Code, Camera, Action

1. “Empathy increases generosity. The pictures and stories on the Kiva site increase understanding between various parties that would otherwise operate in completely different universes.” That’s Matt Flannery, Kiva’s CEO and co-founder replying in his guest post on David Roodman’s blog.

2. “If you’re going to advertise yourself as giving choice to the donor, you’d better do it.” That’s Mike Everett-Lane, formerly of Donor’s Choose, commenting on tacticalphilanthropy.com.

3. Openness buys an organization benefit of the doubt. Even in his initial post, David Roodman acknowledged that statistics in plain view on Kiva’s own website caused him to question Kiva’s message. There was clearly no skulduggery involved.

4. Listening pays. Kiva responded to the criticism with action. It altered those marketing materials, and Matt Flannery responded quite graciously in a guest blog post. But before any of that, Kiva’s staff listened.

   That listening, and that response, ultimately drew praise from the critics. David Roodman summed it up:

   I think Flannery’s response to my criticism blended grace, humility, and quiet confidence. The world would be a much better place if all charities, all organizations for that matter, were as open and responsive to criticism as Kiva has been. I trust the Kiva folks will keep refining. I will visit them today.

For more Kiva conversations – a post on my blog, Code, Camera, Action, outlines the story. The comments in particular, summarize how Kiva resolved the issue. For more detail, see this list of excerpts from the Kiva debate or Tim Ogden’s post linking to the major blog debate.

 

My post on the Case Foundation blog this week sums up the debate over Kiva and person-to-person fundraising. Plus audio, for your pod-listening pleasure.

And since cause marketing is all about helping businesses support their favorite causes in ways that enhances customer loyalty and favorability, Foursquare could be a great fit with cause marketing in a lot of different ways. Both in how Foursquare currently works and how it might work with future updates.

Here’s how.

The “your money buys this” message isn’t going anywhere soon. If anything, what Kiva and Charity:Water and DonorsChoose have shown is that there’s a way to take this approach and adapt it to 21^st century tools – so that you can see an online photo of the microloan recipient or the well that was dug or the classroom that was helped — if not directly by your money, at least by that same amount of money as the amount you gave.  It’s interesting that making this association more visible and tangible is calling into question the veracity of these claims (no one’s writing about Heifer, right?), when in fact all Kiva et al are doing is strengthening a tried-and-true narrative.  The mechanics of gift -> organization -> recipient haven’t changed one bit.

If you think about it, it’s nearly impossible to change these mechanics and run an efficient, global nonprofit.  So why are we all acting so surprised?

How could we change these mechanics and still run an efficient, global nonprofit? Difficult does not mean impossible...

So the battle is Kiva’s spin on their operations and whether or not it is misleading. But the war is the illusion of person-to-person giving. This is a big deal. Kiva is a super successful organization, yet as everyone in the debate seems to agree, the best way for them to operate does not fit donors’ preconceived notions about what is best. Therefore promoting the fact that they use the best process will almost certainly lead to less social impact.

Sean Stannard-Stockton follows up on the Kiva loan/marketing story that we reported here: http://elstudio.us/kiva-is-not-quite-what-it-seems.

As a nonprofit, which would you choose -- giving donors the stories they want (despite the cost), or loaning most efficiently, despite the lost donations?