WEBVTT

00:00:00.989 --> 00:00:04.595
I want to talk about social innovation

00:00:04.619 --> 00:00:06.546
and social entrepreneurship.

00:00:08.054 --> 00:00:10.166
I happen to have triplets.

00:00:10.773 --> 00:00:12.739
They're little. They're five years old.

00:00:13.081 --> 00:00:16.406
Sometimes I tell people I have triplets.
They say, "Really? How many?"

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:16.430 --> 00:00:17.795
(Laughter)

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:17.819 --> 00:00:21.920
Here's a picture of the kids --
that's Sage, and Annalisa and Rider.

00:00:23.396 --> 00:00:26.498
Now, I also happen to be gay.

00:00:28.490 --> 00:00:30.558
Being gay and fathering triplets is by far

00:00:30.582 --> 00:00:33.424
the most socially innovative,
socially entrepreneurial thing

00:00:33.448 --> 00:00:34.996
I have ever done.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:35.020 --> 00:00:36.075
(Laughter)

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:36.099 --> 00:00:39.747
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:39.771 --> 00:00:44.152
The real social innovation I want
to talk about involves charity.

00:00:44.176 --> 00:00:47.546
I want to talk about how the things
we've been taught to think

00:00:47.570 --> 00:00:49.804
about giving and about charity

00:00:49.828 --> 00:00:51.709
and about the nonprofit sector,

00:00:51.733 --> 00:00:55.678
are actually undermining
the causes we love,

00:00:55.702 --> 00:00:58.482
and our profound yearning
to change the world.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:59.387 --> 00:01:02.068
But before I do that,
I want to ask if we even believe

00:01:02.092 --> 00:01:05.046
that the nonprofit sector
has any serious role to play

00:01:05.070 --> 00:01:06.262
in changing the world.

00:01:07.254 --> 00:01:10.896
A lot of people say now that business
will lift up the developing economies,

00:01:10.920 --> 00:01:13.245
and social business
will take care of the rest.

00:01:14.166 --> 00:01:18.487
And I do believe that business will move
the great mass of humanity forward.

00:01:19.757 --> 00:01:23.653
But it always leaves behind
that 10 percent or more

00:01:23.677 --> 00:01:26.438
that is most disadvantaged or unlucky.

00:01:27.870 --> 00:01:29.490
And social business needs markets,

00:01:29.514 --> 00:01:32.276
and there are some issues
for which you just can't develop

00:01:32.300 --> 00:01:35.110
the kind of money measures
that you need for a market.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:35.134 --> 00:01:38.688
I sit on the board of a center
for the developmentally disabled,

00:01:38.712 --> 00:01:41.022
and these people want laughter

00:01:41.046 --> 00:01:43.185
and compassion and they want love.

00:01:45.458 --> 00:01:46.939
How do you monetize that?

00:01:48.649 --> 00:01:52.403
And that's where the nonprofit sector
and philanthropy come in.

00:01:53.006 --> 00:01:56.240
Philanthropy is the market for love.

00:01:56.595 --> 00:01:58.992
It is the market for all those people

00:01:59.016 --> 00:02:01.415
for whom there is no other market coming.

00:02:01.856 --> 00:02:04.563
And so if we really want,
like Buckminster Fuller said,

00:02:04.587 --> 00:02:06.952
a world that works for everyone,

00:02:06.976 --> 00:02:09.456
with no one and nothing left out,

00:02:09.480 --> 00:02:11.618
then the nonprofit sector has to be

00:02:11.642 --> 00:02:13.750
a serious part of the conversation.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:14.750 --> 00:02:16.498
But it doesn't seem to be working.

00:02:17.173 --> 00:02:19.578
Why have our breast cancer
charities not come close

00:02:19.602 --> 00:02:21.324
to finding a cure for breast cancer,

00:02:21.348 --> 00:02:23.300
or our homeless charities not come close

00:02:23.324 --> 00:02:25.614
to ending homelessness in any major city?

