Category Archives: Media

Blogs as a Public Commons

December 11, 2007 – 4:46 pm

When you interact with Tactical Philanthropy or any other blog in the comments section, you are engaging in public speaking. Proof of this comes from this weeks Chronicle of Philanthropy, which quotes me by republishing comments I posted to the GiveWell blog.

The story in question is the cover story, which provides an extensive overview of GiveWell. In a section discussing co-founder Holden Karnofsky’s “brash” style, the Chronicle writes:

“I get the impression that you are very authentic in your desire to make the world a better place,” [Stannard-Stockton] wrote in the blog’s comments area. “But my take is that a submission like the one you wrote will be dismissed out of hand because you used your normal writing style of sharp criticism.”

Mr. Karnofsky responded that it was not natural for him to “nice up” but conceded “there are times to tone it down.”

I’ve been harping on Holden to figure out how to present his incredibly important message in a way that funders can be more receptive towards (see my back and forth with Holden on this issue during the Chronicle of Philanthropy hosted live chat from today). But if a Chronicle of Philanthropy reporter had called to interview me on the record about GiveWell, I would have focused on the very positive work they are doing, not their drawbacks.

Frankly, though, as much as it can be scary to live in an “on the record” world, I think that it does benefit a more authentic conversation. Like everyone else I turn on my “media face” when I get a call from a reporter.

Welcome to the public square.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Giving Blogs, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Transparency | Comments (3)

New York Times Giving Section

December 11, 2007 – 4:17 pm

I never got around to commenting on the NY Times Giving Section. As always it was full of a ton of interesting articles, notable Stephanie Strom on the trend towards foundations “spending down” rather than existing forever, an overview of blogs effect on fundraising citing GiveWell, The Agitator and Trent Stamp (and a list of influential philanthropy blogs with the usual crew all listed, although they left out PhilanTopic), and an article on Prize Philanthropy and innovation.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Giving Circles, Philanthropy, Prize Philanthropy | Comments (0)

Barron’s Philanthropy Issue

December 11, 2007 – 2:20 pm

The One Post Challenge got me WAY behind on other commentary…

In late November, Barron’s, a weekly financial newspaper that is a sister paper to the Wall Street Journal, featured a story called Wise Giving on its cover. This was an important article because unlike the majority of mainstream media articles on philanthropy that focus on big donors and big gifts, this article was about effective donors.

BILL GATES AND WARREN BUFFETT MAY get all the ink, but it takes more philanthropists than that to make the world go ’round. Hundreds of others also are leaving big marks — not necessarily because they have giant foundations but because they give wisely. They know how to make their dollars go far.

Barron’s asked Geneva Global, a top consulting firm in philanthropy, to identify 10 donors who epitomize thoughtful and effective giving. Some of these folks work far behind the scenes — Lynn Fritz, for instance, supports training and technology for disaster-relief workers around the world — while the efforts of others are quite visible. The Jacobs family of San Diego has given a remarkable second life to a poor neighborhood there.

The works of all 10 donors stand as valuable object lessons as this year’s season of giving gets under way. Anyone interested in having a real philanthropic impact is bound to learn something from these donors, (see below for profiles).

“There are lists everywhere of who the biggest philanthropists are, but that doesn’t answer the real question; the biggest givers may not be the most effective,” says Steve Beck, chief executive officer of Geneva Global. After all, he points out, no one measures the caliber of an investor by the size of the portfolio, but by the returns.

You can read the whole thing here.

Rather the reading the article on the Barron’s site, I would encourage you to check out the in depth bios of each donor posted on the Beyond Philanthropy site (which also lists methodology and other behind the scenes info).

Some of you may remember when I wrote about Stephen and Elizabeth Alderman and the foundation they set up in memory of their son who died on 9/11. I was thrilled to see that after I recommended them for consideration that Barron’s and Beyond Philanthropy included them in the list. You can read their complete bio here.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Effective Giving, Grantmaking, Impact Measurement, New Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (0)

How to Write a Press Release

December 7, 2007 – 9:17 am

I get a lot of press releases. I hate them because usually the sender is blasting out a mass email and the content is only vaguely related to the topics we discuss here. Far better is when someone emails me personally and writes a brief note explaining why their topic relates to my blog.

