If you want to become big, should you think big or think small?

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?

Comments

[Raf Manji]

Hey Casey,

Think big, act small :-)

Humility goes a long way when building a business of principle.

My experience of "big names" is that they can become a bit of a red herring. You want people who are passionate about your business and not themselves.

The right people will come at the right time. You will attract them by virtue of your purpose and the values you live and work by.

I agree the viral community spread will work best for your business. Great Xmas and birthday presents for sure. And it's free!

Hope that helps.

Blessings

Raf

[Jake de Grazia]

Little story from today. Relates nicely I think.

Since we opened carrotproject.com to friends and friends of friends a little while ago, we've had a bunch of strangers request invitations to the "private beta." And we've let every one of them on. I've sent emails introducing myself. Most people have responded. And the feedback has been flowing.

One of the strangers turned out to be from Philadelphia, and I happened to have a meeting in town this morning, so I made a plan to have an early breaky with my new user.

We had a great time. He was totally excited about the project, and he had heaps of ideas.

One of the things we talked about was community management, working closely with individual users, making heavy grassroots connections. He told me I shouldn't bother with all that. I should be doing the high end evangelism only. I should be thinking big.

But he was glad I had stopped by, and he definitely recognized the irony in that.

[Social Venture Group]

Hi Casey, looking fwd to connecting with you soon! My thoughts on your last paragraph about having torchbearers, etc...I think you're right. Successful philanthropy is always first and foremost about relationships, not about the platform or even how compelling a project is (there are millions of compelling needs in this world...what compels a donor to give to one and not another?) It's a high-touch business, and the experience of giving through you needs to be unique and memorable. So my vote is not for BIG, but for meaningful impact. :) Just my two cents! -- Grace

[Casey Wilson]

Raf, Jake & Grace,

Thanks for your comments and feedback. It seems like this is just a really difficult question. Jake, I like the example of your Philidelphia supporter who told you to operate on a BIG level, but enjoyed the one-on-one breakfast chat with you. It seems like both are important and there's no clear formula for what the balance is between the two. I'm experiencing this right now. I had two wonderful conversations today, one with Grace :-), and many other email and gchat correspondences. Now it's 4:30pm and I haven't done a sentence of business plan writing that I was supposed to have completed on Friday. :-)

Casey

[Jake de Grazia]

Yeah maybe the key is to do the little stuff during the day and then the big stuff instead of sleeping.

[Crossroads]

Casey.

Focus on building your platforms, not your image.

The most important things are investing in people, programs, and process.

Have those, and you have a platform that markets itself.

If you are missing any of those, and no money in the world will save you.

R

[Yam Ki Chan]

Dear Casey,

Both are definitely needed, but timing and order matters. I think in moments like this, it's always good to refer back to the mission statement.

From where you are now to going towards better fulfilling your mission, what are the options that will get you there there, with strength, in the longer run?

Personally, I have found Wokai attractive because of its grassroots origins with the "high-touch" model. And who says that grassroots don't have a "one year, three year, and ten year plan"?

Good luck,
Yam Ki