Do the folks who are submitting ideas and voting for their favorites over on RefreshEverything.comknow that they’re taking part in one of the most forward-thinking forms of philanthropy currently being practiced or that they’re taking part in an experiment that many nationally branded companies would find extremely risky? Who knows. What we do know is that America loves voting for things, and they’re jumping in with both feet on this one.

Premise

The basics of the program are the following: Pepsi is accepting up to 1,000 wannabe grant projects each month throughout 2010 via online submission. Submissions are accepted between the 1st and the 15th of each month. Voting on each month’s submissions takes place in the subsequent month. For example, you can vote on April submissions in May.

Each month, up to $1.3 million will be awarded in the following amounts: 2 Grants at the $250,000 level; 10 Grants at the $50,000 level; 10 Grants at the $25,000 level; and 10 Grants at the $5,000 level.

For more information — check out the program’s FAQ page.

Is This Wise?

The arguments here are the same as they are with any experimental crowdsourcing philanthropy project:

• A Proponent Would Say: The mass market usually has a good idea of what needs to be fixed, so we can trust the general public to allocate funds appropriately; the majority voting together will discover the greatest need — a bell curve theory. Also, crowdsourcing exposes more people to philanthropy and the organizations working to provide needed goods and services. This is an education that can only benefit how people approach social improvement.
• An Opponent Would Say: The mass market isn’t trained in the what types of programs succeed, what types of programs make the biggest impact for good, and what types of programs will leverage more improvements. Also, why would we trust the general public to choose who gets grant money when there’s clearly a danger of a “popularity contest” — the one with the most friends wins?

What do you think? Do we applaud Pepsi for introducing a mainstream philanthro-marketing program, or will this just end up with the wrong programs getting money that could make a better impact elsewhere?

For more examples of Crowdsourcing Philanthropy, check out the following posts:
More Examples of Crowdsourcing Philanthropy
Crowdsourcing Philanthropy

Think of this as a 44-page road map anticipating those events, issues, and trends that are most likely to impact what happens to your social investment this year. A few of the topics included:

• Which innovations should I understand and which are just buzzwords?
• What are the key policy issues that might influence philanthropy?
• What wildcard events will matter and what should I look out for?

You can buy other books about philanthropy trends, but by the time you get them, they’re dusty inside and out. Lucy’s pretty smart. I’m running to get my copy.

But How Do I Get Good at Social Marketing?
Social marketing is best done by employing copious amounts of extroversion and diligence! That said, here are a few tips for those starting out (and a few reminders for those who are already in the mix).

• Dedicate Resources: Even though there are enough anecdotal statistics these days showing that an online presence is worth spending time and money to create, many nonprofits and foundations are unwilling to dedicate resources to continued online efforts.
  
  
  Guess what. You have to. It’s not a question of whether you need to get online, it’s a question of how soon you’ll be left behind. Some of the greatest available wealth is sitting in the pockets of a very young generation — and this generation is looking online to figure out where to distribute that wealth. Any resources you give to creating an online presence for your organization or product will be paid back in spades — financially and/or via public relations — in the next 10 years.
  
  
  Find someone on staff who’s energetic, outgoing, able to maintain and monitor relationships, and knows his or her way around a computer. Carve out 50% of this person’s time and dedicate it to building and maintaining an online presence.




• Figure Out An Online Message: Spend a week figuring out what your main online message will be. Your mission statement is fine, but you can’t fit it into 140 characters on twitter. Break it down into a short, emotionally-charged concept — that’s your online message. Everything you post in a social media context should relate back to that.




• Start Small and Steady: Don’t worry; you don’t have to join every social media service or hire someone to create a documentary for YouTube just yet. As we said, building up your online presence takes time. It’s cumulative. The more twitter followers you have, the more free PR you’re going to get from them tweeting about you. So start small and dedicate consistent time to building up and maintaining relationships online.
  
  
  First steps here:
  • Start a blog. It’s really not that hard to do. Go to Wordpress, follow the instructions, and you’re on your way. Start with one post per week; keep it short and specific. Give your opinion on a recent Op Ed. Upload pictures and info from a recent event. Highlight an important donor or grant recipient. Tout an upcoming program.
    
    
    If you already have a website for your organization, considering incorporating your blog into your current website domain. If you don’t have a website, you can use your blog as your online presence for now. Once you’re comfortable, considering purchasing a domain name and hosting services for your blog.

  
  

  • Create a twitter account (you can find me at @ModernGiving) and start following like-minded organizations. ALWAYS tweet about your latest blog post. And be sure to have conversations via twitter, re-tweet others’ interesting information, and build relationships. This is one of the best ways to get to know other players in your field. Here’s a primer I wrote about using twitter as a resource.

  
  

  • Start a facebook account, a fan page, and a cause page. Search for likeminded organizations and people, and “friend” them. Give facebook status updates linking to your most recent blog posts, and be sure to upload photos of what’s happening as a result of your good work!

  
  

• Look for Synergies: With a blog, a twitter account, and a facebook account, you can cross-promote online the work you’re doing in the “real world.” You don’t have to join up with every single online application; simply look for a few that you can use in tandem to reach a wider audience.
  
