See What’s Out There

The New York Times Magazine on Sunday was all about philanthropy.

Here’s what you need to read:

What Makes People Give?

This article is really about how some social scientists, economist types are looking at why people give. It turns out that much of what fundraisers think they know is right, but there is a lot of subtlety. The main example in the article is about matching programs. The research suggests matches lead to more giving, but the type of match — whether 1x or 2x or 3x the gift — had no impact at all. The article looks at the psychology of giving.

Some highlights:

For a long time, philanthropy was mostly ignored by social scientists. It’s not an especially large part of the economy, and most charities operate on a shoestring, without the resources to finance research projects. But this is starting to change. Americans gave $295 billion to charity in 2006, equal to 2.2 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, up from about 1.8 percent from the mid-’70s to the mid-’90s, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Most philanthropy still comes in the form of small gifts, but there is also a growing group of donors, like Bill and Melinda Gates, who are interested in bringing some of the quantitative rigor of big business to philanthropy.

Academics, for their part, have come to realize that charities provide an excellent laboratory for studying human behavior, in part because so many of them are desperate for the kind of free-of-charge consulting Karlan was offering. When charities are designing their donor appeals, they often go by nothing more than a few rules of thumb, some of which may be profoundly insightful and others a good deal less so. “I think some fund-raisers have developed terrific intuitions, passed on through the fraternity of fund-raisers,” says Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation in Menlo Park, Calif., which often works with charities. “But a lot of the intuitions don’t work. Look at how much junk mail you get.” Matching gifts were another good example. People figured that they worked, because — well, how could they not? They seem so sensible. …

…Last year, Princeton University held a conference at which List, Croson, Andreoni and others who study charitable giving got together with fund-raisers from Africare, the National MS Society and elsewhere. I spoke with three people who listened to the academics present their work, and all said they found it invigorating. “We all have different strategies and takes on how to reach out to potential donors,” said Nicole Eley of Africare, which sends development and relief aid to Africa. “Many of them work, some don’t — it’s a trial-and-error process.” It’s easy to imagine that the academic research may eventually serve as the building blocks for a unified theory of how to raise money.

The Celebrity Solution

This article is about celebrity involvement in philanthropy and specifically looks at Natalie Portman, someone who has become the spokesperson for the growing field of micro-lending.

Some highlights:

In 2004, Natalie Portman, then a 22-year-old fresh from college, went to Capitol Hill to talk to Congress on behalf of the Foundation for International Community Assistance, or Finca, a microfinance organization for which she served as “ambassador.” She found herself wondering what she was doing there, but her colleagues assured her: “We got the meetings because of you.” For lawmakers, Natalie Portman was not simply a young woman — she was the beautiful Padmé from “Star Wars.” “And I was like, ‘That seems totally nuts to me,’ ” Portman told me recently. It’s the way it works, I guess. I’m not particularly proud that in our country I can get a meeting with a representative more easily than the head of a nonprofit can.”

Well, who is? But it is the way it works. Stars — movie stars, rock stars, sports stars — exercise a ludicrous influence over the public consciousness. Many are happy to exploit that power; others are wrecked by it. In recent years, stars have learned that their intense presentness in people’s daily lives and their access to the uppermost realms of politics, business and the media offer them a peculiar kind of moral position, should they care to use it. And many of those with the most leverage — Bono and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt and George Clooney and, yes, Natalie Portman — have increasingly chosen to mount that pedestal. Hollywood celebrities have become central players on deeply political issues like development aid, refugees and government-sponsored violence in Darfur.

For Good, Measure

This article is about how foundations have found Jesus in metrics.

Some highlights:

The question that troubles many of the newest philanthropists, though, is whether their bequests will have a notable impact. Much of their money either goes into or comes out of private foundations, those largely opaque institutions with huge endowments that, in the jargon-rich environment of philanthropy, differ from charities like the Red Cross in their tendency to engage in long-term “strategic grant-making.” Such foundations do not exist to give emergency aid during crises arising from war or natural disaster; instead, their purpose is to attack social and scientific problems at the root, a process that sometimes requires substantial allocations of grant money over 5, 10 or even 20 years. That’s a long time to wait before you know whether your money is doing any good. As Judith Rodin, the head of the Rockefeller Foundation since 2005, puts it: “Critics have talked about the field of philanthropy and said: ‘Has it really made a difference. And how would you know?’ ” To Rodin, these are perfectly legitimate questions, even when they’re posed indiscreetly by business titans who only recently entered the genteel world of charity. “If we really want to do work that makes a difference, work that has some effect, then we have to know whether it is working,” she told me recently. “And if you really do it well, you don’t only want to know what works; you want to know how it works.”