00:02:26.407 --> 00:02:28.385
Why has poverty remained stuck

00:02:28.409 --> 00:02:32.460
at 12 percent of the U.S.
population for 40 years?

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:34.015 --> 00:02:35.621
And the answer is,

00:02:35.645 --> 00:02:38.900
these social problems
are massive in scale,

00:02:38.924 --> 00:02:41.678
our organizations
are tiny up against them,

00:02:41.702 --> 00:02:44.534
and we have a belief system
that keeps them tiny.

00:02:45.447 --> 00:02:46.617
We have two rulebooks.

00:02:46.641 --> 00:02:48.507
We have one for the nonprofit sector,

00:02:48.531 --> 00:02:51.050
and one for the rest
of the economic world.

00:02:51.923 --> 00:02:53.990
It's an apartheid, and it discriminates

00:02:54.014 --> 00:02:56.940
against the nonprofit sector
in five different areas,

00:02:56.964 --> 00:02:58.723
the first being compensation.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:59.974 --> 00:03:02.618
So in the for-profit sector,
the more value you produce,

00:03:02.642 --> 00:03:04.180
the more money you can make.

00:03:04.204 --> 00:03:06.288
But we don't like nonprofits to use money

00:03:06.312 --> 00:03:09.661
to incentivize people
to produce more in social service.

00:03:10.264 --> 00:03:12.751
We have a visceral reaction
to the idea that anyone

00:03:12.775 --> 00:03:15.446
would make very much money
helping other people.

00:03:16.216 --> 00:03:18.461
Interestingly, we don't have
a visceral reaction

00:03:18.485 --> 00:03:20.890
to the notion that people
would make a lot of money

00:03:20.914 --> 00:03:22.139
not helping other people.

00:03:22.163 --> 00:03:24.264
You know, you want to make
50 million dollars

00:03:24.288 --> 00:03:26.510
selling violent video games
to kids, go for it.

00:03:26.534 --> 00:03:28.655
We'll put you on the cover
of Wired magazine.

00:03:28.679 --> 00:03:30.703
But you want to make
half a million dollars

00:03:30.727 --> 00:03:32.216
trying to cure kids of malaria,

00:03:32.240 --> 00:03:35.360
and you're considered a parasite yourself.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:35.384 --> 00:03:40.312
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:40.336 --> 00:03:42.757
And we think of this
as our system of ethics,

00:03:42.781 --> 00:03:44.924
but what we don't realize
is that this system

00:03:44.948 --> 00:03:48.106
has a powerful side effect, which is:

00:03:48.130 --> 00:03:51.884
It gives a really stark,
mutually exclusive choice

00:03:51.908 --> 00:03:55.542
between doing very well
for yourself and your family

00:03:55.566 --> 00:03:57.960
or doing good for the world,

00:03:57.984 --> 00:04:00.778
to the brightest minds
coming out of our best universities,

00:04:00.802 --> 00:04:02.912
and sends tens of thousands of people

00:04:02.936 --> 00:04:05.634
who could make a huge difference
in the nonprofit sector,

00:04:05.658 --> 00:04:08.254
marching every year
directly into the for-profit sector

00:04:08.278 --> 00:04:12.214
because they're not willing to make
that kind of lifelong economic sacrifice.

00:04:13.404 --> 00:04:16.349
Businessweek did a survey,
looked at the compensation packages

00:04:16.373 --> 00:04:18.698
for MBAs 10 years out of business school.

00:04:19.416 --> 00:04:22.140
And the median compensation
for a Stanford MBA,

00:04:22.164 --> 00:04:26.385
with bonus, at the age of 38,
was 400,000 dollars.

00:04:26.972 --> 00:04:29.242
Meanwhile, for the same year,
the average salary

00:04:29.266 --> 00:04:32.095
for the CEO of a $5 million-plus
medical charity in the U.S.

00:04:32.119 --> 00:04:37.114
was 232,000 dollars,
and for a hunger charity, 84,000 dollars.

