect some sort of personal benefit. As a result, once a young professional feels the value of the relationship has diminished, he or she will leave. On the other hand, if his or her personal philanthropic interest and engagement is high, that person will stick around.
 
So, nonprofit leaders: Here is your opportunity to think beyond simple activities to personal relationships.
 
Undoubtedly, some organizations will say Young Professionals Groups can have great benefits. I agree. But that doesn’t make them substitutes for personal relationships. As in life in general, a party, event or activity is a great way to meet people, but not a great way to forge real relationships.
 
So, what’s an organization to do? Utilize these groups to ignite engagement and then take a traditional approach to relationship building. Call and invite a young professional to hear more about the organization. Understand his or her personal motivations and match interests to opportunities beyond the Young Professionals Group.
 
Like an annual event, that Young Professionals Group might one day lose its flair; when it does, you’ll want to have a relationship that can outlive it. That way, you’ll still have access to your young professionals’ talent, motivation and passion long after the party’s over.
 
 
tags:

Embedded Philanthropy: Will it Ever Really Add Up?

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 26 May 2009 10
Piggy Bank

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.
tags:

Feeling "Whelmed" in a Cause Driven World

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 17 Feb 2009 5
Bubble Battle 2008 - Overwhelmed by Technology

Over the long weekend I had an opportunity to catch up on some blog posts and stories that caught my eye last week. It’s not often that I’m disciplined enough to actually go back through my feeds to play catch up – but I’m glad I did. I was struck by a conversation taking place on Skoll Foundation’s Social Edge moderated by Jill Finlayson and Hildy Gottlieb called, Issue Fatigue – Fighting for Attention and Funds in an Aware World. The basic premise is that perhaps we’re not suffering from donor fatigue as much as we are overwhelmed by the causes that surround us as we go about our daily lives. 

I thought back through my past month.  I have been invited by three friends to donate to their birthday cause on facebook; I was pinged multiple times reminding me to buy my tickets to Twestival; I had one friend running in a cancer race in LA, and another who was racing up the stairs in Indiana to support Riley Children’s Hospital. In addition to all of the ways I’ve been solicited for money – I’ve been asked to vote for a nonprofit who was competing in the IdeaBlob contest, reminded to bring recycled bags the next time I shopped at Trader Joe’s, and I was hit up by my neighbor who is a Girl Scout and bought the obligatory box (or two) of Thin Mints.
 
And those are just a few of the things I could come up with from the top of my head – but if I thought long and hard I’m sure there are more.  My guess is you’re feeling the same way. So, in our new connected world, why might awareness be increasing but support waning?
 
Hildy and Jill provide four main factors to this question that I thought were worth sharing:  

Is your organization or cause tredding a little differently in this new hyper-connected world?  Do you see your personal style of giving changing? Or, are you just plain overwhelmed?

 
tags:

How Will You Text Your Love this Valentine's Day?

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 13 Feb 2009
404

And the results are in - AT&T is calling Valentine's Day one the hottest texting days of the year, claiming 61 percent of adult cell phone owners surveyed plan to send a text message to their significant other this February 14. More than half of those surveyed, said they believe receiving a Valentine's Day text to mean the same or more than receiving a card.

And AT&T isn't the only one on to this trend.  Last night I came across a study released by the British National Trust, a charitable organization in charge of preserving and displaying some of the most famous love letters in our history. Over 2,500 adults took part, and while the majority would prefer to receive the old fashioned love letters and poems, the survey reveals that very few actually go through the trouble of penning them, choosing instead to type a simple “I luv U” text message. 

But texting isn’t the only way social citizens are spreading the love this Valentine’s Day. After all, it’s a desperate time for so many and we all feel a level of uncertainty that was not as apparent just a year ago. I put a call out on Twitter and Facebook asking friends and colleagues to share some of the ways they are planning to spread the love for “social good” this February 14, and you can find some of them below.  I also want to give a nod to the list of Valentine's that Give Back on Britt Bravo's Have Fun Do Good Blog, and my colleague Stephanie Hackman our resident  fashionista at the Case Foundation who reminds us why she "Heart's" Valentine's Day, and you should too.

