The $5 philanthropist

Taped the Hour this evening and now back at the hotel watching it online. The link I posted below in an earlier blog entry has the entire interview on their website.

I really enjoyed meeting George. He's a great guy, great mind.

If you're reading this blog entry having watched the show and have questions for me, don't hesitate to post them here on the blog or email me at tom [@] givemeaning [dot] com.

Thanks for watching.

Labels: cbc, media, thehour, toronto

I'm in Toronto rushing to a meeting but wanted to share that I'm going to be interviewed on the Hour tonight. It airs at 11pm on CBC.

Here's the promo clip which apparently doesn't work on a Mac.

Labels: cbc, media, thehour, toronto

Forgive my nerdy joke and my continual need to push the topic of "versioning" the web. I come from the good ol' days of 1.0.1a not just alpha, beta, gamma, omega. While Web 2.0 has certainly become a marketing jargon, let's respect that if we don't keep versioning past Web 2.0 (whether as marketing or real practice), we're saying we're not evolving. Web 3.0's real definition will likely be in a re-infastructured web, not in any particular application or technology. But back to the topic of reputation....

The first breed of aggregators (MySpace, Friendster, all of those b-2-b niche communities etc) tightly controlled the terms of use and looked at their membership as their asset. They built closed systems and governed their communities hierarchically. They decided what to show, what to promote, how to allow, and acceptable codes of conduct.

Two of the most successful community sites - Digg and Facebook - are both communities who have lost control of their community. Digg saw a mass revolt around what the community perceived as censoring but what Digg saw as prudent risk management. Most amazingly, Digg vowed its fate to the community, a noble if not dangerous move. Facebook experienced its own revolt (though not around an issue of legal liability) where mass protest around privacy issues led to watering-down and in some parts removing new functionality. Now with f8, they have truly opened up their site to 3rd party applications. Some of which (like those that allow monitoring of who has browsed your page) are contrary to the spirit and philosophy of the Facebook value-set.

The problems with being open or too open are:

The Wisdom of the Crowds isn't often wise: Have a look at the front-pages of Digg and YouTube. Count how many of the pieces of content most voted for by the crowd are of interest to YOU!
Community power is exploited: I have it, you want it. eBay sellers refusing to assign feedback until they get seller feedback first. Digg members selling their ability to rank a story. etc.
"Co-upping" is common. You and I both know that in order to thrive in a community, I need reputation. So we agree to mutually confer respect. It's not earned, it's negotiated. I don't know if I've just invented the term co-upping to refer to this common community practice but it's sufficiently descriptive.

My intent in yesterday's post was to say that we as community-builders and as aggregators and promoters of UGC must realize that we're now at a point where we must evolve or die.

Though I was about to go on to talk about what "real reputation management" should look like, it occurs to me that there is an interesting fix to the problem of Digg and YouTube. And it's already starting. Community aggregation services + Widgets * Facebook mediated-relationships = True Egocasting.

Michael O'Connor Clarke wrote a great post outlining some thoughts on a centralized infrastructure approach to reputation management. In his post, he said "When you "friend" me on one service, you're giving me a vote of reputation – saying, in effect, "this is one of the people I count among the good guys." This is only true when people are truly restrictive of who they count as friends. I can't actually vouch for many of the people listed as "friends" on Facebook. Just because I've seen pictures vacationing with their family, doesn't mean I know how they treat their kids.

But what I do know is what they like, what their tastes are, and to some extent their values (and no, this is not gleamed from what they entered in the "Religious views" field.

So with f8, each Facebook member can ego-cast what they find on the web to their semi-trusted network. They can do this because instead of trying to figure out and keep track of the fact that I'm weirdname07 at YouTube, literaryreference01 at Digg, etc, I know who you are at Facebook and it's there that you're broadcasting what you've found at YouTube, what YOU like there, to me and all of your friends at Facebook.