Faces of Social Entrepreneurship

You can learn about and see some social entrepreneurs.

Michael Gainer started Buffalo ReUse to creatively salvage materials from the 10,000 abandoned houses the city is demolishing over the next 10 years.

Other Articles worth reading include:

Self-Made Philanthropists

This is a profile of Herb and Marion Sandler

How Many Billionaires Does It Take To Fix A School System?

“Last month, The New York Times Magazine invited five interested parties to lunch to discuss the new world of educational philanthropy. What follows is an edited transcript of the conversation.”

Once again Beth Kanter and her friends at the Sharing Foundation won the latest philanthropy competition. (If you didn’t help Beth win, you can still give $10 or more to the Sharing Foundation online and help kids in Cambodia.)

The whole giving competition thing is complicated and I am not sure it’s healthy. There is a mad scramble to get donations in a certain time period. Organizations push on their network, “Give now!” “We need you!” “We want to win.” But unless you are an expert like Beth, you don’t usually have much of a chance.

Beth has written about her win and here is the response I left for her. You can read more about it on Beth’s blog.

Beth, you are really great at this. Mazal Tov yet again on a job well done.

This whole competition thing has been a good model for your strengths, and I have given to this worthy cause every time you asked.

But I wonder about all the orgs who went down this road because of the publicity but were so less equipped than you to be successful. I saw lots of questions about this on the PX list and elsewhere and thought to myself, these poor suckers, they are going to spend lots of time putting this together, will get little response, and people like Beth — with big and active networks — will eat their lunch. They don’t have a chance.

I also wonder if this whole competition thing is sustainable. How many of these could you do before you create fatigue in your network? And, is there a way to get the folks who gave with the urgency of this campaign to have a deeper engagement with the Sharing Foundation?

Would love your thoughts on all of this in another post.

Michael

In January, Barack Obama raised as much money, $28 million, as Howard Dean raised in his entire campaign last time around. And they have done it using $25 and $50 donors. Think about it. On the one side you have the traditional way to raise money — rich people asking other rich people to give. “Bundling” is when the partner asks all the associates to ante up the maximum to attend a local fundraiser.

An individual may give $2,300 per federal election. So if I give $2,300 to Clinton I am “maxed out” and the only way for me to do more is get $2,300 from my buddies. Lets say I am that law partner and by making a lot of calls I can get 50 people to max out for my candidate. That’s $117,300, including my own contribution. I become a Hillraiser.

The Obama campaign is raising money differently. They have raised lots of money from those small donors. For the Obama campaign to get to $117,300 from $25 donors mean they have 4692 people donating instead of only 51. Wow.

We care about this because we care about using the internet for fundraising and advocacy. What Obama is doing is a major milestone in the development of the web. The internet, only the internet, makes possible this kind of retail fundraising. There would simply be no other way to get people, excited in their own homes, across the country, inspired by speeches and videos, organized enough to get these donations flowing. People wouldn’t write the checks or fill out the forms, but they can click and give, just like they click to buy a book or a Pez dispenser or, in 2008, pay their parking tickets.

The Obama campaign says they have more than 350,000 donors this year so far. 350,000 donors! Holy smoke that’s a lot of donors. And they are talking about this many in just over a month.

What the internet makes possible, the candidate makes happen. The internet didn’t raise the money. Obama’s inspiration activated people and the internet made it possible to turn that excitement into dollars. As I have written before, the Obama campaign has been amazing at using video to make that excitement portable across the web, capturing those moments that get people juiced.

There is a lot to learn from this campaign and at See3 and among other nonprofit communicators we will be studying it for a long time to come.

MoveOn has been a leader in using the web, and email in particular, to get their message out. If you don’t know MoveOn, they started with a simple email during the Clinton impeachment — lets move on — and it grew and grew.