  • Honor your loved one with a life-changing gift. The Grameen Foundation is encouraging individuals to make a tribute to a loved one and bring a square to life by pledging $10 to help Stop Poverty Now.
  • It's amazing but true: $5 can provide clean water for a person for 20 years. You can really make a difference this Valentine's Day and beyond, says Angel Mission via their viral video campaign that was spreading across facebook this past week.
  • At MicroPlace a $20 donation in honor of your valentine gets you a box of fair trade milk chocolate from Ghana and a good feeling that your investment will make a difference in the life of a hard-working poor person.
  • Wondering how to green your valentine’s day? The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. has plenty of tips and tricks to cut down on your environmental impact this February 14 with some green gift ideas.

*And yes, all of the text talk, reminded me of the picture our photographer’s captured as my husband and I were feverishly typing away on our blackberry’s on our wedding day last March. Only further revealing the mild addiction we are “working through.” I don’t think we were actually texting each other, but I wouldn’t put it past us… Happy Valentine’s Day! 

tags:

Peer-Associative Branding or, "What if We Said Your Friends Are All Doing It"

by Alex Steed on 2 Feb 2009 2
Spinning

"My Head is spinning with so much that is new or needs to be taken apart and put back together again ... Amazing, isn't it?" -Beth Kanter in the comments section of her blog post, "ROI: What are the best "I" words for nonprofits to think about social media and ROI? "

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine; he's in charge of development at a state-wide AIDS awareness/action organization. He recently directed a fundraising campaign for the organization on Facebook and I asked him how it went. It went well, he explained, but the fundraising application takes 5% of every donation and he thought he'd have been better off receiving checks from some of the donors since he lost "so much" in processing.

True - the organization gave up 5% in processing fees, but what did it gain in peer-associative branding, I asked. That is, I'm a Facebook user and I see on my newsfeed that five of my friends gave to said organization. I've never heard of it before, or I'm not too familiar with it, but I see that three of my friends, peers I have positive associations with, gave to the organization as well. My friends, via their donations, have, in addition to giving money, attached a sliver of their personal brand to the organization. It is that, not anything that the organization (or initiative) projects on its own surface, that I am attracted to when I first learn of it.

Or, I am attracted to the organization because I want to have a connection and/or sex with and/or impress the three aforementioned donors. When I read more about the organization, my reception is tainted by the positive residue of my desire for said influencers, thus I give it more attention than I would in other circumstances.  

This is, of course, the essence of social branding. 

And fortunately for organizations, this association is more often a positive or neutral one than it is negative. Very typically one of these scenarios occur: 

  1. A cluster of friends that I desire for whatever cocktail of reasons have become supporters - financial or passive (joining a group or becoming a fan) - of an organization, thus I receive the organization with an open mind and am more likely to look into it in a more meaningful way, be receptive to donating to or volunteering with the organization, or a combination of both. 
  2. A cluster of friends I don't necessarily enjoy more than I do anyone else (but do enjoy enough to be Facebook friends with) become "fans." While this doesn't evoke the same positive peer-associative response, at least I see the organization's name, establishing for the entity a predisposition of familiarity in my brain, which will be handy the next time I encounter it in a more-meaningful way.

So, more often than not, public peer-associative branding by way of Facebook transactions are either positive or benign pieces of exposure. But it's exposure, people!

Since Facebook mostly clusters people by like-interest or experience, it's a very rare occasion that I am turned off of an item over which one can become a digital supporter because of who I see associating with it. In a very rare scenario, Helen supports something and I start to ask questions. We all know a Helen - I met mine at day camp in the 10th grade, she friended me on Facebook, (likely by way of that pesky damn "FriendFinder") and in all of our forced Facebook chats she casually drops I am going to hell because I moved in with my girlfriend before we got married (or conversely, she over-zealously evokes Marx every time politics come up). Perhaps Helen adopts some cause on Facebook and then I, for some time, associate that cause as one characterized by Helen's zealotry. But, if this is unintended on the part of the organization (we should assume that some causes passionately adopted by Helen don't necessarily want/need me as a supporter), even Helen-danger is a) pretty unlikely and b) far less potent and permanent. Drawing a passive association between a lesser-liked Facebook friend leaves far less permanent an imprint than the one left by the opening my mind to positively receiving a product or organization. When I was little, my desire to want something that the cool kids had far outmatched the intensity with which I did not want something less cool kids had.