But I just ran across a great press release. It wasn’t even sent to me, but I’m going to post the whole thing below because it is the best press release I’ve ever seen.

It’s from Holden Karnofsky of GiveWell.

The press release is so good because it is written in readable English, not the pained formal script of most releases and because rather than just touting GiveWell, it actually cites someone who doesn’t like their model (FYI: controversy creates conversation, 100% glowing commentary just looks fake).

The release quotes me (although I had nothing to do with the release and just ran across it online). You can find my original blog post that the release quotes here.

Now, before we get to the release, I’d like to point out that on Tuesday, December 11 at noon eastern time, the Chronicle of Philanthropy will be hosting Holden in a live online chat. Holden says in a recent blog post that he wants tough questions, not softballs. Well I got one for him. It’s a question I would never ask almost anyone else in a public forum. Most people would think I was being rude. But Holden likes tough questions.

On to the best press release I’ve ever read:

LEAVING FINANCE FOR PHILANTHROPY - AT AGE 26

New York, NY — December 6, 2007 — GiveWell, a research group started by two 26-year-old former hedge fund professionals, released its report on saving lives in Africa today.  The report, available at www.GiveWell.net , evaluates more than 50 major charities and finds that the top-ranked one – Population Services International – saves a human life for every $250-$1,000 it spends, roughly 3-4 times as good as other strong charities.  GiveWell also questions whether many of the charities reviewed are accomplishing any good at all.

The group started a year ago when Holden Karnofsky (Harvard ’03) and Elie Hassenfeld (Columbia ’04) couldn’t get help with a simple question: “Where should I donate?”  The two of them left the finance industry, raised over $300,000 from their former coworkers, and created what the Chronicle of Philanthropy calls a “new, more open kind of charity” and philanthropy consultant Sean Stannard Stockton calls the “pissed-off donor model.”

Their research draws heavily on charities’ internal reports of program execution and outcomes – reports GiveWell gained access to by inviting charities to apply for its $25,000-40,000 grants.  GiveWell is the first organization to publicly publish charities’ internal reports, as well as the first to rank charities based on their activities and outcomes; Mr. Karnofsky and Mr. Hassenfeld have been highly critical of Charity Navigator and similar donor resources, which they say look only at “how good a charity’s accounting department is – completely ignoring what the charity does and whether it works.”

“Rating a charity by how much it spends on administration is like rating a movie by how much it spends on actors,” says Mr. Hassenfeld.  “There isn’t any other kind of business we expect to do great work while skimping on administrative costs – administrative costs mean people, planning, technology, and all the things you need to crack tough problems.”

GiveWell has drawn its own fair share of criticism, for its skeptical approach to charity – which some fear will discourage giving – and the tone of its blog, which criticizes charities, foundations, and donors alike. Holly Ross, Executive Director of the Nonprofit Technology Network, has accused GiveWell of “misrepresenting organizations … who are just trying to do good”; fundraiser Jeff Brooks maintains that “giving is overwhelmingly an emotional decision,” and thinks donors won’t be interested in GiveWell’s analysis – “not unless they figure out how to re-wire the human brain.”

Mr. Karnofsky argues that individual donors – who give 6 times as much to charity as all charitable foundations combined – will never even have the option to make informed decisions, unless major funders start openly sharing the reasoning, opinions, and facts behind their decisions.   “If that means admitting that not all charities are wonderful, then that’s what we have to do,” he says.  Others agree, including Stannard-Stockton, who asks, “Why are the young members of the GiveWell project doing more to improve our shared knowledge base than The Ford Foundation?”

Karnofsky and Hassenfeld maintain that it’s precisely their lack of age, wealth, and security that makes them innovators.  In a blog post titled “Spending the better half,” Karnofsky writes that “All the great foundations today are following the orders of people who’ve made their fortune doing something else, and who no longer have to consider any criticism they don’t care for.”  He concludes, “The first half of life is where people do great things or fall by the wayside. I want to spend that half ‘giving it away.”

Contact:
Holden Karnofsky
GiveWell
T: 646-217-4256 F: 866-436-2061
http://www.GiveWell.net

###

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Philanthropy, Social Media, Transparency | Comments (2)

I’m Moving to Erie PA!

