socially marketing

The momentum behind measuring social impact has been on a roll for a while now, which used to seem an unquestionably good thing.

But after seeing The Daily Beast’s take on impact measurement called “Celebrity Impact Rankings“, I have questions.

On the face of it, I should like this article.  It’s a quantitative analysis that measures in real dollars the social return on investment for 50 charitable causes.

But the investment is the appointment of a celebrity spokesperson, and the return is the raised awareness that spokesperson brings to the charity.

How is ‘raised awareness‘ quantified?  Arguably, it isn’t.  What is calculated is the number of times the celebrity and charity get mentioned together, and a dollar value for each mention.

The results of the (self-proclaimed) “most exhaustive study ever on the effects of celebrity on charities” offered few surprises:

Justin Timberlake (for Shriners Hospital) and Madonna (for Raising Malawi) offered exceptional returns; while those of Paris Hilton (for Sarlight Foundation) and Hillary Duff (for Kids with a Cause) were just sad.

socialmarkets aspires to be open to all SROI comers, so my problem isn’t with a celebrity having impact - it’s with her weight.

Crowdsourcing is nothing if not inclusive, so Mr. Timberlake is entitled to his voice in impact measurement.  However, the $9.3 million payout attached to his single voice warps the very fabric of crowdsourcing’s space-time.

I think the bigger problem with this ’study’ is that it measures nothing BUT money (actually I don’t buy the $$-per-article model of the study, so I’m not sure it even measures that, but for the sake of argument…)

Even in a multiple-bottom-line world, money is almost always worthy of measurement.  But aside from the balance sheet entry, what is the real impact of a charity’s $9 million windfall, if there is no info on what that charity will accomplish with it?

I feel confident that I can distinguish between good and bad impact analysis, in the form of strategy or tactics… but I wonder if the same is true for the innumerable other visitors to The Daily Beast’s (usually) smart, entertaining site?

I always knew that measuring impact was hard… apparently defining it can be too.

You are not a bona fide non-profit in this country until the IRS says so with 501(c)3 certification… and we just got ours!  Previously we were partnered with a fiscal sponsor (our old friends at GivingNet) but that was a stop-gap measure until obtaining non-profit status on our own.

There are several advantages to being a non-profit, some more obvious than others.  The most well-known advantage is the ability to accept tax-deductable donations.  In a similar vein, there are discounts made available to non-profits to help lower their operational expenses.  While we are happy to be able to take advantage of such benefits, non-profit status means much more to socialmarkets.

We are serious advocates for increased transparency in the entire social sector, within which non-profits are an ideal place to start.  Leading by example is a great way to demonstrate this advocacy.  Aside from mandatory transparency measures such as the Form 990 the government requires each year, socialmarkets itself is a useful platform for increasing both transparency and accountability.

If we are going to walk our talk, then socialmarkets needs to be listed on socialmarkets.  Like any other non-profit claiming to be worthy of funding, socialmarkets should present its mission, programs, and expected outcomes… as well as the social returns (SROI) related to those outcomes.

Our hope is that our own work, along with the collective input of the socialmarkets community, will ultimately reveal tremendous social return on investment in the socialmarkets enterprise itself.  But no matter what the outcome is, we know that defining and measuring that return is a tremendously valuable exercise.

The social capital driving socialmarkets and similar agencies is only as real as you make it. It is not hard to sell the idea of value in educating our youth, housing our homeless or cleaning up our environment, but it is not easy to translate that value into concrete terms.

The concepts and even the vocabulary we use to describe social capital is largely borrowed from “real” capital markets, which makes the translation easier. This suggests an accounting system that mirrors, but is separate from the ledgers that define the bottom line at all but the most avant-garde organizations.

I don’t know if we will ever see (or even need to see) this separation disappear entirely, but I do know that less of it is more better - and that the winds of change are blowing in that direction. Carla Dearing (disclosure note: she is CEO of our fiscal sponsor GivingNet) talks about this on PhilanthroMedia.org, which in turn references this recent Fortune article on how the carbon trading market is helping farmers literally turn manure into money.

Carbon trading is perhaps my favourite example of the ‘new accounting’, where the scope of the bottom line is growing. Not long ago it would have been downright silly to include greenhouse gas emissions in your business plan, let alone on your balance sheet. Now, an increasingly viable carbon trading market has turned silly into savvy, and is drawing in participants from the public, private and nonprofit sectors.

This leap from social to “real” capital is just the tip of the iceberg, and arguably an arbitrary tip at that. Increasing alarm about global warming combined with an increasingly desperate search for new energy sources and myriad other factors to make carbon trading a reality.

But every social ill and issue has its own unique DNA, and is potentially just waiting for the perfect storm of political, social and economic trends to take them off the back burner. I can’t wait to see what market response is induced from a perceived crisis of illiteracy, homelessness or similarly sticky social problem.

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.

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.