Reputation and the Web

Skip the Latte, Save a Life

Do yourself a favor and pick up Peter Singer’s new book: The Life You Can Save. 

Singer outlines a disturbing paradox:  Each day over 27,000 children die around the world.  Another one billion people are living on less than $1 day. And just a few dollars could change a life and even save a life.  Yet, despite this suffering we don’t give.  Instead, we spend our extra dollars on lattes, bottled water, expensive jeans, luxury cars and other items.  As Singer notes: “We wouldn’t hesitate to save a drowning child, yet while thousands of children die each day we spend money on things we hardly notice if they were not there”.

In fact, Americans do give.  Last year over $300B were donated to charities, with individual giving far outweighing the dollars provided by foundations and corporations.  But, Singer is correct that we give relatively small amounts of foreign aid to help the world’s poor, with only 4.3% of all donations going to international aid. As Singer notes, the US is second to last among industrialized nations (only ahead of Greece) in giving foreign aid (as a percentage of National Income).

Why don’t we give more foreign aid?  Singer outlines a number of factors: Some of them are more obvious.  For instance, there is the issue of parochialism.  He notes how Americans gave $1.5B in support of the 220,000 people that lost their lives in the 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia, and yet donated $6.5B as part of the Katrina efforts which killed 1,600 people.  He also notes that people can have a sense of futility (i.e., the problem is too big to solve) or diffused sense of responsibility (i.e., someone else will solve the issue).

Perhaps most interesting is the “identifiable victim effect".  As Mother Theresa once said: “If I look at a mass I will never act.  If I look at one, I will”.  Singer provides a clear example of this effect in action when the country, in 1987, was riveted by the case of Jessica McClure, a 18 month old girl that fell into a dry well in Midland Texas.  During the 2.5 days it took to get here out, the intense drama and media coverage resulted in a million dollar plus trust fund for Jessica.  Yet, “elsewhere in the world, unnoticed by the media and not helped by the money donated to Jessica, about 67,650 died from avoidable poverty related causes during those 2.5 days”.

Now this is a complicated issue with additional nuance.  For instance, William Easterly often points out that much of our foreign aid does little good (i.e., corrupt foreign government officials will often siphon the money into their personal accounts, etc.).

The answers to this paradox are not readily clear and way beyond the scope of this post.  However, emerging platforms and charities might consider implementing a number of elements to help start a process by which American's skip the latte's and save more lives:

1) Make the impact of the donation clear through stories, pictures, and personal accounts. Kiva and DonorsChoose have shown that people are willing to give (and or lend) in small amounts.  Yet in those examples, the benefit and impact of my loan is quite clear.  I see who is getting the loan.  I can track progress.  I receive updates. However, it is not so clear the impact I am making with a small donation to the thousands of charities that support the eradication of poverty in the developing world.  What percentage of my money actually supports a program (versus administrative costs).  What specific impact did my dollars make?  Why am I going to donate money, even in small amounts, if it is not clear the impact I am making.  Charities need to find a way to provide their donors with this transparency, to the degree possible. 

2) Provide personal validation.  Why do so many people like to see a record of their giving?  Or wear a wristband from their charity of choice (i.e., Livestrong yellow wristband).  Because we like to tell the world that we care.

3) Support multiple channels of giving. We have moved beyond the era of cash, checks and credit cards.  Text to give programs (or Twitter to give) efficiently facilitate small donations. Programs like eScrip allow contributions to occur from purchases. New channels are quickly emerging.

4) Be transparent about how donations will be spent. Donors recognize that salaries and other support costs must be paid. Yet, they also want to know that 70%+ of the funds are going directly to support the programs that provide the specific goods and services. 

Other ideas?

Finding a Little Mojo Through Leadership

Watching Carol Bartz and her entry into the world of Yahoo! has been a statement in leadership.  As a shareholder I could only hope for the best when she arrived on the scene.  And like most observers (and former co-workers), her straight-forward (if not brash) style was a refreshing change from the malaise that had impacted Yahoo! since 2006.  Aside from her petty "stop-it" strikes at employees for sharing communication outside the company, the early indications seemed to suggest she would be positive force within Y!.