November 28, 2007 – 11:52 am

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Dorian Adams. Dorian is the Publisher of Just Cause and the founder of Benefit Magazine.

By Dorian Adams

I’m Moving to Erie PA!

For the last four years I’ve channeled my publishing background in creating media about philanthropy, making a difference, giving back, volunteering, social entrepreneurs, corporate social responsibility, socially responsible investing, etc. The result has been Benefit, the Bay Area magazine about the philanthropic lifestyle and, just recently, Just Cause, (www.justcauseit.com) the social-networking website dedicated to the greater good. It’s been a great ride so far and I’m inspired daily by the good news that people make in their chosen fields—be it the environment, education, the arts, health, civic causes or international affairs—and the opportunity to bring these stories to light.

Reader interest is undeniable. But media coverage about the passionate people who give time and money to good causes is limited. Sure the media-at-large will cover Bill Gates and Warren Buffett whenever they make news with their largesse.  But most individual stories go unnoticed. That’s why I was bucked up by the one-off story about the $100 million mystery donation to the town of Erie, PA. What a grand gesture. And how intriguing that the donor insists on anonymity!

Happily, the mysterious donor of $100 million to the Erie Community Foundation has caught the attention of major media outlets. “There has been amazing interest across the world,” foundation President Mike Batchelor said Tuesday. “I’ve been contacted by lots of national and international press. They are interested in this story, from the BBC to San Antonio to Buffalo, Boston, Cleveland.” (reported on the Go Erie website)

The Associated Press picked up the story, which first appeared in the Erie Times-News on Oct. 6, and Batchelor started getting calls on Monday from news organizations wanting to know more about the donation. Batchelor was on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and has been contacted by Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. “The bottom line, it’s a great story, and people are looking for great stories,” Batchelor said. “They’re happy to see success and charities benefiting.”

Here is the original AP story as reported by Jennifer C. Yates:  “Mike Batchelor invited the heads of 46 charities into his downtown office for one-on-one meetings to personally deliver the news. Nearby, on a small table, sat a box of tissues. And then he proceeded: A donor had given a staggering $100 million to the Erie Community Foundation, and all of the charities would receive a share. That was when the tears began to flow—and the mystery began—in this struggling old industrial city of 102,000 on Lake Erie, where the donor is known only as “Anonymous Friend.”  Continue reading Mystery $100M Donation Lifts Pa. City

Two Related Topics:

What does the future of Philanthropy Media look like?  Since the 2000 election, the public sector has failed to provide the social resources and the support that America needs. This has spurred the civic sector, private individuals and corporations to expand their support for nonprofits across the board.  The business sector has found that corporate social responsibility resonates with consumers—CSR has grown dramatically and will continue to do so.  In turn, this has created the need to communicate this goodwill to the public.  Corporate advertising, whose message is “we are good citizens,” has increased both on television and in print.  This is most evident around the subject of the environment, but I predict that editorial coverage about philanthropy, CSR, and giving back will grow apace.  Most magazines will continue to have their April Green Issues (Earth Day is April 22nd) but coverage of health, education and international issues will grow as well.  Additionally, visionary entrepreneurs who made their fortunes in the last decade recognize the power of the media to act as a catalyst for change.  They are the impetus behind the new magazines and websites dedicated to the greater good like Benefit, Contribute and Good magazines.  Moreover, social entrepreneurs like Jeff Skoll are bankrolling movies and documentaries aimed at raising public awareness about the environment, health issues and global concerns.  Skoll’s Participant Productions is behind An Inconvenient Truth, Darfur Now, Fast Food Nation, Jimmy Carter A Man from Plains, Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, Luna, and American Gun among others.

Anonymity: What are the pros and cons?  The Mystery Donor of Erie PA is a wonderful story, but without names on museum wings and university buildings, modern philanthropy would suffer.  What’s your opinion?

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Fundraising, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy | Comments (2)

Blogs Aren’t For Everyone

November 26, 2007 – 9:19 am

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from an anonymous writer named “S”. S works in communications at a large California-based foundation and has worked in the philanthropy sector for more than a decade.

