UP | uncultured project

What would you say if I gave your donations to someone whom (until recently) I never met, who used it on a country I’ve never been, and helped people I’ve never seen?

What you would get is this video:

First, it must be said that this is far less sketchy than it seems. Rohan was a friend of mine long before I sent him a dime. I trusted him enough as a friend before I entrusted him with part of this project. That, of course, does limit how often I can do things like this.

Second, there is a specific reason I wanted to try something like this. Quite frankly, there is a vacuum out there when it comes to supporting people like me right now.

There are so many foundations touting themselves as supporting “social innovators”, “social entrepreneurs”, and “social change”. But, you know what? It’s nonsense.

From experience, almost all of these foundations tend to overlook people like me. Maybe because we get mistaken as a mere “film project”, or because we can’t speak their jargon, or because we operate outside of the structure they’ve built for themselves.

Which leaves people like me – whether it’s someone like Rohan doing a short trip or someone like Mark whose devoted his life to this kind of work – to go it alone. If we don’t help each other, who will?

And, by teaming up with a friend, I now have a fellow YouTuber who understands the frustrations of trying to do work like this. And how, it’s impossible to produce videos on a regular basis like most major YouTubers:

At the risk of sounding grandiose, the fact is I have a vision of how donors, supporters, and people on-the-ground should be engaging and interacting with each other. It’s a vision I’ve been putting into practice for over three years – and I have so much more I want to do.

Yet, despite you guys liking it and people on-the-ground loving it, foundations will overlook it and charities (that are fortresses) will resist it. C’est la vie. My only regret is I wish Rohan & I had the chance to do more than just help 40 families with blankets.

The future of this project really does rest with the support it gets from the YouTube community. And whether it’s people like Rohan on the ground or you guys supporting this every step of the way online – I couldn’t ask for a better support network.

Today, I’m thankful for operating & equipment fund donors like Ryan & Caleb. They helped me acquire a much needed piece of software I need as part of this project.

However, after corresponding with the CEO of the company behind this software, spending money to support this company was the last thing I wanted to do.

After reaching out to his company inquiring if they discounted or donated software to worthy causes, I got a thanks but no thanks response.

On the advice of one of my friends on Twitter, I wrote a personal appeal to the CEO. Turns out, the person who responded originally was in fact the CEO.

Here was his follow-up:

Hi Shawn,

I have already responded to you, but apparently my message wasn’t clear so let me spell it out. I have given a lot of money to various causes over the years and have concluded it was a complete waste. The reason why is that it was passive and reactive, with no real attention being paid to the impact it might have. My response to this is not to pull back, but rather to redouble my efforts, take the time to devise a donation strategy, pick my battles and be very conscious of whether I am being effective. This takes a lot of time, but I like how it is working out.

Part of the strategy is to allocate my time carefully. There are only so many hours in the day that I can spend on philanthropic efforts. Every minute that I take to write letters like this one is a minute I can’t spend finding the most effective way to stop the trafficking of women in Vietnam or free a political prisoner in Burma. We get a lot of requests for donations to all kinds of things. We can either say yes to all of them or no to all of them, but there is no way we are going to take the time to investigate them to see which ones we feel we should support. Instead, we will use our time to identify the efforts that make the most sense to us and we will put a lot of support behind those, without having to be approached about it. In other words, don’t call us, we’ll call you.

So, no, I don’t know your organization and I am not going find out about it. [...]

I’m definitely hurt and insulted by this CEO’s response. But I didn’t post this to give his company a bad reputation. Instead, I wanted to talk about the idea of “don’t call us, we’ll call you” as a standard for corporate social responsibility.

Simply put: that approach doesn’t work. This is especially true if your company creates a niche product (as is the case for this particular piece of software).

There is no way that, of all the causes and charities out there, that the one the CEO decides to “call” will happen to be the one that could be best served by a complementary copy of his software.

It’s times like this that I’m ever grateful for all the companies that have taken time to learn about me – even though they may have never heard of me before. Companies that have taken the time to see the value in my work, take a risk, and support it.

And, I’m especially thankful for operating and equipment fund donors who help me solve problems when I can’t find a sponsor or a CEO kind enough to even offer a coupon for their products.

And, without mentioning the company or product name, no – there is unfortunately no competitor or alternative to this particular program. It’s very niche and solves a very specific problem for those using dual system sound recording.

Perhaps that’s why this CEO could afford to be so gruff: he knew I’d have to be a customer of his either way.

[UPDATE: Wow - this post inspired some changes. Since writing this post, a copy of this software was donated to me by the CEO. We also had several good email exchanges afterwards where he shared some tips on what he feels would catch the attention of other CEOs that I approach in the future. Basically, his suggestion was that I should emphasize the work I do on the ground and not focus on how much support there is for this on YouTube.]

