The secret to social marketing is below...

“Here are seven free ways to make a difference in two minutes…”

When you read this sort of headline, or if you heard someone start their speech with it (as I did at a recent Ashoka event), aren’t you compelled to listen to what comes next?

Of course. It is irresistible.

This is the tone of a teaser that direct marketers love. Except in this case, there is a difference: this is a call to do something positive, not a call to purchase some product or open a direct mail appeal.

If we break it down, this phrase uses some key marketing concepts. “Free” is always good. Everyone has “two minutes” to spare. Cheap and easy and still make a “difference?” Why not at least listen to what is being offered, right? These sorts of concepts are the hallmark of late night telemercials and internet splash pages. Something free that makes our life easier/better and only takes a second? Sounds too good to be true.

In spite of ourselves, when we hear these sorts of promises, we can’t help but be lured into them.

For social marketing, the “hook” needs to be extra strong and indeed, the call to action absolutely needs to be simple. For products, the actual product may be sufficiently interesting to maintain a person’s attention and attract their consumer side. For a social message like this one, the seven ways absolutely have to be free and should absolutely take 2 minutes. If not, then the promise is immediately broken, and the chance of someone taking action is (next to) zero. (and the audience may well be peeved for having been lured to a lie).

When I heard this teaser, I sat rapt with attention to the next two minutes of the speech, only to be sadly disappointed that the speaker never actually shared with us the seven free ways. I heard the man across the table also say under his breath, “why doesn’t she tell us the ways?” The speech ended without the information. The promise was broken. The teaser was useless.

The Secret? People will listen to engaging language, even if the tricks are as old as marketing itself, but the marketer has to deliver credibly on the promise to actually get people to act.

Subject: Foreign Aid vs Military Spending

I just read a headline which indicated that the US has a budget of $50 Billion for overseas programs--including foreign aid--that is in danger of being reduced in a time of fiscal constraint.

$50 billion. Seems like a big number. But then I got thinking. What does the US spend on military expenditures? How does this compare? Is it still big?

Then I got the idea that it would be interesting to compare the ratio of military expenditure to ODA expenditures for several developed nations. Those of us with an interest in foreign aid always refer to the goal of developed nations to allocate 0.7% of GDP to aid programs. There are currently only four countries on the planet exceeding that goal: Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Although this paltry number of generous nations is somewhat disappointing, I suspected that it is even more disappointing when we look at what governments of developed nations spend on other things.

I had never seen a detailed comparison of ODA to military expenditures, (although I do like this blog post) so I set about to make one. I will be the first to admit that I’m relying on Wikipedia and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for data, and I’m comparing 2009 ODA figures with 2010 military expenditures and then creating a per capita ODA ratio based upon various census data from between 2008 and 2010. However, even if the data could be more dutifully double checked, the trends are pretty clear, as summarized in the following table:

The last two columns are the most interesting. Most of the donor nations spend between 4 and 5 times as much on their military as they do on their aid programs. This is not really surprising as security is a major political concern. However, the US is way out in front, with military spending more than twenty times that of aid spending. The headline I read insinuated that tough economic times might require the US to cut its aid budget. However, it is clear that that removing ALL US foreign aid from their budget (visible shiver) would be the same as reducing the military budget by a measly 4.2%.

I like the concept of foreign aid per capita. This ratio, of course, does not include any private donations to international development causes, but the ratio does offer an indicator of how governments place different emphasis on their citizen's relative ability to give internationally.

Japan’s low Official Development Assistance is (sadly) matched by low individual private giving in that country. Ironically, Norway’s remarkable government contribution per capita is also matched by low individual private giving…although Scandinavian fundraisers I know indicate that citizens in the Nordic countries KNOW that their tax revenue is already supporting development projects and that reduces their propensity to give. Canadian per capita official support is in the middle of the field, although lower than our peers France, Germany, Australia and the UK--most of whom have significantly higher ODA figures in absolute terms.