00:04:37.765 --> 00:04:40.361
Now, there's no way you're
going to get a lot of people

00:04:40.385 --> 00:04:44.440
with $400,000 talent to make
a $316,000 sacrifice every year

00:04:44.464 --> 00:04:46.687
to become the CEO of a hunger charity.

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:47.767 --> 00:04:51.292
Some people say, "Well, that's just
because those MBA types are greedy."

00:04:51.316 --> 00:04:53.487
Not necessarily. They might be smart.

00:04:54.023 --> 00:04:56.018
It's cheaper for that person to donate

00:04:56.042 --> 00:04:59.852
100,000 dollars every year
to the hunger charity;

00:04:59.876 --> 00:05:01.790
save 50,000 dollars on their taxes --

00:05:01.814 --> 00:05:06.239
so still be roughly 270,000 dollars
a year ahead of the game --

00:05:06.263 --> 00:05:08.858
now be called a philanthropist
because they donated

00:05:08.882 --> 00:05:10.716
100,000 dollars to charity;

00:05:10.740 --> 00:05:12.998
probably sit on the board
of the hunger charity;

00:05:13.022 --> 00:05:14.918
indeed, probably supervise the poor SOB

00:05:14.942 --> 00:05:17.688
who decided to become the CEO
of the hunger charity;

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:17.712 --> 00:05:18.719
(Laughter)

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:18.743 --> 00:05:22.094
and have a lifetime
of this kind of power and influence

00:05:22.118 --> 00:05:24.378
and popular praise still ahead of them.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:25.846 --> 00:05:29.304
The second area of discrimination
is advertising and marketing.

00:05:29.328 --> 00:05:32.809
So we tell the for-profit sector,
"Spend, spend, spend on advertising,

00:05:32.833 --> 00:05:36.155
until the last dollar no longer
produces a penny of value."

00:05:36.695 --> 00:05:40.045
But we don't like to see our donations
spent on advertising in charity.

00:05:40.069 --> 00:05:44.044
Our attitude is, "Well, look,
if you can get the advertising donated,

00:05:44.068 --> 00:05:47.313
you know, to air at four o'clock
in the morning, I'm okay with that.

00:05:47.337 --> 00:05:49.701
But I don't want my donation
spent on advertising,

00:05:49.725 --> 00:05:51.292
I want it go to the needy."

00:05:51.316 --> 00:05:53.174
As if the money invested in advertising

00:05:53.198 --> 00:05:55.828
could not bring in dramatically
greater sums of money

00:05:55.852 --> 00:05:57.004
to serve the needy.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:57.853 --> 00:05:59.944
In the 1990s, my company created

00:05:59.968 --> 00:06:03.343
the long-distance
AIDSRide bicycle journeys,

00:06:03.367 --> 00:06:07.916
and the 60 mile-long
breast cancer three-day walks,

00:06:07.940 --> 00:06:10.900
and over the course of nine years,

00:06:10.924 --> 00:06:15.963
we had 182,000 ordinary
heroes participate,

00:06:15.987 --> 00:06:19.883
and they raised a total
of 581 million dollars.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:19.907 --> 00:06:23.047
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:23.071 --> 00:06:25.524
They raised more money
more quickly for these causes

00:06:25.548 --> 00:06:27.214
than any events in history,

00:06:27.238 --> 00:06:30.032
all based on the idea
that people are weary

00:06:30.056 --> 00:06:32.858
of being asked to do the least
they can possibly do.

00:06:32.882 --> 00:06:37.448
People are yearning to measure
the full distance of their potential

00:06:37.472 --> 00:06:40.107
on behalf of the causes
that they care about deeply.

00:06:40.813 --> 00:06:42.448
But they have to be asked.

00:06:43.837 --> 00:06:45.670
We got that many people to participate

00:06:45.694 --> 00:06:47.905
by buying full-page ads
in The New York Times,

00:06:47.929 --> 00:06:51.342
in The Boston Globe, in prime time
radio and TV advertising.

00:06:51.366 --> 00:06:53.525
Do you know how many people
we would've gotten

00:06:53.549 --> 00:06:55.429
if we put up fliers in the laundromat?

