socially marketing

I have trouble just keeping up with the nonprofit and philanthropy blogs I already follow, let alone the new kids on the block. But when I heard about a blog called Philanthropic Crap, I admit I was intrigued.

The first post I read there was a review of Michael Edwards’ paper called Just Another Emporer (link here) which apparently “tears social entrepreneurship a new asshole.” (sassy language may not be the high road to getting attention, but it is effective

Expressed in less colourful terms, this paper does indeed call to task the social entrepreneurship model, incarnated here under the somewhat unappetizing label Philanthrocapitalism.

We here at socialmarkets believe strongly in transparency, and relatedly, in presenting a fair and balanced perspective on the social capital markets we champion. Mr. Edwards paper is intelligently presented, and at well over 100 pages, certainly well-considered. So if you’re looking for a counter to some of the arguments we present here, it’s a good place to go.

Listen to both sides of the story, and see where you land…

I know that social capital markets are not for everyone. I’ve listened to and spoken with many of its detractors in both real and virtual space, and usually find such conversations constructive. But once in a while I’m bumfuzzled by arguments from seemingly reasonable people that slide right off the rational rails.

Yesterday I was directed to this recent review of social capital markets (SCM) on the Gift Hub blog. I found it far more instructive than constructive, at least as an example of the anti-SCM sentiment that borders on the zealous.

In a quite short post, Gift Hub finds space to liken social capital markets to alchemy, and conjures up both William Blake and Jesus to fuel the fire. I find this and similar discounts of SCM both heavy-handed and surprising. SCM’s approach to philanthropy is new and different, but it’s not evil, and can play nicely with others - which begs the question: why can’t we all just get along?

Decisions of charitable giving are as complex as the humans behind them, and as unlikely to be black or white. There are countless considerations behind these decisions, and social capital is one potentially valuable piece of that puzzle.

Even stepping out of the gray, I acknowledge someone could use social capital as the only basis for their selection of charity, just as they might follow only their heart, minister or Ouija board. Giving to charity, which is for now and the foreseeable future a voluntary enterprise, has room for all the above.

Social capital markets is not alchemy or voodoo, but rather a thoughtful model for incorporating some market science into the art of giving. It raises the visibility of social benefits that are often difficult to see, and presents those benefits in familiar, easily understood terms. It is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the grand carnival that is charitable giving.

The social sector above all others is a place where intolerance should not be tolerated. I dunno about Blake, but I believe Jesus would second that emotion.