And this is the missing piece. I don't know if you're really my friend, but I know you're my go-to guy on brit-pop bands I'd never heard of. Most of your movie reviews don't disappoint and we actually have a relationship, established BEFORE you started sharing this stuff with me so I can razz you as opposed to trash you when I follow your advice to see "The Holiday". In fact, the whole pretext of the Facebook connection was that we somehow knew each other before we met again on Facebook. You're truly losing face to me and potentially our shared friends whereas if you're anonymous and unknown to me, you really have nothing invested in the relationship.

It's a bit of a departure from yesterday's post and I believe that there are some technological "holy grails" to pursue but in the meanwhile, a lot of this comes down to actually putting the commune into community. When reputation is an isolated number not an issue of real "face", the relationship will always be compromised.

Labels: community, internet, media, reputation, web2.0, web3.0

So I think I can summarize why Web 2.0 is coming to an end and we're ready for Web 3.0

Web 2.0 was about opening up User-Generated Content ("UGC"). The barriers to create and propagate content (including entire websites) have dropped so low, that we're awash in UGC. We have a handful of sites that have become dominant aggregators of UGC and their focus must now be connecting their customers to the content they want in the most painless way possible. The role of aggregator and mashups have created a new relationship for all media. There was VERY LITTLE actual technology built in the Web 2.0 world.

Web 3.0 will be technology-driven and about creating reputation and order for UGC. eBay's purchase of StumbleUpon, our creation and subsequent licensing discussions of our new UGC reputation management system all speak to the beginning of Web 3.0.

Web 2.0 will continue to propagate content. But there will be very few new winners though the Web 2.0 establishment will crown many new "micro-winners:" Winners who rise to the top within specific sites.

But the new play is in Web 3.0. And it should be exciting and refreshing that the discussion is returning to real technology. At least for some of us.

Labels: media, online, ugc, web, web2.0, web3.0

Last week, while at Hollyhock, I was promoting the need for bullshit within the non-profit community. That statement is immediately controversial and that's my point. Too often, the starting place in change-agent conversation is centered around "this is what I believe and this is why." A bullshiter has to start the conversation figuring out what YOU believe before (s)he can learn how to sell you whatever (s)he is selling. And I specifically use the word bullshit because what I suggest is stepping a bit further outside your comfort-zone about what you will and won't do for your cause.

Take for example, the most tasteless piece of news this week. That a Dutch reality TV show was airing where a dying woman would award her kidney to a contestant in need of a transplant. It has now been revealed as a hoax designed to raise awareness around the fact that "200 people die annually in the Netherlands while waiting for a kidney, and the average waiting time is more than four years. Under Dutch rules, donors must be friends, or preferably, family of the recipient."

This is perhaps the extreme example. This hoax got worldwide attention and created a global conversation (if only for one week) on the issues facing those in need of organ transplants. At the same time, it also created a conversation around our standards for reality television in a very post-modern way.

I'm headed to the airport now for my flight back to Vancouver.

Labels: big donor show, donation, kidney, media, organ, transplant

A bit groggy this morning. Woke up at 5:30am to speak at a Rotary Club meeting early this morning.

I found this story within the news section of the GiveMeaning site.

It's long over-due and it will be interesting to hear Mr. Giujin's official statements.

In other news, I found this article through my Google Reader this morning talking about different approaches to Corporate Philanthropy. Though it is specifically referring to Australian companies, it's good reading for anyone in corporate philanthropy as it raises the question that I think needs more conversation around: "Are corporate donors dealing with the real needs of the sector or are they more inclined to fund high-profile, simplistic, and sometimes ineffective, feel-good projects?" is the question asked by Niall Mulligan.

The answer should be both and at first blush, it might seem unfair to generalize but I do see this distinct dichotomy that the author flags. There is a new breed of community engagement consultants who are emphasizing "high-touch" projects that can mobilize their client's employees in ways that a three-year capacity grant to a sexual assault centre can't do. When these high-touch projects are designed more around looking and feeling good then around an impact/investment ratio, there is cause for concern.

I've been harping on this theme all week - the "feel good versus the know good" which may in fact be the perfect play on words.