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:57.014 --> 00:07:01.220
Charitable giving has remained stuck
in the U.S., at two percent of GDP,

00:07:01.244 --> 00:07:04.003
ever since we started
measuring it in the 1970s.

00:07:04.027 --> 00:07:06.340
That's an important fact,
because it tells us

00:07:06.364 --> 00:07:09.054
that in 40 years, the nonprofit sector

00:07:09.078 --> 00:07:12.159
has not been able
to wrestle any market share

00:07:12.183 --> 00:07:14.218
away from the for-profit sector.

00:07:14.940 --> 00:07:17.134
And if you think about it,
how could one sector

00:07:17.158 --> 00:07:20.215
possibly take market share
away from another sector

00:07:20.239 --> 00:07:22.410
if it isn't really allowed to market?

00:07:23.441 --> 00:07:25.155
And if we tell the consumer brands,

00:07:25.179 --> 00:07:27.735
"You may advertise
all the benefits of your product,"

00:07:27.759 --> 00:07:31.140
but we tell charities, "You cannot
advertise all the good that you do,"

00:07:31.164 --> 00:07:33.925
where do we think the consumer
dollars are going to flow?

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:35.155 --> 00:07:37.989
The third area of discrimination
is the taking of risk

00:07:38.013 --> 00:07:41.220
in pursuit of new ideas
for generating revenue.

00:07:42.128 --> 00:07:45.775
So Disney can make a new
$200 million movie that flops,

00:07:45.799 --> 00:07:47.887
and nobody calls the attorney general.

00:07:48.736 --> 00:07:52.635
But you do a little $1 million
community fundraiser for the poor,

00:07:52.659 --> 00:07:56.552
and it doesn't produce a 75 percent profit
to the cause in the first 12 months,

00:07:56.576 --> 00:07:58.714
and your character
is called into question.

00:07:59.396 --> 00:08:02.832
So nonprofits are really reluctant
to attempt any brave,

00:08:02.856 --> 00:08:05.783
daring, giant-scale
new fundraising endeavors,

00:08:05.807 --> 00:08:07.408
for fear that if the thing fails,

00:08:07.432 --> 00:08:09.804
their reputations will be dragged
through the mud.

00:08:09.828 --> 00:08:10.987
Well, you and I know

00:08:11.011 --> 00:08:13.408
when you prohibit failure,
you kill innovation.

00:08:13.859 --> 00:08:17.073
If you kill innovation in fundraising,
you can't raise more revenue;

00:08:17.097 --> 00:08:19.378
if you can't raise more revenue,
you can't grow;

00:08:19.402 --> 00:08:22.814
and if you can't grow, you can't
possibly solve large social problems.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:23.608 --> 00:08:25.481
The fourth area is time.

00:08:26.100 --> 00:08:29.899
So Amazon went for six years
without returning any profit to investors,

00:08:29.923 --> 00:08:31.401
and people had patience.

00:08:31.782 --> 00:08:34.663
They knew that there was a long-term
objective down the line,

00:08:34.687 --> 00:08:36.273
of building market dominance.

00:08:36.297 --> 00:08:38.880
But if a nonprofit organization
ever had a dream

00:08:38.904 --> 00:08:43.154
of building magnificent scale
that required that for six years,

00:08:43.178 --> 00:08:45.042
no money was going to go to the needy,

00:08:45.066 --> 00:08:47.702
it was all going to be invested
in building this scale,

00:08:47.726 --> 00:08:49.226
we would expect a crucifixion.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:50.543 --> 00:08:52.170
The last area is profit itself.

