I had an amazing opportunity to speak last week at South by Southwest on a panel titled “Social Media for Social Good“.  Given the topic, the 5-minute time limit, and the diversity of the audience, I didn’t focus the conversation on the mission of Epic Change, but instead shared our TweetsGiving success and created a new social media campaign to complement my talk.  This meant the audience didn’t get a full introduction to what Epic Change is all about, and some may have walked away assuming that our entire business model is based on the use of social media.  My mistake?  Maybe.  In truth, though, I believe profoundly that social media empowers many to create change, and wanted to share our success in an effort to inspire others to use the tools they have to make a difference.

As a result of my participation at SxSW, Epic Change and our most recent social media campaign, TweetLuck, have been the subject of close scrutiny and debate.   In particular, folks have brought up three critiques surrounding our use of social media, the appropriateness of our storytelling efforts, and whether nonprofit charitable organizations like ours are legitimate contributors to “social good” or “social change.”

• Social Change (vs. Charity?)

  On her blog on Friday, Beth Kanter summarized backchannel conversation that occurred during our SxSW panel, and one of the key questions that arose was a proposed distinction between “charity” and systemic “social change.”  I’ll be honest, a semantic discussion does not interest me in the least, and I actually believe that the charity vs. change debate offers a false dichotomy.  Read more…

• Social Media for Social Good

  If, as I’ve proposed, social change (or “social good”) will only be created through collaboration by diverse players, social media presents a very interesting opportunity as it’s a platform in which various sectors (and societal strata) can collaborate and cross-pollinate. There are few other tools that so effectively enable the many diverse segments of our society to cooperatively create “social good.” Read more…

• Storytelling

  At Epic Change, our core mission is helping people like Mama Lucy share their stories in ways that generate the income they need to create change in their own communities. Storytelling is central to our model which is why the charges that our stories are “poverty porn” and/or “paternalistic” are the most troubling – and saddening – of all the feedback I’ve yet received about Epic Change. Read more…

Social Change (vs. Charity?)

On her blog on Friday, Beth Kanter summarized backchannel conversation that occurred during our SxSW panel, and one of the key questions that arose was a proposed distinction between “charity” and systemic “social change.”  I’ll be honest, a semantic discussion does not interest me in the least, and I actually believe that the charity vs. change debate offers a false dichotomy.

Charity alone will not create social change, but without it, social change will be impossible.  To posit these two on polar ends of some imaginary spectrum seems fallacious at best, and dangerous at worst.  To truly create social change or social good, it’s going to require meaningful dialogue and collaboration between all sectors: individual citizens, activists, governments, nonprofits (both traditional charities and newer models like ours), representatives from targeted communities/populations and corporations.  Creating artificial debates as to where good can/will be created seems to arbitrarily create boundaries where perhaps none should exist.  It is the same, IMHO, in the developing world with the aid vs. trade discussion.  Neither is wholly sufficient to deal with both short- and long-term objectives. (I encourage you to read a couple posts in which I consider, along with direct input from Mama Lucy, our partner in Tanzania, some of the key aspects of this debate: 1 | 2 )

My own organization, Epic Change, is but one of many “charities” that seeks to create “social change.”  Though I’ve long vehemently denied that Epic Change is a charity in any traditional sense to avoid affiliation with those oft-disparaged “charities” that perpetuate dependency, our nonprofit status alone means that we’re defined by the IRS and many others as a public “charity.”  In addition, one of the definitions of charity is “love for humanity,” and I believe that all agents of social change must, in this sense, be “charitable.”  No business model, however savvy, and no expert, however educated, will be successful at creating change if it fails at “charity.”  For too long, I believe we’ve surrendered this important word which connotates love, trust and mutual respect, to describe the very worst of what our sector is.  Today, I’m reclaiming it.  Is Epic Change a charity?  Absolutely.  Proudly.  We do our work out of love for humanity rather than a desire for profit.  Find another word for those supposedly charitable endeavors that diminish humanity by inhibiting self-sufficiency; the word “charity” doesn’t belong to them.

Epic Change, like many – probably most – charities, absolutely seeks to create social change and our early results portend great possibility.  Consider the progress to date on our prototype project, an effort to expand a Tanzanian primary school founded by Mama Lucy Kampton, a local woman who established the school in 2003 using income she saved from selling chickens:

