Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Stanford University Give Smart presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Stanford University Give Smart presentation

1,783

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,783
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • I ’ m Alexander, I ’ m Aaron, and I ’ m Alex, and we ’ re coming to you from Stanford with a suggestion for how to bring together best intentions, bright ideas, and big bucks to produce an innovative market for money and ideas we call GiveSmart
  • We face a major problem. Non-profit markets are not efficient. Here ’ s why. In any economy there are a few influential savvy players who are smart and invest in the most effective institutions. These people stand out from the naive masses who make less prudent investments. In the for-profit market, Smart investors grow in influence, controlling more money over time, because wiser investments yield larger returns and naïve investors entrust their money to reputable investors (hoping to get a return) So the most effective institutions get the most capital and can do the best work However, in the nonprofit space, investor influence is uncorrelated with investor intelligence, because giving is a one way street (i.e., investment in both effective and ineffective institutions yields zero monetary return) and naïve investors do their own (naïve) investing So most of the capital doesn ’ t get to the most effective nonprofits If we fill in these missing links, we can create an efficient social capital market, in which savvy social investors direct money to the most effective nonprofits... Another thing missing is that in the for-profit market, customers both receive the goods and services and pay the providers (causing the best institutions to make money directly), while in the nonprofit space, the receivers just receive while the donors pay so that doesn ’ t necessarily happen. We could mention this, but perhaps we shouldn ’ t since it ’ s not a problem we really intend to solve.
  • Our proposed solution to this problem is to put money in the hands of more effective social investors by leveraging three key conceptual innovations in the areas of fundraising data aggregation ¿motivation? by harnessing impulsive, emotional altruism and channeling it toward effective institutions leveraging human dialogue and advanced algorithms to find draw critical insights from diverse groups incentivizing the giving of both money and good advice by exploiting people ’ s natural tendencies to collaborate, to compete, and to try to ‘ win ’
  • Problem: almost all people give impulsively and emotionally Naive solution: tell everyone to change Issue with that: that ’ s unrealistic The twist (the good news): that ’ s also unnecessary, most people in the for-profit market are neither intelligent nor informed but nonetheless the system is efficient Our solution: separate problems and solutions; people ’ s behavior stays the same but it ’ s no longer problematic We ’ ve all seen the TV ad, or the billboard, or the link in a chain email to a YouTube video with a sombre,violin sound track. “ Do you want to help him? Then give to us. ” Such campaigns tightly couple a cause with an organization, a problem with a potential solution. Viewers are made to feel that if they don ’ t donate to the organization, then they don ’ t care about the people the organization aims to help. But that ’ s simply untrue. The organization who made the ad might be just one of many working on that problem. And it may be one of the least effective at addressing it. As good as they may be, they ’ d likely be better if they could spend the cost of the ad on their programs (but this would only be feasible if efficacy were rewarded with increased fundraising power). The trouble is that other (possibly better) organizations are not visible to the potential donor. There are other markets in which advertisements pair problems and solutions. Consider the ad: “ Do you have trouble sleeping? Then buy our mattress. ” or “ buy or sleeping pills. ” The difference is that in these cases, while some customers might blindly accept the problem-solution link, others do research. They go to Google, Amazon, wikipedia, and compare competing companies that make mattresses or soporifics. They pick the one which gives the most value for their money.
