Re: A Social Business

Zach,

Did you see the SOTU? What profound awesomeness. If I've ever heard a call to forget the day-to-day, forget the news cycle, and leave conventional wisdom to its own devices, that was a vivid reminder.

On to social business! So it looks like Grameen Bank (which sounds a lot like Gringots Bank, eh?) had enough capital to convince Danone to enter this otherwise unconventional market. And, as you say, the goal is for Danone to make off profitably from this venture.

I'm a bit less familiar with the conventional social business model (I'll have to read Yunus' book or something), but there are a lot of ways to leverage social networks for good.

Social networks--actually really any network--clearly provide the ability to organize. If you're thinking Saul Alinsky, then think of the site Groupon, which negotiates a lower price for goods if the site can bring in a certain threshold of people (e.g., if Groupon gets 100 people, then dinner costs you $10 instead of $20). The flipside of Groupon is organized blackmail. I can't find a good article on the matter, but it looks like the United Students Against Sweatshops used Facebook groups to boycott Russell Athletic, and eventually changed Russell's factory policies.

Other examples: Joe Green's Causes application on Facebook gets users to join various causes and donate money. The American Red Cross leveraged cell phone networks and made it easy to donate money--all people have to do is text "HAITI" to 90999, and $10 is added to their cell phone bill.

A few words on crowd-sourcing: A tree just fell outside of the coffee shop I'm at, and a slew of people went outside and began taking pictures with their cell phones. It brings to mind the thousands gathered in Oakland after the Steelers won the Super Bowls. Thousands of people were, well, taking pictures. This is another big feature of connectivity. The most valuable iPhone applications involve crowd-sourcing. Trapster allows people to mark speed traps. Trapster, and applications like it, are ever growing systems, allowing people to bestow benefits to others.

Still, there's a lot of dubious benefit to the organizing going on on Facebook. The benefits of Trapster are apparent, but it's a very first-world utility.

So. I can think of a few types of programs which would result in social good, but this is a very open-ended discussion. Here's one. When a person went missing last month, the family's first step was to launch their campaign on Facebook and MySpace. A consulting firm could be launched to run social media campaigns. That's not a self-sustaining business, but it's something.

Does that spur any ideas?

Elliot

Making it back home

Zach,

The ride across country was amazing. Tuesday night I met a gent who came to Pittsburgh from Chicago to meet a girl who he met through an online video game, where he was a clan leader. Wednesday was a few hours in Chicago, where I toured the Art Institute, and then met the wonderful Ayelet from my high school days. On the Zephyr from Chicago, I met a truck driver who spoke about the wonders of his iPhone, the new economy, and paradigm shifts.

I read about the American Red Cross raising funds for Haiti through text-messaging, an unfathomable $500,000 per hour. I spoke with a couple who studies the Feldenkrais method who quoted yogi Richard Freeman who said, "if something is popular, then I want to know what's wrong with it?" I met a girl from England who travels foreign countries to disprove stereotypes that they are dangerous.

I spoke with a few of the eight Amish, taking a trip from Nebraska to Tijuana for medical treatment. I spoke with a Silicon Valley programmer about the lifestyle of working at a Valley company. I spoke with a Cal Tech physics undergrad and Stanford PhD about the hilarious Richard Feynman and his advisor, Linus Pauling. I played my mandolin with a guitarist from the Netherlands. We had a long conversation about politics, media, Islam in Europe, and the EU.

I got to write. I described the soaring landscape of Colorado, the gorgeous but dangerous Donner Pass. I wrote about things on my mind, about plans for the future. I got to the point at 6:30pm Mountain Time on Thursday where I felt I had expressed on paper whatever it was I had wanted to. I finished reading Murakami's amazing Kafka on the Shore. I didn't use my computer once, didn't have access to the Internet. I was free from distraction, and so my mind could be liberated.

And I'm back. Now the task is, as DFW puts it, keeping the important things, the expansive things, in front of me on a daily basis. So there's a bit of writing and reading in store.

Elliot

Choo Choo

Dear Elliot,

Did you make it home?

Zach

Social Business

Dear Elliot -

For the sake of not wanting to think about the failing Obama presidency, I think it might be interesting to talk about some exciting, new approaches to solving the world's problems.

The idea that comes to mind is from Muhammed Yunus, the Nobel Prize winner and founder of the Grameen Bank, in his book "The World Without Poverty". In his book, Yunus advocates for the creation of "Social Businessess" - essentially, businesses that provide services and/or products and compete with for-profit businesses for market share, while having the sole mission of making social change.

The social business would work towards profit, but it's owners would not receive dividends, instead all profits would go to expanding the business so as to further create positive change. The best example of this is a partnership between Grameen Bank and Danon (the french yogurt company). The two have partnered to sell cheaply packaged, inexpensive, and highly nutritious yogurt to people in poverty in Bangladesh. While the partnership has every intention of making profit off this exercise, the main mission is to help solve childhood malnutrition.

I think this is a fantastic idea. In general, I am all for incorporating business models into social change initiatives. What could be more sustainable? And when it comes to effectiveness, businesses have the reputation for being much more efficient. I'm loving the idea.

Do you have any social business models in mind? Perhaps some sort of social networking idea? I'm all about exploring this concept further.

Zach

Do you write, or are you a writer?