• Capital Investment: We have loaned ~$65K in Tanzania since our founding in September 2007.  With these funds, Mama Lucy has purchased new land, built 5 new classrooms and bought a refurbished school bus.
• Independent Progress: As a result of our investment, Mama Lucy was able to independently secure (through tuition fees and other means) the funds necessary to build the school’s first flushable toilets, dig a well that now serves the entire village, build a kitchen that serves meals each day, construct an additional classroom and implement solar power.
• Increased Scale: When we got involved, the school served just 115 students; now, well over 300 attend.
• Enhanced Quality: Most importantly, because of our investment, Mama Lucy’s school was able to qualify to participate in national exams for the first time and, in their inaugural year of participation, the school scored 1st in the Arusha district on national exams out of 117 schools, ahead of at least one Aussie-led school with millions in funding.
• Loan Repayment: We’ve partnered with Mama Lucy to transform her stories into products that have now been sold in both Tanzania and through our website that have now generated sufficient income to repay over 15% of the initial $35K loan we provided just over a year ago.
• Improved Reach: Through our efforts, thousands of Westerners have now been exposed to the stories of Mama Lucy and children at her school, which seek to combat preconceived stereotypes we hold about hopelessness in the developing world; nearly 1000 people have personally contributed or made purchases to ensure that the stories spread further.
• Low Overhead: Because we haven’t yet secured institutional funding, and no one is yet salaried (I’ve worked as a full-time volunteer since establishing Epic Change as a nonprofit in 9/07), we did this all on a few thousand dollars of overhead spending, primarily in the form of PayPal fees and other online tools.

Once we complete this project, and the loans are repaid, we believe we’ll be able to scale and replicate the model with other changemakers around the globe.  We believe the Epic Change model certainly has the capacity to create meaningful social change, but we’ve only just begun.

I’ve heard some say that only for-profit social innovators or social entrepreneurs create real social change.  Others say activists.  Others say government.  Others say only well-moneyed business interests.  For a long time, we’ve heard only the wealthy can create it.  My thinking?  Social change, and social good, will only occur as the result of our collaborative efforts. This is why I think the charity vs. change debate is even a bit dangerous.  If we’re constantly posturing for who’s creating “real” change, jockeying for the sake of funders, donors, media coverage and attention, our ability to collaborate meaningfully is compromised.

I’m not suggesting, by any means, that efforts by all sectors should not be thoughtfully evaluated for their effectiveness.  There are certainly charities that create sub-par or even self-defeating results, as there are ineffective activism programs, corporate greenwashing initiatives, and misguided individuals.   Let’s target those for reform, but realize that it is outcomes – not business models – that are the determinants of whether an initiative creates social change.

Social Media for Social Good

If, as I’ve proposed, social change (or “social good”) will only be created through collaboration by diverse players, social media presents a very interesting opportunity as it’s a platform in which various sectors (and societal strata) can collaborate and cross-pollinate.  There are few other tools that so effectively enable the many diverse segments of our society to cooperatively create “social good.” Imagine this dialogue, for example, occurring so openly, and with such broad participation, without the use of Twitter or blogs.  As for the panel at SxSW, I think Social Media for Social Good was an apt title for the conversation, as it included panelists across the spectrum – people that operated individually, as nonprofits, as corporations, and those with familiarity on protests and political campaigns organized online.

Secondly, social media presents a unique opportunity for change agents of all types to rapidly organize support in the form of both talent & treasure.  On this point, though, perhaps I should even more explicitly fess up: we’re actually not a social media organization at all (and, despite what one commenter wrote in response to Beth’s post, I am certainly not a social media consultant; you may find my real bio here). These are just tools we use.  In fact, I never used “social media” until I founded Epic Change and realized it might be a way to build a little community around this idea.  We’ve used the tools to share our model and to raise seed capital to support it.  Social media doesn’t create social good.  People and resources do.  With Twitter, Facebook, our blog, email campaigns, social change competitions and more, we’ve been able to find both, which is what has allowed our little organization to grow and enjoy some interesting attention…like our invitation to SxSW.  As an upstart, we could use all the coverage we can get so we’ve been receptive to every opportunity, though maybe too willing to focus the attention on our social media success.  Perhaps we could do a better job at turning this attention toward our core mission rather than our social media savvy – the way Obama made every question he answered about “hope” throughout his campaign.  I’m learning about staying “on message” – bear with me.

(1 quick note: None of our raised funds have been used to create social media campaigns. Developers, designers, writers, buzz marketers, etc., have all volunteered their time for their creation. We have paid personally for other supplies to ensure that donor funds are directed to loan provision.)

Finally, social media gives individuals impacted by social change initiatives (and those who may be in need) the opportunity to share their stories in their own voices.  For too long, the traditional media (and, I’d propose, many nonprofits) have created stereotypes and generalizations about populations that are targeted/impacted by dogooder initiatives.  With social media, over time, these individuals may be able to share their stories in their own voices.  Indeed, Mama Lucy has posted to our blog several times and has recently created her own Facebook presence in part to do just that.  Eventually (and perhaps this is too optimistic), this voice may give individuals like Mama Lucy the opportunity to extend the marketplace for their stories, wisdom, intellectual property, ideas and, eventually, perhaps even goods and services, beyond the boundaries of villages and even countries.

Storytelling

At Epic Change, our core mission is helping people like Mama Lucy share their stories in ways that generate the income they need to create change in their own communities.  Storytelling is central to our model which is why the charges that our stories are “poverty porn” and/or “paternalistic” are the most troubling – and saddening – of all the feedback I’ve yet received about Epic Change.

