Embedded Philanthropy Blog Series, Sponsored by Telecom for Charity

Comment

Comment by Christine Egger on September 13, 2009 at 9:59am

Just caught this today -- an August 19th spot on NPR, featuring Lucy Bernholz, asking the question on the effectiveness and impact of embedded giving. One woman quoted feels annoyed that she's continually asked for donations to one cause or another at the check-out counter, but it seems to me that's her "guilt talking" -- if you felt comfortable that you were giving what you can to causes that matter to you, why would you feel annoyed at being asked to support something that matters to the people around you?

http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2009/08/npr-interview-on-embedded-giving.html

Comment by Christine Egger on June 1, 2009 at 1:41pm

Well, the further into this series we go the more I have to think about... Tom Watson, of CauseWired fame, posted a blog that draws attention to, well, the attention that these causes receive and how that attention may be the most important effect of these campaigns

http://causewired.com/2009/05/29/when-embedded-philanthropy-works-hint-its-all-in-the-story-telling

After reading Tom's and Lucy's posts, I'm trying really hard to peer into a crystal ball... lets say embedded philanthropy becomes the norm... we're surprised to purchase something without the add-$2-for-this-nonprofit, or (RED)-type brand/cause attachment... Hmm, in and of itself I see no other big changes that have to come with that, no required shift in empathy, no society-wide distribution of resources that eliminates the kinds of suffering that dissipate when basic needs are being met.

But let's return in this thought-experiment to a world before embedded philanthropy became even so mainstream it had its own blog series dedicated to it. I buy a shirt-tv-phone-dinner-etc. without a reminder that someone is in need of something, and that they would benefit from my sharing my money, political power, attention with them...

Nope, don't want to return to that world. The jury may be out on whether embedded philanthropy is a good thing -- and Holden' critique above on its design, that it's inconsistent with the changes-in-behavior we wish to see, is an important one -- but I'd rather be invited to support a cause at a point-of-purchase and deal with the consquences of saying yes or no than not receive those invitations at all. Lucky for me, as Lucy says, these invitations are hear to stay. At least until they become so commonplace that the fad is reversed and we're all surprised (relieved?) to be able to buy something without having to think of someone else for a change.

Comment by Christine Egger on June 1, 2009 at 11:37am

Lucy Bernholz of Philanthropy 2173 has been blogging about embedded philanthropy since 2007 (she's widely credited for coining the phrase "embedded giving"). Her contribution to this series draws attention to how widespread adoption of embedded philanthropy practices could shift our expectations as consumers. It's already an indicator of the "blurring of sectors and roles between commerce, philanthropy, and public good."

"If this is where we're headed, embedded giving is not the story, or even the end in and of itself, it is simply one more way in which we can see the world shift around us."

http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2009/05/final-word-on-embedded-giving.html

Comment by Christine Egger on June 1, 2009 at 10:36am

Jason Dick, on his A Small Change Fund blog, writes: "I think embedded philanthropy is the first sign of a new wave of philanthropy. The second sign starts when we, the little people, realize we can make a difference." This fits neatly between Sean's observation of embedded philanthropy as an early indicator, and Kari's post that places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of consumers to make sure these philanthropic opportunities are actually contributing to something good. Holden would argue this simply isn't possible -- there's a design flaw here, which when matched with human behavior stacks the deck against it. I'm more inclined to agree with Jason -- that this is a concern, but not insurmountable. What do you think?

http://www.asmallchange.net/embedded-philanthropy-a-new-age-of-giving

Comment by Christine Egger on May 28, 2009 at 4:38pm

Holden Karnovsky, on GiveWell.net, chimes in with the strongest language yet on why consumers should pass on these kinds of philanthropic opportunities. Check out the post and a linked earlier post (especially the comments) for an in-depth discussion on a consumer-centric critique:

http://blog.givewell.net/?p=387

Comment by Christine Egger on May 27, 2009 at 12:20pm

Sharon Schneider's post, on her Philanthropic Family blog, got me thinking too. This time, about how to encouraging corporations and nonprofits to make the very best use of embedded philanthropy methods:

http://thephilanthropicfamily.com/2009/05/26/best-practices-for-embedded-philanthropy/

Comment by Christine Egger on May 26, 2009 at 10:50am

Kari Dunn Saratovsky's post got me thinking about just what it's going to take for consumers (like me) to start asking for more information, more control, more participation in the giving-opportunities corporations are creating. Left a long comment there..

http://www.socialcitizens.org/blog/embedded-philanthropy-when-will-it-really-add

Comment by Christine Egger on May 20, 2009 at 11:38am

Sean Stannard-Stockton just chimed in on his Tactical Philanthropy blog:

http://tacticalphilanthropy.com/2009/05/embedded-philanthropy-does-it-matter

"I just don’t think embedded giving is particularly important.... However, it may be that embedded giving actually is tapping into the non-rational, behavioral characteristics of how humans make choices.... For now, I have to say that I see embedded giving as an indicator that Americans have an increasing interest in philanthropy rather than as a driving force of that interest."

Sean's post makes me think about my own choice to use a credit card that gives a percentage of my charges to a nonprofit. He's right, makes me feel good (that self-image thing), and I wonder if subconsciously I give less elsewhere than I otherwise would, because I feel I'm "doing something good" in this way. Hmmm. I like to think that's not the case, and when I consider changing credit cards it seems too weird to think of using one that *doesn't* give $$ to a nonprofit...

Comment by Christine Egger on May 19, 2009 at 5:04pm

Nathaniel Whittemore's contribution to the blog series just appeared:

http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/blog/view/embedded_philanthropy_url_shorteners_for_good_and_maximizing_meaning

I agree with him, that "in some ways, it's like moving a piece of corporate social responsibility to the user side, and making it a part of the commercial relationship between the company and its client."