more ...

 more ...

For part two of Philanthromedia's three part examination of the new term Philanthrosourcing, we examine the examples of the trend that we are starting to see today. If you missed the introduction, you can go back and re-read it here.

Part Two

Most of the media hoopla around philanthrosourcing has focused on contests that offer cash to innovators who might not otherwise focus their expertise explicitly to society’s benefit.

“Grand Challenges in Global Health,” sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2003, was one of the first attempts to philanthrosource new remedies for maladies that disproportionately affect the world’s poor. Challenges addressed in Round One include new ways to prevent or cure HIV, new ways of preventing infectious diseases and new drugs and delivery systems to limit the emergence of resistance.

Round One attracted more than 1,500 responses involving nearly 10,000 scientists from 75 countries. Topics for Round Two will be announced this month.

The X Prize Foundation is pursuing “revolution through competition” with multi-million dollar prizes that include the race to design, build and bring to market a car that gets 100 mpg. In 2004, a team led by aerospace engineer Burt Ratan collected $10 million from the Ansari X Prize for inventing a private passenger spaceship able to fly nearly 70 miles up and back. The Foundation expects to offer an additional 12 prizes, each worth $20 million or more, in the next seven years.

According to Sara Evans, vice president of communications for the X Prize Foundation, “What makes an X Prize an X Prize is the money -- $10 million is the floor. It’s just enough to cut through the clutter of other prizes and yet it’s not Herculean to raise. Our donors follow the prize closely and are personally interested in the areas we are exploring.”

Why Should Fortune 500 Companies Have all the Great R & D?

While the X Prize may be offering the biggest prizes, through its partnership with InnoCentive, The Rockefeller Foundation has its sights set on providing change agents access to the same opportunities for innovation as Fortune 500 companies.

Founded in 2001, InnoCentive is an open innovation web site where corporations, government agencies and non-profits can go to post Challenges they are having for the public to solve. According to the Rockefeller Foundation’s website, here’s how the process works:

* To be approved as a “seeker,” the organization describes its objectives to the Rockefeller Foundation

* Once approved, the “seeker” organization works with InnoCentive to post its challenges on InnoCentive’s website and to post an appropriate monetary award

* InnoCentive’s registered “solvers” submit solutions, with the winning “solver” collecting the award

* The “seeker” only pays the award if the problem is solved successfully

* Once the award is made, the “solver” transfers the solution to the “seeker”

Seven of the nine challenges currently listed on Rockefeller’s portal within the InnoCentive site have already been awarded. These include design for a dry-based biolatrine and a solar-powered wireless router composed of low-cost, readily available hardware and software components.

InnoCentive’s CEO, Dwayne Spradlin, is clearly a believer: “My entire life, I’ve wanted to make a difference. When I got the opportunity to run this unproven company, I found myself saying, if we could make this work, we could change the human condition by going way beyond the archaic ways that innovation has happened in the past.”

As Spradlin makes clear, this new approach is about far more than contests and prizes. Like crowdsourcing, it includes a wide array of ways to harness what James Surowiecki calls the “wisdom of crowds.” But when the end game is social gain rather than profit, unexpected benefits can accrue from listening to a broader array of voices in new and deeper ways.

Tomorrow, Part Three: What Happens When You Really Listen.

For the next three days, Philanthromedia is proud to present an article (in three parts) that seeks to define a new trend that we see growing in the culture of web communication. Today, an introduction to the term PhilanthroSourcing.

Part One

Corporations that find themselves in need of fresh ideas, products and content need no longer depend on what can be developed in-house. Fueled by Web 2.0, the world and seemingly all of its inhabitants have become pearl-producing oysters from which they can spin profit.

Jeff Howe was among the first to identify this phenomenon and coin the term now used to describe it in his Wired Magazine article, The Rise of Crowdsourcing in June, 2006. (His new book, Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business, has just been released.)

According to Howe, “Hobbyists, part-timers and dabblers suddenly have a market for their efforts,” says Howe, “as smart companies in industries as disparate as pharmaceuticals and television discover ways to tap the latent talent of the crowd. The labor isn’t always free, but it costs a lot less than paying traditional employees. It’s not outsourcing; it’s crowdsourcing.”

