Social entrepreneur round-up May 2007

Posted on May 10, 2007 by sse

Long overdue round-up of recent news and links of interest:

– the Third Sector awaits the imminent reshuffle with Gordon Brown succeeding Tony Blair and, most likely, Ed Miliband moving from his current post….though no-one seems to know where (not even the legendarily well-connected Stephen Bubb, who I asked last night)

– the Schwab Foundation, who run "Social Entrepreneur of the Year" competitions across the world (US, India etc.) appear to have paired up with the Independent and Boston Consulting Group to launch here: see Calling all social visionaries here; I wonder how the Edge Upstarts Awards (who announced their finalists and will announce winners this evening) and Enterprising Solutions and the other ceremonies will feel about another award scheme on the patch? Given that the article above misspells "entrepreneur" in its headline, possibly not very worried….

– And, while we’re on the subject, the Skoll Centre in Oxford has launched (or re-launched) its business plan competition as the 21st Century Challenge: "to encourage bold and innovative business ideas that will help to solve
the major social and environmental challenges of the twenty-first
century".

– Social Edge, the Skoll-funded portal of US/international social entrepreneurs, has launched some video and audio podcasts. Global X, whose blog is profoundly irritating or intensely amusing depending on who you speak to, is in charge of video interviews… ;US-centric, but there are some nuggets here….

– Whilst we’re covering all things Skoll-related, there’s an interesting take on the recent World Forum: all the way from New Zealand

– How can I not link to an article entitled "Digging into social enterprise: the mud beneath the yellow brick road"? It doesn’t really deliver on the title, but some interesting bits and pieces on earned income, sustainability and the balance of economic with social aims

– An article in the NY Times about businesses which "try to make money and save the world"; worth reading, and the first time in a while that I’ve read the label "fourth sector", which was once predicted to become a more established term….

– Closer to home, this month’s Social Enterprise Magazine features an article by Barbara Phillips on scaling , which refers to our own Long Tail of Social Entrepreneurship theory….(article not online yet, but available in our reception if you’re passing by… ;0) )

– Finally, seamlessly linking to the long tail comes this marvellous video on that very subject. Spoof movie trailer on how old media is being undone by the power of new technology. Or something.

The Long Tail of Social Entrepreneurship

Posted on April 10, 2007 by sse

Recently I’ve referred a couple of times to the ‘long tail of social entrepreneurship’, which has been an idea bubbling round SSE for a while. It essentially came out of a policy agenda we had been promoting (social entrepreneurship for the many not the few, democratising the opportunites for involvement, encouraging new entrants from all areas and backgrounds), combined with a reading and understanding of Chris Anderson’s now-very-famous Long Tail theory (see also the Wikipedia entry). Having discussed this with Rowena Young at Skoll, we agreed to do some investigation, start the debate, and work towards a joint paper.

Effectively, the Long Tail says that the internet has changed economics and culture by democratising the tools of production, decreasing the costs of distribution, and providing effective filtering via recommendation.

To use a practical example, an author with an expertise in Nepalese death metal might have wanted to publish a book on the subject. In the past, it is likely that a) this would have been expensive for him or her to produce, b) a publisher would turn him down because there’s a limited audience and because c) a bookshop would never stock it (limited shelf space and they want to stock books that sell) because, also, d) the limited audience might never find it (due to geography, limited channels to it etc.).

In the world today, he or her could start a blog on the subject for free very easily, get it published on demand by Lulu.com or something similar, get it stocked on Amazon, and reach his limited audience without incurring massive costs or several bottlenecks and barriers along the way. Why? Because the tools of production (writing/publishing), the costs of distribution/stock (Amazon effectively has unlimited shelf space) and the power of the internet to filter for an audience (Google/recommendations) allows it to happen.

And what does this mean for Amazon? Well, they can get as many sales from 6 sales of a million books as from (to take the Borders / Barnes & Noble / Waterstones bookshop model) a million sales of 6 books. The long tail, of niche products with niche audiences, can now provide aggregate sales on a par with the blockbusters and bestsellers. And it also allows diversity to thrive, and a greater variety of needs (eg. those of Nepalese death metal fans) to be met.