By “S”

You know what? Blogs aren’t for everyone. I get so tired of hearing how important it is to start a conversation online and care for it and feed it and make it go. Blogging can be a great tool, but has anyone thought about the fact the blogging may not be the greatest thing to ever come to philanthropy? How is posting a blog and receiving comments really a conversation? I post, you post, I post…

Paul Brest needs a blog. Really? What for? Let’s step back and think about this for a moment. Paul Brest needs a blog why? So that his completely scrubbed words can help philanthropy make its mark on the world? Let’s be real. Not only is Paul Brest too busy to have a blog, but the honest truth is, people don’t crave news about philanthropies, they just don’t. I work for a foundation and we share about our work only as much as we want to. Other than that, no go.

This blogging community in philanthropy is tiny. The only people who regularly comment on others’ posts are the bloggers themselves. When you need to ask people to Digg it or to StumbleUpon it, what are you doing? Skewing the result of what normal people might do. People aren’t Digg-ing it or StumblingUpon it because it’s not what is on their agenda.

Philanthropy is a great thing and helping out all kinds of people is a great thing. But foundations get so wrapped up in trying to tell everyone about their work and how great they are. Who cares about what the general public thinks? We are important and we are doing great work. We are so convinced that we need to get out there with our message.

The foundation I work for has spent nearly four decades doing good work. And before the Internet and blogging and Digg and StumbleUpon and other avenues online, we have been able to get the word out as necessary.

I am not against an online conversation or building the interest around philanthropy. We just need to think about it and not assume that everyone should be interested. They have their lives, too.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Foundations, Giving Blogs, One Post Challenge, Philanthropic Technology, Philanthropy, Social Media, Transparency, nptech | Comments (11)

Council on Foundations: Director of Public Relations

November 13, 2007 – 5:59 pm

Roy Clason is the Vice President of Strategic Communications at the Council on Foundations. The Council needs a new Director of Public Relations and Roy thinks that a reader of Tactical Philanthropy might make a great fit. So he asked me to pass the job description on to you (see link at end of post).
Jeff Martin, the last person to fill the job, was the one to invite bloggers (and give them press credentials) to the Council’s annual conference for the first time. What if the new director was the kind of person who understood philanthropy and social media so well that they understood how to win the One Post Challenge while cultivating an important dialog?

Do you know someone like that? Are you someone like that? Check out the job description (link below) and send your (appropriately social media savvy) resume to the Council or to me and I’ll pass it directly to Roy.

You can also listen/read a podcast I recorded with Jeff Martin directly after the conference.

Council on Foundations: Director of Public Relations

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Foundations, Philanthropy | Comments (0)

Impact Through Inspiration

November 13, 2007 – 3:23 pm

This entry to the One Post Challenge comes from Rich Polt. Rich is president of Louder Than Words, a Boston-based PR agency that works with foundations, nonprofits, and mission driven businesses. When he’s not communicating good for his clients, he can be found with his family, on his bike, or with the NY Times crossword puzzle.

By Rich Polt

First let me applaud DontTellTheDonor on their blogging coup. I recently cast my vote for Aid to Artisans on that thread, but my “Spidey-Sense” tells me that Pride at Work might be running away with the prize. Congratulations (potentially)! Don’t Tell The Donor showed us that there is power in numbers on the Web. I believe that there is also power in ideas (and would like to place some internal resources against that assertion… read on).

I believe that inspiration is the greatest commodity this sector has to offer.

Blogging should not just be about casting a vote, but advancing ideas and inspiring others to action through those ideas. Two weeks ago, I attended a great conference in Miami that was sponsored by the Communications Network. The theme of the event was What We Know (Or Should Know) About Effective Communications in the philanthropy sector. The penultimate plenary session included a presentation from the Skoll Foundation about how they have leveraged storytelling to build the successful Web site Social Edge. Check out this amazing example (produced for Social Edge) of how unembellished storytelling can elicit a visceral response.