Hank & John Start VidCon Early in the Morning (thus the rare shot of empty seats)

VidCon. In a word? WOW. As one friend put it, “it’s like the internet exploded into real life”. It was surreal, amazing, & awesome to meet people that I’ve only been able to see through my computer screen.

Even though there wasn’t nearly enough time, I’m in awe at how seamlessly online friends turned into “real life” friends. In most cases it’s like you’ve known someone for ages and are just hanging out.

This photo makes me look more epic than I ever have the right to be.

Hank & Me on Stage

It was also a real honor to be able to speak in front of 1,700+ people at VidCon. I can’t thank Hank & John Green enough for this opportunity.

In all honesty, if they were picking speakers solely based on number of YouTube subscribers & views, than I would never have been picked. But, that’s part of the reason I’m so grateful I had this chance.

I believe that YouTube is an unprecedented force for good in this world. Forget the haters – we as a community can do amazing things. But, I believe the power of this community remains largely untapped.

With the exception of YouTube featuring stuff, the conversation about global poverty is but a small teeny tiny fraction of the conversation going on YouTube. That’s something I’d like to change.

I’m trying my best – but I can’t do it alone. It’s hard because I can’t do what normal YouTubers do to climb the charts and become a success.

For example, I can be informal & casual but – given the subject matter – I can’t be too silly. Although I want to, I also can’t make videos on a regular & frequent schedule. I’m forced to balance doing a good job on-the-ground with spending time making videos.

In some cases, the projects I do take years to complete. They require planning, networking, budgets, on-the-ground trust building, and also need to account for natural disasters & political unrest which push back schedules.

The video I showed at VidCon is a perfect example. It took 1,000 days to bring this story to an audience. It’s hard to do something like that on a weekly basis. It’s for that reason I need the YouTube community to help me share & spread videos like this one:

So speaking at VidCon was very important because, not only is what I do funded by the YouTube community, the future success of this project is entirely dependent on how much support this work gets on YouTube.

This trip to VidCon wouldn’t have been possible without the support of Hank Green (VidCon event organizer and vlogbrother) who sponsored my flight to VidCon and Patrick Clinger at ProBoards who sponsored my room, board, and stay in Los Angeles.

Tomorrow I’m flying to Los Angeles to be a part of VidCon 2010. Not sure what VidCon is? The Globe & Mail did a great story on it (honoured to be featured in it!) that you can read here.

If you’re going, here’s a sneak peak of a short 6 minute video I hope to show there. The YouTube version will go up afterwards.

There’s a difference between doing charity to make a difference and doing charity to feel good about yourself. One requires far less effort – and may actually do harm in the long run.

The reason I’ve been inspired to write about this is because I’m a huge fan of this blog post critical of “hug-an-orphan” trips and charities.

If you’ve ever traveled to the developing world, you know what I’m talking about: you hear of some school for poor children (and/or an orphanage) that lets you volunteer for however much time you can spare. You can also photograph and film until your heart’s content – without restrictions.

And, especially nowadays, you can even book a trip just to go abroad to help people. It’s called voluntourism. And, unfortunately, it’s nothing like the long-term work required in the Peace Corps or VSO.

While I’ve had a hard time teaming up with big charities, I’ve had plenty of unrestricted offers by smaller charities, schools, and orphanages in Bangladesh to come over, film, photograph, and help the kids there.

And, you know what? That raises a huge red flag for me.

An open-door, unrestricted, policy on filming, photography, and volunteering to anyone who shows up is often not in the best interest of children and is more about making the volunteer feel good about themselves.

As the blog post critical of such establishments points out:

Generally volunteers will only stay at the orphanage [or school] for a few days, weeks, or at best months. While at the orphanage most volunteers seek to build emotional bonds with the children so they can feel they made a difference. Unfortunately, although well intended, this leads to a never ending round of abandonment for the orphans.

As much as it delays things, it’s actually a good sign when there’ s at least a bit of a struggle to film & photograph. I love it when I get treated with skepticism, prodding questions, and subjected to background checks.

Students studying by candlelight at the Dharmarajika Orphanage. This orphanage gave me a tough time to get access. Which is exactly why I wanted to help them.

You know why? It shows they actually give a damn about those they help. These hoops also filter out those who want to help just to feel good about themselves – and those who want to actually make a difference.

It’s the first of April, and I’m standing in a dimly lit room with a bright projector light blinding me. In front of me, some high ranking officials who came to hear me speak. This is no April’s Fools joke: this was my presentation to Save the Children USA’s Global HQ.

Save the Children's USA HQ (pic by Madge Canning)

After an hour of Keynote slides, graphs, and videos I was pleased to see that my presentation was well received. Lots of nodding heads. But I needed one more thing. I need to drive the message home. It was time to unleash what I called the secret weapon.

I went to my laptop, loaded up YouTube, and played one last video. This time the video wasn’t filmed in some rural village, it didn’t have fancy editing, and it didn’t have nice background music. It was filmed in the parking lot – just before I stepped into the room.