They are no strangers to using video either. They have had video contests, and have made lots of 30-second spots. They have used the web to fundraise for these spots.

Today I saw something different from MoveOn. Eli Pariser, the Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action did a direct response video. It came in an email with a little text and a large screen shot of a video player window. It said:

Dear MoveOn member,
I recorded a video message for you about this election year—it felt too important to put in a regular email.

Watch it here:

The here is this page on the MoveOn.org site.

The page is their standard fundraising page (the kind you get with services such as Convio or Kintera). In the video he even points down to the donation form from his YouTube box, asking the viewer to donate right now to kick of the 2008 campaign activities.

At See3 we’ve been exploring this direct response video technique for a while. We think that in certain circumstances it can work well and we will try to find out how this does relative to non-video landing pages.

Can you spare $10? It’s a dumb question because I know you can.

Beth Kanter, friend and blogger, is raising money for the Sharing Foundation, which supports kids in Cambodia. Watch the video Beth did with her son:

Now, if you give $10 you can help Beth raise $50,000 through a competition called America’s Giving Challenge. The fundraising page was set up on GlobalGiving by Michele Martin. Go to THIS PAGE right now and donate and make a big difference.

Parade magazine and the Case Foundation are partnering with GlobalGiving to launch America’s Giving Challenge — an initiative to inspire and reward greater giving through online technology. $500,000 will be awarded through the challenge to charities whose supporters have attracted the most unique donors to their cause using new and innovative online tools. The Challenge begins December 13 at 3pm EST and will close January 31 at 3pm EST.

The 1 Second Film is one of the best campaigns I have seen. It has:

* Video
* Charity
* Travel
* Art
* Optimism

and… last but not least… Oprah

Watch the videos and see how an idea blossomed and then grew some more. The site is well done and you can learn a lot from the small elements and how they put it all together.

Now, what can you do with your organization to harness this kind of creativity and passion? Imagine what it could do for you.

In the most recent issue of the Chronicle of Philanthropy I am quoted in an article titled “Telling Moving Stories.” The article features the case study of our client the American Jewish World Service. (Click here to view the front page of the issue.)

You need to subscribe to see the whole thing, but here’s an except:

When the American Jewish World Service used to talk about using video to illustrate its overseas aid projects, it usually meant gathering enough footage for a seven-minute spot to be shown to the people who would attend its annual fund-raising dinners.

But the Internet has changed all that.

The New York organization last year collected more than 60 hours of footage of the organization’s workers and volunteers helping AIDS patients in Uganda, tsunami victims in India, and poor residents of El Salvador, and it soon plans to use that extra footage for an extensive online video campaign. The collection of two- to three-minute spots will run on the group’s Web site, and the charity will also post video clips of interviews with volunteers on the popular online video site YouTube. The organization is also creating DVD’s of some of the videos to send to prospective donors.

What’s more, the charity has trained some of its staff members to shoot video using inexpensive cameras, with the goal of creating a library of footage that it can use to create fresh online videos for years to come. The cost for this effort — which included the purchase of four cameras and video-editing equipment — was about $2,000.

Susan Rosenberg, American Jewish World Service’s director of communications, says these projects are important to the organization because video, more than any other medium, can tell powerful, emotional stories that move supporters and donors to take action. Instead of simply telling potential donors about the organization’s overseas outreach work, it can show them the people it helps and allow them to hear volunteers and those they help in their own words.
“Increasingly, audio and video on the Web are critical tools [for nonprofit groups] for communicating to people about the work they’re doing, and I only see that intensifying,” Ms. Rosenberg says.

With YouTube’s announcement in September that it plans to dedicate a portion of its video-sharing site exclusively to charities, experts say many nonprofit groups are likely to follow American Jewish World Service’s lead.
…
Because of these factors, groups that attempt to use their internal, benefit-dinner videos for an online audience will find their efforts largely ignored, says Michael Hoffman, president of See3 Communications Company, a Chicago consulting group that helps charities produce online video campaigns. See3, for example, helped the American Jewish World Service create its documentary-style videos for YouTube and other Web sites, including the company’s own video portal, DoGooderTV.