  • How could we get people to do the same thing for nonprofits? People have tried simply telling donors to change, admonishing, “ don ’ t donate before you ’ ve done research. ” The hope is that they ’ ll do research, then donate. In actuality, if they listen at all, they think, “ I haven ’ t done research (because I don ’ t have time), so I guess I shouldn ’ t donate. ” Others try to make life easier for donors but offering recommendations for particular organizations. The trouble here is that people don ’ t feel like they have autonomy in picking causes. For example, GiveWell recommends only a single organization dedicated to the cause of improving education internationally and it caters solely to India. If someone decides they want to support education in Africa or South America, they ’ re out of luck. <> So we ’ re going to try something new. We say to potential donors, “ You know better than anyone which problems you care about. But others might know better which organizations can solve those problems best. What if you could give to solve a problem, with assurance that the best and brightest researchers will direct your money to the nonprofits which can solve the problem most effectively? ” We decouple problems and potential solutions. That way, rather than hoping to supplant emotional altruism with rational research, we utilize both; each does what it does best. Rather than telling people to deny their emotional, altruistic instincts, we accept and exploit those tendencies, inviting users to give from the heart. We simply channel the money into a pool for a cause rather than for a particular organization. The question is reframed: “ do you care about this little boy? Then give to whoever can help him most effectively. ” You don ’ t need any research, knowledge, or even intelligence to make this choice. Just sympathy and money. Rationality is required for the follow-up question: who can help most effectively? By decoupling organizations from the causes they work toward, we present users with separate choices: (1) do you care about this issue? (2) which organization is best suited to addressing it? Different sorts of people can address the different questions. People who care about causes or have money contribute funding and pick problems. People who care about efficacy or have time contribute research and select solutions. Thus we don ’ t have to ask the impossible: that everyone who wants to donate do their own research. We just draw on people with different resources and get the best of both worlds: hearts + smarts.
  • Problem: tons of charities; hard to figure out which are good Naive solution #1: crowd source Issue with that: lots of charities reviewed, reviews are lousy Naive solution #2: ask the capital-E Experts Issue with that: not enough of them to cover the space The twist (the good news): while few people can recognize effective charities, most people can recognize insightful people one thousand of the savvyest researchers could find the best charities among the million, but who will identify those thousand amid the million? the critical insight: while few people can recognize effective charities, most people can recognize insightful comments thousand experts + dialogue = a million conversations
  • ?
  • Mention: of course, below these emotional and graphical appeals we have a section for intense intellectual analysis of the nominated nonprofits The initiator and any visitors will naturally be able to invite others to donate through FB, email, etc.
  • Putting more money under the control of effective social investors A web platform that harnesses cutting-edge game mechanics to identify effective social investors and give them more control over the distribution of funding Similar to traditional online giving challenges, except that users are strongly encouraged to comment and evaluate each other ’ s comments Positively reviewed commenters receive progressively more weight in both their evaluation of other comments and in their votes for the eventual winners This ensures that the most effective nonprofits—not just the ones with the most friends—receive funding Users donate to a specific issue challenge because it gives them incredible leverage, in the form of more voice in the eventual distribution of funds and assurance that a challenge they care about “ tips. ” With a $50 contribution, you could make a $5,000 challenge meet its goal and go live. That ’ s effectively a 99x match for each individual donation.
  • A user starts a challenge Example: “ $5,000 for the Best Youth Organization in Atlanta ” The initiator offers , say, $500, provided that other users will contribute $4,500 writes a catchy, evocative profile for the challenge and invites friends and relevant nonprofits Others agree to contribute provided the goal is reached (like Kickstarter or Groupon ) Adding to a challenge earns them karma points (which translate to more votes when the challenge goes live) and feels highly leveraged : “ my $50 can direct $5,000 to great charities by tipping a challenge ” The challenge goes live: votes, reviews, and karma accumulate Nonprofits join and solicit their contacts for votes Users come to the site for the first time to vote for their favorite nonprofits and stay to read, write, and evaluate comments , contributing to the karma system Some users add money to the challenge, which earns them extra karma A ranking of nonprofits by effectiveness emerges The best comments are promoted The challenge closes and funding is distributed Votes are weighted by the users ’ karma and the amount of money contributed GiveSmart distributes the challenge ’ s pot proportionally among the top 5 vote-recipients
