Does “philanthropy” need a re-brand? The question is one that keeps rearing its head, and earlier this week while participating in a conversation hosted by the One Percent Foundation [2], it really got me thinking. My instinctive reaction was to say “of course it does” Philanthropy is a stodgy term that needs to be rebranded kind of like civic engagement needs a good facelift – it just doesn’t seem to resonate with the rising generation of do-gooders. At the Case Foundation we often talk about how the present and the future of philanthropy is not a bunch of rich people writing checks, but it’s in the power of the five-dollar donor, just as much as it is the fifty-thousand dollar donor.
After all, the power of micro-donations is making each of us philanthropists -- and indvidual donors typically account for three fourths of charitable giving each year. Yet, still very few of us consider ourselves to be such – we don’t like that word or we don’t think it applies to what we’re doing. If you want to make philanthropy something that engages the next generation (or as Rosetta Thurman challenges, the NOW Generation [3]) while we’re still young, then philanthropy must be relevant to the way we live our lives. When you think about it, a philanthropist is simply someone who cares about a cause, and uses what they have to help. And now there are more ways than ever for people to exercise this power – be it texting, tweeting, or even embedding it into every day acts like buying products.
I just came across an interview that Sean Stannard Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy did for McKinsey’s new Learning For Social Impact Series [4]. Sean suggested (and I paraphrase) that in 1982 only 6% of people in the United States owned stock. Two decades later more than 50% of us do –and the same thing could very much hold true for philanthropy. Its becoming main stream, and if the culture of investing which has taken hold in the United States can take hold in philanthropy and become an everyday habit, then you’ll find more nonprofessionals becoming engaged in philanthropy. Sean’s broader point is that we need to put in place greater social impact assessments, and I certainly agree – but do we also need to bring the word philanthropy into the 21st century? Something to show we're not talking about our parents style of philanthropy (more significant dollars but later in life).
Ironically, just a few short years ago the world was inundated with philanthropic advisers – people tasked with helping the rich give away their money. When the recession hit suddenly philanthropic advisers were hit with a branding problem and according to Robert Frank in a recent Wall Street Journal post [5], “some philanthropy advisers started rebranding themselves as “generosity coaches,” making the whole business seem more a matter of good morals than big money.”
No matter what we call it - giving, generosity, philanthropy or something completely different -- it seems there is a gap in the communications efforts by nonprofits which causes a good portion of people who have the ability to give regularly, to give only during crisis situations.
So, what you do you think? Is philanthropy positioned in people’s minds as something that everyone can be part of, or just the elite?
Comments
Great discussion -- generation-next or generation-now should define your own terms when you match your contributions with your obvious passion. "Giving" is a simple word with a lot of power. What you do with your money doesn't have to be called "philanthropy" to make it count.
Of course $5 is an act of philanthropy! Any act of generosity - giving away your money for no personal gain. - is philanthropy. I love the idea that anyone can be a philanthropist. And look what happened with cell phone donations and Haiti. Lots of $5 acts of philanthropy add up...
Seeing as I would love to be known as a "philanthropist" on my grave stone, I love the idea! I donate hundreds and some times thousands of dollars a year to various charities and also volunteer at some local non-profits, but I have never felt I was a philanthropist because of seeing how much some people donate. This gives me hope!!
You know what? As soon as it becomes easy and cool to give, it'll catch like wildfire. So whatever it takes to do that is where we should be headed...
Philanthropy should be for everyone. That has always been my modo. It stems from having a humanitarian efforts for those who are less fortunate. To someone you are rich no matter how poor you are or not as rich as you would like to be. The point is anyone can make a difference. $5 can help many who live off of 1 American Dollar for the week. I would know.
www.ourtriptoethiopia.blogspot.com [7]
Great discussion - the only thing I think we need to be cautious of with these $5 donation is retention. Sure, the $5 donor can be considered a philanthropist, and feel good about their contribution to a cause, but outside of a short term solution, a lot more is required, and there has been evidence that a good percentage of these $5 donors were never followed up with, perhaps giving them a sense of accomplishment, and no real drive to continue to invest in charitable causes.
Hi Kara,
Thanks for the post. I think that you've actually raised a few different issues here:
1) Is the $5 donor a philanthropist? (i.e. When should the word be used? Is it still applicable?)
