1. [ +
give mart
we want your two cents
+ =
[
best bright big
intentions ideas bucks
Alexander Berger, Aaron Kalb, Alex Romanczuk
Stanford University

2. In the for-profit market,
‣ Smart investors grow in influence, controlling more money, because
the problem
‣ wiser investments yield larger returns why aren’t nonprofit
‣ and naïve investors entrust their money to reputable investors markets efficient?
‣ So the most effective institutions get the most capital and can do the best work
these are
missing in the
effective ineffective
nonprofit institutions institutions
funding market
the market
a few influential, masses of naïve
savvy investors investors
However, in the nonprofit space, If we fill in these missing links,
we can create an efficient social
‣ investor influence is uncorrelated with investor intelligence, because
capital market, in which
‣ giving is a one way street (i.e., investment in both effective and
savvy social investors direct
ineffective institutions yields zero monetary return)
money to the most effective
‣ and naïve investors do their own (naïve) investing
nonprofits...
‣ So most of the capital doesn’t get to the most effective nonprofits

3. our solution
Putting more money under the control of
effective social investors
‣ A web platform that harnesses cutting-edge game mechanics to identify
effective social investors and give them more control over the distribution of funding
‣ Similar to traditional online giving challenges, except that users are strongly
encouraged to comment and evaluate each other’s comments
‣ Positively reviewed commenters receive progressively more weight in both
their evaluation of other comments and in their votes for the eventual winners
‣ This ensures that the most effective nonprofits—not just the ones with the
most friends—receive funding
‣ Users donate to a specific issue challenge because it gives them incredible leverage,
in the form of
‣ more voice in the eventual distribution of funds and
‣ assurance that a challenge they care about “tips.” With a $50 contribution, you
could make a $5,000 challenge meet its goal and go live. That’s effectively a 99x
match for each individual donation.

4. reputation
calculation
inspiration
our project will
draw on the
strengths of
community successful sites
dialogue
give mart
distributed
reviewing
crowd attraction
collaborative
fund-raising
expert input

5. the dynamics
I A user starts a challenge
‣ Example: “$5,000 for the Best Youth III The challenge goes live:
votes, reviews, and karma accumulate
Organization in Atlanta” ‣ Nonprofits join and solicit their contacts for votes
‣ The initiator ‣ Users
‣ offers, say, $500, provided that other ‣ come to the site for the first time to vote for
users will contribute $4,500 their favorite nonprofits
‣ writes a catchy, evocative profile ‣ and stay to read, write, and evaluate
for the challenge comments, contributing to the karma
‣ and invites friends and relevant system
nonprofits ‣ Some users add money to the challenge, which
II
earns them extra karma
Others agree to contribute ‣ A ranking of nonprofits by effectiveness emerges
provided the goal is reached ‣ The best comments are promoted
‣
IV
(like Kickstarter or Groupon)
‣ Adding to a challenge The challenge closes and
‣ earns them karma points (which funding is distributed
translate to more votes when the
challenge goes live) ‣ Votes are weighted by the users’ karma and the
amount of money contributed
‣ and feels highly leveraged: “my $50 ‣ GiveSmart distributes the challenge’s pot
can direct $5,000 to great charities by proportionally among the top 5 vote-recipients
tipping a challenge”

6. “ example
LifeSavers DONATE
While certainly well intentioned,
”
We save lives by utilizing good intentions. LifeSavers was shown in this
more >
study to be incredibly ineffective
— Expert
of a nonprofit’s
page
Currently Comment Board POST Top-rated
competing in nonprofits
give your
Type your comment here in this domain
two cents,
User123!
SALI
though they may arrive at the site in
response to a chain email request
comment quality issued by a particular nonprofit,
Stop Malaria users will be exposed to top-ranked
While certainly well-intentioned, The Save-A-
Challenge Life Initiative competitors before they can offer a
LifeSavers was shown in this study to
$50,000 naïve vote or donation
be incredibly ineffective. The Save-A-
esteemed
VOTE Life Initiative targets the same
contributor
for LifeSavers population but yields far better results,
according to expert research. REPLY though this contributor’s one-star
rating represents a minority view, it
Eligible for bears extra weight due to the high
comment quality
Longevity karma she’s gained by getting
Thanks for referencing those great Seekers many “thumbs up” votes on her
studies! I’ll vote for The Save-A- thoughtful comments
Life Initiative, instead. REPLY more >
Save
Senegal the site will detect references
$100,000 newcomer
comment quality to other nonprofits and users,
nonprofits and replicate posts on the
NOMINATE This organization saves lives. It should in this domain relevant pages
LifeSavers win all the challenges. REPLY
comment quality
to ensure that everyone gets a fair
Yes, this charidy is DA BOMB!!1 shake, users will be encouraged to
REPLY
7 Billion visit sites with few comments and
Futures ratings
more >
comment quality
My friend told me this was a

