…"Dinosaur philanthropy" is still where’s it’s at and shouldn’t be ignored.
Those with the gold are old and have barely mastered e-mail. Did you see the tweet with average user age for various social media sites?
Influence may matter on a macro scale but in communities like mine where easily $50M is given a year they have never heard of social media, venture philanthropy or tactical philanthropy.
My post yesterday wasn’t really about social media. It was about influence in philanthropy and how social media allows influence to scale in unprecedented ways. Renata is right. Much of the money being given in philanthropy is being given by people who do not use social media tools. But that misses my point.
In philanthropy, all you have to do to achieve impact is to influence where money is given. This isn’t true in the for-profit market, where only the money you put to work personally accrues returns that benefit you.
For instance, last December I made a $1,000 donation to FORGE. But after reading my rationale, a foundation made a $50,000 grant to the organization. Let’s assume that those grants resulted in positive impact. All of the “return” benefits the public at large. Therefore, it is not only the impact of my $1,000 grant that is meaningful to me. Through sharing information, I helped generate additional impact via the follow on grant that was made at least partially based on the information I shared.
This is not about social media. This is a fundamental underpinning of philanthropy. This is why I constantly harp on transparency and information sharing. Since we all benefit from the impact achieved via philanthropy, we should do out best to assist other grantmakers make the best possible decisions. And that means sharing information with them.
That being said, social media tools are all about super low cost, incredibly easy, sharing of information. They are tools that are custom designed to revolutionize philanthropy and radically increase the total impact being achieved.