I've always defined a philanthropist as someone who donates as part of a strategy. As a blog wrote, "don't just give, give smart." So this means that any amount, if given with thought, can count as philanthropy. Otherwise, its just charity. (Recommended reading is "Art of Giving" that describes a thought process that is just as relevant for the $5 as the $5 mil donor.)
Unfortunately, people only start to really think about their gift when its got a bunch of zeros at the end of the number, a.k.a. later in life -- but that doesn't have to be the case. Intentional charity (for lack of a better word) is important, regardless of the amount. The NOW generation (and all of us) need to understand this. It would take some marketing, but yes, the word can be just as applicable nowadays as in yesteryears.
2) "it seems there is a gap in the communications efforts by nonprofits which causes a good portion of people who have the ability to give regularly, to give only during crisis situations."
This is an entirely different point you've raised that I think has nothing to do with what word is used (I think you hint to this point at the beginning of the paragraph). But yes, people give more for a disaster. But don't even get me started on this...
You've started a good discussion. Looking forward to hearing more of your take.
- Shuey
@nonprofitbanker
Hello!
I work at IM Magazine, an online Magazine that Spreads the Best Things in the World for a Better World. IM Magazine has a platform that gathers blogs that are in tune with the magazine's spirit (http://immagazine.sapo.pt/en/blog// [8]). While surfing the internet I found your blog that I feel fits this spirit, so I invite you to sign in (here: http://immagazine.sapo.pt/en/blogs/ [9]) in order to become part of our BLOG PLATFORM.
Best wishes,
Ana Mina
IM Magazine
http://www.magazineim.com/ [10]
Philanthropy has been going on for years among a much maligned group in our society - Christians. My Father tithed (10% of his income) his whole life.
Most of the money didn't go to our local Lutheran church, but missions around the world, aimed at
Helping the poor. Not just preaching, but giving. Maybe we should start up holding our religious institutions, whatever the beliefs, for the good work their people do. This side of religion seems to be lost in our society.
Kari, I have not been able to get this question out of my mind since you've posted! I even asked all my friends this.
I think what it all comes down to is that people have varying connotations of the word "philanthropy" -- dependent on who you are, where you're FROM, and what your intentions are.
I've heard some people in the UK people that scoff at the word "charity" - I mean, what is up with that? To me, that seems crazy. But to them, it's just the way they think.
So I guess the question becomes "How do YOU define a philanthropist?" Thankfully, our answers, like you said, can evolve as we mature, evolve, advance in technology, etc. I want to write a follow up story on www.whatgives.com [11] -- there is so much to explore here! :)
Thanks for a great post Kari!
I wish you had a re-tweet button!
This is an very interesting question. Like your example of 50% of us own stock vs. 6% in 1982 you would not say to the smaller stockholders that they are not stockholders just because they own a small amount (but their rights in the company is relative to their stock holdings - small shared = small influence).
When we think of a philanthropist we tend to think of wealth people/groups donating large sums of money and I definitely see your point. And so it seems we have a similar paradigm happening here. Because if the proliferation of web technologies like paypal, etc. everyone can make a micro donation. (just like scottrade, etc made investing easy for the masses).
I would also venture to guess that the combined worldwide total of small philanthropy $ (even I gave a few hundred $ to a cause this year) would be greater than the total of large donations $5000+ so micro donations would definitely be considered in the worldwide philanthropy total stats.
This would be an excellent question to post on http://collaborate.placeforpeople.com [12] and see what additional folks have to say! (would you mind if I posted?)
Looking forward to more thought provoking posts.
Devin Day
PlaceForPeople
http://www.placeforpeople.com/ [13]
http://www.twitter.com/placeforpeople [14]
Kari, totally agree that they need to be cultivated and educated just as much as anyone else. I see a $5 donor as an amazing opportunity for potential long term growth. There's no better time to educate an individual than when the issue is fresh and they've just broken the barrier and given that initial contribution.
I'm just wary of calling them a philanthropist before they take the next step and educate themselves on the cause beyond the typical guilt-driven advertising campaigns typically attached with text giving.
www.jesussaveorphan.org [15]
please do any help to 25 blind pastors and 150 poor pastors and church construction and orphans and hiv egg patients to asking help
may god bless you