From the very beginning, philanthropic entities such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Case Foundation and Ashoka, began exploring ways crowdsourcing could be used to harness breakthrough ideas for social change.

For the past year, PhilanthroMedia has been tracking this trend we call: philanthrosourcing. It includes efforts to identify high-impact solutions to well-defined social challenges. By definition, these are challenges that resisted resolution through more traditional philanthropic strategy, or for which civic engagement is seen as an essential component of the solution. This trend’s most disruptive aspect is likely to the belief that winning solutions should garner philanthropic dollars for their execution regardless of whether they come from individuals, nonprofits or for-profits.

Like crowdsourcing, it’s on the rise, with immense potential for the future of philanthropy.

Tomorrow, Part two: Everyone Loves a Contest.

When it comes to web action, getting people to your site is the vital first step. But, as we’ve asked before, what’s next? Sites like Facebook have already gotten past that first part, with people arriving in droves to be a part of this successful new social network. Yesterday, Facebook passed 100 million people on its membership rolls, and it is coming to represent the ideal captive audience online: everyone visits it to check in with friends and then stays for a look around.

As our readers have pointed out in this space, feeling involved is vital when it comes to setting yourself apart from other online tools. The medium of the web still needs to work to get past the feelings of isolation that can spring from a lack of real human interaction. Facebook’s success, then, is easy to interpret. It harnesses the simple concept of using real friends and real relations to grow networks and connect people. But it also uses those same connections as the vehicles for a message.

There are times when these friendly contacts can be overwhelming (As I check my Facebook page now, I find 4 invitations from other people named Alan Smith to join a group based solely on our shared names), but there are other times when they are parlayed into a connection that email blasts or issue based sign ups can not reach. Take a look at this post from TreeHugger.com about six Facebook applications that are being used for tangible results in the environmental field. By using the strong connections already established on Facebook, these programs seem like a more palatable (if much smaller) version of the “My Barack Obama” site, which allows you to be the person contacting your like-minded peers on the candidate’s behalf.

Clearly, Facebook has an advantage in that it is designed purely as a site to maximize these connections. But it also begins to answer the question of what to do with the audience that you have managed to create online. As the six applications listed in that article show, a large audience can be harnessed to pitch a message for you, and can even look within its self to raise awareness (and cash). And peer to peer negotiations can make the crowd both the actors and the acted upon.

When General Electric first introduced its "Ecoimagination" initiative a few years ago, it appeared to be old-school Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), albeit a very hip and expensive version. It involved the company making announcements about and promising investments (some $700 million) in green initiatives to bolster its reputation on a growing wave of concern over climate change.

It started out with a promise to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 1% over an eight year period. GE caught the wave, however, and with the wind of better technologies at its back, it has already exceeded that goal by 400%.

Far from old-school, "Ecoimagination" illustrates a new re-definition of CSR. Early in the initiative, enlightened managers began to work to convert the innovations into "eco-certified" product offerings, like the new GE wind turbine.

Old CSR is deficit-driven. It is about protecting your reputation.

New CSR puts market forces behind social innovations.

When Walmart decides to use new compact fluorescent light bulbs in its stores, the result is huge energy and cost savings for the company. But when Walmart sells only these energy efficient light bulbs to its customers, the market impact is so big that the green dial truly moves.

When the three biggest cement manufacturers in the world join together to cut emissions by at least 20% for every ton of cement they make, that's news. But with the demand for cement growing 5% per year, it will be when they are able to produce stronger, more flexible varieties of cement to reduce the amounts used that they'll move the dial on this industry that accounts for some 5% of the world's emissions of greenhouse gases.

More exploration on new CSR, is available here. We'd love to hear our readers thoughts on these and other initiatives.

At 8 A.M. yesterday morning, I found myself bleary-eyed in Central Park as I lined up to wait for a free pair of tickets to The Public Theater's production of Hair, part of their Shakespeare in the Park summer series. My fatigue soon turned to surprise and a feeling of joy, however, at the sheer number of New Yorkers willing to stand in line for 5+ hours in order to see public theatre. The line of people, to me, was a bold signifier that the everyday citizens of New York were still interested in theatre.