00:08:52.194 --> 00:08:54.710
So the for-profit sector
can pay people profits

00:08:54.734 --> 00:08:57.307
in order to attract their capital
for their new ideas,

00:08:57.331 --> 00:09:00.447
but you can't pay profits
in a nonprofit sector,

00:09:00.471 --> 00:09:02.443
so the for-profit sector has a lock

00:09:02.467 --> 00:09:04.948
on the multi-trillion-dollar
capital markets,

00:09:04.972 --> 00:09:09.630
and the nonprofit sector is starved
for growth and risk and idea capital.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:10.764 --> 00:09:12.780
Well, you put those
five things together --

00:09:12.804 --> 00:09:15.958
you can't use money to lure talent
away from the for-profit sector;

00:09:15.982 --> 00:09:18.173
you can't advertise
on anywhere near the scale

00:09:18.197 --> 00:09:20.551
the for-profit sector
does for new customers;

00:09:20.575 --> 00:09:23.539
you can't take the kinds of risks
in pursuit of those customers

00:09:23.563 --> 00:09:25.251
that the for-profit sector takes;

00:09:25.275 --> 00:09:28.908
you don't have the same amount of time
to find them as the for-profit sector;

00:09:28.932 --> 00:09:31.996
and you don't have a stock market
with which to fund any of this,

00:09:32.020 --> 00:09:34.132
even if you could do it
in the first place --

00:09:34.156 --> 00:09:36.076
and you've just put the nonprofit sector

00:09:36.100 --> 00:09:38.760
at an extreme disadvantage
to the for-profit sector,

00:09:38.784 --> 00:09:39.950
on every level.

00:09:42.061 --> 00:09:45.227
If we have any doubts about the effects
of this separate rule book,

00:09:45.251 --> 00:09:46.775
this statistic is sobering:

00:09:46.799 --> 00:09:49.139
From 1970 to 2009,

00:09:49.163 --> 00:09:51.894
the number of nonprofits that really grew,

00:09:51.918 --> 00:09:55.098
that crossed the $50 million
annual revenue barrier,

00:09:55.122 --> 00:09:56.756
is 144.

00:09:57.274 --> 00:10:00.084
In the same time, the number
of for-profits that crossed it

00:10:00.108 --> 00:10:02.247
is 46,136.

00:10:03.176 --> 00:10:06.239
So we're dealing with social problems
that are massive in scale,

00:10:06.263 --> 00:10:08.589
and our organizations
can't generate any scale.

00:10:08.613 --> 00:10:11.414
All of the scale goes
to Coca-Cola and Burger King.

NOTE Paragraph

00:10:13.128 --> 00:10:14.866
So why do we think this way?

00:10:15.779 --> 00:10:19.992
Well, like most fanatical
dogma in America,

00:10:20.016 --> 00:10:22.901
these ideas come from old Puritan beliefs.

00:10:23.481 --> 00:10:26.552
The Puritans came here
for religious reasons, or so they said,

00:10:26.576 --> 00:10:29.774
but they also came here because
they wanted to make a lot of money.

00:10:30.083 --> 00:10:31.512
They were pious people,

00:10:31.536 --> 00:10:34.551
but they were also
really aggressive capitalists,

00:10:34.575 --> 00:10:38.095
and they were accused of extreme forms
of profit-making tendencies,

00:10:38.119 --> 00:10:40.032
compared to the other colonists.

00:10:40.524 --> 00:10:43.520
But at the same time,
the Puritans were Calvinists,

00:10:43.544 --> 00:10:46.067
so they were taught literally
to hate themselves.

00:10:46.091 --> 00:10:49.135
They were taught
that self-interest was a raging sea

00:10:49.159 --> 00:10:51.746
that was a sure path to eternal damnation.

00:10:52.580 --> 00:10:54.698
This created a real problem
for these people.

00:10:54.722 --> 00:10:58.239
Here they've come all the way across
the Atlantic to make all this money,

00:10:58.263 --> 00:11:01.438
but making all this money
will get you sent directly to Hell.

00:11:01.462 --> 00:11:03.020
What were they to do about this?

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:03.334 --> 00:11:04.972
Well, charity became their answer.

00:11:04.996 --> 00:11:07.427
It became this economic sanctuary,

00:11:07.451 --> 00:11:11.070
where they could do penance
for their profit-making tendencies --

00:11:11.094 --> 00:11:13.094
at five cents on the dollar.

