Enabling Change Agents

I recently started doing a bit of homework for a client on Google’s efforts at benevolence. In addition to the initiatives supported within google.org and the Google Foundation they have a wealth of other interesting partnerships. The common thread, regardless of the audience or sector of Google, seems to be a desire to use their tools and resources to enable the world’s change agents - young and old.

2006: Google Docs partners with the Global SchoolNet Foundation, inviting students to use Google Docs to dream up inventive new ways to fight global warming

2008: Google Docs partners with the National Writing Project to support Letters to the Next President, an online writing and publishing project for school-aged kids designed to let them express the issues they hope the next president will help solve.

2008: Similar to the American Express Members Project, Google launches Project 10 to the 100, soliciting "ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible."

2009: Google powers America’s volunteer (search) engine with Allforgood.com. It “aggregates volunteer opportunities around the US” and is now powering the search portion of President Obama’s Serve.gov.

Sign me up for that kind of company!

On the one hand, I’ll admit I love that Google does these things with limited fanfare, and (apparently) without a focused strategy or a plan. They seem to anticipate that these efforts will somehow, someday bear fruit for the brand and, in the meantime, they’re worthwhile. On the other hand, the lack of focus appears to limit the effectiveness of the initiatives. The result of the global warming project was a newspaper ad. The outcome of the writing project is….a website. Project 10 to the 100 still hasn't announced a winner. Where is the follow-through? Couldn’t the Letters project now live on, especially given the publicity letters to President Obama have received in recent months? Couldn't you enlist a team of specialists to help enlist a winning idea (and a team of interns to cull through them all?)

I have to wonder whether Google’s unique employee proposition – 20% of their engineers' time can be spent on personal pet projects – has promoted innovation at the expense of impact?

Make Me Complicit in Caring

Events at work this week got me thinking a bit more about the relationship between philanthropy and consumerism. Someone re-sent me the Story of Stuff. (Oldie, but a goodie.) Meanwhile, I've read quite a bit about (PRODUCT) RED, Bono’s well-known and novel business model designed to attract greater corporate financial commitment toward fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in Africa. His principle – a win-win-win model wherein consumers contribute to the cause by making a purchase, participating corporations give up a bit of revenue in return for a positive brand halo…and more revenue, and the Global Fund gets money – is both insightful and effective. It shows he gets a thing or two about consumers (on average, we’re largely motivated by self-interest) and corporations (also motivated by self-interest.)

This marriage of consumerism and altruism is the latest trend in harnessing corporate benevolence, but it leaves me wondering whether perhaps there isn’t yet another – better- way? One that doesn’t promote the accumulation of more stuff? Four ideas to mull over:

1. Perks for Good: The immediate no-brainer for me is with American Express. Trillions of unused Membership Rewards points! How about if we can donate them to the Global Fund? AmEx gets them off their books, the cardmember feels goods (and gets the tax deduction), and the Global Fund gets funds? Well, it turns out you can donate your points to the Fund, or any charity for that matter. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. But, I’ve been an AmEx cardholder for eight years and had them as a client, and never knew about it. Why don’t they promote a Points for Charity program?


2. Free: An article in today’s Slate railed against “pandering ad campaigns”. They used Starbucks’ new “I’m In” campaign, championing volunteering, as one example of a company turned shill by “selling virtue”. The principle is relatively simple – sign up to volunteer for five hours and they’ll give you a free cup of coffee. I agree with Jack Shafer of Slate – if Starbucks is truly committed to the cause of national service, why not give employees paid time-off to volunteer their five hours? They could also promote local community organizations by providing free refreshments at meetings, provide free coffee to companies that organize paid Volunteer Days (as my old employer did), work with Big Brothers, Big Sisters to make Starbucks popular meeting points for get-togethers or recruiting events…..so much more than a free cup of joe for signing a piece of paper?


3. Truly Useful: Where’s a GAP RED tote bag? You know, the one that I would bring to the farmer’s market or grocery store? The one that keeps me from using yet another plastic bag? Yeah. That one.


4. New Services: I’m in the market for a new laptop. I’m fairly eco-conscious and have real issues with what’ll happen to that laptop when I want a new one in a few years. What if I were able to buy an anti e-waste recycling policy, as an add-on to an extended warranty? Dell or IBM then donates money toward the creation of safer tech recycling facilities, or toward fighting illegal, toxic e-waste dumping in China? I know it’s taking the long-view, but no one seems to be providing services that help me minimize the eventual impact of that new bit of tech I’m bringing home…and make me complicit in caring.

In any case, I’m a firm believer that companies can and should motivate consumers (and employees) to do the right thing. I’m just not sure getting them to buy a t-shirt with a cool logo is the right answer.