  • (Users leave comments with original research, links to relevant information, opinions & evaluations, comparisons to other nonprofits. Other users rate their comments, and they have a numeric/star/logo reputation that rewards more frequent valuable contributions. A panel shows which challenges the nonprofit is currently competing in.) though they may arrive at the site in response to a chain email request issued by a particular nonprofit, users will be exposed to top-ranked competitors before they can offer a naïve vote or donation though this contributor ’ s one-star rating represents a minority view, it bears extra weight due to the high karma she ’ s gained by getting many “ thumbs up ” votes on her thoughtful comments the site will detect references to other nonprofits and users, and replicate posts on the relevant pages to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake, users will be encouraged to visit sites with few comments and ratings users can donate directly to a nonprofit. this feature will encourage nonprofits to sign up. do we need this? Will the prospect of winning be enough? Perhaps nix it. However, before users can donate to a less-effective non profit, they ’ ll see it ’ s rating compared to it ’ s competitors. That is likely to dissuade bad investment. This sample is simplified. A real page would feature a less linear comment board with multiple threads. In addition to general comments from users, there ’ d be a forum for users to ask questions of the nonprofit which it could answer (e.g. “ why do only 75¢ per dollar go toward actual mosquito nets and deliveries, ” “ because we invest the other 25¢ in researching which communities need them. Our competitors which claim to be more efficient have made deliveries to villages which already have nets or which don ’ t have malaria-carrying mosquitos. See this evidence.) and another space for the nonprofit to seek community input (e.g. We ’ re thinking of expanding to Gugulethu township. Any tips? ” )
  • bowling pins Facebook style Start small. Say, on one college campus. Get people talking about it with their friends. Match small challenges. Spread slowly. Build user base and reputation, then expand to a new community. Partner with Philanthropedia and Great Nonprofits. Populate the site with their reviews to ensure that it is helpful to users at launch time. big bang Apple style Go big. Find a large partner and announce a million dollar challenge. Continue to provide some (gradually declining) matching funds for new challenges. Transition slowly to challenges funded solely by individuals, as described earlier. corporations (as in the Pepsi Refresh model) Charge hosting fees for branded challenges at the intersection of traditional advertising and corporate social responsibility foundations (as in America ’ s Giving Challenge model) Charge hosting fees for challenges created by community foundations or small family foundations Give the foundations final say on the distribution of funds among the top 5 organizations individuals (as in the Kiva model) Solicit micro-donations from individuals when they contribute to a challenge
  • bowling pins Facebook style Start small. Say, on one college campus. Get people talking about it with their friends. Match small challenges. Spread slowly. Build user base and reputation, then expand to a new community. Partner with Philanthropedia and Great Nonprofits. Populate the site with their reviews to ensure that it is helpful to users at launch time. big bang Apple style Go big. Find a large partner and announce a million dollar challenge. Continue to provide some (gradually declining) matching funds for new challenges. Transition slowly to challenges funded solely by individuals, as described earlier. corporations (as in the Pepsi Refresh model) Charge hosting fees for branded challenges at the intersection of traditional advertising and corporate social responsibility foundations (as in America ’ s Giving Challenge model) Charge hosting fees for challenges created by community foundations or small family foundations Give the foundations final say on the distribution of funds among the top 5 organizations individuals (as in the Kiva model) Solicit micro-donations from individuals when they contribute to a challenge
  • Transcript

    • 1. we want your two cents [ ] Alexander Berger, Aaron Kalb, Alex Romanczuk Stanford University Smart Crowd Philanthropy + + = best intentions big bucks bright ideas Alexander Berger, Aaron Kalb, Alex Romanczuk Stanford University give mart
    • 2. the big problem the market why nonprofit markets are not efficient In the for-profit market... However, in the nonprofit space... a few influential, savvy investors masses of naïve investors effective institutions ineffective institutions
    • 3. I 3 conceptual innovations II III decoupling the decision to give from the choice of a specific charity to give to decoupling the decision to give from the decision of which org. to give to Money decoupling identifying the most effective nonprofits using algorithmically weighted votes and dialogue motivating financial and intellectual contribution using principles of behavioral economics
    • 4. a problem Do you want to help him? Save-A-Life Initiative S A LI LifeSavers Then give to us . We spend our money on our cause and on self-assessment, rather than on advertising, but we ’re actually orders of magnitude more effective according to every metric. Could you please give to us, inste... Hello? Hello? Can you hear us?
