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