Yes, I too am mind boggled how my videos could be seen more than any video of her. Do charities need celebrities?

Within the brief time I was giving this presentation, not only did people leave comments – but many people made video responses which I was able to play for staff right then and there. The message of each video was the same: let’s team up and do more projects.

Finally, to hit the last nail, I compared the views of this video to Save the Children’s slickly edited video staring America Ferrera on location in Mali. In less than a couple of hours, this video had more views than America Ferrera had got in over a couple of weeks.

“If this is what I can do for you in your parking lot, imagine what I can do for you in the field”. This, in essence, was my pitch to Save the Children. In fact, it’s my pitch to any charity. It’s not complicated, it’s not bureaucratic, it’s simple. Here are the facts:

• Fact 1: Any charity that uses donations for PR, outreach, or social media needs to justify that it’s spending it wisely for maximum impact.

• Fact 2: To date, all the various branches of Save the Children, are spending millions of dollars (from your donations) and hiring hundreds of staff to raise awareness on YouTube, Twitter, and elsewhere in “social media”.

• Fact 3: Part of these millions of dollars goes to sending videographers, bloggers, and other PR personnel around the world. Including personnel video blogging from the World Cup in South Africa.

• Fact 4: Despite this, the online reach of all those efforts combined is still less than the online reach of this project. This project is the #1 “social media” source about Save the Children.

• Fact 5: For less than the cost of hiring me, Save the Children can team up with me as a “free agent” again and continue to have access to the reach of this project backed by one very awesome community.

Click for full size: A chart I showed at my presentation showing total YouTube views generated. Blue is Save the Children USA efforts (under 200k views) and Red is globally funded efforts (under 1 million views). Orange is me (over 2.1 million views). Identical trends exist on Twitter.

Despite this, in over a year of discussions, there still isn’t a concrete plan to team up with them in the developing world again.

This has been described as “Not Invented Here” syndrome. Beth Kanter might call it a “fortress” mentality. But the end result is that charities like Save the Children overspend on social media and reach far less people than they could by collaborating with free agents.

A big hit on the ground & online for Save the Children. But I had to beg and borrow to get there and film the conclusion.

If you’re familiar with this project, you probably are familiar with the water project I completed with Save the Children. The video of that got over 100,000 views - that’s far more views than any official Save the Children video has ever got online.

Despite that, during the conclusion of that project, I had to find my own funds to go to the village to film it. Save the Children would not even support the creation of that video by letting me hitch a ride with them from the city to the village.

Bonus Fact 1: As more charities become more like “Networked Non-Profits”, charities that are “fortresses” or have “Not Invented Here” syndrome are either going to have to evolve or make way for better charities.

Bonus Fact 2: I wouldn’t be trying so hard if I didn’t think Save the Children was a charity worth supporting. And part of this comes from the fact that I’ve seen how they conduct themselves on the ground.

When I was a student, I would often find scholars who were thinking the same thing I was – but were able to express themselves far more eloquently than I ever could. I’ve recently found someone just like that when it comes to my thoughts on charities. That person is Beth Kanter.

Beth Kanter

I don’t believe the reason extreme poverty exists is because of a lack of charities. In my lifetime, the number of charities fighting global poverty has grown astronomically. Yet, we haven’t seen a proportional decrease in global poverty.

The reason I haven’t formalized, disadvantages aside, is because global poverty won’t be solved with yet another charity. Instead, I believe we need to change the conversation and change how we work to solve this problem.

Before starting this project, I never realized how competitive and insular many charities can become. Some charities won’t even talk to their sister branches in other countries! And many charities expect outsiders like me just to stick to signing petitions and checks.

Whether or not it’s through my project, I want charities to be more about communities – not corporate structure. I want them to collaborate – not compete. I want individuals like me to be able to “plug in” and help.

That’s exactly what Beth Kanter is talking about. Except she does it from a position of a well-respected expert and scholar. Here’s what she has to say about how charities should be conducting themselves in the 21st century:

What I like about Beth is that she completely understands the frustrations I have to deal with. I’m what she calls a “free agent”: someone who does what a charity does, but as an individual. Both Beth & I think free agents should team up with charities – but many charities resist this:

Thanks to Beth and the Red Cross’s Wendy Harman, I’ve been making a lot of progress in teaming up with the Red Cross. In fact, I’ve made more progress in a few weeks with the Red Cross than I have with my year-long talks with Save the Children.

Prior to meeting Beth, I would have raised my arms in frustration at this resistance many charities throw up when it comes to teaming up with free agents. But, Beth has made me realize that I need to imagine organizations complexly. People inside may want change, but the organization itself might be a “fortress”.

And really, in many respects, people like Beth aren’t just talking about what charities should be doing. What Beth is really talking about is what charities must do if they want to exist in the 21st century. It will be interesting to see which ones evolve… and which ones become obsolete.