What I would love to know is this:  What deserving, undercapitalized nonprofit has a story to inspire the masses AND a few sentences on the source of that inspiration (i.e., the “why”). Feel free to either name nonprofits or to comment on other people’s suggestions. Hell… I want to know why Pride at Work inspires so many people! If this post wins the “One Post Challenge,” Louder Than Words will donate the $500 gift card as well as $2,500 of in kind time and services to the nonprofit with the most inspiring comments/story (as determined by us after reading your posts). It’s all about the inspiration…

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Fundraising, New Philanthropy, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, Prize Philanthropy, Social Media | Comments (3)

One Post Challenge: Something’s Happening Here

November 13, 2007 – 1:48 pm

In case you haven’t noticed, the One Post Challenge entry from “a fundraiser” has generated 60 comments as of this writing. I have intentionally not commented on the progress of the competition so far as I didn’t want to interfere in the process that was unfolding. But I’m going to break my silence.

What the $500 For Your Nonprofit post did was take control of the competition and create an incentive for commentators rather than retaining the incentive for the blog post author. This was an exceptional demonstration of the author’s understanding of online fundraising. His/her post generated attention and a link from a high traffic blog called BlogActive, which quickly became the top referring site to my blog (hello Pride at Work!). The fact that both the NY Times and the Chronicle of Philanthropy coincidently mentioned my blog yesterday also spurred traffic (although it is important to note that BlogActive sent more readers, and more engaged readers, than the NY Times or the Chronicle).

So now we see that when competing for attention online, having a great, well thought-out message doesn’t always win the game. You also need to understand the medium that you’re working with. Now the question becomes does the $500 For Your Nonprofit post simply highjack this competition and show that mobs are more powerful/important than intelligent thought provoking commentary? Or are their new and creative ways that participants can take back control of the competition and find a way to redirect this traffic surge to engage people to type more than three words?

To me, this is the central dilemma of online marketing. Is the internet great at getting millions of people to watch online videos of cats doing dumb things? Or can the power of social media be harnessed to provide a benefit to the public good?
I can think of no industry with a more vested interest in this question than philanthropy.

What’s your answer? Email me your entry to the One Post Challenge and demonstrate how social media for the social good is done.

(I’d like to thank Network for Good for co-sponsoring this competition and awarding their new Good Card to the One Post Challenge winner. Click here for One Post Challenge rules.)

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Fundraising, New Philanthropy, One Post Challenge, Philanthropy, Social Media, nptech | Comments (21)

For-Profit Philanthropy Blogging

October 30, 2007 – 8:47 am

How big is the audience for philanthropy blogs? B5media thinks the audience is real and valuable to advertisers.

With more than 290 blogs, 15 vertical channels and over 10 million unique visitors a month, b5media offers advertisers a large, loyal and growing audience for companies looking to promote their brands and products.

Those 290 blogs include blogs like Hot Mama Daily, Teen Style Lounge, Copyblogger, Pimp Your Work, and Britney Groupie. B5media sells ads on these blogs and the bloggers are paid to write the content.

The newest b5media blog is The 501(c) Files. Introducing the blog in his first post, author Tom Durso wrote:

I worked in higher education for a decade, and now, as a freelancer, I do contract work for universities and other nonprofits, and I’ve seen firsthand the sweat and effort that go into making those institutions run well. Just because an organization doesn’t produce a quarterly income statement doesn’t mean it can ignore the need for such basics as strategic-minded senior leadership, sound fiscal policies, and effective management.

What makes nonprofits unique is their focus on mission, not revenue. But many of the same strategies and tactics used by the corporate world to make Wall Street happy can and should be used by schools, charities, foundations, hospitals, and the like to create value for their unique stakeholders.

With an M.B.A. and a background in nonprofits, I like to explore the intersection of mission and business. And I enjoy putting the lie to the perception that the only people working hard are the ones struggling to push a share price up by 25 cents.

So welcome to the 501(c) Files, b5media’s new blog on the role of nonprofits in today’s business world.

Intrigued by the idea of a for-profit philanthropy blog I wrote Tom who quickly responded to my questions:

Why did you start 501c Files?

The 501(c) Files — or, more specifically, a blog about the business end of nonprofits — was not my idea, but b5media’s. They advertised for a blogger, and I liked the idea because I spent 10 years doing communications for higher education. So I answered the ad, provided some clips, gave them a sample post or two, and here I am.

Why does b5 think this is a profitable vertical?