How is this information relevant on a social marketing blog? On the surface it is not…it is simply information on a subject that I find interesting. However, participation in a global world forces each of us to consider the relative importance of charity (aid), trade, travel and immigration and other financial and human transfers.

In the spirit that a healthy society relies to a degree on the wealthy to help the less fortunate, our propensity to give is an indicator of our global citizenship, just as our propensity to donate to a local charity is an indicator of our engagement in our own community.

Subject: Shared Workspaces

There is a marvelous marriage of technology and humanity. The problem is that we are just starting to invent it.

Seth Godin’s blog post on the future of the library is a wonderful testament to the social value of the librarian through history. The librarian is the data sorter. Today we have more data than ever and we are inventing tools to help us sort through it all: search engines, wikis, and countless social networking sites where personal opinions provide advice—sometimes helpful, sometimes not—on everything from entertainment recommendations, to work life balance, to consumer or charitable recommendations.

What we need more of are connection points, in MY opinion. The best data assimilators remain the well informed, deductive and inductive, sharp human brain. If we combine the power of real social interaction between real people in a real place, and we support that interaction with access to information and guides to help us wend through that labyrinth, we have a powerful tool for change.

I’ve started to see the development of these shares spaces, in somewhat nascent and incomplete forms, at progressive wifi enabled coffee shops, at the Centre for Social Innovation, at the C3 Centre in Ottawa, and at MaRS in Toronto, and the Hub in Halifax, the Network Orange Café in Toronto and a multitude of shared workspaces that are being born for sole practitioners who want to share an office space with likeminded individuals with whom ideas can be incubated.

What these spaces lack is what Seth celebrates: the librarian, the data convener.

As powerful as the internet may be to access information, and identify collaborators, it is insufficient to satisfy our need to work together, face to face. With space, intent and inspired data guides (rather than solely administrative support), collaborative work centres are the way to marry academic rigour, entrepreneurial spirit and intellectual talent to foster pragmatic approaches to improving the world in which we live.

Less is more? More or less?

I respect Seth Godin for condensing big ideas into language that is deceptively simple. His turn of phrase is marketing poetry, of a sort.

In some ways, however, his catchy insightful phrases illuminate a trend toward a collective inability to engage in meaningful, complete dialogue on social, environmental, political or economic issues.

Everything now is a soundbite, and it would appear that those who are most adept at keeping it simple are ruling the world: politicians, marketers, bankers, moviemakers, and the lot.

But I have a contrary theory.

Meaningful change does not come from witty or insightful quotes in an email signature, or in a tweet, or in a print ad. Yes, I acknowledge that people are lured into watching a TV show, following a hyperlink, or maybe even buying a product based upon catchy phrases and marketing language. However, if the product is not good quality, or the link is broken, or the show is vapid, the pithy marketing language won’t save it.

There are many successful examples of substantial communications that are very much a part of our cultural landscape: books, “in depth” news programming, TED talks, rock operas, feature films, live musical performances (of any genre), documentaries, or even coffee with a friend. All of these examples are mechanisms through which we engage more, and—I would argue—are more likely to take action as a result of that increased understanding.

I would go further to suggest that many of us might in fact yearn for substance. News headlines on splash pages are filled with leading words on issues of little real meaning. Hollywood stars, NHL hockey players, dishonorable fashionistas, the newest diet trends, and the failure of rock n’ roll marriages. The trivial has become commonplace, and has replaced meaningful dialogue on real issues. Political debate has become a joke and so much of viral messaging on social network sites idolizes the inane .

Don’t misunderstand me. We still need humour. We still need escape from reality. We still need to believe in idols. We still need editors. Time is a merciless taskmaster and we have to incorporate more information in a fixed amount of time in each day.