    • 5. our solution People who care about causes or have money contribute funding and pick problems People who care about efficacy or have time contribute research and select solutions Whether you have millions of dollars or just common sense decoupling problems and possible solutions combining emotional altruism with rational research conceptual innovation : 1 + we want your two cents Whether you have millions of dollars or just common sense,
    • 6. a problem Problem: crowdsource (GreatNonprofits/Pepsi Refresh): gets breadth/coverage + involvement experts (GiveWell): harnessing ‘ smart crowds ’ to find the most effective nonprofits conceptual innovation : 2 our solution coverage insight from experts from crowds
    • 7. how it works draws inspiration from Google ’ s PageRank algorithm and Amazon ’ s ‘ top reviewer ’ system apportions influence according to intelligence, insightfulness, and involvement unites the power & coverage of crowd-sourcing with the quality of expert recommendations our system
    • 8. leveraging human instincts with ‘ game mechanics ’ and social pressures a problem motivating financial and intellectual contribution using principles of behavioral economics motivating contribution leveraging the innate human desires to win, to complete, to compete, and to collaborate conceptual innovation : 3 our solution
    • 9. <ul><li>[ Graphic depicting a schematic Cause page ] </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[Emotional appeal:] A million kids like Tuktuk die every day from treatable illness. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[Tipping, subgoals:] User123, your donation of just $X could help this challenge reach its current goal of $Y and stay on track to send $Z to save kids like Tuktuk . We ’ re almost there! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(If we can ’ t raise the money to make a difference, you get your money back) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do you know which organization could best solve this problem? Comment and vote! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>[ Graphic depicting a schematic user page with stats (cf. Level 60 Dwarven warrior with Sword of Awesomeness and record kill count) ] </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Insightful commenter gets lots of points; competes with his/her rival for karma, while engaging in discussions that benefit everyone </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In addition to karma, the most thoughtful contributors are depicted covered in naked women (Axe-Effect style) </li></ul></ul>If you donate just $50 , We (the GiveSmart community) will match your donation 99x (or you get your money back)! Problem: smaller donations get bigger matches how it works ideally as motivating as desire-for-profit We ’ re almost there! Help us stay on track. $1000 DONATE This is Kwabena. You can save him. In Burkina Faso, over a thousand children like Kwabena every year from malaria alone. Relatively cheap medical supplies—which westerners take for granted—can prevent the mosquito bites which cause malaria or treat the resulting illness. motivating donation Alexis motivating participation charitable champion COMMENTS DONATIONS 3 Member since 01/14/2012 Initiated 4 challenges Raised $150,000 Count: 2,013 Quality 95% Total $ 5,117 Seed $ 600 Early $ 1,340 Goal $ 20,000 Raised $ 5,500 Target $ 6,500
    • 10. <ul><ul><li>: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Insight engine: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Page-rank style weighting of contributors ’ votes and ratings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>dialog </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Incentives: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Tipping point ’ graphics to incentivize giving </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Karma and kudos to incentivize thoughtful commenting </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Putting the pieces together </li></ul></ul>putting the pieces together our innovations actualized <ul><li>Our actual solution. It ’ s a website. It has these features (instantiations of the conceptual innovations): </li></ul>1 Decoupling <ul><ul><li>Donations to causes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ratings for nonprofits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Votes in competitions </li></ul></ul>2 Smart Crowds <ul><ul><li>Comment boards w/ active dialogue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Page-rank style weighting of votes, ratings, comments </li></ul></ul>3 Motivation <ul><ul><li>‘ Tipping ’ mechanics, graphically illustrated </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User scoreboards (reflecting actual influence) </li></ul></ul>