As I noted, I’m not a b5 employee, so you’d have to ask them that. My sense is b5 has noticed that nonprofits are delivering an increasing array of services and enjoying greater and greater visibility. Some of them have become quite large and comprehensive. And the issues affecting nonprofits, regardless of their size and scope, are often similar to those impacting for-profit organizations.

In other words: There’s an audience there for a well written and useful nonprofit blog. And where there’s an audience, there will be advertisers who want to reach them.

What’s your background?

My b5 bio is at http://www.b5media.com/tom-durso/; you can also find more at my website, www.tomdurso.com.

How do you get paid?

I consider that a private matter between me and b5media. Thanks for understanding.

Who are you targeting as advertisers?

Beats me — that’s b5’s purview, not mine.

I imagine that some readers might think the concept of for-profit philanthropy blogging misses the point. I don’t. Todd Cohen runs ads on his Inside Philanthropy blog. Lucy Bernholz, Jeff Brooks, Susan Herr and I all have indirect monetary incentives for blogging (speaking on my behalf, I’ve brought in new clients at Ensemble Capital as a direct result of this blog). Is there something more pure about a blog without ads? I don’t think so. If Tom can add valuable commentary to the sector and he and b5media can both make money in the process, I say bravo. As Susan Raymond might say, we are at the End of Definitions and the line between for-profit and nonprofit activity is blurring.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Giving Blogs, Philanthropy, nptech | Comments (4)

Tactical Philanthropy: The Next Buzzword?

October 25, 2007 – 10:07 am

In last 2005, I started using the phrase “tactical philanthropy” to refer to the work I did with clients at Ensemble Capital Management. “Strategic Philanthropy” is a common phrase and I thought that if there is strategy, then by definition there must be tactics.

In spring of 2006, the book Mapping the New World of American Philanthropy came out and featured a chapter I authored called The Evolution of the Tactical Philanthropist. In the book, I argued that the current generation of donors was becoming more tactical in their giving decisions and charted the last 100 years of philanthropy and the cultural and technological changes that were driving the adoption of tactical philanthropy.

In October of 2006, I launched this blog and called it Tactical Philanthropy.

Along the way, I had a number of conversations with different people about whether or not I should trademark the phrase. But the feeling I always had was that phrase was just a name for something that intrinsically exists. Since we know that philanthropy can be practiced strategically, then there must be tactics involved, whether we call it tactical philanthropy or something else.

I believe that most philanthropic planning practiced by lawyers, accountants and financial advisors is really just tax planning. With the phrase “tactical philanthropy”, I was trying to distinguish the idea of philanthropic tactics from tax planning that used charitable tax deductions to minimize an individual’s tax bill.

I decided not to trademark “tactical philanthropy” because in the back of my head I always hoped that the phrase might enter common usage.

Last Friday I got my wish.

Jonathan Chevreau is a financial columnist for the National Post, one of Canada’s dominate newspapers and according to the paper, “is recognized today as one of Canada’s foremost personal finance journalists”. Jonathan writes a blog called The Wealthy Boomer, hosted on the newspaper’s website. On Friday, he wrote a post called Tactical Philanthropy. The post talks about the trend towards entrepreneurial philanthropy and the impact of business executives like Bill Gates leaving the corporate world to focus on philanthropy.

The post also says this:

These are examples of a trend dubbed Tactical Philanthropy, whereby focused and efficient business techniques are deployed to funding needy causes, whether alleviating child poverty in third world nations or coping with disease or natural disasters.

The “philanthropreneurs” behind these initiatives take a targeted entrepreneurial approach to solving their chosen problem, using the techniques of capitalism to drive social change. They are more efficient and results-oriented, levering up the commitment of others by using economic incentives like incentive prizes…

…It’s encouraging that the techniques of big business are being applied in this sphere.  While Gates and Buffett may grab the headlines, you don’t have to wait till you’re megawealthy to participate in such projects.

Note that the post does not refer to me or to this blog.

Jonathan defines tactical philanthropy as “focused and efficient business techniques [that] are deployed to funding needy causes.” I would define it a little differently. In this site’s About This Blog section, I write:

To practice Tactical Philanthropy is to organize, optimize, and transfer philanthropic capital in ways that maximize the impact of the donor’s strategic plan. It is the practice of transforming philanthropic strategy into reality.