However, for social change, we need to have deeper insight into the issues and challenges in order to cultivate solutions and changes in personal and community behavior to support those solutions.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s essay in the NewYorker he says that Twitter and other social networking sites will not launch a revolution because nobody is going to put their life on the line over something that’s said on the internet. He states: “Activism that challenges the status quo—that attacks deeply rooted problems—is not for the faint of heart,” citing the dangers faced by activists during the civil rights movement. In this case, he argues, “What mattered more [than fervor] was an applicant’s degree of personal connection to the civil-rights movement.” Activism requires strong ties, rather than the weak ties that are typical on FB or Twitter.

We often say that “less is more.” We want our news in under 30 seconds. We want short meetings. We want three-minute pop songs. We want light beer. We want to see sports highlights rather than the whole game. We want quippish advertising. We want Minute Rice.

However, some of us want, and I believe that most of us need, more dialogue and more information in order to understand and address the increasingly complex social problems of today, whether global or local.

Subject: Responsible investing options for regular people

Let’s assume that you have $10,000 kicking around in your savings account or an underperforming investment that you’d like invest responsibly.

Let’s also assume you’re not swimming in disposable income, you’re not an accredited investor, and you don’t have a lot of time to devote to researching the activities of a company, its paid directors, the company’s subsidiaries, its supply chain, or its management.

My guess is that this describes the vast majority of working Canadians who may want to make an ethical investment but don’t know where to turn.

What are your options? What are the risks? Where is there information? What kind of return can you expect, both financial and social? Below are a series of options.

1. GIC and term deposits

The venerable Guaranteed Interest Certificate. Low risk. Low reward. Low social impact. But at least you’re not investing in something that requires vetting. Generally, however, your investment in a GIC is simply a way to invest in the issuing financial institution, as they will take your money to loan out at a greater interest rate to a borrower—over who that borrower is you have no control--in order to make money. If you like to support the banking sector, but don’t want the risk (or reward) of investing in banking stocks, then this is a good way to avoid making any real decisions on socially responsible investing, but at least you won’t lose a dime.

Examples: visit any financial institution...

2. Philanthropy and Charitible Giving

Well, this is where I suspect most Canadians "invest" to address social and environmental issues. I myself have been part of the charitable sector for most of my career, seeking money from individuals to support various causes. Philanthropy is marvelous for responsible investors….oh, scratch that. Rather, philanthropy is a great mechanism to make a difference (in my opinion) if the donor takes the time to research their chosen charities. I'll acknowledge that donations can be made strategically, in the same way that one might decide on a sound investment. However, donations are not investments for two perhaps obvious reasons: one, you don’t get your principal back (let alone a financial return on investment); and two, your contribution has to be used (well 80% at any rate) in the year you give it to a charity in the fulfillment of their mandate. This means, in most cases, that your “investment” is actually not invested, but spent on a deliverable. It is a one shot deal. There are exceptions, of course. For example, you can donate to a foundation, and then your money can be invested in socially responsible investments (refer to an earlier post on Program Related Investments), or it can later be granted to a worthy charity. In this option, social return on investment may be high, but financial return on investment is punitive in that you lose your principle too!

Examples: see The Canadian Revenue Agency’s list of charities (>84,000 and counting!) Also take a look at some of the resources that are becoming available for those who wish to see their philanthropy as more of an investment decision.

3. Microinvestments

There is a growing trend--particularly online--to attract individual "financiers" to offer small loans to individuals or groups in need of microfinancing. These portals, typically run by charities, offer individuals the chance to make small investments in worthwhile social businesses, either in their own city or across the world. The loan is eventually repaid by the small business recipient and the investor can choose to either re-invest or withdraw (or augment!) the initial capital. This mechanism is immensely popular, has almost no minimum investment level, and credibly purports to directly provide financing to those who need it most. The social impact may be small, but it is directly affected by the investor, and there is relatively small risk. However, there is typically no financial return on this investment.

Examples: KIVA , ChipIn, or Community Lend .

