Comments on: Disruptive Technologies and the Innovator’s Dilemma http://www.theagitator.net/communications/disruptive-technologies-and-the-innovators-dilemma/ Fundraising and advocacy strategies. Trends, tips ... with an edge Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:53:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mike Everett-Lane http://www.theagitator.net/communications/disruptive-technologies-and-the-innovators-dilemma/comment-page-1/#comment-1208 Mike Everett-Lane Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:49:24 +0000 http://www.theagitator.net/communications/disruptive-technologies-and-the-innovators-dilemma/#comment-1208 As a fan of both The Innovator's Dilemma and DonorsChoose.org -- I work there! -- this is a most intriguing post. I think (and these are my personal views, not the official views of my employer, etc.) that peer-to-peer non-profits *are* disruptive, in that we deliver a philanthropic "product" to the donor with a new feature that traditional giving often lacks -- more personal involvement and choice. (What Kash Rangan calls "Expressive" philanthropy, where "As much value is placed on participating in a cause as on employing concrete measures of impact or efficiency.") But I disagree that the "big brand" non-profits must all emulate microphilanthropy, because many social problems can't be addressed through this model. DonorsChoose.org is able to fund small discrete projects in classrooms, but only because we don't have to supply the infrastructure of the US public educational system. We don't have to pay a teacher's salary. Agencies that have full-time staff dedicated to social services won't be able to convert to microphilanthropy, because you can't divide a homeless shelter or a hospital into discrete fundable chunks. What I do think the "blue chip" nonprofits can do is to pay more attention to "expressive" giving, and treating *both* donors and clients as customers. As a fan of both The Innovator’s Dilemma and DonorsChoose.org — I work there! — this is a most intriguing post. I think (and these are my personal views, not the official views of my employer, etc.) that peer-to-peer non-profits *are* disruptive, in that we deliver a philanthropic “product” to the donor with a new feature that traditional giving often lacks — more personal involvement and choice. (What Kash Rangan calls “Expressive” philanthropy, where “As much value is placed on participating in a
cause as on employing concrete measures of impact or efficiency.”)

But I disagree that the “big brand” non-profits must all emulate microphilanthropy, because many social problems can’t be addressed through this model. DonorsChoose.org is able to fund small discrete projects in classrooms, but only because we don’t have to supply the infrastructure of the US public educational system. We don’t have to pay a teacher’s salary. Agencies that have full-time staff dedicated to social services won’t be able to convert to microphilanthropy, because you can’t divide a homeless shelter or a hospital into discrete fundable chunks.

What I do think the “blue chip” nonprofits can do is to pay more attention to “expressive” giving, and treating *both* donors and clients as customers.

]]>