Casey
Over the last month we've been reworking our vision to think bigger, trying to tweak our model to hopefully have a much larger impact in the long term. The whole process has gotten me thinking a lot about whether, if we want to become big some day, we should think big or think small. I guess there are two paths: the first being organic growth, where you focus on the present, do your best at each moment, focus on recruiting contributors one at a time, and see what happens, the second is going in with the huge vision, "we're going to change the world" perspective and building from there.
I hear a lot of perspectives on this argument. There's the voice of the VC type people that say, "keep making your idea bigger, get huge names to back the organization and push it forward." On the opposite end of the spectrum, Tom Williams, my friend who founded another online giving site called Give Meaning says, "you have to be grassroots if you want to be successful [as an online giving marketplace] fundraising for other grassroots programs". According to Tom, the traditional business like approach to developing on online giving marketplace just doesn't work. I think that Jake de Grazia one of our favorite dawning entrepreneurs who's starting the Carrot Project would agree. Both Jake and Tom believe that focusing on each individual user, community building, and what you might call "customer service" in the traditional business sense, is key. You have to create torchbearers and be grassroots...then eventually you'll have a community of others that assimilate into the organization and grow it with you.
I wonder whether Jake and Tom are right and the down-to-earth approach is a key to web 2.0 success. If they are right and it's all about the grassroots approach, it seems like the leaders of that model of organization couldn't be caught up in the big vision and executive planning that will take them there. If you're model is all about building an organic organization that's driven by the community, then you can't really plan out the one year, three year, and ten year plan for the organization. It will grow organically, along with the community that takes it on as it's own. If it's going to become big, that community will take it there in it's own time.
While I love that idea, the VC approach has it's merit as well. If you get the highest qualified backers in the world behind you, are well funded, and have solid governance boards and executable plans, why wouldn't you succeed? This model has worked for thousands of tech and non-tech firms before.
There is one peice that I could see as a possible weakness in this model in the case of an online giving marketplace in that there's a fundamental difference between an online giving marketplace and a traditional e-commerce site like amazon.com. I often wake up thinking that I need to go online and buy a new book that one of my friend's recommended to me. I have never woken up thinking, "today, I want to go online and find a cause to donate to." People, rather than money, is what makes me give. Say when my hair stylist, Elaine, told me that she had discovered this awesome new thing called "Kiva". She gave to a woman in Kenya who was opening a tailoring shop. She told me all about her borrower, how much she loved kiva, and all of the other people who'd given in her bookclub. Although I already knew about Kiva and how great it is, her story made me want to go home, log on, and give.
Using Elaine's story as an example, for an online giving marketplace to be successful, it seems crucial to have marketing done on a viral basis from torchbearers within your community that were touched deeply and want to share with others rather than traditional ad campaigns that present a product to potential consumers. What I don't know is whether there's a way to combine the two approaches or whether to be successful.I also don't know whether on a day to day basis, an entrepreneur should focus on becoming BIG or just doing the best possible on the day to day. Any ideas?
Recent Comments