7. IMPLEMENTATION · STEP 1 the build-up
a
creating the site
implementation logistics
making the idea real
‣ Development Costs (one-time)
‣ $50,000 for web design / $50,000 for web development
‣ $5,000 for miscellaneous expenditures (e.g. domain names, legal fees)
‣ Maintenance Costs (annual)
‣ $120,000 for permanent staff (conceptual, financial, technical)
‣ $15,000 for web hosting
‣ First Year Budget: $250,000
b implementation details
preserving the idea in reality
‣ Karma: A user’s influence must be an accurate function of that user’s reputation
‣ The system will add in-house algorithmic innovations to the best ideas from other well known reputation
measurement schemes (e.g., Google’s PageRank, Reddit, Amazon Top Reviewers)
‣ Integrity: Malicious actors should not be able to influence distribution of funds
‣ A well-designed karma system and a set of simple checks makes large-scale gaming of the system nearly impossible
‣ Stickiness: The site design must entice users to stay, comment, and donate money
‣ Known techniques for increasing front page conversion rates will draw the users in
‣ Cutting-edge game mechanics will keep them actively engaged

8. IMPLEMENTATION · STEP 2 the roll-out
attracting users
2 two-phase approach
I bowling pins
Facebook style
‣ Start small. Say, on one college campus.
‣ Get people talking about it with their friends. Match small challenges.
‣ Spread slowly. Build user base and reputation, then expand to a new community.
‣ Partner with Philanthropedia and Great Nonprofits. Populate the site with
their reviews to ensure that it is helpful to users at launch time.
II big bang
Apple style
‣ Go big. Find a large partner and announce a million dollar challenge.
‣ Continue to provide some (gradually declining) matching funds for new challenges.
‣ Transition slowly to challenges funded solely by individuals, as described in slide 5.

9. IMPLEMENTATION · STEP 3 stayin’ alive
sources of revenue
3 sources of revenue
for our operations
I corporations
(as in the Pepsi Refresh model)
‣ Charge hosting fees for branded challenges at the intersection of traditional
advertising and corporate social responsibility
II foundations
(as in America’s Giving Challenge model)
‣ Charge hosting fees for challenges created by community foundations or
small family foundations
‣ Give the foundations final say on the distribution of funds among the top 5 organizations
III individuals
(as in the Kiva model)
‣ Solicit micro-donations from individuals when they contribute to a challenge

10. the plot thickens how do we stack up?
here are some other possibilities
we considered, and how
giveSmart fits in
impact
eBay for impact “Give Like a Billionaire”
nonprofits bid directly: a sophisticated marketing
campaign aimed at getting people giveSmart
“You’ll save a life for $700?
I can do it for $600.” to think about how to be more is high impact,
the issue: neither buyers effective in their giving feasible, and
nor sellers know the right the issue: the Markets for Good hopefully
prices because there is not study shows that people are really coming soon.
enough research to make reticent to conduct research
precise claims about giveSmart could make the research
impact process painless
your perfect non-profit
change4change asks users for preferences (e.g. “educating
East African women”), then suggests the
Visa or MasterCard rounds
“perfect” match
purchases up to the nearest dollar
and “donates the difference to the issue: the top hit in characteristics may be
make a difference” via the charity an ineffective charity
of the customer’s choice giveSmart data on nonprofits’ effectiveness
the issue: customers might make an could be a key under-the-hood factor in
ineffective choice each suggestion
feasibility