4. Community Investment Funds (CIF’s) or Community Loan Funds

There are a growing number of urban communities in Canada that are developing investments funds that market themselves as a place to invest (and they will often offer a low fixed rate of return). Those investments are then pooled by the fund owners who then will make targeted community investments, typically in social enterprises or occasionally in entrepreneurial charities. The challenge with these investments is that they are like a mutual fund: the initial investor allows the final community investment decision to be made by the fund managers. These community funds are like a hybrid between a charitable foundation and a for profit mutual fund. They are aggregators of assets that are then invested in the social economy. Sadly, these types of funds do not have a clear legal status. They are neither a charity (in the truest sense), nor are they a for-profit corporation. They offer securities (debentures, bonds, etc) and they issue loans, but they are not a bank or trust company. They are not private social venture capitalists, as they are “managing” other people’s money. These are wonderful entities, but they offer limited investment opportunities, limited financial returns and have a geographically limited social return on investment.

Examples: Montreal Community Loan Fund, Ottawa Community Loan Fund, Access Community Capital Fund, or The Jubilee Fund.

5. Ethical Mutual Funds

This is where many Canadians start when we begin to have assets to invest “in the market.” It is easy, brings automatic diversification to our portfolio, and we assume that SOMEONE has taken the time to research the ethical background of the stocks held within our chosen fund. These funds are now readily available in all shapes and sizes from financial institutions and investment companies. There is frequently no minimum, and the risks appear small. The challenge is that mutual funds require management, and even if they are “no load” funds, the management fees have to come from somewhere (ie from you). Returns on ethical funds are typically modest , although in fairness, they offer an easy, albeit perhaps passive, solution to your dilemma for social investing. Be sure to visit the Social Investment Organization for lots of insight into these sorts of investments.

Examples: Meritas, IA Clarington Investments, or NEI Investments (formerly Northwest and Ethical)

6. Stock in Corporations with SRI policies

Virtually every major corporation, from banking to mining and from hotels to manufacturing, now report on their corporate social and environmental successes and policies. Some are doing considerable good work, and others might simply be providing a good news story to compensate for what may be very dubious or unpleasant business (blood diamonds anyone?). To make a responsible investment in major corporations requires some research, but the good news is that there are many independent organizations doing this research for you, like Janzi Sustainalytics, SHARE, or the Global Compact. The screens, or criteria, used to determine a company’s policies and performance in environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices can be pretty broad, however; No child labour, no ammunitions, no tobacco, no alcohol, and no environmental catastrophes. It is worth noting that many of the ethical mutual funds comprise stocks from major corporations who have passed these screens. The challenge for the average investor is determining the actual practices of a company, including wholly or partially owned subsidiaries, suppliers and other trading partners. This information can be available, but might require attendance and a question at an annual stockholders meeting; such engagement is recommended, but for a $10,000 investor, that is a pretty significant time requirement, and may not be sufficient to learn what is necessary to feel comfortable about the ethics of your investment.

Examples: There are many examples of listed companies doing socially beneficial work, but it is up to the investor (or their advisor) to do the research to satisfy themselves.

7. Private investment in the social economy.

If not big companies, then what about little companies doing good, like the local organic food distributor, the fair trade importer, the local financial cooperative? It is relatively easy to learn about their business practices, and most would welcome potential investors, especially those who could provide financing at a lower interest rate than (and subordinate to) bank loans. The return on investment might be modest, and there maybe some risk in investing in a small and medium enterprise. It may also be difficult to make an investment as many small businesses wouldn’t offer “shares” per se, but would perhaps be interested in issuing a debenture, or negotiating a medium to long term loan. The real benefit to this sort of investment might be that you really see the tangible social benefit of a local businesses work, whether in poverty alleviation, public housing, environmental policies or community involvement. Investing in the social economy is actively promoted in the US, the UK and other regions of the world through tax incentives and supportive legal structures (B-Corps and L3Cs). Canada lags behind, however, as we still think of social well-being as being the domain of charities or government.

Examples: La Siembra Cooperative, Windshare, or the Centre for Social Innovation. Also, you can visit Clearly So, where social enterprises are advertising that they need financing.

