
<UPDATE>
Jen sent me her comment and I'm posting it above my advertising below.
Same for Dr. Geertz's comment.
</UPDATE>
I received a request to help Unicef raise some US$20,000 a while back. The fellow who sent me the request pinged some 1,000 people. I think I passed it on to probably another 250. Others on his list may have done the same.
Let's say conservatively that maybe 1,500 people got pinged. The fellow who pinged me included in his ping that if everybody he knew donated just US$20, Unicef's goal -- bringing fresh water to an African village -- would be met.
The end result?
US$2,591
US$2,591???
I looked at the donation list. Most of the people donating were donating upwards of US$25.
And still, the US$25,000 goal wasn't met???
Just so everybody's clear on the concept, I'm upset by this poor showing.
I consider myself fairly fluent in the psychologies and sociologies of altruism, of social networks, group dynamics, ..., so this poor showing isn't surprising, merely upsetting.
Fortunately, you still have a chance to take part.
'Nuff said?
<JEN'S COMMENT>
Just can't stay away from this site, eh? :)
I participated without publicizing and also posted the link to my 200 Facebook friends, and I was also shocked/disappointed by the result of the fundraising.
I am commenting though because you didn't explain the formula in the title - are you teasing your loyal readers?!
Sorry about that, Jen. I wasn't teasing, I've just been busy the past few weeks putting the finishing touches on NextStage's Level 1 Sentiment Analysis tool and have been thinking in neuromathematics equations for a while. The equation translates to "Charity is a function of personal and/or group altruism (± 2db of variance)".
Thanks for the catch and thanks for reading and commenting. - Joseph
</JEN'S COMMENT>
<DR. GEERTZ'S COMMENT>
What could Scott have done differently to elicit a broader/greater response? I am loosely familiar with philanthropic endeavors and asking people to support a cause, as you know. From what I've found, the less effort you put into making the request, the less success you'll have. Much like any communication, face-to-face is best, followed by a telephone call, followed by real time communication, followed by mail/email.
I think there is a convenience factor in being able to pay by credit card through the email link that should be helpful, but I'm not sure the message with the request expressed urgency, expressed the need in terms of the village, or made it sufficiently personal to Scott. The water system need was vague and seemed to express what $20k can do more than it expressed what this $20k would do, raising $20k is something Scott was doing (not providing water to a village), and it suggested he hoped to get the money from 400+ twitter followers (Twitter followers are not a strong village, IMHO) and 200 facebook friends ($20 from each would still fall well short of the goal).
Finally, I think if you really hope to raise that kind of money, you need to step up with more than $180 - this goes back to the effort of the requester/commitment to the cause. And, as I'm sure you'll understand, I'm not trying to be critical toward Scott, but I am trying to provide a little critical thought as to how he could have communicated his message more effectively to achieve his desired effect.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Dr. Geertz.
The type of philanthropic activity you're describing is very different from the kind Scott used. He was using social mechanics (which works very well for certain things when done along certain lines) and you're describing (essentially) one-to-one solicitation (you know email addresses, phone numbers, etc). Your method uses "direct address", something I've discussed elsewhere. Scott chose another method.
To your points re Twitter and Facebook, yes and no. Those avenues are dependent on the strength of the social ties expressed by the individuals communicating via those networks.
I would disagree with your comment about Scott's level of commitment to his own cause, as well. My disagreement goes back to the social methodology he's using. A demonstration of "greater" commitment on his part could have proven financially intimidating to the audience he was addressing, hence the response would have been much poorer than it was.
As always, these are my thoughts and I'm glad you shared yours. - Joseph
<DR. GEERTZ'S COMMENT>
Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.
Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.
Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.
And you can always follow me on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!




I sat, watched and listened to my extremely intelligent and knowledgeable brethren and sistren and counted the number of net-savvy, on the edge, knowing the future people were still wearing wristwatches. In fact, analog wristwatches. Not digital, and maybe quartz driven, but with analog faces.
How far have we gone in those fifty plus years? 