Since my return from a spate of living London in 2004, I have been gnashing my teeth at the lack of a national theatre in America. London's National is a monolith of play production, producing both old and new experimental theatre at an incredibly fast pace. It compliments the West End, which is comparative to New York's Broadway, with one key difference: pricing. For twenty pounds, a student can get a front row seat to virtually any show of their choosing through a simple rush process in London. The result is a flourishing theatre scene, where going to see a play is an easy and affordable alternative to a movie or museum. In addition, increased interest leads to competition among producers to keep audiences coming back. Hence the reason why London has been putting out so many smash hits, many of which have hit this side of the Atlantic with as hard an impact.

The high price tags associated with Broadway productions, in contrast, greatly constrains who can attend the productions. In my eyes, this has led to a vicious cycle. Tourists and members of the upper echelon can afford the tickets, but the majority of citizens are cut out of the loop (at least on an every-day basis); those who can't afford the $120 price tag then define theatre as a snobbish event in which they have no interest. Frustrating, no? But yesterday, as I saw the vast range of fellow New Yorkers waiting on the line for Hair, I came to distrust the second half of my cycle. People- all people- still do love theatre. They'll do a lot, at least, to see it for a low or no cost. The people want theatre. Now it's our turn, as donors, to work toward that goal. The Public theatre is doing a great job battling the big Broadway producers for attention- check out some information here.

In 2004, when Google.org hit the philanthopy stage, I believed that evenutally it would take over the world of philanthropy, much like Google has owned the world of Internet search. I hadn't heard much from the new kid on the block recently, but apparently that's no indication that the "hybrid philanthropy," isn't hard at work doing what it does. Google.org states that it:

"...uses a range of approaches to help advance solutions within our five initiatives. We operate in a traditional manner by supporting our partners’ work with targeted grants. But we can also invest in for-profit endeavors, such as efforts by companies to develop breakthrough renewable energy technologies. Our structure also allows us to lobby for policies that support our philanthropic goals. Additionally, we can tap Google’s innovative technology and, most importantly, its inspired workforce. We’ve already begun to donate and invest Google.org’s funds, and we expect to continue to do so in the future."

The most recent of those donations is in the form of a $10.25 million investment in a breakthrough energy technology called Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). According to Google.org's website, "EGS produces heat and electricity by harnessing the energy from hot rock deep below the earth's surface, expanding the potential of traditional geothermal energy by orders of magnitude."

In the press release announcing the grant, Dan Reicher, Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives for Google.org, stated that , "EGS could be the 'killer app' of the energy world. It has the potential to deliver vast quantities of power 24/7 and be captured nearly anywhere on the planet. And it would be a perfect complement to intermittent sources like solar and wind."

Larry Brilliant, Google.org's executive director, noted that , "Innovation is the path to massive quantities of cleaner, cheaper energy. The people we're funding today have a real shot at lowering the cost of EGS, and bringing us closer to our goal of Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal."

Identifiying alternative energy sources is a critical step in reducing dependence on foreign oil and combating the crisis of global warming. That the folks at Google.org are on this issue actually gives hope that there may yet be a solution we can all look to.

“Fundraising is war!” These words chilled the board members of a local nonprofit, as one of our community’s most celebrated philanthropists talked about getting ready for a capital campaign. Everyone needs to participate. Get on board, or get off the board. Ask, ask, ask!

From a nonprofit’s perspective, these words are rife with wisdom. I have led a staff through a capital campaign, and war is an apt metaphor. Intelligence is essential to determine who will be the most likely donors. Prospects are called in sequence to line up the campaign’s lead gifts, with calling teams strategically chosen to maximize results. Committees of community leaders are formed to broaden the campaign, and strategies such as selling bricks or naming seats are executed to get the smaller givers involved. Internal and external communications keep the troops well informed and highly motivated. Managing morale through the doldrums - that period between the initial success and the final push - takes pure guts.

