Social Markets


Comment on the Ethos Rountable discussion with Jeff Tuller and Allan Benamer, as recapped by Deborah Elizabeth Finn.

Everything in your blog rings true. The insight comes early: "Here was a setting in which they could point to aspects of their model that some people might find difficult or even distasteful - and receive feedback that was both candid and constructive."

Upon hearing new ideas (aka different, controversial) judgment needs to be suspended initially to find common ground and get a complete picture. For the discussion to be useful to the presenters (Jeff and Allan), the next step requires critical review and analysis. Divergence of views becomes important, weaknesses and flaws glare and strengths pushed aside. If this is avoided for the sake of geniality, progress becomes stymied. Imagine if the inspectors for the Big Dig Tunnel had only voiced their concern?; or the subcontractor manager reviewed the epoxy order?; or the lowest level contractor reviewed the actual epoxy shipment?

In the spirit of common ground seeking and expressing concern, I am both excited with the novelty of the concept yet skeptical. My enthusiasm comes with a long list of what I see as valuable in this enterprise. My skepticism comes from watching the decline in civics, honesty, and finally the transparent fool hardiness of people at the top: private, public officials and politicians (without regard to political party, although the current administration has gone further than most). For a long time the "left" has lived by the motto that government officials believes they have the right to lie to us, for which we must respond that we have the right not to believe them."

The point being, how far does the NYSE model proposed by Jeff and Allan require putting aside cynicism and believing in honesty? I don't know, but my cynicism makes me want to ask questions, with the hope it helps Jeff and Allan to perfect their idea.

My less cynical but still critical response grows form my science and engineering background: All models and analogies are imperfect at some point. Norbert Weiner put it this way: "The best model of a cat, is a cat." The NYSE model will not be perfect -- corporations differ from nonprofits and the question becomes at what point does the difference matter and will it make a big difference? I would be willing to explore these thoughts if J&A have time and interest. Or, I could just go along and offer to be of help and hope for the best. After all, Deborah likes these guys, so that's good enough for me. Whoosh, there goes my critical analysis!

Let's explore. We certainly have no problems with that. However, as we drill down deep into the core insights behind socialmarkets, we are increasingly convinced of its viability from a commercial as well as a theoretical standpoint.

We believe that what socialmarkets.org is right now is a ledger of social output from nonprofits. We are basically enticing nonprofits to raise money by showing their outputs. This has the great effect of building trust in the sector as well as allowing for more data points that donors can use to evaluate a nonprofit.

That said, it would not be surprising if we can build a real exchange out of those data points if they're collected properly (which they will be). Our worries are no't that the exchange itself can't be built but the ecosystem that supports an exchange will not ramp up in time leaving us to handle both reporting and regulatory roles.

Charles, how do you want to continue the dialogue? On the ISF e-mail list? Deborah would that be ok with you? Or should we take this idea to a forum more suited to philanthropy than nonprofit technology.