“You can’t produce that dinner video over and over, three or four times a year, because most organizations don’t have the budget to do that,” Mr. Hoffman says of those richly produced videos, which typically cost between $20,000 and $75,000.

Instead, he encourages nonprofit groups to produce documentary-style videos that show their work and cast their workers as real people. Such videos can be done inexpensively — requiring only the investment in a digital video camera, video-editing software, and staff time.
Because many digital cameras and editing software are inexpensive, that investment can be less than $1,000.

“The model of continuous documentation is so important,” Mr. Hoffman says.

“If you’re shooting on a regular basis and capturing your work on a regular basis, there are great opportunities to show the kid who walks into your program timidly on the first day and three years later is the leader of a group,”he says. “To have the documentation of the transformation gives you material for powerful stories.”

I diluted my own opinion in my last post. What I said I wanted was a way for people who are part of YouTube’s nonprofit program to be able to collect email addresses and not just donations. YouTube doesn’t do that. You will only get someone’s email if they actually donate. I then said, well… maybe it would be OK if they allowed you to connect like in Facebook.

The problem is, YouTube isn’t Facebook. While there are people who use YouTube as a pure social network, the majority of YouTube users are passive viewers of video. So connecting through the traditional social networking type of connections doesn’t have the impact on YouTube as it would on Facebook.

So, back to my original request. YouTube knows the email addresses of every registered user. With a single click, a user could give their information to the nonprofit, through YouTube. That would be a huge benefit to the nonprofit and I think it would prove to be much more valuable than the donation functionality they have given. It could be a double opt-in — meaning the individual would first have to click on the opt-in on the video page to give their name to the nonprofit, then they would get an email from YouTube giving them a link to confirm that this is what they wanted to do. In this way, no one would mistake their opt-in for spam.

We can thank Google for giving nonprofits access to Google Checkout. But a cynic might point out that Google is trying really hard to get people used to using Google Checkout and so this gift has a self-serving feel to it. Add to their functions the ability to really give the nonprofits something of value — a relationship with individuals on their own terms — then we could really celebrate the Google/YouTube Nonprofit initiative.

As part of the new YouTube for Nonprofits, Google has integrated Google Checkout donation processing for organizations in the program. What this means is that if you are in the program, viewers will see a “Donate” button both on your channel page and when your video is playing in a standard page.

Here’s an example in the channel page:
24 Hours for Darfur Channel

Here’s an example on the standard video page:
24 Hours for Darfur standard view

If you are a 501(c)3 it’s a no-brainer to sign up. Why not?

What we don’t know yet is whether it will work. If a decent percentage of people who view a nonprofit video actually give, then we have a revolution on our hands. The viewers/donors might look similar to what we see on Facebook causes but we will wait until we have some real data before speculating further.

What we at See3 would like to propose to Google is an addition to their nonprofit program that could greatly enhance the value to organizations. We all know that a newsletter sign-up or advocacy ask is an easier ask than a donation. Imagine if next to the Donate button we had a “Join This Cause” button. And when a registered YouTube user clicked on it, the email address (and other info) of the user was transfered to the nonprofit. (Like with comments, the system could tell a non-registered user that they needed to register.)

Another approach — not as good for the nonprofits but maybe more acceptable to Google — would be more like the Facebook approach. Don’t give me their email, but connect me to them through the social network. I think there has to be something more than Subscribe — which they already have. There has to be a way to say, “I am a supporter, but this doesn’t mean I have to watch every video you produce all the time.” A one-click to Join would have the most benefit if it enabled the nonprofit to message the viewer on a regular basis beyond pushing out new videos.

Facebook has taught us that people will opt-in to support the cause far more than they will donate. You can see the evidence in the mostly small donation totals in the Causes application.

Maybe we can make this request to Google through out friends and partners at NTEN. What do you think Holly?

From Seth Godin via Fred Wilson, I learned today of a blog post from a woman who bought shoes at the online shoe giant Zappos.

This is a terrific customer service story and I think Seth is right that this was not about PR or anything but kindness and thoughtfulness. How are you as a nonprofit practicing this kind of caring with your stakeholders? How are we as a business practicing this kind of caring with our customers? People will go to the ends of the earth for you if they feel you are about them.