Giving Factors

The day’s events have informed our exploration of active giving.

Formal and informal conversations amongst TED Active attendees, online dialogue and the TED talks have helped us create a framework for thinking about Active Giving. We see these as the human insights on giving that have emerged on the topic, and are relevant lenses to look at any potential systemic solutions we might explore as we consider the new structures of giving.

We call these GIVING FACTORS and they play out as three spectrums or tensions of thinking about giving.

1. Hope and Crisis
We respond to both hope and crisis as well as to fear for ourselves, our surroundings, and our future.

On the “hope” side of our discussions there was an interesting question of whether removing the notion of scarcity might also remove barriers to giving – the community at Burning Man was held out as an example.
While at the other edge of the spectrum the idea of crises, urgency and fear were all equally important motivators (the text donation campaigns for Haiti and Japan being examples.)

The individual TED talks on crisis and fear by Paul Gilding and optimism and hope by Peter Diamandis and the subsequent dialogue between them highlighted how these can both be effective and indeed might be highly complementary.

2. Story and Data
Empathy and fantastic story telling can move the masses, we’ve seen the power of stories in movement’s like The Girl Effect.

Stories have always hit at the core of our being. Yet in thinking about giving data and metrics, stories have never mattered more both with large and small scale investors in change. Showing need and effect quantifiably are essential to assuring the giver that what they give matters.

This conversation probably seems more meaningful and rich within the TED context where we’ve heard so many fantastic stories and in some cases stories about the power of stories.

3. Active and Passive 
Based on the moment, the cause, and the situation we can choose to be active givers, engaging - perhaps working - in context to make change.
Programs like Teach for America, Habitat for Humanity rely on our willingness to give of ourselves and of our time and we do. Likewise we are increasingly seeing models of giving that allow us to contribute in almost unconscious ways. We may find that we have given to multiple organizations and causes on a simple trip to the grocery store.

Each of the above factors establish a tension of personal preferences and environmental influences, BUT each can  motivate giving.

As we move into tomorrow and begin thinking about new systems and structures that motivate continued and sustained giving we’d like you to keep these motivators in mind. 

As preparation for tomorrow’s session we’d like to ask you to answer the following questions and, in each case, think about the giving factors above and how they influence your answer. When possible please send us links or background on the models you submit.

• What are emergent or existing digital platforms or real-world programs that promote and encourage habitual giving?
• What are emergent or existing examples of businesses that create habitual giving?
• What emergent t charities or organizations are creating systematic, habitual giving patterns amongst their supporters?

and remember, tweet your answers to #ActiveGiving