The momentum at Y! seems to be building.  Bartz is making clear decisions (i.e., going to perfect APT in US before launching globally), driving a strong focus on the user experience (i.e., removing ads from mail in some countries to improve user experience and salvage market share), identifying initiatives that must be stopped (i.e, creating a list of  embarrassing products), etc.

The economy is tanking, companies are crumbling and effective leadership is exactly what we need. While the field of "leadership" has many pundits and dignitaries, I thought local entrepreneur Frank Addante did a great job of outlining some principles that Bartz seems to agree with.  Speaking recently at the Startonomics conference, Frank shared his ideas in a talk titled A++ Teams that hit all the right themes in building the right team and company culture.  His points regarding trust, transparency, recognition, and communication have certainly been a big part of the successful companies I have been a part of (and absent in the ones that were not).

Now, I can only hope Bartz's leadership will now translate into a higher stock price :-)

The Wonder of LA

What a great picture in today's LA Times.  Only after the winter rains (and snow) can you see this great view (from the beaches to the snow covered mountains).

Doing Well and Doing Good

Edward Glaser's editorial in the NY TImes (Can Businesses Do Well and Do Good?) was certainly timely in light of our Series B funding announcement this morning.  While Glaser agrees with Milton Friedman's assertion that "traditional corporations have one overriding moral obligation — to fulfill their fiduciary duties and maximize shareholder wealth", he also holds out some hope that innovation in organizational models can in fact lead to broader social impact. 

Innovation and social impact are precisely what we are after at SocialVibe.  Through the innovation in our technology and business model we hope to provide brands and our network partners a unique and valuable means to engage with people.  And for our members we hope to provide them the means to create benefit, for themselves and the causes they support, through the content they create and the relationships they manage.

Our story is really just starting to be told.  Yes, we have helped brands like Kraft, Coca Cola and Sprint to reach and build a base of fans.  And yes, we have contributed over $200,000 to meaningful charities, all the result of our member's influence online.  Yet, we imagine a world where SocialVibe is at the nexus of a movement where brands, people and networks are working together for a complementary set of benefits that create meaningful social change.  Is our mission aspirational and hopeful? Absolutely.  Yet, with investment from JAFCO Ventures and Redpoint, we operate with Friedman in our mind.  Perhaps, we are the type of organization that Edward Glaser imagines, one that can do well and do good.

(Picture below of our Product and Technology team showing some SocialVibe spirit)

Avoiding the False Negatives

Over the weekend I had the chance to listen to Jim Armstrong, of Clearstone Venture Partners, talk with Frank Peters on his angel / venture capital show.  Jim, one of the good guys in the Southern California VC community,  touches on the challenges for venture firms in raising capital and his interest in companies that focus on pushing content out, and not driving eyeballs in. 

Most interesting was his comment that "you can afford to have a false positive; you can afford to invest in things and fail, but because the big ones are so rare, you cannot afford a false negative. You cannot afford to be looking the wrong way."

While running a venture firm is primarily a strategic game (placing the bets) and running a company is more of an operating game (executing against the plan), this concept of avoiding the false negatives applies in our day to day lives.  Misfiring on an employee is manageable.  Yet, not hiring a superstar is far more painful.  Closing a partnership that ultimately fails is acceptable.  Not closing the deal with the next Tier A network is not. This is especially true when money and time are tight.

The challenge of course is having the initiative, intuition and experience to make these decisions.  As is eliminating waste with too many false positives.

Surfing for Good

Some nice pre-xmas news from Body Glove today as they took it upon themselves to do a nice release about their relationship with SocialVibe. 

"23 December, 2008 : - - Redondo Beach, Ca -- Body Glove and SocialVibe have joined forces to help out YOUR favorite charity. By creating a profile with SocialVibe, picking your favorite charity and using Body Glove as a sponsor, Body Glove will help raise money for your favorite cause."

Posted via email from willanj's posterous

SocialVibe is a Game Changer

Pretty cool news today that SocialVibe was one of the select winners of the inaugural We Media Game Changer awards. The awards "recognize people, projects, ideas and organizations leading change and inspiring a better world through media".  We will take it.  Other announced award winners were Twitter, Innocentive, and David Plouffe (from the Obama Campaign). Check it out here.

