socially marketing

A recent post thread at Tactical Philanthropy on the topic of measuring nonprofit effectiveness caught my attention. It discusses the issues related to recent (and possibly over-enthusiastic) efforts to apply scientific measurement techniques to help evaluate the work of nonprofits. I could not resisting throwing in my $0.02, which is reproduced below (and can also be found in the originating post here):

It seems to me a recurring theme of the ‘metrics mania’ debate is that it involves both art and science. If the ‘art’ position is that non-profit value defies objective analysis, and the ’science’ is that non-profit worth can be reduced to equations of input and output, I expect I’m somewhere in the middle.

This is surprising, since in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I am co-founder of socialmarkets.org, where donors “invest” in nonprofit projects based on their SROI (Social Return On Investment.) This sounds like pretty hard science, but there is actually quite a lot of room for art to soften the edges.

The stock market analogy already seen in this thread is spot on. Apple’s stock price is influenced rather than defined by the financial science that slices and dices its cash flows. The beauty of a market is the marvelous job it does boiling down a large, complex set of valuation inputs into a single output called “price”. This number is useful on both an absolute scale and relative to other offerings in the market.

In a testament to the wisdom (or lunacy) of crowds, Apple’s stock price reflects the collective opinion of financial analysts, status-conscious teens and everyone in between. The potential to harness the same power to “price” The Red Cross or your local community foundation seems both possible and useful to me.

There are plenty of donors looking for a “best-bang-for-the-buck” (i.e. maximum SROI) approach to non-profit investment, and right now there is not much useful data out there for them. The success of sites like Charity Navigator are a testament to the need for metrics, but they only tell potential donors about what nonprofits spend, rather than what they accomplish. Surely we can do better than that.

Those with a less scientific approach may not find metrics like SROI as compelling, but still potentially useful. Consider Albert Ruesga’s story of the high-risk, low-return homelessness project that he presents as an argument against metrics. This is where the difference between the sectors becomes significant.

For starters, unlike the for-profit model, there are often donors willing to invest in hard-luck nonprofit cases - as they ultimately did in Mr. Ruesga’s example. More importantly, since nonprofit metrics is still a new field, we can - and should - redefine the notion of return to more accurately capture the total social value being added. That seems to be the most constructive cross-product of art and science in this space: a more artistic approach to the science of metrics.

The social capital marketplace that socialmarkets advocates is a relatively new idea, but is clearly gaining traction - and visibility.

We were delighted to see this article in the Financial Times by Sean Stannard-Stockton (who also runs the excellent blog at Tactical Philanthropy) describing a future where social capital markets are the norm, not the exception, across the nonprofit sector.

His vision offers a model of nonprofit funding that closely mimics today’s for-profit financial markets, perhaps more closely than even we would have guessed. It includes the somewhat hyperbolic story of a nonprofit that defaults on a billion dollar bond issue, shocking the social capital marketplace and tightening credit across the sector.

While such a story may exaggerate the point, it certainly illustrates the potential power of the social capital market model. It also reminds us that such a market is subject to both the rewards and the risks inherent in its successful implementation.

Here are a few more features of this proposed future which resonated particularly strongly with us:

• Turning the tables: Google, IBM and Exxon don’t have to explicitly lobby for investors. There are plenty of third-party agencies offering potential investors both the data they need to make an informed decision and the mechanism to invest once they do. Nonprofits can reap the same benefit from similar tools in their own sector, allowing donation dollars to come looking for them rather than the other way around. Music to our ears, as well as to the legions of nonprofit staff who spend way too much of their time scrambling for financial support.

• Not your father’s marketplace: The social capital marketplace will inevitably differentiate itself from the financial marketplace it is modeled upon, a direct result of the people behind the market. The fortunes being sought by social capitalists go beyond the simple dollars of their finance counterparts, including the human, environmental and spiritual enrichment that defines multi-bottom-line accounting. The common goal of greater social impact will motivate both donors and nonprofits to share their experiences and related information, forming the tight community that keeps the social capital markets humming.