  
  Here’s a great example using the applications described above: Let’s say you have an upcoming event next Saturday. You write a blog highlighting the event, including details, dress code, and where to buy tickets. Next, you tweet about the blog post, which prompts 5 of your twitter followers to re-tweet your message to their 500 followers. Then, you ask your facebook fans to spread the word about the event and to “share” the blog post link with their facebook friends. 10 of them do so. As a result of that 30 minutes of work, you’ve just created a massive buzz of FREE advertising and promotion! Add to that a year or so of building relationships online, and you can easily reach hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a mouse.

Resources
Social Edge, a program of the Skoll Foundation, is a dedicated online community for social entrepreneurs and other nonprofiteers connect.

A few months ago, I came across their Social Media Cheat Sheet, which I think is one of the most comprehensive lists of resources for breaking into social media, networking, and online marketing — especially for nonprofits, foundations, and social entrepreneurs.

While you’re building your online messaging, check out these services and get to know how they work. Understanding the ins and outs of what’s available will go a long way toward deciding what’s right for your organization, and, more importantly, how these services can work in synergy to best promote your organization.

Fact #1: Funders get bogged down in due diligence, report review, and grant follow-up when they could be developing more effective and efficient funding strategies.

Fact #2: Nonprofits spend too much time and money meeting specific funder requirements for application and reporting.

Fact #3: Due diligence, grant applications, and reporting have to happen.

Can we make all of this waste less time?

Well, the answer is…maybe. There have been a few efforts to streamline grant processes regionally, and even a large effort nationally. The jury is still out as to whether or not these efforts are the silver bullet.

Local Efforts
Many local grantmaking associations, like Philanthropy New York (formerly the New York Regional Association of Grantmakers), have been streamlining their process for years. This means that the funders aligned with Philanthropy New York agree to accept a standard grant application from nonprofit agencies and a standard reporting format from nonprofit agencies, ensuring that agencies with programs funded by association members don’t have to write different reports for each funder — they only have to write one.

While this is happening in several regional areas, there are still many funders in those regions who decline to jump on board.

National Efforts
Managed by Grants Managers Network, Project Streamline is a national initiative developed by the following partner agencies:

• Grants Managers Network (GMN)
• Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP)
• Association of Small Foundations (ASF)
• Council on Foundations (CoF)
• Forum of Regional Associations of Grantmakers (Forum)
• Foundation Center
• Grantmakers for Effective Organizations (GEO)
• National Council of Nonprofits (NCN)

Currently in Phase II of a three-phase campaign, Project Streamline focuses on four core principles: Take a fresh look at reporting and application requirements, Right-size grant expectations, Relieve the burden on grantees, and Make communication and grantmaking process clear and straightforward.

To date, the initiative has picked up some heavy-hitting sponsors, including the Gates, Hewlett, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, and Packard Foundations.

Analysis
While regional efforts have had lukewarm results, I’m very interested to see how these theories work in practice nationally. This isn’t a new problem, and it’s been exacerbated over the years by resistance to change, a lack of trust between funder and grant recipient, and even a lack of trust within the funding community.

Institutional funders spend time and money developing targeted grantmaking strategies, and there’s a concern that standardizing processes might lessen the control currently held by foundations over what outcomes are being measured, reported, and publicized by individual agencies. If there is any remaining competition between institutional funders to be the most successful and most innovative, and if there is any remaining competition between nonprofit agencies motivating some to go above and beyond, you’re going to end up with people coloring outside the lines: funders will continue to require more targeted and specific information, and agencies will still spend hours customizing their applications and reports in order to stand out among the crowd.

So Can We Fix It?
Those three truths I mention in the beginning of the piece are ingrained into the current grantmaking process, and a lot of people in the nonprofit arena have internalized those truths.

That said, the more we can move toward at least the option of standardization, the better. It will take time, and it will take some shifts in thought between funders and agencies, but it is possible.

And the time savings and efficiencies picked up along the way will no doubt be useful to those funders and agencies striving to leave the competition behind them and focus on the real work.

Been to a “meetup” lately? Even if you haven’t, you’ve likely at least heard about Meetup.com — a social networking website that helps bring together people who have similar interests and happen to live near one another. The site is useful if you want to find a hiking group, a book club, or a wine-tasting event; but we’re also seeing more and more groups coming together not just for social networking, but for social good.

The Whole Can Be Greater...

Head to Meetup.com and search for Philanthropy: there are 76 already-formed meetup groups in 60 cities and 3 countries. These run the gamut from groups who get together to volunteer for charity, groups who pool their cash to give larger amounts to charity (these are commonly called “giving circles,” and we’ll talk about them at a later date), groups that like to talk about social entrepreneurship and venture philanthropy, groups of non-profit workers who get together to discuss fund raising, etc.