    • 11. Comparison to ‘ Competitors ’ <ul><li>[ Chart ] </li></ul><ul><li>note: many ‘ competitors ’ will hopefully become contributors </li></ul>* by Alexa pageviews (except for United Way) ** money moved benefits The Competitive Landscape GiveSmart CN 1.0 CN 2.0 GuideStar PP GreatNonprofits GlobalGiving Jumo Pepsi Refresh GiveWell United Way Maybe a DAF? Quality of Recommendations 3 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 1 4 2 Organizations reviewed 3 3 3 3 2 3 0 2 3 1 2 Drawing a Crowd (by Alexa pageviews, except for UW) 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 Something for everyone (i.e. breadth of causes covered) 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 2 1 3 Draws donations (Money moved) 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 4 Dialogue Relies on Social Networks Organization, rather than project funding Constituency Voice Give Smart GiveWell Great Nonprofits GuideStar+ P-pedia Global Giving Jumo Pepsi Refresh Charity Nav 2.0 United Way Promotes Dialogue Recommendation Quality Organizations reviewed Draws a Crowd* Draws Donations**
    • 12. <ul><li>A user starts a challenge builds foundation with money, blurb, and invitations </li></ul><ul><li>Others agree to contribute provided the goal is reached social incentives supplement good will </li></ul><ul><li>The challenge goes live votes, reviews, and karma accumulate </li></ul><ul><li>The challenge closes and funding is distributed weighted votes are tallied </li></ul>Users come to the site for the first time, vote for their favorite nonprofits. Votes on the distribution of funding are weighted by the user's reputation and the amount of $ contributed to the challenge. Explain the basic rules of challenges, how they work, how money is distributed at the end, how they can be topped up, kickstarted, etc. division of winnings by votes (proportional amongst top 5) Challenge screenshot the dynamics I II III IV
    • 13. Nonprofit Screenshot Users leave comments with original research, links to relevant information, opinions & evaluations, comparisons to other nonprofits. Other users rate their comments, and they have a numeric/star/logo reputation that rewards more frequent valuable contributions.  comment quality comment quality comment quality comment quality comment quality REPLY REPLY REPLY REPLY POST Comment Board Type your comment here give your two cents, User123! This organization saves lives. It should win all the challenges. Yes, this charidy is DA BOMB!!1 While certainly well-intentioned, LifeSavers was shown in this study to be incredibly ineffective. The Save-A-Life Initiative targets the same population but yields far better results, according to expert research . esteemed contributor Thanks for referencing those great studies! I ’ ll vote for The Save-A-Life Initiative , instead. My friend told me this was a wonderful group doing great work. LifeSavers We save lives by utilizing good intentions. more > DONATE newcomer nonprofits in this domain 7 Billion Futures more > Top-rated nonprofits in this domain The Save-A-Life Initiative S A LI Longevity Seekers more > Currently competing in Stop Malaria Challenge $50,000 VOTE for LifeSavers Eligible for Save Senegal $100,000 NOMINATE LifeSavers — Expert “ ” While certainly well intentioned, LifeSavers was shown in this study to be incredibly ineffective
    • 14. implementation 3 possible approaches Two phase approach: 1. Bowling pin (Facebook style)      Start small in one place, get people talking about it there with their friends. Match a few small challenges to start, building users and reputation as it goes along. 2. Big bang (Apple style)      Have a big announcement with a million dollars all at once, then some slight subsidy as people begin their own challenges, then self sustaining Partnering with Philanthropedia and Great Nonprofits to solve the chicken and egg problem. Rollout / How to get people to use it the roll-out attracting users bowling pins Facebook style big bang Apple style build upon Square style I II III build up
    • 15. corporations Pepsi Refresh style foundations America ’ s Giving Challenge style individuals Kiva style implementation 3 sources of revenue I II Two phase approach: 1. Bowling pin (Facebook style)      Start small in one place, get people talking about it there with their friends. Match a few small challenges to start, building users and reputation as it goes along. 2. Big bang (Apple style)      Have a big announcement with a million dollars all at once, then some slight subsidy as people begin their own challenges, then self sustaining Partnering with Philanthropedia and Great Nonprofits to solve the chicken and egg problem. Rollout / How to get people to use it stayin ’ alive III

    ×