From a giver’s perspective, however, he or she is turf. Something to be fought for and something to be won. A hill to be captured. Oh, the promises that will be made. The sweetness of the Siren’s song. I recall one campaign from my alma mater where I was “cultivated.” Visited by the President. Asked to host a function, which I did. Communicated with regularly. After I made my gift, I never heard another word. It was on to the next conquest.

“Buyer beware” has never been a more apt expression than referring to a giver during a capital campaign. It is critical for givers to focus clearly on their own priorities and to stand firm, lest they be swayed by a good pitch. The best gifts are when the donor’s objectives and the campaign’s objectives are a great fit. I worry about older people, who may have become fuzzy in their focus and may be swayed by sweet sounds of glorious promises.

If fundraising is war, then givers had best arm themselves with a clear vision and with the fortitude to say “no,” or to confidently and forcefully say “yes” when the cause and the timing are right. If turf is to be won, then let it always be held in friendly, honest hands.

So goes the company motto of Newman's Own.

Most of us are aware that Newman's Own donates all profits and royalties after taxes for educational and charitable purposes. We may not be as current on how much that has grown to be since its founding in 1982. According to its website, Paul Newman and the Newman's Own Foundation have given over $250 million to thousands of charities worldwide.

Newman's charitable efforts have been notable A recent article in Vanity Fair reports that he decided to produce and sell his homemade salad dressing, and when the distributors insisted he put his face on the label he immediately decided that all profits would go to charity. Then the company got really good at making profits and the sector benefited immensely. The article notes, "He has changed the lives of literally thousands of people (among them more than 100,000 children [through his founding work with Hole in the Wall Camps]) with his generosity."

But they have also been unique in that they have emphasized the pass through of funds to charities, rather than a build up of the foundation's presence and its brand over time. As one long-time sector leader told me, "When you think of Newman's Own, you think of the recipients of its charity, not the organization itself." These include Meals on Wheels, Literacy Volunteers, Flying Doctors and America's Second Harvest, in addition to the Hole in the Wall camps.

There's also a healthy dose of attitude (humility? humor?) in Newman's Own approach that evidently reflects the man himself. The title of the PR section of the website is "Hoopla" and the company's motto puts things in perspective.

Totally refreshing is the company's take how this all came about:

Sometimes you get what you want but it ain't what you expected. Newman's Own was supposed to be a tiny boutique operation-parchment labels on elegant wine bottles of antique glass. We expected train wrecks along the way and got, instead, one astonishment followed by another astonishment followed by another. We flourished like weeds in the garden of Wishbone, like silver in the vaults of finance. A lot of the time we thought we were in first gear we were really in reverse, but it didn't seem to make any difference. We anticipated sales of $1,200 a year and a loss, despite our gambling winnings, of $6,000. But in these twenty-six years we have earned over $250 million, which we've given to countless charities. How to account for this massive success? Pure luck? Transcendental meditation? Machiavellian manipulation? Aerodynamics? High colonics? We haven't the slightest idea.

This is donor-driven philanthropy at its finest. Paul Newman may eschew publicity for his good works, as Vanity Fair reports, but his selflessness, success and humor is seriously thwarting his best efforts.

A recent New York Times article sparked some interest in this young Hollywood cynic. It showcases the auction website, "Clothes Off Our Back," started by actress Jane Kaczmarek and actor Bradley Whitford. The site auctions off celebrity gowns and attire worn at awards shows, and sends most of the proceeds to charities that support children around the globe.

With gowns selling at up to $50,000 per, "Clothes Off Our Back has raised $2 million since 2002 selling items donated by 500 celebrities." This venture certainly seems like a great idea- one in which philanthropists are making a positive impact out of a lot of Hollywood flash that previously went to waste after one night. This charity lines up with such conspicuous giving phenomenon as The Gap's "Product (RED)" or Nike's "LiveStrong." From what I can tell, however, COOB is a far simpler and more transparent charity whose goal is purely to raise money for children across the globe. Ms. Kaczmarek is not seeking to advertise or brand a specific product- rather, she is building on America's obsession with shopping and celebrities in a positive, selfless manner.