Posted via email from willanj's posterous

The Bailout

We all see the writing on the wall.  The Big 3 American automakers are going to get a short term bailout to keep their companies running after 30+ years of dismal performance and management.  And at this time, with the economy in its current state, it is probably the right thing to do.

Yet, I hope the government can act like Venture firms do when faced with a struggling company.  Objectives are set and leadership is often changed.  In this regards I thought Thomas Friedman had an excellent article in today's NY Times.  He succinctly points out that if we are going to leave the next generation with a pile of debt, we might as well make sure the money is spent appropriately.

You want my tax dollars? Then I want to see the precise production plans and timetables for the hybridization of all your cars and trucks within 36 months. I want every bailed-out car company to move to hybrid electric drive trains, because nothing would both improve mileage and emissions more — and also stimulate a whole new 21st-century, job-creating industry: batteries.

Big batteries that can store electricity for transportation and wind and solar generation are the indispensable enablers of the Energy Internet of the future. Any Detroit bailout has to serve that goal.

A major electrification of drive trains in U.S.-made vehicles “would induce explosive growth and investment in a domestic battery business,” said Karsner. Europe, Japan and China are already dominating this industry. It’s the key to clean-tech — and ultimately our national competitiveness. We can’t allow ourselves to be battery importers in the 21st century the way we were oil importers in the 20th.

Moving!

Our time on Sunset Blvd has ended.  25+ people in 1,500 square feet had become ridiculously inefficient so we have moved on down to the Pacific Design Center.  We will miss the great views, the local Subway (eatery) and the occasional walk down to Sunset Plaza.  We will certainly not miss the crappy building telco, exorbitant parking expense and the cramped quarters. 

Working through a new lease in these economic times is an interesting exercise.
 - Landlords in the prime area are trying to keep lease rates up (even in the spite of declining vacancy).
 - Lots of lower cost space on mid-Wilshire, but that whole area feels sapped of energy.
 - We talked to multiple landlords, and in each case they were amazingly slow to respond and close the deal (one would think otherwise in this environment).

Anyway, the best part of the move was the way the team responded.  We elected to save some money and move ourselves.  Everyone chipped in, and things went amazingly well.  Over the course of 24 hours we had packed, moved out and in, built 30 new desks, and wired the new building. 

The good news.  We are in the new building.  The bad news - we are in a temporary space (on a different floor) until our permanent office opens up in February.  So we will soon be moving again.

Images below of our move and the "budget" approach we took.

Finding the Opportunity in the Midst of Ugliness

The parallels between the presidential elections and the technology related blogosphere are becoming more clear.  People are turning negative and attacks are getting nastier.  We seem more interested in the failure of someone else rather than the opportunity ahead.  Examples are abound in the blogosphere.  Techcrunch has launched the layoff tracker.  Sequoia and other venture firms are calling in the mortuaries.

Fortunately a few folks are trying to move the discussion in a more constructive direction. Brad Feld led it off several weeks ago: My recommendation to all of you entrepreneurs out there is to get off the negative sentiment treadmill, step up, and lead. Fred Wilson soon followed with a balanced point of view, as did Rick Segal. These guys understand times are difficult, that jobs may be lost and that some companies will fail.  Yet they also recognize it is not time to jump on the losers...but rather determine the best way to venture forward and take advantage of the the opportunities that exist.

This got me thinking back to the early days at GoTo.com (Overture).  I joined this advertising start-up in the spring of 2000, just as the last meltdown was picking up steam.  GoTo was not immune.  In early 2001 we had to eliminate several offices and shut down a couple of business lines (including auctions and comparison shopping).  Yet the point was to not give up, but rather to focus.  The result - during the last crisis we drove gross revenue from $90M to over $1B.

That's right, this was accomplished during the last advertising meltdown.  GoTo's success was certainly not based on desire alone. The performance based advertising business model was a primary driver as was the bidded marketplace.  Strong capitalization was also a factor, as was our trademark victory over Disney.

Once again, I have to agree with Jason Calacanis in summing up today's environment; times are tough, but there are opportunities. And one of the biggest opportunities lies in online advertising - measurable advertising.  Yet this time, rather than focusing on the direct marketing budget, let's tackle the bigger opportunity - brand budgets.