Need proof? 

I volunteer for an organization called Maine Youth Leadership and they held a Facebook fundraiser similar to the one held for the AIDS initiative. I gave my money and when prompted, I typed why I support the organization, and this went straight to my news feed. Immediately afterward, a friend, someone who works in a fundraising capacity for a national health organization, reached out and asked if he could some how get involved by volunteering and - if we needed it - in a fundraising capacity. Either he a) learned about an organization he would have liked already visa vis my involvement or b) learned more about the organization because he was open to doing so by way of my association with it or c) a combination of the two. Either way, the 5% processing charge was certainly worth its weight in this scenario. 

In part, many are initially receptive to involvement with X organization for the same reason I wanted a Trapperkeeper in elementary school:we want the cool kids to like me. This isn't to say that this is the fundamental reason for our prolonged involvement; it is to give credence to, and leverage, the birthplace of desire for association and involvement. 

And remember how the fundraiser suggests he would have been better off receiving some checks in favor of paying processing fees? Imagine this in the context of the Trapperkeeper. If all of the cool kids kept their cool toys to themselves, no one else would have wanted a stake in them.

In the digital age, the monopolization of cool no longer belongs exclusively to the monied, as the small organization is offered the same knowledge and mechanisms necessary for victory in the on-going battle for public perception that large ones are. While the latter still monopolizes on person-power for larger-scale implementation, they do not necessarily have an edge on leveraging said-power smartly.  2007 and 2008 were, after all, epic years for mismanagement of corporate forays into social media, which makes some sense in the context of my personal experience in which I observed that where lean, agile organizations were less equipped in machinery and manpower, they often made remained competitive by mastering approach, innovation, and industry literacy. 

In situations like these, Beth's aforementioned sentiment - that her head is consistently spinning as she interprets and reinterprets all of this change - rings so true. 

Last night I was watching flipping between Law and Order and Terminator 3 (don't judge me) and I thought:

"Wow. I wish that I could go back in time and tell the 11-year-old me - the one sitting in Mrs. Wentworth's 5th grade classroom at Cornish Elementary, reading an issue of The Weekly Reader that purports that 'The Information Super Highway' is going to change everything - and tell little me, 'This is bigger than I remember you thinking it is. It's not just about making 'Oregon Trail' a cooler game. What they mean to say is that in the future, thanks to the brilliance of various scientists and digital pioneers and a series of tubes, your reputation - the intangible essence of how you are perceived by people - will actually be worth something and leveragable. And while it will be used by countless corporations to sell you crap that's bad for you and that you don't really need, it can also be used to give credibility to organizations, people, activists and public servants that are very well-intentioned. And if you know that, if you are really aware of that, you, the individual, will hold a lot of power.'" 

My head's a' spinnin'.

___

Note: I should be clear that I am not necessarily in favor or against a percentage of donations going to donation-processing. I would, as a fundraiser, prefer to opt for the free option. In this case, I am merely suggesting examining that's coming out of process, and suggesting a conversation be held with regard to what, then, the fee, if any, should be.

 

*Photo courtesy of [xinita] failed trigonometry

tags:

Holiday Giving That's Out of the Box

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 10 Dec 2008 1

This holiday season you don't have to be "Mr. Obvious" to realize that budgets are getting tighter, and needs greater.  But one thing is certain -- individuals and organizations are taking this opportunity to get a little creative.  My colleagues at the Case Foundation have just launched the new and improved Guide to Good Giving. Whether you want to purchase a gift that gives back, or you prefer to find a way to donate your time and talents, there are countless ways for you to spread the spirit of giving. Read more »

tags:

Next Gen Gives - But Don't Call them Philanthropists

by Kari Dunn Saratovsky on 9 Dec 2008

Last week’s Barron’s weekly magazine featured a story on the New Faces of Philanthropy. As traditional charitable donors cut back their giving in this economic climate, new givers are moving in. Barron's profiles these Gen-X givers who want to make their charitable mark now, not when they're 50 or 60 years old. Read more »

tags:
Syndicate content