OK, so that’s my “long tail in a nutshell”, although the pages above explain it better…and the article and book better still. What has this to do with social entrepreneurship? Well, imagine that instead of products (like books or songs) we were talking about social entrepreneurs and their organisations. And imagine that instead of sales, we were talking about social impact. Because a lot of talk or focus on this sector (be it definitions, venture philanthropy, investment types, awards etc) is on scaling, and the need to scale the social impact that social entrepreneurs are having in order to address the large problems we face. No disagreement there.

What this long tail argument points out is that this scaling of social impact could be achieved not only through a scaling up of a few selected organisations (who get big investment, high-end consultancy, media promotion, awards etc), but also through a scaling out of opportunities to many individuals. Effectively, to return to maths equations for the first time in twenty years, this is pretty simple:

small number (of social entrepreneurs) x large size (of activity) = large-scale impact
large number (of social entrepreneurs) x small size (of activity) = large-scale impact

So, the argument goes on, we need to give as much attention to scaling up the number of opportunities (support/information to graduates, long-term unemployed, people living in ‘deprived’ areas, retirees etc.) for social entrepreneurship, as we do to scaling up a much smaller number of what have been identified as successful and replicable approaches.

But it’s not that simple, of course. There are pros and cons to both approaches:

– The short head (scaling up a few) should be more cost-efficient, avoid duplication and reinvention, and be quicker in achieving larger impact; it is also useful as a point of entry (stars promote the concept to the masses)
– Meanwhile, the long tail is potentially inefficient, slower, and more expensive (duplication of admin and back offices of lots of small organisations etc.)

BUT

– the long tail delivers solutions that are local, niche and fit-to-purpose, empowers many people (allowing us to find new stars and new innovations), and delivers benefits through and within organisations as well as by the direct impact they deliver (for example, confidence and skills, diversity in leadership, local wealth and job creation, community participation/involvement, wellbeing & health, active citizenship etc.)
– Meanwhile, the short head risks delivering top-down generic solutions, being elitist, fewer new leaders and innovations emerging, and pressuring organisations to scale before they are ready/proven

There are also limits to how far we can apply the theory or lens of the long tail, but it does raise some interesting questions:

– what are the “tools of production” for a social entrepreneur, and how can we “democratise” them? (appropriate support, networking, information, skills, investment?)

– if the architecture of the internet, and large-scale access to it, made the internet long tail wag, what architecture and access issues are there in this field?

– filters allow us to find quality in the long tail (and help them move up it): what are they in this field? (the support organisations? people like New Philanthropy Capital?)

– the long tail needs a head to thrive (and vice versa in this model), so how can they interact and co-operate?

That is the gist of the paper we presented at Skoll (I’ve only cut the introduction to SSE and some of the findings from our evaluation out: these were there purely to illustrate that we’ve supported people in the head and tail, and that the wider benefits of the long tail are clear from our decade of work) and we ended by saying:

– this is not an either-or debate (it’s an “and-and” one), but the emphasis may be too heavily on the head/stars at the moment

– we need to understand how to best maximise the benefits of the long tail but mitigate the risks (duplication etc.) [most succinctly put by Hugh Morrow at our seminar]

– we also need (and put out the question to this effect) to view this debate, and get viewpoints, from different countries where the field may not be as populated as the UK

Finally, just a big thanks to everyone who contributed to this work whether through unattributed comment or through deep debate. Particular thanks to all those who came to the seminar at Skoll and helped shape the next stage of the work (including Charles Handy, no less). For those who might find it of interest, here are the key slides from the powerpoint, starting with our vision of social entrepreneurship (please note that ‘community’ can be geographical or a community of practice), before plunging into the world of the long tail. Feel free to disseminate, with attribution, and also feel free to give us your thoughts on all of the the above on this blog.

replica uhren kaufen
richard mille fake

Skoll World Forum of Social Entrepreneurship: 2007 round-up

Posted on April 3, 2007 by sse

OK, so the round-up of this year’s Skoll Forum is well overdue. I’ll start by saying that there’s much more online coverage this year, so for an overview start at Social Edge which gives decent summaries and overviews of each sessions, if not much comment (beyond the star bloggers). You can also view videos of quite a few sessions online, which is inevitably going to give more information than any blogger could.