I can’t tell you how much thought I’ve put into this very issue, or how much time in conversation with Mama Lucy and parents at the school.  Check out this post about Gideon for just some of my thoughts on stories about African children in particular, and this post for my research into how best to share stories in our sector.

After some serious soul-searching, reflection and consultation with Mama Lucy and my peers (not to mention the thoughtful consideration I did during the creation of TweetLuck), I wholeheartedly disagree with my critics on this point.  This was not a story about Glory’s poverty.  It was a story about the wisdom of her perspective, as was captured by the blogger in this post on citizen:africa.  In no way do I believe that we made her lucky; the note was, in fact, written, before the school had received any financial support from Epic Change.  IMHO, Glory is lucky because she works hard as a student at the top of her class to create her own luck.  Moreover, members of her own community – Mama Lucy, her friend Leah and Teachers Nancy and Rachel, who found shoes in her own village, made her lucky by creating the community of love, support and learning in which Glory is growing up.  Glory is lucky because she believes she is.

Katrin Verclas of MobileActive.org suggests the TweetLuck campaign is “poverty porn“, and refers to a quote which defines this as “words and images that elicit an emotional response by their sheer shock value. Images like starving, skeletal children covered in flies. Overuse of the word ‘victim.’”  I’m not sure what campaign Katrin was looking at, but there were no such images anywhere near the TweetLuck campaign – nor, I believe, in any of our marketing materials, a very conscious choice on our part, and one which has been applauded by African and American colleagues alike.  The story was not meant to elicit shock – human connection, yes, but certainly not shock.  And Glory is no victim. Just ask her or Mama Lucy: Glory is lucky.  Who is it that’s saying she’s not?  Who’s calling her a victim?  Who’s focused on her poverty?  Who’s not listening – or believes they know better – than Glory’s very own words?

For too long, both the media and nonprofits with perverse incentives to manufacture pity have perpetuated a stereotype of the hopeless, poor, sick, weak, hungry African.  I believe the only way to combat this faceless amalgamation is to tell the individual, true stories of real people.  In particular, if we can point our lenses toward the most hopeful stories, like Mama Lucy’s and Glory’s, perhaps we can more readily overcome this deeply engrained, destructive stereotype.

Moreover, at Epic Change, we believe stories like Glory’s and Mama Lucy’s are compelling assets that have real value for their audience.  They share hope and wisdom that is currently much-needed in our own culture.  Because they have value, I’d proposed that stories like this can create income, not in the form of donations, but in the form of compensation for the sharing of intellectual property, an idea we’re calling “fair content.”  (H/T to Samuel Suraphel of Grio.tv, who offered this phrase during a recent conversation.) In the TweetLuck campaign, other than matching gifts, we did not actually ask for donors.  Instead, we asked for people to purchase Glory’s story, in the form of lucky cards that they could pass to friends and colleagues who might just need a little good luck.  100% of the proceeds from those sales goes directly to the school. The distinction was subtle, but present as a minor but meaningful evolution from common existing strategies.

Because we shared a true story of an individual, because we placed a premium on sharing a hopeful story and because the income from that story provides direct support to the school that Glory attends, I believe condescension and exploitation are unfair charges.  If a story is true (and you may verify this one with Mama Lucy – I’d be glad to share her contact information), if the owner of the story is compensated directly in some way and, especially, if the story seeks to combat pervasive stereotypes, I would propose that it may be ethically shared.

Because exploitation of stories and imagery is such an important issue, we need to be particularly careful about what it is, and what it’s not.  If any image of Africa that’s created by a third party is “poverty porn,” regardless of focus, message or beneficiary, some will ignore the problem altogether and others will stop telling important stories to avoid any hint of “exploitation.”

Admittedly, there are challenges to telling these stories.  Because of language barriers, issues of cultural receptivity and translation, not to mention access to channels for delivery, we do not currently live in a world where Glory can easily share her own story with a worldwide audience.  Necessarily, sharing her story currently involves the inclusion of a narrator whose presence, by its very nature, alters the tale.  I am Western, I am white, I am a woman, I am older than Glory – and so much more – and these very facts impose themselves on Glory’s story.  The closer we can get to her sharing her story in her own voice, the better, which is why I focused on her own words:  “I am so lucky.”

Even if Glory could share her own story, though, it would still be understood through the lenses and filters of its audience.  In spite of these challenges, not sharing stories like hers is not a legitimate option – so what words can we use?  How can we help Glory share her truth with a broad audience?  Is not sharing her story really the preferred option? Most importantly, how can we help our audience look past their preconceived notions to read stories and see images as they appear, bringing as few of their preconceptions to Glory’s story as possible?

I look forward to seeing these important conversations unfold in the comments here, on Beth’s Blog and on Twitter. To find me there follow @StaceyMonk, spelled with an “E”.