8. New Company Stock investment /Angel investment

There are lots of new companies that are seeking investment for social business, particularly in the energy sector, with the introduction of feed in tariff programs and other financial incentives. Sadly, your $10,000 may not be sufficient to help these companies get launched, as they may be seeking more substantial “angel investors” to get them off the ground. Again, with energy sector companies, the initial capital costs of building wind turbines, solar panel arrays, or micro hydroelectric installments can be significant. The benefit of this sort of investment is that you can be in “on the ground floor” of a company that is doing really substantial social or environmental work. This can be lucrative, and it can be enormously gratifying. It can also be risky, and it is likely difficult to find some of these companies before they go public and are listed on a stock exchange.

Examples: To become a social venture capitalist, you may consider joining The Toronto Funding Network, or Social Venture Partners or become part of the angel venture capitalist network across North America

9. Do nothing?

Is it any wonder that many people who WANT to make a socially responsible investment actually do nothing?

What is needed, then, to make it possible for investors of modest means and strong social justice or environmental beliefs to put their money into something worthwhile?

The charitable sector has many portals of information: canadahelps.org, canadagives.org, charityvillage.com, foundation databases, even private companies that will offer philanthropic consulting.

The for profit sector also has many points of access: every financial institution, financial planner, stock exchange and newspaper offers ideas, commentary and avenues to invest in a listed company or mutual fund of listed companies.

I have several ideas to stimulate awareness and generate greater small-scale private investment in the social economy:

1. Build (and even regulate) a social stock exchange for social enterprises to advertise their investment opportunities.
2. Strengthen and support the work of aggregators like ClearlySo, or Community Investment Funds.
3. We should all encourage consumers of social products and services to contact the company directly to offer financing.
4. Generate template financial agreements for download to facilitate private investments in non-listed companies.
5. Create appropriate legal structures for a social business that allows them to operate with tax incentives (or exemptions) and to issue and advertise private investment opportunities.

Have we lost our heads?

I suppose that in the 1970’s, with the long hair and the residual 60’s carefree attitude, it was not a surprise that cyclists did not wear helmets. After all, seatbelts were rarely used, even in the few cars that actually had them. Our family Rambler, for example, had a bench seat in both the front and the back and I never recall wearing a seatbelt. This was the dawn of the mass popularity of dangerous recreation: half pipes for skateboarders, freestyle and aerial skiing, and backyard trampolines. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that bungee jumping was invented in this era. None of the pioneers in these sports wore helmets. Helmets were only for those who fell. They were a sign of weakness.

A few brain injuries later, and a fairly enthusiastic legion of aging 1950’s-born parents, emergency docs, and safety conscious politicians (who could see the effect of head trauma on healthcare costs) undoubtedly were behind the gradual recognition that helmets could help mitigate fatal injuries in sports and in many recreational activities. Ice hockey goalies graduated from no headgear to masks, then to helmets, then helmets with cages, then fancy helmets that looked like they had been crafted by the airbrush artists from the advertising world.

In these years many jurisdictions legislation was passed to make helmets mandatory. Motorcyclists, for example, were now forbidden by law to emulate Henry Fonda. Recreational skiers, skateboarders and ATV riders all began wearing helmets.

Of course, the commercial minds were quick to see opportunity in both legislation and social trends. Companies started making helmets for sports enthusiasts. There was an attempt to make skull caps cool…and not just for the Harley crowd.

I remember the first bicycle helmet I owned. It was actually a moped helmet, which I fished out of a garage sale freebie box. It had a leather lining, a plexiglass snap-on face shield and like a construction hard hat, made the wearer several inches taller because of the huge bulbous headroom. (I actually found a photo of the model I owned...at right) I didn’t like the white and black austerity it offered, so I removed the visor, taped off the snaps, reflectors and rubber, and spray painted it—of all colors—light blue. This was certainly the 80’s. I was trying desperately to make a cool helmet to protect my melon. For me, a daily commuter in Vancouver traffic at the time, it just made sense.

