socially marketing

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.

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.

Sometimes we get so caught up in sweating the details of bringing socialmarkets to life, we forget about the bigger picture. We know our work is an important step towards advancing the social capital model, but once in a while it’s encouraging to see that socialmarkets is just one piece of the puzzle, and that we are by no means alone in this effort. Last week we had the opportunity to get a glimpse of that bigger picture, and we liked what we saw.

Allan and I were invited to a discussion group on The Social Capital Marketplace (SCM) here in NYC. It was a small gathering - just a dozen or so people hosted by GivingNet, powerful proponents of SCM (as well as our fiscal sponsors.) While the group was small, it included a good cross-section of the market, from the supply side (e.g. donor advisors) to the demand side (e.g. nonprofit advocates) and the spaces between them (e.g. socialmarkets.) Everyone brought something special to the table, and the discussions which took place around it were animated, unscripted and best of all, highly educational. I may go into details in a later post, but for now I’ll focus on just one general idea: how social capital markets are gearing up for growth right now.

There are more wealthy people than ever pouring more money than ever into the nonprofit sector. This statistic is a mixed bag, since this new wealth is hardly democratic. As the rich are getting richer, the wealth divide is getting larger. However, as the invisible hand of the capital market moves us further into economic inequality, the social capital market offers a counter-balance. The inclination of the wealthy to “give back”, and in particular the “giving while living” trend offers new inputs to SCM. Gates and Buffett are setting good examples, but they’re really just the tip of the iceberg. Also, it’s not just the quantity of new philanthropists, it’s the quality: many if not most of them come from the quant-based worlds of finance and technology, so are receptive to the market approach of SCM. Here are a few of the creative ways that receptivity is being exercised:

• Knowledge is power

Several efforts (including ours) attempt to bring transparency and accountability to the market by doing more due diligence on nonprofits. There is very little information available for most nonprofits beyond IRS Form 990, which offers no insight on function and impact. Ultimately these efforts can produce complete ratings and analysis functions, offering potential social capital investors the chance to make more informed decisions. The functionality is like Moody’s, but the Web 2.0 model makes it more like a cross between Kiva and TripAdvisor.

• Behind the buzzwords

Terms like Social Entrepreneurship and Venture Philanthropy are so over-used that we forget the powerful ideas behind them. There are many current projects which recognize that social vs. economic capital is not a black and white issue. Inside the gray area between, there is plenty of room for deriving economic profits from social services. A little flexibility on the size and time frames for those profits can go a long way towards directing real money into social markets.

• Bottomless bottom lines

Once you broaden your definition of ‘profit’ to include non-economic criteria, the sky’s the limit. Double bottom line accounting, which adds social returns into the equation, allows for a more complete picture of what defines a successful business. This is where other often abused buzzwords like Socially Responsible Investing and Corporate Social Responsibility show their true power. When your only bottom line is economic, you’re shut out of several alternative (and arguably larger) economies, including the human, social, environmental and spiritual. At some point we should probably stop counting (triple and quadruple bottom lines are common, and I even found a quintuplet here) but the bottom line is that there is more than just one bottom line.

This is just a taste of what is happening in the SCM space, and it was all the more tasty because we got to meet the people behind the projects. We try to keep up with the literature, but you can get so much more out of face-to-face interactions with the people who share your goals- especially if those people are smart, committed and open to sharing. I think we all left that conference room a little wiser, and a little more energized. Socialmarkets is a web-based operation, so we spend a lot of our time in virtual spaces. Once in a while it’s awfully nice to check in with the real world.