Regardless, I would love to see the phrase used more. Most individuals that I speak with have never given any thought to tactical philanthropy. I have donors and their advisors tell me all the time about wasteful tactics that they have used while donating to charity. For most people, finding a cause they care about and deciding to fund it is the whole game. They don’t realize that by practicing tactical philanthropy they can ramp up their impact to a whole new level.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in New Philanthropy, Philanthropy, Tactical Philanthropy | Comments (1)

Extreme Philanthropy

October 9, 2007 – 10:01 am

Financial Planning magazine is running a story called Extreme Philanthropy about people who give away 50% of their income or even 50% of their assets:

For the last few decades, Americans’ charitable giving has hovered around 2% of pretax income. Anne and Christopher Ellinger of Arlington, Mass., have upped the ante with an invitation to what could be considered "extreme philanthropy"—pushing that percentage up to 50. In 2003, they established a foundation called Bolder Giving to inspire people to realize their full giving potential. Today, more than 88 people have joined the organization’s 50% League and given away half of their financial assets, or half of their income or business profits for at least three years. Many of them have shared their stories online at www.boldergiving.org.

The article talks about Tactical Philanthropy Podcast guest Tracy Gary and quotes our friend Phil Cubeta a number of times. If you read Phil’s blog Gift Hub, you’ll find it as funny as I did that the article features a big pull quote of Phil saying that philanthropy “is a way for advisors to prospect upwards”. That might be true, but somehow I don’t see that as the core of Phil’s message.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Philanthropy | Comments (1)

Chronicle of Philanthropy Blog

October 5, 2007 – 8:23 pm

The Chronicle of Philanthropy launched their blog summary service Give & Take in February. It was a major milestone in the “coming of age” journey of philanthropy blogs.

I asked Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, if they would ever launch their own blog(s) during her Tactical Philanthropy Podcast interview and she answered:

We have discussed that a great deal, and one of the things the Chronicle feels strongly about is that we are reporters covering this field, we’re not experts on the field, and we love to give other people’s views but we don’t want to ourselves be giving opinions about the non-profit world and for the most part blogs tend to take a position in some way or another. So I think that we won’t, but we may ask bloggers to post regularly for us or something like that. I could see that possibility in the future, much like in our opinion page where we ask people to state their views all the time but we don’t ourselves write editorials.

Now the Chronicle has launched what might be called a blog. The new Government and Politics Watch on the Chronicle home page presents government and politics related philanthropy news in a blog format. The authors are the same authors behind Give & Take. Comments are enabled and the authors’ emails are made available.

What makes a blog a blog? Sometimes when I talk with people who don’t read blogs, I get the impression that they think a blog is, by definition, a web page where the author screams and yells and makes outrageous claims and generally carries on in a way that would be inappropriate in public. Certainly some blogs are like that. When I spoke to the Hewlett Foundation about philanthropy blogs, I tried to make the point that blogging is just a technology. It can be used as a cost effective, simple eNewletter tool, the way that Google.org is using it or it can leverage the fundamental two-way architecture of blog software to facilitate a conversation.

I was impressed that Stacy Palmer even agreed to appear on my Podcast. She did have reservations, but when I told her that I wouldn’t ask for her opinions about how philanthropy should be performed, she agreed. If you listen to the interview or read the transcript you can see that she is an interesting person to have a conversation with, even though she is careful about the opinions she expresses. I hope that’s true about me; I never express opinions about philanthropic causes yet we have a lively conversation going on this blog.

So is Government and Politics Watch a blog? The answer lies in the September 28 post where Peter Panepento wrote about new IRS workshops. In the comments section a reader commented and Peter wrote back. It’s just a glimmer, but we know that the Chronicle has not made it policy to ban the blog authors from responding to comments and having a conversation. Peter’s short comment is a whole lot more than we’ve ever gotten from the Google.org blog. So check out their new blog and let’s drown them in comments. Peter and Suzanne and the other authors are smart and they know philanthropy. They are a great addition to the conversation.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, Giving Blogs, Philanthropy | Comments (0)

MIT Philanthropy Research & SeaChange Partners

September 26, 2007 – 8:37 am

It seems like everyone is talking about philanthropy these days. Before Freakonomics was published, no one would have guessed that economic theory could generate a series of best sellers. I wonder when the Tipping Point or Freakonomics of philanthropy will hit the scene?

