socially marketing

The idea of applying market savvy to the social sector is still a pretty young one, but is growing up fast. We can now see social entrepreneurship, one of the more enduring labels attached to this idea, becoming institutionalized - for example, in our institutions of higher learning.

The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation is sponsoring a Program in Social Entrepreneurship, which they define (rather nicely I think) as

“a form of public leadership that maximizes the social return on public service efforts while fundamentally and permanently changing the way problems are addressed on a global scale.”

Reynolds offers full scholarship and other support to the most promising future social entrepreneurs it can find at the two universities it endows: The Kennedy School at Harvard University, and The Wagner School of Public Service at NYU.

I know a good deal about this program, since I am a proud and active alum of Wagner myself, and was pleased to serve as a judge for selecting the 2008 Reynolds fellows earlier this month.

This was a tough gig - largely because by the time we judges came along, the huge number of applicants was whittled down to the most promising four score or so. Such pre-screening guaranteed that pretty much all the candidates we saw demonstrated a clear vision of their future as social entrepreneurs, on top of a history demonstrating their clear ability to walk their talk.

I see a trend, and I like it. In just a few short years, social entrepreneurship has migrated from the fringes of social science to its very core. As a result, some of our most promising young minds are incorporating its ideals into their own plans for their place in the world - and from what I’ve seen of those minds, the world will be the better for it.

Back to the harsh reality of limited resources, only a few of the candidates I saw made the final cut to become Reynolds Fellows. This is of course sad, but there is this consolation: who better than these budding social entrepreneurs to tackle this classic problem of too many worthy social causes and not enough money to support them?

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.

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.

As we get closer and closer to our official release, we have been having more and more conversations about the vision behind socialmarkets. Allan and I have a pretty good handle on that vision, and hopefully do a respectable job of describing it here on our site. What has been most interesting to me in these conversations is how some people see things in our described vision that we didn’t - or at least not clearly until it was reflected back at us.

One recent example came from a conversation at a soiree right here at Studio Guild, our headquarters in midtown Manhattan. After giving the quick elevator pitch on what we’re about, the instant response was to note how well socialmarkets fits into the Long Tail model of markets - which is actually quite true, and quite insightful.

The Long Tail (full explanation here) is an interesting emergent property of the Internet’s immense scalability, allowing for example Amazon.com to add an arbitrarily large number of books to its “inventory” with arbitrarily small marginal costs. The larger that inventory gets, the more the cumulative sales of the many slow-selling books will dwarf the stellar sales of the few best-sellers.

With a large enough inventory of participants, socialmarkets can function in much the same manner. So for example, the aggregated donations to the army of lesser-known non-profits in the environment protection market (e.g. our own Rushing Rivers Institute) can outweigh those to familiar faces like Greenpeace and Sierra Club. Even better, socialmarkets offers a unique set of tools for its participants to actively engage in the process of determining who are the slow versus best sellers:

• Space for non-profits to promote themselves
• Forums for users to share their thoughts on individual charities or markets
• Objective measures of non-profit performance, e.g. SROI
• Crowdsourcing tools to allow for subjective tweaking of SROIs
• Leaderboards to see where the “smartest” donation dollars are going

Finally, I’ll note an important difference between socialmarkets and other markets: our particpants’ investment decisions are highly subjective. We deal with charitable donations, which is typically a much more personal decision than stocks or bonds or even books.

That subjectivity can play itself out in all sorts of interesting ways, including ones that turn the “normal” market model on its head. For example, there may be donors who are particularly attracted to hard-luck cases, i.e. charities whose inherent risks make stellar SROIs difficult. In this case, the low investment return which is the kiss of death in stock markets may actually attract investors in socialmarkets.

In whatever way our participating charities end up sorting into the star vs. bit-player buckets, we think The Long Tail is a useful and potentially powerful model for our sector, and are pleased to be thought of as a part of it.