In Michael Porter’s 1996 article “What is Strategy?”, he defined a company’s strategy as differentiating its activities from competitors to create a unique and valuable market position. This article was framed from the perspective of a for-profit company seeking competitive advantage and profit. However, Columbia Business School’s 2012 Social Enterprise Conference is asking how we can re-frame this narrow definition of strategy and build strategies within and across sectors to make social impact and tackle major social and environmental issues.There are several challenges to creating coherent strategies across sectors that will align numerous organizations. First, the desired outcome is not obvious. For-profit companies can rally around maximizing shareholder value as the indisputable goal, but it is difficult for organizations fighting poverty to determine which outcomes could be measured to signal success. Second, it is arguable which activities will most effectively lead to a desired outcome to reduce poverty or improve public health. This continues to be true though organizations are using innovative data approaches to measure their outcomes. Finally, even with a game plan, financial incentives generally don’t exist to propel various organizations to execute on a single strategy. In addition, the sources of funds and the priorities of funders can dictate the substance of many strategies.
Archive for the ‘Social Capital’ Category
Joseph Pulitzer used a form of crowdfunding to finance the Statue of Liberty. Obama used crowdfunding to bankroll his presidential campaign in 2008.
Crowdfunding is such a pervasive concept that today more than 175 crowdfunding sites exist online. Seemingly, a new crowdfunding site pops up every other day. So it may be surprising to learn that none of them allow entrepreneurs to raise money in exchange for equity in their business. That’s because regulatory organizations like the SEC ban it.
SEC regulations that date back to the 1930’s usurped entrepreneurs’ ability to pitch their business ideas to the general public with the aim of securing funding. Ostensibly, this was done to protect unsophisticated investors from fraudsters, but in any case effectively handed the role of financing new companies over to the wealthy. These days, the regulations don’t make sense given the Internet’s ability to add transparency to the opaque venture capital model.
In the same way that social networking changed how we allocate time, crowdfunding will change how we allocate capital. Crowdfunding, generally speaking, is the merger of group funding and social networking. While group funding dates back millennia, the social networking aspects of crowdfunding are quite new, and are a major driving force behind this revolutionary form of financing.
Building on social networking, crowdfunding creates a vehicle for people to invest or pledge money to projects for which they have an interest, a passion and an attachment. In doing so, it creates a marketplace opportunity for a diversity of players. Whether financing an indie movie, a fashion line, an around-the-world sailing adventure, or the next Lance Armstrong, crowdfunding is being applied everywhere.
Still, the human race hasn’t even come close to integrating the collective wisdom of our multi-billion person crowd with ways to allocate capital. 2 billion people already use the Internet, and that number is increasing rapidly. Until recently, capital allocation was largely the province of a small and entrenched minority. But with the explosive growth of connectivity and technological complexity, the classical models of capital allocation are folding and becoming dysfunctional. What are the weaknesses of old methods, especially the sheer scale of information and ideas, are the strengths of a new model of funding which has the potential to tap an almost unfathomable collective intelligence. Therein lies the immense future of the crowdfunding revolution.