So, if you’re new to philanthropy — or are trying to figure out how your $10 per month or 3 hours per week can make a difference in your community, city, state, or country — consider finding a meetup in your area with like-minded folks. You might be surprised what happens when the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Photo Credit: aigarius

This is a great resource for any philanthropist or non-profit entity — whether solo or part of a larger organization — as reading tweets gives rare insight into real-time discussions and foci in those organizations. It also offers an unparalleled opportunity to learn from and collaborate with one another — something that happens too little in the philanthropy arena but is beginning to be recognized as a benefit to both foundation and grantee.

Here’s why tweeting is a mode of community communication you’re going to have to get on board with, at least for a while:

1. Tweeting is informal. One of the greatest breakdowns between a non-profit entity and a philanthropic body is cultural inequality. With twitter, everyone (more or less) is on the same class-level.

2. Tweeting is broadcasting. You never know who could be reading, so tweets need to be comprehensible to anyone and everyone. This means there’s very little room for specific audience manipulation.

3. Tweeting is non-committal. Twitter is a forum for discussion. People tend to finalize deals over more traditional communication streams like email, snail mail, phone, and face-to-face meetings. Whereas twitter is considered a place where you can show interest without committing yourself to a deal. This is the place to learn more, ask questions, and then take it to the next level (usually email) if necessary.

4. (At least for now) Tweeting circumvents bureaucratic barriers like calendar scheduling and gatekeepers. If you have a good idea, tweet it @ the person you think would find it interesting; no need to get time on their calendar. I strongly believe that, as the service becomes more widely used, VIPs will continue to institute stronger barricades. But, while it’s new and fun, you can often reach them directly.

Twitter remains a means to an end, but it can be a mode of conversation providing exposure to new ideas and connections without the weight of commitment.

Potential Pros: Crowdsourcing exposes more “real people” to philanthropy — and the organizations working to provide needed goods and services — and the concept of weighing which organizations are doing the best and most beneficial work. Also, the majority voting together will discover the greatest need (a bell curve theory).

Potential Cons: A danger that crowdsourcing will lead to popularity contests, giving an edge to organizations who are savvy with marketing or who have full coffers for influence. Also, a fear that the masses will agree on philanthropic risktaking, which some philanthropists deem necessary for the development of truly innovative ideas.

More Examples

And here are a few more examples of philanthropic crowdsourcing — let me know your thoughts:

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Through the Knight News Challenge, the Knight Foundation is crowdsourcing ideas for funding. In this initiative, the foundation planned to “invest at least $25 million over five years in the search for bold community news and social media experiments.”

Target projects are “innovations that use new or available technology to distribute content in local communities,” with the following parameters:
1. Use digital, open-source technology.
2. Distribute news in the public interest.
3. Test your project in a local community.

To date, three years of funding has been awarded. And while the initiative itself is an example of crowdsourcing funding ideas, several of the funded projects involve crowdsourcing.

One example is Ushahidi, an organization that seeks to expand an initiative to crowdsource crisis information. The strategy is to develop a free web map and timeline that journalists and citizens can use to contribute multiple reports of large news events. By allowing anyone to contribute news stories, the service would broaden information distribution even in places too dangerous for or inaccessible to mainstream media. Imagine the difference in news coverage of the recent demonstrations and uprisings worldwide had this been in place.

The British Government
Just this week, Britain suggested it was time to begin dabbling in crowdsourced giving, reports The Independent.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy gave the details stating, “Under the proposal, Britain’s Department for International Development would set aside about $65-million that the public would control by voting online between 10 aid projects in Africa and elsewhere.”

Everyone’s Doing It?

Small to Large; Corporate and Foundation; Open and Controlled. A breadth of organizations including the Case Foundation, NetSqaured, and American Express have tested their theories of crowdsourcing in philanthropy, including:

• Controlled experiments, wherein foundations maintain the role of determining grantees, but the public is sourced for suggestions and input, and
• Open experiments, which more resemble “contests”

You can read more about these foundations and their crowdsourcing programs at The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

“I’m going to donate a bunch of money, but I want random people on the Internet to decide where it goes.”

This is crowdsourced philanthropy. You remember crowdsourcing from Who Wants to be a Millionaire. That lifeline — “ask the audience” — was the perfect example: asking a large group of people to offer their ideas on a solution to a problem. Wikipedia is another great example.

But why would we try this with philanthropy?

Well, it’s a simple case of market majority. While a lone philanthropist doesn’t necessarily have the breadth of knowledge to determine the best grant recipient, the market majority — the crowd — will most likely be able to shake out the highest priority need.

And one of crowdsourcing’s biggest benefits in the philanthropic field may be transparency. Making decisions based significantly on the suggestion of public majority means less chance of ethics or bias being called into question. And making your values and conditions clear to your “crowd” simply demands greater public transparency in order to ensure an informed decision.

There are still many unanswered questions about crowdsourced philanthropy: Will it be successful? Will it become a trend or a viable model for giving? Who exactly is the audience? Perhaps Paul Buchheit’s experiment will help us begin to understand the answers to those questions, but many more experiments will be needed to label this a success.

And one thing is certain — philanthropy will need to master technology in order to get the most benefit out of this, and most other, field trends.

Good Examples of How Philanthropy Can Use Crowdsourcing