00:11:14.079 --> 00:11:16.413
So of course, how could you
make money in charity

00:11:16.437 --> 00:11:18.761
if charity was your penance
for making money?

00:11:19.182 --> 00:11:23.039
Financial incentive was exiled
from the realm of helping others,

00:11:23.063 --> 00:11:26.468
so that it could thrive in the area
of making money for yourself,

00:11:26.492 --> 00:11:29.659
and in 400 years, nothing has intervened

00:11:29.683 --> 00:11:32.917
to say, "That's counterproductive
and that's unfair."

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:35.115 --> 00:11:38.780
Now, this ideology gets policed
by this one very dangerous question,

00:11:38.804 --> 00:11:43.084
which is, "What percentage of my donation
goes to the cause versus overhead?"

00:11:43.393 --> 00:11:45.600
There are a lot of problems
with this question.

00:11:45.624 --> 00:11:47.124
I'm going to just focus on two.

00:11:47.148 --> 00:11:51.213
First, it makes us think
that overhead is a negative,

00:11:51.237 --> 00:11:54.030
that it is somehow not part of the cause.

00:11:55.022 --> 00:11:58.857
But it absolutely is, especially
if it's being used for growth.

00:11:59.991 --> 00:12:03.912
Now, this idea that overhead
is somehow an enemy of the cause

00:12:03.936 --> 00:12:06.437
creates this second, much larger problem,

00:12:06.461 --> 00:12:10.297
which is, it forces organizations
to go without the overhead things

00:12:10.321 --> 00:12:11.929
they really need to grow,

00:12:11.953 --> 00:12:14.225
in the interest of keeping overhead low.

NOTE Paragraph

00:12:14.924 --> 00:12:17.432
So we've all been taught
that charities should spend

00:12:17.456 --> 00:12:20.231
as little as possible on overhead
things like fundraising

00:12:20.255 --> 00:12:23.629
under the theory that, well, the less
money you spend on fundraising,

00:12:23.653 --> 00:12:26.454
the more money there is
available for the cause.

00:12:27.335 --> 00:12:29.678
Well, that's true
if it's a depressing world

00:12:29.702 --> 00:12:32.405
in which this pie cannot
be made any bigger.

00:12:33.120 --> 00:12:36.485
But if it's a logical world
in which investment in fundraising

00:12:36.509 --> 00:12:39.995
actually raises more funds
and makes the pie bigger,

00:12:40.019 --> 00:12:41.876
then we have it precisely backwards,

00:12:41.900 --> 00:12:45.448
and we should be investing more money,
not less, in fundraising,

00:12:45.472 --> 00:12:47.201
because fundraising is the one thing

00:12:47.225 --> 00:12:49.836
that has the potential
to multiply the amount of money

00:12:49.860 --> 00:12:52.677
available for the cause
that we care about so deeply.

NOTE Paragraph

00:12:54.487 --> 00:12:55.780
I'll give you two examples.

00:12:55.804 --> 00:12:57.050
We launched the AIDSRides

00:12:57.074 --> 00:13:00.146
with an initial investment
of 50,000 dollars in risk capital.

00:13:00.606 --> 00:13:05.585
Within nine years,
we had multiplied that 1,982 times,

00:13:05.609 --> 00:13:09.799
into 108 million dollars
after all expenses, for AIDS services.

00:13:11.218 --> 00:13:13.131
We launched the breast cancer three-days

00:13:13.155 --> 00:13:16.618
with an initial investment
of 350,000 dollars in risk capital.

00:13:16.983 --> 00:13:21.713
Within just five years,
we had multiplied that 554 times,

00:13:21.737 --> 00:13:25.316
into 194 million dollars
after all expenses,

00:13:25.340 --> 00:13:26.661
for breast cancer research.

00:13:26.970 --> 00:13:30.284
Now, if you were a philanthropist
really interested in breast cancer,

00:13:30.308 --> 00:13:31.601
what would make more sense:

00:13:31.625 --> 00:13:35.476
go out and find the most innovative
researcher in the world

00:13:35.500 --> 00:13:38.880
and give her 350,000 dollars for research,

00:13:38.904 --> 00:13:42.523
or give her fundraising
department the 350,000 dollars

00:13:42.547 --> 00:13:46.832
to multiply it into 194 million dollars
for breast cancer research?