Other coverage includes Kevin Jones comparing it to alien abduction (it makes sense, trust me), some good coverage from Bruno Giussani, and comment from Sustainability’s John Elkington (who was also chairing/presenting a couple of sessions). I’ll add any more that I come across.

The event was split into three strands this year: social innovation (this year’s theme), evergreen (aka stuff this sector always discusses), and research (the academic wing). This is partly as a result of the event’s growing popularity (600+ people) and an associated need to split across venues, but also to try and give a snapshot of the sheer amount of activity happening across the world.

This for me is the primary value of the Skoll Forum. As a four-year veteran since its inception, I value its ability to give time for reflection, for networking across borders, and for challenging embedded thinking. As with any conference, people will always say that the most value comes outside of the main sessions, in the breaks, at dinners and in the wine receptions. This is true (or at least was for me this year) but there was also much to be learned in the more formal arenas.

In the opening ceremony, Jeff Skoll welcomed us (referencing his ambition last year to get Muhammad Yunus as well known as Britney Spears, he dryly observed that “Britney has raised the bar in the last year”), as did the Oxford head honchos, before we moved on to the substance.

This started with Geoff Mulgan on social innovation, which was very strong, and communicated with passion and clarity. And not to mention some great quotes (on the cross-sectoral nature of this work, he observed that “only cemeteries have people in tidy rows”). Obviously, the content was fairly familiar to me, as we are increasingly working closely with the Young Foundation, and SSE is a founding partner of their social innovation exchange (which was launched at Skoll; could be the first and last time I am ever a ‘thinker in residence’), but there was still some interesting new tidbits to me: particularly Michael Young always taking ‘no’ as a question, and seeking objections as a method of idea refinement. More generally, he called for an expansion of horizons and greater investment in the different routes and methods of social innovation.

Charles Handy gave some interesting examples from his new book, the New Philanthropists. I’ll try and review the book at a later date, but this was an interesting view into one part of the growing spectrum of social entrepreneurship. And the different philanthropists (or philanthrocapitalists or venture philanthropists or philanthropreneurs) are working in an incredibly diverse range of areas.

David Galenson then gave an interesting overview of his theory of two types of innovators (the one, conceptual young geniuses; the other, incremental old master experimentalists). It is interesting, but took a little too long for me to apply this in the social sphere and social innovators.

Next up was Muhammad Yunus, who got a standing ovation from the massed ranks of the Sheldonian. There’s been so much written about him, that I won’t add to it, but I was glad that amongst scenes of great celebration of him as a star social entrepreneur, he reminded us that “you can solve a neighbourhood problem, not a global problem”, and that all “citizens can solve problems”.

Finally, we had the Queen of Jordan who introduced us to her concept of Corporate Multicultural Responsibility (or CMR). She started by talking about Star Trek (to say that we are boldly going etc with ‘enterprise’), before espousing the need to address “the poverty of multicultural knowledge and respect”.

As we exited, there was amusement at Nigel Kershaw (of Big Invest) thinking that the aformentioned majesty was in fact an actress from Star Trek (“I liked it, but couldn’t work out why they’d invited her”), before the stampede back to the drinks reception….

————————————————–

Day two started early for us as we were presenting our “Long Tail of Social Entrepreneurship” proposal in the 8am slot. [I’ll blog about this separately, as promised: thanks to all those who attended and contributed]. I attended a couple of sessions: one was Social Entrepreneurs in Education, which I thought was great. It was only an hour, but each speaker was limited to just three minutes to talk, before facing questions: which meant a fruitful discussion (other sessions would have beenfited from stronger chairing!).

Eric Schwarz of Citizen Schools talked about the interface between policy and grassroots delivery (and the need to be able to meet the changes in the former with the capacity of the latter), while Ann Cotton said that CAMFED’s policy work was rooted in practice, which gave the credibility and legitimacy. This is what SSE has argued in our field and was good to hear that it has really worked from an SSE Fellow (and now Skoll Fellow) herself. Ann also said how important it was to ask questions with government rather than of them.

Martin Burt of Fundacion Paraguaya (and Teach a Man To Fish) detailed his sustainable schools of entrepreneurship: the schools currently cover 71% of their own costs, and the children learn (and earn!) through doing. Martin is such a great character, with a contagious enthusiasm and charisma. Teddy Blecher, of CIDA in South Africa, which works to increase the numbers of black people in university through making it virtually free, was another inspiring speaker: his ideas about consciousness-based education and university-in-a-box (to create town economies) were really thought-provoking. Finally, J B Schramm of College Summit gave his views on philanthropists (and how to scale your economic model)….

