Tag: philanthropy

  • Higher Stakes

    The ‘cow slaughter ban’ bill that got passed in the Karnataka assembly sometime back, got a lot of people’s erm, goat, especially Mallus, for many of whom, paradoxically, its a ‘holy cow’ issue. But the phenomenal prospects of wordplay is not what got me thinking. Its the idea of something getting banned and the protests that follow.

    Take smoking, for example. I’m sure all the smokers would have been fuming at the bans that came out on various aspects of the product and its usage, but a lot of us feel that its a good thing for different reasons. Me, mostly because those lousy forwards with the much abused ‘kick the butt’ subject line, and horrible pictures, have stopped. I find that the majority of people I know support this ban, citing health reasons etc. But the beef ban, which (at least in a way) prevents killing of a life form, finds lesser supporters. Personally, I love beef, but as time passes, my feelings of guilt have also been strengthening, and its the case of a subjective like over ruling a ‘better for the cosmos’ thought. A sad rendition of  the “way to a man’s heart…. ” too. But I do wonder about a future when the majority would say that the beef ban is a good thing. A higher state of awareness?

    A few days back, I read Seth Godin’s post titled “Fear of Philanthropy“, where though his context is mostly to do with ’cause marketing’, he writes about knowing how much (of giving) is enough.  He paraphrases a question (attributed to Peter Singer) “Would you save a drowning girl even if it means ruining a pair of Italian shoes? If the answer is yes, why not use that money to save 20 kids starving to death at the other end of town/world?” Isn’t it the same? (I need to read up more on Singer, Practical Ethics, and the idea of “the greatest good of the greatest number”).  Godin points to proximity, attention and intent as factors that weigh in in our decision to ‘give’.

    Proximity and attention. I remember wondering in a post sometime back whether all this connectivity, instant communication and micro popularity would make us less compassionate and more inconsiderate. But then again, does this connectivity increase our proximity to issues and would it be negated by the lack of attention? Heh. Will it make us more conscious or will it cause to go even deeper into our own comfortable bubble?

    Intent. I saw Will Smith’s ‘Seven Pounds’ when it played on TV recently. The idea of a man donating different organs/parts of his body, after ensuring that the receiver is indeed worthy – ‘a good man/woman’ (“You’re a good man even when no one’s looking”). Commenting on the intent would spoil the viewing for you, but the point here is the time and patience taken to identify and verify the ‘goodness’. I’d have liked to do that too, but I’m afraid of what all it would entail. I convince myself that I don’t have the time. However, I can’t help but wonder optimistically whether one day, the collective consciousness would help take my awareness so high that my intent is made all the more stronger and then, everything else will cease to be a factor. But then I look in the mirror and say that I’m better off looking within myself, for its difficult to refute an oft asked question “I didn’t make it this way, why should I contribute to making it a better place, when I can buy my happiness in other ways?” As Godin says, its effective enough, sadly so.

    until next time, streamlined thoughts 🙂

    PS. meanwhile, if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, and have liked it, do officially ‘like’ it here 🙂

  • Cause and Effects

    Sometime back I’d written about the potential of the net, and especially the latest community version to do good to humanity. One of the startups that was presented at TC50 (had written about TC 50 in the last post) was CauseCast. Its aim is to bring ten non profit companies into the spotlight every month. How does it do this? By getting celebrities involved, and communicating about the companies through videos, events, and showcasing the activities it does. Every activity has its own celebrity who champions the cause. The causes are broadly divided into animals, arts, community, environment, health, human rights and youth. They also have contextual news for each category. For example, I saw a  news item on Army killings in Manipur under Human Rights. The best part is how it involves the user community. The user can make a portfolio of the causes he has donated for. Over a period of time the list would start reflecting the performance of the companies. The portfolio can also be publicised using a widget on the user’s blog, for example. 

    There are ways for brands to get involved in philanthropy too, in ways which make business sense. Philips has a wonderful program, referred to as ‘philanthropy by design’ which is aiming at social innovation, designing things that help bridge the gap between technology and people. In what’s a very long term vision, it tries to “provide people the means of generating the income necessary to pay for your products.” There’s an interesting Indian piece of this here, which explains how this designing is tied up with employment opportunites and micro financing. The ICICI effort is more than a month old, but is in context. ICICI tied up with an NGO named Dignity Foundation, and created a portal DignitySecondCareers.org, whose aim is to “provide the retirees a platform to explore opportunities that will enable them to continue to utilize their expertise and to encourage them to lead an active post-retirement life.” (via WATBlog).

    As the examples show, these initiatives may not be the cash cow projects in terms of revenue, but the effect it has on the social and human side of life, and the equity it can thereby create for the brand is immense. With some tweaking in the organisation’s mindset/perspective, it can gain tremendous long term benefits.

    Mashable has a good read on starting local support systems, and again, bridging the gap between the real world and social media.  Speaking of local causes, I happened to come across Rang De (via HeadStart), a non profit organisation that has set up a Peer to Peer (P2P) lending platform to connect the socially conscious with those who are financially disadvantaged. “Rang De’s mission is to make microcredit accessible to all by lowering interest rates by doing things differently.” I went through the site, and their model is win-win for both parties – the lender and the borrower. Yes, you would get better returns if you rode the sensex waves, but hey, if that’s the criterion, this endeavor is not for you. I think the concept, like Kiva, is amazing and begins to address India’s substantial need for micro credit very well.  The geographical spread is right now limited to Maharashtra and TN, but its quite scalable, I think (i already saw 3 towns about to be added).  I am going to try Rang De out very very soon, and shall update on my experience. Meanwhile, on an immediate basis, I’m playing the quiz, in this very cool effort – HelpBihar.in, by Quasar Media and Cadence to help those affected in Bihar. Go on, do your bit.

    A few days back, we (my wife and I) made what some might call a strange decision. We chose to go through Give India, rather than Helpage, both are non profit organisations operating in roughly the same space, though Helpage is more focused. The strangeness comes from the fact that Give india takes a percentage of the sum we give for covering its expenses, Helpage doesn’t mention that. The value it adds, and the reason we shifted loyalty was because it sends us a mail every month (or whenever you make a donation) giving us the details of exactly how and on whom the money was spent. While Helpage’s site is far better designed than Give India, the latter has a web 2.0 characteristic I value – transparency. I guess even when we save humanity, we have changed such that we need some accountability. 😐

    until next time, be human