00:13:47.800 --> 00:13:50.825
2002 was our most successful year ever.

00:13:50.849 --> 00:13:53.983
We netted for breast cancer
alone, that year alone,

00:13:54.007 --> 00:13:57.094
71 million dollars after all expenses.

00:13:57.853 --> 00:14:00.173
And then we went out of business,

00:14:00.197 --> 00:14:02.015
suddenly and traumatically.

NOTE Paragraph

00:14:03.309 --> 00:14:08.023
Why? Well, the short story is,
our sponsors split on us.

00:14:08.047 --> 00:14:10.110
They wanted to distance themselves from us

00:14:10.134 --> 00:14:12.991
because we were being
crucified in the media

00:14:13.015 --> 00:14:16.393
for investing 40 percent
of the gross in recruitment

00:14:16.417 --> 00:14:19.781
and customer service
and the magic of the experience,

00:14:19.805 --> 00:14:22.668
and there is no accounting
terminology to describe

00:14:22.692 --> 00:14:25.842
that kind of investment
in growth and in the future,

00:14:25.866 --> 00:14:28.810
other than this demonic
label of "overhead."

00:14:30.778 --> 00:14:36.152
So on one day, all 350
of our great employees

00:14:36.176 --> 00:14:37.802
lost their jobs ...

00:14:40.660 --> 00:14:42.485
because they were labeled "overhead."

00:14:43.818 --> 00:14:46.358
Our sponsor went and tried
the events on their own.

00:14:46.382 --> 00:14:47.715
The overhead went up.

00:14:47.739 --> 00:14:51.508
Net income for breast cancer research
went down by 84 percent,

00:14:51.532 --> 00:14:54.450
or 60 million dollars, in one year.

NOTE Paragraph

00:14:55.984 --> 00:15:01.381
This is what happens when we confuse
morality with frugality.

00:15:03.359 --> 00:15:06.525
We've all been taught that the bake sale
with five percent overhead

00:15:06.549 --> 00:15:09.500
is morally superior to the professional
fundraising enterprise

00:15:09.524 --> 00:15:11.190
with 40 percent overhead,

00:15:11.214 --> 00:15:14.491
but we're missing the most important
piece of information, which is:

00:15:14.515 --> 00:15:16.991
What is the actual size of these pies?

00:15:17.674 --> 00:15:21.593
Who cares if the bake sale only has
five percent overhead if it's tiny?

00:15:22.313 --> 00:15:25.145
What if the bake sale
only netted 71 dollars for charity

00:15:25.169 --> 00:15:27.193
because it made no investment in its scale

00:15:27.217 --> 00:15:29.598
and the professional
fundraising enterprise netted

00:15:29.622 --> 00:15:31.928
71 million dollars because it did?

00:15:32.571 --> 00:15:34.166
Now which pie would we prefer,

00:15:34.190 --> 00:15:37.285
and which pie do we think people
who are hungry would prefer?

NOTE Paragraph

00:15:38.317 --> 00:15:41.263
Here's how all of this
impacts the big picture.

00:15:41.991 --> 00:15:45.468
I said that charitable giving is
two percent of GDP in the United States.

00:15:45.492 --> 00:15:48.182
That's about 300 billion dollars a year.

00:15:48.206 --> 00:15:51.569
But only about 20 percent of that,
or 60 billion dollars,

00:15:51.593 --> 00:15:53.546
goes to health and human services causes.

00:15:53.570 --> 00:15:57.196
The rest goes to religion
and higher education and hospitals,

00:15:57.220 --> 00:16:00.118
and that 60 billion dollars
is not nearly enough

00:16:00.142 --> 00:16:01.697
to tackle these problems.