Within a few years, a myriad of entrepreneurs were creating helmets that quickly put my converted helmet to shame. These new helmets were lightweight, vented, fancifully painted and moulded, with simple chin straps, and NOT nearly so ugly.

In a social marketing wonder study, within a decade, wearing a bicycle helmet became cool. Every bike shop and outdoor store was selling a variety of styles catering to every type of cyclist: BMX and trick riders, mountain bikers, racers, commuters and recreational family riders. Peer pressure changed almost overnight from promoting wind-in-the-hair freedom to promoting chic caution.

Even the curb-hopping, time-is-money bike couriers wore helmets.

Sure, laws were passed in may jurisdictions that reinforced a requirement to wear a helmet when cycling, but my observation is that the change in cycling attire was less driven by the application of municipal authority and more by style. Maybe it was even driven by common sense. For whatever reason, everyone wore a helmet without complaint. Some, like me, even wore it with pride. When I showed up at work in bike gear with my helmet under my arm, I was broadcasting my own personal environmentally responsible statement that I did not drive. The truth is, I felt “naked” if I ventured out without a helmet.

But things have changed. In the last several years I’ve noticed riders of all ages are shedding their helmets. All that great work to bring about a positive change in behavior is being lost. As a social marketer, I see this loss as a failure. It is remarkably difficult to convince large numbers of people to adopt a new behavior. When everyone embraces the new behavior as being normal, it is mystifying to have those old habits recur. It is social recidivism.

At a personal level I fret when I see a high school student riding carefree without a helmet, while lost in the musical world of their MP3 to boot! It seems unnecessarily dangerous. I am even more distraught, however, when I see 40-somethings like me riding without a helmet. This is like evolutionary regression, a reincarnation of our teenage tendency to flaunt death and danger. I’m quite sure that soon we’ll all take up skateboarding and hang gliding to complete our youthful revival.

Hopefully we won’t fall on our heads in the process.

Subject: Microcredit

Here’s where commerce and social justice intersect.

When we live in Canada, or presumably in any nation that relies on entrepreneurship and the market to drive economic, social and even political growth, it is easy to make the argument that supporting entrepreneurs is a good idea. Yet, it is remarkably not the first thing that comes to mind for most if they learn of poverty, natural disaster, war, or other woeful conditions in the developing world.

Microcredit is a simple concept that generates a massive opportunity.

I might casually describe microcredit as the process of making loans to small scale entrepreneurs. This seed capital—frequently as little as $50—is sufficient to allow them to purchase the most basic means of production: a sewing machine, a bicycle, a plow. A good idea and business diligence is not limited to citizens of developed countries, of course, but with a small initial investment, an entrepreneur living in relative poverty can grow their wealth for their family and to reinvestment in their business.

I’ve described the most simple model. Of course, lack of access to capital only accounts for part of the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in developing nations. Tax, tariffs, inflation, lack of access to appropriate markets, and a myriad of non-market forces like drought, pestilence, war and corruption also throw a wrench in the works, even for those with the most focused business acumen.

However, there is an incredible history of how successful the simple model can be.

Arguably it was the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh that initially brought global recognition to the power of microcredit. Their model of loaning primarily to women yielded unheard of repayment rates (even when compared to the conservative commercial loan sector) and real success in social indicators among the poorest in Bangladesh. There are other global lenders that work the same magic: the Foundation for International Community Assistance in the US; Banco Sol in Bolivia, Fonkoza in Haiti, Calmeadow based in Canada, and a host of others.

If even the simple model works, then there is even more opportunity if the other challenges are removed. The Fair Trade movement with organizations like Transfair, Bridgehead and La Siembra is helping to develop social awareness and a proactive consumer campaign to promote global markets in which producers are paid a fair price for their products. Fair trade is now accepted by most—even if not everyone understands the nuances—as being a good thing. It has become a positive gut reaction of consumers, rather than a curious marginal concept.

Our toolbox for justice is growing.

We can consume responsibly, invest responsibly, make capital available for microcredit, support good charities and laudable business practices, we can use our political voice to advocate for fairness.