Now, Clothes Off Our Backs does fall prey to the marketing monolith, as they have launched their own line of clothing for purchase to the public. But with the proceeds of the store's profits going to the charities as well, there seems to be little to complain about. Further, when celebrities give conspicuously to charities, their fans also tend to support those causes, thus increasing the impact of the giving. As Ms. Steinhauer of the Times stated in her article, "When Nick Lachey is seen serving chicken to poor children on Entertainment Tonight, awareness of hunger goes up, said a spokesman for America's Second Harvest, a consortium of food banks that benefits from Clothes Off Our Back." Just another example of America's consumer-obsession being used to a positive end by some ingenious philanthropists.

There are many aspects to gaining legitimacy online that seem to vary from the way things worked before the web. With all of the peer-to-peer communication, with all the access to information, legitimacy is more closely tied to perceptions of realism, originality, and straight shooting then ever before. Now clearly, I’m not the first to think on this subject. Authors have been pontificating on the ways that the web is changing society in everything from The Cluetrain Manifesto to Here Comes Everybody. But one thing that people seem to be able to agree on is that the web has created a knowledgeable and discerning audience en masse.

Last week, we kicked off a discussion about what does and does not work when it comes to getting people involved with philanthropy online, and today I want to offer one potential solution: Humor. If you your website, blog or even presentation can make people laugh, while still accomplishing the original philanthropic goal, you’re a step ahead of the game from the beginning. You’ve already established a connection with the reader (and through that, a legitimacy) that even my younger attention deficit disorder generation can relate to. There is something about laughing at something together that creates feelings of recognition. And finally, humor is a way to attract the population of people turned off by the traditional pleas to conscious or civic duty that many groups relay on to coax giving, simply because it’s a new and interesting way to get information.

Of course, being legitimately funny without clearly trying to hard can be tricky. I usually fall off one side or the other, either being too preachy and thus not funny, or being too funny and thus missing any point. It’s also not something that dovetails nicely with everything (take the GIF group, for example). But when I receive an email that makes me chuckle, you can bet that I won’t simply file it away with all of the others that pluck on my more serious emotional heartstrings.

Do you find yourself turned off by the snarky humor some websites use? Are their times when jokes just aren’t appropriate? Or do you err, like me, along the line of thought that you always relate more to the things that inspire emotion... regardless of its source?

Those of us who have been following Jed Emerson's "blended value" work for the past several years have recently been informed that he has accepted the position as Managing Director of Integrated Performance with Uhuru Capital Management, a global investment firm launched by Peter Kellner (co-founder of Endeavor and a successful venture investor) and Neal Goldman (a financial services entrepreneur who successfully sold his firm, Capital IQ). Prior to this, Emerson had his irons in many fires, holding concurrent appointments with the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the Generation Foundation, and the Sun Ranch Group (a blended value enterprise consisting of a sustainable ranching venture, an eco-lodge and a conservation development venture all managed on an integrated basis with reference to the needs of critical Montana habitat and wildlife).

The good news about all of this is simply that Emerson's work continues. His "blended value" proposition states that,

"Value is what gets created when investors invest and organizations act to pursue their mission. Traditionally, we have thought of value as being either economic (and created by for-profit companies) or social (and created by nonprofit or non-governmental organizations). What the Blended Value Proposition states is that all organizations, whether for-profit or not, create value that consists of economic, social and environmental value components—and that investors (whether market-rate, charitable or some mix of the two) simultaneously generate all three forms of value through providing capital to organizations.

The outcome of all this activity is value creation and that value is itself non-divisible and, therefore, a blend of these three elements."

Emerson pushes us to focus on "triple bottom line" impact of our work: economic, social and environmental, and stresses collaboration and cross-sectoral strategies to achieve results. Wherever he is working, the key is that this work continues, so that we can all have someone leading the way to the future of sustainable enterprises.

Last week saw the 27th International Youth Conference in Mexico City. The Mexican Youth Force and the Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (GYCA) were leaders of the conference, seeking to keep youth issues at the front of the AIDS movement.