I want to link to a NYTimes Magazine article by James Traub that I read towards the end of the semester. Traub is, I think, such a clear writer, something that I aspire to be. Here's a favorite piece of reportage from that article:

One of [Biden's] former aides — Washington is rife with them — told me that she had learned an important life lesson from her boss: “Question people’s judgment, not their motives.”

That seems like a great piece of advice. It also says something about Traub who's able, probably in limited conversation with a person, to elicit a fundamental lesson that Biden gave to this aide of his. It's like if you asked someone, "what's the most important thing your parents have taught you," and they gave you a gem like this.

Being a good writer is something that won't wane with the economic woes of brick-and-mortar newspapers. If communication is a good skill to have, and it is, then thinking and writing is the best exercise at improving at communication.

Something that writers encounter is thoughts about who is reading their work. How will they judge me? Will they like what I'm writing about? Andrew Sullivan doesn't have comments on his blog. Seems like a big affront to the democratic standards of the blogosphere. So, I asked him, does he ever edit what he writes when he considers how readers might perceive it? He said he doesn't ever self-edit, or second guess what he's going to write based on thinking about his audience. (So, you might ask, why not allow comments?)

Consider Mark Pincus. Mark a successful Internet entrepreneur, and on top of the social networking applications market right now. He keeps a personal blog where he writes about business decisions and shares personal thoughts. He writes about his thoughts on the Congressional deal-making here, and writes about his conception of the new Internet era here. This is a terrific line (especially that latter post) to the thoughts of someone who is doing very important things that shape the lives of many in society. But look at the comments he's getting. They're not reflective. They're people who are bringing their gripes about his company's products to his personal blog. That's a chilling reception to someone who wants to share their thoughts. Which should prompt the question, is the best form of blogging to broadcast to the Internet? Will the best kind of writing come from a form where you write with consciousness of how others will perceive your post and comment on it?

No doubt that blogging is important. It's a chance to share ideas with people who might be able to build on your ideas. It allows you to transcend people in your immediate space and reach out to the .005% of the world that has substantive thoughts about the ideas you have.

But sharing with everyone is a weird concept. Weird? But why? Writers (like Jon Chait and his TRB) do it all the time. But I think successful writers in the public space have had years to hone their voice. To wit, you don't just start writing by signing up to write TRB. If you can firm your voice before the limelight, it seems like that preparation could be useful once you're getting attention.

Thoughts on Thoughts

Elliot -

So you are looking to do something that is physical and outdoorsy with smart and motivated kids. Have you considered a round of golf at the country club? Or perhaps a game of croquet? The point I'm making is that it seems you are missing an important requirement: you want to do something of value and meaning. This seems like something to point out maybe for the sake of your own "self-awareness." All the options you've listed below, especially AJWS, I think would meet my criteria for these three requirements.

You also might want to consider an internship at the Shalem Center. We both know who works there and it is certainly a leading institution. You can see the program here.

In regards to your thoughtful thoughts on my thoughts on thinking about blogging, I think it may be easier to address those thoughts in a numbered way, and in accordance with your bulleted post.

1)I agree. We should strive to maintain a blog that is substantive and not a regurgitation of conventional wisdom. Your reference to Nick Carr's piece in the Atlantic is striking to me because of how much it seems to have influenced our thinking on these issues. I think we are both inclined to agree with the articles thesis that the Internet is in fact limiting our ability to achieve more substantive forms of knowledge. The (overly ambitious?) intent of our blog seems to be to counter this disturbing trend.

In terms of your disinterest in TNR's blog, I admit similar feelings. I think it is largely a symptom of a common problem. Essentially, it's hard to write quality blog posts and also attract readers that can generate advertising revenue. Watch any cable news channel and you know how this can be true. It's probably also true with TNR, which is struggling to find it's niche in the world of online news.

I think this reality reinforces the need for independent and unpaid bloggers - like ourselves - who can try to write about the things that need to be written about, but that not everyone will see or even want to see. (Though it is always nice to get paid...)


2) I'm glad you called me out on how even the most self-aware of people can lack honesty or any form of moral guidance for that matter. I agree: self-awareness does not necessarily create the future Ghandis of our world. Just as mind control experts, impressive meditators, and excellent actors are not necessarily the most moral of characters. But barring the sociopaths of this world, it seems to me that self-awareness is an excellent place to start and realize our own moral character.

I think of self-awareness as an essential tool that can prevent dishonesty when combined with a person who is able and willing to pursue a life of integrity. So while self-awarness may not provide clear guidance on what to do with a strong mind, it should be a prerequerisite for a morally serious person.

3) So it seems here we may have something that we can really disagree on. If I seem "almost sure that offline interaction trumps an online interaction", than you seem the opposite. While I enjoy your anecdotes and even your idea of how this could be relevant to the world of social policy and mentoring, my inclination is that there is something profoundly superior about person-to-person interactions.

Still, I accept your point. If we were to develop a hierarchy of beneficial relationships an online relationship where people expressed themselves openly and honestly does seem better than a shallow and unproductive person-to-person relationship. (So maybe online mentoring programs are a good idea, if the alternative is poor.) However, I think that a positive person to person interaction is always better than an equally positive virtual interaction.

What do you think?

Happy 2010!

Z

ps I don't think we are alone here in criticiing the failure of our modern news system. Check out this new column from Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic Monthly.

Money quote: "Intellectual honesty and rigor, or reasoned, dispassionate analysis, is for wimps, public television and the occasional unscripted moment on the Sunday shows." Might he add the blogs of recent college graduates?

pps Two more years left for human civilization on planet earth. True or False?