Today we have Ed Boyden, a professor at MIT speculating on philanthropic capital markets:

One possibility is that if there were an open market for philanthropy, which would connect dollars with ideas, then you might be able to find researchers working on the problems you care most about, evaluate the investigators and their approaches, and empower them directly with funding. As resources pool, naturally, the most widespread and severe problems would receive the largest sums of money, providing a sort of free market for research philanthropy.

About 60 million Americans currently fit the criteria for obesity, which puts them at risk for diabetes (and dozens of other medical conditions). If 5 percent of these people desired to pool their resources to study ways of tackling metabolic impairments, and thereby improve health, and each contributed just $1.25 a month to researchers who focus exactly on the problems of most pressing interest, that would be $45 million a year. While that may not seem like much, note that the American Diabetes Association gave out about the same amount–$46.4 million–in research dollars in 2006.

You can read the whole thing here.

Ed is talking about a system similar to the public for-profit markets. But for-profit markets also depend on a system of private equity investors. Cheryl Dahle suggested after her interview that foundations should be engaging in private equity-like behavior. Now we have Goldman Sach’s funded SeaChange Capital Partners trying to do just that. From the NY Times:

An organization founded by two former Goldman Sachs partners is using Wall Street methods to help charities raise money to finance expansion.

“Our goal,” said Charles T. Harris III, “is to create a nationwide donor network of wealthy individuals and family foundations that we can mobilize with other existing sources of funds to provide growth capital for entrepreneurial organizations.”

Mr. Harris and Robert K. Steel formed SeaChange Capital Partners, which sounds like a hedge fund but is a nonprofit financing firm.

You can read the whole thing here.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Cross-Disciplinary Conversations, New Philanthropy, Open Source Philanthropy, Philanthropy | Comments (2)

Media Coverage of Philanthropy

September 24, 2007 – 2:02 pm

After my post Friday arguing that press coverage would encourage the innovations that Cheryl Dahle wanted to see from foundations, Maggie Keenan left the following comment disagreeing with me:

…my question to both Sean and Holden, is then "So What?" More press coverage and the outcome of that is …? To me it’s like some famous world-ranked tennis players, some of which if they spent less time in front of the camera for sponsor promos, may have had a better year on the court.

The point is to be great not big. Sorry, I don’t think more press coverage is the answer to what you think they should try to be accomplishing.

As I said in my response to Cheryl’s rant, foundations have no market or regulatory forces facing them that encourage innovation. I then listed a number of innovations from foundations and philanthropy that the mainstream press has covered in limited fashion or not at all. People who create innovations are risk-takers. Most people are not risk-takers, so for more people to innovate or follow other’s innovations there must be mechanisms to limit their risk. Press coverage is one such mechanism because it let’s people know that 1) “everyone else is doing it” and 2) “people who innovate will be celebrated for their innovations”.

I just started reading The Slow Pace of Fast Change, a book about how innovation happens. From the books cover:

While everyone loves a great idea, individuals will embrace it only if they believe others will too.

Safety in numbers and all that. Maggie is right that press coverage will not lead to innovation, but it will lead innovations to be embraced. I’m not a very cutting-edge kind of guy. I’m not an early adopter. In my response to Cheryl’s rant, I said that she was wrong or “too far ahead of her time”. Press coverage of philanthropic innovation is the key to the mainstreaming of philanthropy. That’s what I’m interested in; the ideas and innovations that are about to, or just have, made the jump into the mainstream.

Speaking of the mainstreaming of philanthropy, the Chronicle of Philanthropy has a comic this week that shows a man walking past a coffee house. The window sign is advertising private foundation set-up services when you buy a cup of coffee. For now, that comic is only funny to the readers of the philanthropic trade journal. When that joke is funny to readers of the New York Times, we’ll know that the Second Great Wave of Philanthropy is cresting. But that’s a long way off.

By Sean Stannard-Stockton | Also posted in Foundations, Philanthropy | Comments (2)