The conference is a culmination of year-long efforts by various organizations, giving supporters and activists forums to voice opinions, learn from experts, and discuss possible solutions and diplomatic measures in an effort to solve the AIDS crisis. To learn more about what went on at the conference, the Mexican Youth Force had live blogging from Mexico City, which can be seen on their website. The organization also has a documentary whose trailer can be viewed here, which was put together after last year's AIDS conference in Toronto.

Many organizations at the conference worked to keep up their initiative of spreading education to those across the globe, who may not have money for travel. The UN MDG Youth Ambassador Corps set up a "youth hub" in an effort to connect youth not at the conference with those that were in attendance. Director Morillio Williams described the project: "We plan to share and discuss knowledge from the conference with young people in Suriname. We will use sessions through web casting and involve young people in discussions about the issues. We’re using the living room at the Family Planning Association of Suriname called St. Lobi. We’re turning their lobby into an interactive space." GYCA follows similar tactics year-round in an effort to spread education about the youth AIDS crisis. They hold month-long free e-courses, which are taught to a small group of concerned youth from around the world on such topics as "Project Management, Political Advocacy, and Grant Proposal Writing & Fundraising." Admission rates are 1 in 3, and the students leave each course with a number of skills and materials that can be spread easily to their peers.

In the monolith that is the global AIDS crisis, it is often difficult to determine which organizations need the most support, and which will put donor dollars to the best use. Youth-focused organizations like GYCA are great places for donor support, as they are small non-profits whose ideas spread far, and would reach even more if given greater resources.

The latest edition of the Chronicle of Philanthropy provides an update on the philanthropic sector's top "peer giving" sites, and the prognosis appears to be that slow progress is being made toward having fees on each donation generate enough excess funds to cover the organization's full operating costs.

Peer giving is the name being given to the nonprofits that create Internet-based marketplaces that connect funds from donors with organizations or people in need.

Peer giving organizations are funded mostly by foundations like the Omidyar Network and the Kellogg Foundation and others that love the idea that the Internet effect can be brought to philanthropy and make peer giving self-sustaining over time. A secondary source of funding is transaction or administration fees charged for each donation made on-line.

Here the technology tail does not wag the dog because these sites require basic Internet "matching" functionality plus a bit of social networking capability, combined with an e-commerce function. However, the technology costs have not been insignificant because when most of the organizations that are highlighted in the article started several years ago, such software functionality was not off-the-shelf like it is today.

Yet the real cost to peer giving is in building a critical mass of users, in particular donors, and donation flow. Whether these organizations charge administrative fees or how much those fees are, which is the thrust of the article, is somewhat academic. The answer the article gives is that most peer giving organizations feel that charging any kind of administration fees or even just enough to cover direct costs will turn donors off and impede progress toward gaining a critical mass of users and triggering the Internet effect for philanthropy. The question is academic because these fees are nowhere near covering the organization's costs.

There are more fundamental questions to be asked about peer giving. The first is: Why is it taking so long for these organizations to get an Internet effect? It is not for lack of quality or effort -- anyone will tell you that two of the coolest nonprofits in the country are GlobalGiving and DonorsChoose, with great people, great product, great technology, etc. It's not about pricing -- many of these sites provide free transactions and research shows donors feel pricing is down the list of priorities behind engagement and other key factors.

The second and crucially important question is: Will foundations stay the course of providing operating support funding to allow peer giving organizations time to flourish? Realistically, until they know the answer to the first question, foundations perceive these as risky grants that as each year goes by are less "new" and "cool."

It took AOL ten years before it became "an overnight sensation," according to Steve Case. Is it just a matter of time for these peer giving organizations and is success right around the corner? And will funders keep them afloat to get them there? We'd love to hear our reader's views.

Hail the entrepreneurial spirit! Not only in the outré world of the Silicon Valley do great minds dreaming amorphous thoughts intertwine and intermingle to innovate. It happens right here in Richmond, Virginia.

A young entrepreneurial Richmonder dabbled in nonprofits for a few years before heading to the Darden School at UVA and an already successful career in investment management. He brought back ideas from Hands On Atlanta about matching Richmond-area volunteers with philanthropic projects that need them.

