One Bloated Incentive Per Donor

Friends,

OK, I fell for it. The incentives offered by One Laptop Per Child (OLPC), appealed to my lust for new technology and a deal that was almost too good to be true--for $400 I would provide a poor child in a developing country with a laptop, add to the trove of technology in my home, and receive $400 worth of T-Mobile internet hotspot access. Seduced by the Maharishi of M.I.T., who spun this latest romp into venture philanthropy, I skipped the math, ignored my blogger/critic curmudgeonly spirit and nearly tripped over myself to take advantage of this offer.

As you may know, I have been critical of gimmicks in fundraising. I believe that the best fundraising practices--barring emergency appeals for tsunamis and hurricanes and the like--are about relationship building rather than mass marketing. OLPC is a classic example of incentive-based fundraising that does little to engender a long term relationship with the donor. And this project is one where their vaulting ambition o'er leaped itself, as the pitch was even more about the technology than the mission or the communities being served. OLPC's website is clever, but it seems to promote the toys rather than the outcomes. Even its wiki is light on stories involving communities being transformed by the technology--and you have to work hard to go beyond the hype.

So what have I learned?

• Shame on me for bobbing for the bauble--I should know better.
• The world would be better if all children had access to this type of technology, but after reading about numerous shipping delays (interesting article on the Boston Globe website), I'm skeptical that this foundation has the ability to deliver. Furthermore, they have failed in their efforts to collaborate with a variety of important manufacturers (including Microsoft) and countries that have their own manufacturers and requirements.
• Perform more due diligence about any nonprofit before donating. Not only is the delivery mechanism suspect, but the technology itself is controversial, and it has been harshly criticized (OLPC seems to be reeling from a stinging article in The Economist).
  
• Be wary of promises and examine each nonprofit's track record.
  
• If you're a startup nonprofit with a great idea, don't forsake the donor. The nature of the emails I received from OLPC was presumptuous. The marketing hype promoted the enlightened self-interest of the donor, but I found the follow-up messages about the delays to be fatuous and downright insulting. Over the course of a month, all they did was reinforce my fears that the organization was run by arrogant messianic geeks who were contemptuous of anyone who didn't drink their Kool-Aid.
• Don't make a gift in order to receive something in return. Give because you believe in the mission, vision, and values--and the track-record--of the organization.

I give to many nonprofits--more to those with which I have a personal interest. This is the first time since my first few gifts to public broadcasting where the "thank you"incentive helped draw me in. And it has left a sour taste--about the organization and about my all-too-human response to succumb to the hype. I'm not putting the hex on OLPC, and I wish them good luck. I ponder, however, over how successful new venture philanthropy will ever be. When people ignore Santayana's advise--in this case as it relates to a long, illustrious tradition of institutional advancement--they risk not only repeating the mistakes of the past but creating new, monumental blunders.

Talk to you soon!

Bob