00:16:02.349 --> 00:16:06.699
But if we could move charitable giving
from two percent of GDP,

00:16:06.723 --> 00:16:13.361
up just one step to three percent of GDP,
by investing in that growth,

00:16:13.385 --> 00:16:17.420
that would be an extra 150 billion dollars
a year in contributions,

00:16:17.444 --> 00:16:19.802
and if that money
could go disproportionately

00:16:19.826 --> 00:16:21.685
to health and human services charities,

00:16:21.709 --> 00:16:24.948
because those were the ones we encouraged
to invest in their growth,

00:16:24.972 --> 00:16:28.730
that would represent a tripling
of contributions to that sector.

00:16:29.313 --> 00:16:30.921
Now we're talking scale.

00:16:30.945 --> 00:16:33.429
Now we're talking the potential
for real change.

00:16:34.571 --> 00:16:37.666
But it's never going to happen
by forcing these organizations

00:16:37.690 --> 00:16:39.518
to lower their horizons

00:16:39.542 --> 00:16:43.161
to the demoralizing objective
of keeping their overhead low.

NOTE Paragraph

00:16:45.137 --> 00:16:48.469
Our generation does not want
its epitaph to read,

00:16:48.493 --> 00:16:50.620
"We kept charity overhead low."

NOTE Paragraph

00:16:50.644 --> 00:16:55.168
(Laughter)

NOTE Paragraph

00:16:55.192 --> 00:16:59.024
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:16:59.048 --> 00:17:01.255
We want it to read
that we changed the world,

00:17:01.279 --> 00:17:02.994
and that part of the way we did that

00:17:03.018 --> 00:17:05.607
was by changing the way
we think about these things.

NOTE Paragraph

00:17:06.306 --> 00:17:08.433
So the next time
you're looking at a charity,

00:17:08.457 --> 00:17:10.538
don't ask about the rate
of their overhead.

00:17:10.562 --> 00:17:12.877
Ask about the scale of their dreams,

00:17:12.901 --> 00:17:16.457
their Apple-, Google-,
Amazon-scale dreams,

00:17:16.481 --> 00:17:18.950
how they measure their progress
toward those dreams,

00:17:18.974 --> 00:17:21.609
and what resources they need
to make them come true,

00:17:21.633 --> 00:17:23.396
regardless of what the overhead is.

00:17:23.420 --> 00:17:25.024
Who cares what the overhead is

00:17:25.048 --> 00:17:27.383
if these problems
are actually getting solved?

NOTE Paragraph

00:17:28.367 --> 00:17:31.343
If we can have that kind of generosity --

00:17:31.367 --> 00:17:33.495
a generosity of thought --

00:17:33.519 --> 00:17:36.395
then the non-profit sector
can play a massive role

00:17:36.419 --> 00:17:39.851
in changing the world
for all those citizens

00:17:39.875 --> 00:17:42.468
most desperately in need of it to change.

00:17:45.816 --> 00:17:48.946
And if that can be
our generation's enduring legacy --

00:17:50.662 --> 00:17:53.534
that we took responsibility

00:17:53.558 --> 00:17:56.053
for the thinking that had
been handed down to us,

00:17:56.077 --> 00:17:58.893
that we revisited it, we revised it,

00:17:58.917 --> 00:18:02.999
and we reinvented the whole way
humanity thinks about changing things,

00:18:03.023 --> 00:18:06.499
forever, for everyone --

00:18:06.523 --> 00:18:10.317
well, I thought I would let
the kids sum up what that would be.

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:11.301 --> 00:18:13.152
Annalisa Smith-Pallotta: That would be

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:13.176 --> 00:18:15.158
Sage Smith-Pallotta: a real social

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:15.182 --> 00:18:17.008
Rider Smith-Pallotta: innovation.

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:17.428 --> 00:18:19.079
Dan Pallotta: Thank you very much.

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:19.103 --> 00:18:20.358
Thank you.

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:20.382 --> 00:18:27.329
(Applause)

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:29.518 --> 00:18:30.691
Thank you.

NOTE Paragraph

00:18:30.715 --> 00:18:33.753
(Applause)