A young woman who subsequently became a program officer of The Community Foundation Serving Richmond and Central Virginia (TCF at www.tcfrichmond.org) joined with two of her girlfriends to begin a grass roots web-based effort called Activate Richmond, which encouraged people, young and old, to volunteer and arranged opportunities for them. Within six months of launch, this effort was reorganized as Hands On Greater Richmond (http://activaterichmond.org), a program of the TCF-initiated Partnership for Nonprofit Excellence, and Vanessa Diamond was hired to run it.

Altria (www.altria.com) has a summer internship program for college students at its offices around the U.S., and they gather at the Richmond headquarters for a three-day end of summer program. What would be a good idea for team building to mix in with other training opportunities?

George Wythe High School (http://www.richmond.k12.va.us/schools/wythe_new/) resides in one of Richmond's more troubled neighborhoods and has a poor record of graduating its students and sending them to college. A new principal, who has been at a school in North Carolina for thirteen years has yet to arrive on site, but is looking for ways to jumpstart the year and change the school dramatically for the better. Being great begins with looking great, and this school has a long way to go.

Last Thursday, these forces merged as Vanessa Diamond Director of Hands On Greater Richmond, marshaled volunteer team leaders together with Communities in Schools and a great staff team from Richmond Public Schools. Grounds crews and security paved the way for 175 Altria interns to donate four hours of their time to beautify the George Wythe High School grounds.

What a transformation! Teams had colors for names -- blue, forest green, yellow, white, black, pink, etc. Interns and volunteers bonded, laughed, sweated, toiled and persevered through the afternoon drizzle followed by heat. They mulched, planted, painted and cleaned. Murals appeared, and spaces were transformed. My group had people from the Dominican Republic, Connecticut, Indiana and Virginia, to name a few.

At the end of the day, food greeted the volunteers in the cafeteria. The teams were cheered for their accomplishments and checks were handed out to the nonprofit partners and the school to continue what had been started that day.

I don't do a whole lot of manual labor, but I have to admit that the aches from my 3 ½ hours of mulching felt good. Reflecting on the day, it is serendipitous how all these people wanting to do good have come together and how the future has been changed. Willie Bell has a great start for his tenure as principal. The tough days are ahead, but he has a leg up. Vanessa has earned kudos that will launch Hands On Greater Richmond and the Partnership to greater heights. Altria’s 175 interns have a new view about corporate citizenship and the difference we can make as individuals. Everyone who participated is anxious to do more.

I have never worked in Silicon Valley, but it can't get any better than this.

A few weeks ago, I succumbed to a television spot and signed up for Al Gore's "We Can Solve It" campaign. As a relatively cynical young eco-agitator, I often find myself doubting the efficacy of large environmentally minded organizations, but I figured that if I could trust anyone, it would be Al Gore. So sign up I did, giving them my name and contact information and adding myself to the rolls of nearly 1.5 million members of the "We" crew. To date, two and a half weeks later, they haven't asked me to do anything for them yet. This, it should be noted, sets them apart from other Not-for-profits that I have given my information to.

It's only been in the last few years that the world of philanthropy has started to capitalize on the Internet as an organizational tool. No longer do I only receive the occasional MoveOn.org email, I now seem to be constantly besieged by all sorts of special interest blasts, each more urgent then the last and each more deserving of my dollars.

For me, the problem becomes: what can these large philanthropic organization hope to do with their suddenly robust email lists? The “We Can Solve It” campaign is a pretty successful example for me, with lists of things you can do to take action, as well as important successes in the fight to solve Global Warming. Snazzy new material updated regularly certainly doesn’t hurt. In me, they have a willing (if poor) foot soldier, so events that I can give my time to, or suggestions of who to write or call to take action are always appreciated. Yet, other campaigns are not as successful, either inundating me with new Very Important Messages, or constantly asking for cash. At some point, burn out happens, and when I immediately delete an email from a certain group, something is not being maximized correctly.

So, as my introduction to this space, I would like to pose (then explore) the question: what works for you online? What makes you want to give money? What makes you go to a sight and sign up, and what keeps you coming back without feeling daunted, overwhelmed, or just plain frustrated?