Great session, and good audience interaction (the two are connected).

I then went to Moving Capital, which featured several speakers including Penny Newman of CafeDirect and Arthur Wood from Ashoka. This was more of a mind-stretcher, with financial jargon and statistics aplenty, and I see that I took few notes, mostly through my brain being unable to cope with writing and understanding at the same time (particularly when Arthur unleashed another terrifying barrage of jargon and stats). I’ll revisit this online, because there was much of interest. Penny was great, and kept it grounded and connected to the world we operate in.

The awards were held in the Sheldonian, and were inspiring although, as with the opening plenary, one can often spot the cultural differences. Those from the UK and Australia tend to be slightly less enthusiastic for the celebratory stuff, whilst the US and others tend to relish it a bit more. The setting for the reception was equally spectacular, on the grounds of Trinity College, with much networking again. And drinking continued onwards into the night: Kevin Jones of Xigi and I crossed paths in a bar, and I agreed to contribute to their mapping endeavours (as far as I remember, something about mapping the value of networks to our students….but I’ll trawl the memory banks…).

I was off to our Aston graduation on the Thursday so missed Larry Brilliant (though I’ve heard he was, well….you know, by name, by nature etc) from Google.org, and missed Ed Miliband on Social Innovation, though I’m told he was klockor kopior good as well. Will check out online once my broadband improves…

————————

Overall, and I am aware that this is a hugely long post, so if you’re still with me, thanks…..overall, I enjoyed. Skoll is great for giving a good snapshot of the scene, for creating intersections, for sparking off new thoughts and for providing a space for reflection. It’s also interesting how you have different conversations there, even with the people whom you know very well….

It was welcome, though, to go to our Aston SSE’s first programme graduation in the heart of inner-city Birmingham. 8 completed the programme, 7 of whom are women, 6 BME, all unemployed and, without exception, all were utterly inspiring, confident and ambitious for their future. It reminded me of what SSE is in this business for, and how the movement (to steal a bit of Whitman) encompasses multitudes….and it must continue to do so.

Skoll Forum 2007: going international

Posted on March 14, 2007 by sse

Next week I have meetings here at SSE with organisations/individuals from China, Finland and Israel. Nothing revelatory in that, per se, but I think it’s symptomatic of a couple of things:

1) there is growing interest across the globe in social enterprise and entrepreneurship

2) the UK is at the forefront of this movement

OK, nothing revelatory in that either (!), but I think it’s worth dwelling on for a moment. Why? Well, the Skoll World Forum is coming up (see the Forum programme here), which provides a chance for international debate and discussion (and networking, of course) in the field, and to share knowledge and experiences with new people outside the UK scene.

The other point is that SSE will also be appearing on the fringe (the Orange programme) at Skoll, presenting on the long tail of social entrepreneurship. This basically discusses the need to scale up opportunities for social entrepreneurship involvement, as well as replicate ideas, scale individual organisations etc. I’ll post up a brief overview of where we’re coming from before we head to Oxford.

But what we’re hoping is that we can see how much of a UK-centric view this is, or how applicable it is to other countries. Is the support and finance available in the UK so far ahead of other countries that they would long (at this point) for star social entrepreneurs/enterprises like Muhammad Yunus or CafeDirect in order to promote the concept? Or does a grassroots, broad church approach appeal in terms of bringing wider benefits and tailored solutions? We’ll be looking for feedback to refine our thoughts and argument to have relevance beyond these shores…

The Forum this year focuses on social innovation, and features a whole range of speakers: from academics like Greg Dees to writers like Charles Handy, to practitioners like Yunus and Jim Fruchterman. Should be an event with a great buzz, and we’re already arranging meetings for when we’re there….If you’re coming along, then come and find SSE (and come along to our presentation on Wednesday morning); if you’re not, then we’ll endeavour to blog what we can from the event, as well as round-up afterwards….

Welcome to our social enterprise blog. Here you'll find news, views and updates from the School for Social Entrepreneurs.