On point, I'll leave you with this link from - of all places - PerezHilton.com. It's a strange day when Clay Aiken has got something poignant to say about what was missing from Idol Gives Back"

Labels: causemarketing, charity, csr, idolgivesback, marketing, media, philanthropy

I've been horrible at updating the blog lately. So much going on! I'm currently in Kelowna and running out the door to a dinner but wanted to express my pride and respect for our CBC!

CBC is one of the only broadcasters I know of that refused to air video of the "manifesto" left by the despicable mass-murderer who requires no further mention.

Their reasoning can be found here and it is well worth a read.

I know that there is an intellectual debate to be had that is framed in the "if everybody else is showing it (or it's available elsewhere) then so should we" but this is a man who interrupted his killing so he could co-opt the media in further propagating his hatred.

While I understand how altogether valid intellectual debate can put many people firmly the "Grey zone," I respect the ability to be guided by a more specific sense of taste and values (again resisting the debate about the role of values in broadcast decision).

The media has given this vile thing what it wanted, media attention and an "iconic" status. It is psychologically impossible to deny that his reliance on being the most talked about news story this week was in part what drove him to commit this act.

This same "co-opting" of the media I speak about this week is the victory that Terrorists understand in their media strategy.

I'm very proud of the CBC's decision and I hope others will take note.

Labels: cbc, media, television, tv, virginia, virginia-tech

I have never been so excited about a group of people or an idea (other than GiveMeaning) as I am about the guys at DirectCurrentMedia

They are producing a series called 4Real that uses celebrities to bring exposure to some of the most amazing human beings on earth! I've blogged about my cynicism about pairing celebrities with cause.. What makes these guys different is that the celebrity is nothing more than the eyeballs. This is not about showing their halos, its about them just being participants in the experience.

The people that are featured on 4Real are community leaders who have made and continue to make massive progress on behalf of their communities despite conditions and environment conspiring against them.

I had a meeting scheduled with them yesterday afternoon and then brought them out for drinks late last night.

These guys are just getting going but I predict will be a major force.

Labels: activism, causemarketing, directcurrentmedia, media, tv, world

Well, I've finally gotten my first podcast uploaded to iTunes. For those iTunes users, you can download it from them here here
or if you don't use iTunes, you can get it here

The interview was recorded with Gavin Hollett, one of the founders of Opportunity Aequa, a Victoria-based non-profit that has raised nearly $15,000 through GiveMeaning to build soccer fields and bring soccer equipment to kids in Ecuador.

I blogged about Gavin just before he left for Ecuador but had no idea that he and the team would do such a good job of blogging while in Ecuador.

Their project is the best example of delivering their donors a "Return On Generosity." Go to their page and click on the "Blog" tab and read through their almost daily posts.

The Podcast is the first of what hopefully will be a regular series of interviews of project founders on GiveMeaning. Please let me know what you think of the Podcast.

Massive thanks to Ryland Haggis of RedPilot for creating the Podcast!

Labels: charity, media, nptech, philanthropy, podcast, web

I'm back from Manitoba and as I look outside, it appears it's going to be a gorgeous day here in Vancouver. In my last blog entry from Manitoba, I had written about how thrilled I was to see Kevin Sites link to a project at GiveMeaning from his Hot Zone blog.

For those of you who don't know Kevin or the Hot Zone, you can learn more here

Kevin had written a story about a young boy named Yubaraj who was supporting his family by working as a parking attendant in Kathmandu. Kevin wrote about Yaburaj as a boy who accepts his responsibility but wishes to return to school.

Christine Egger, a reader of Kevin Sites' post, was so moved by the story that she decided she wanted to do something about what she had read. She found GiveMeaning and started a project to raise funds for his education.

She had raised a bit over $1,000 but the page had been pretty inactive for several months and was becoming time to close the page down to new donations.

But then, last week, we got word that Kevin was going to post an update on Yubaraj and link to Yubaraj's project page at GiveMeaning.

Sure enough, he posted this update and the response has been fantastic! In the last few days donations have been pouring in and donors have been emailing their own friends encouraging them to donate as well. The Yubaraj project is now 50% of it's goal and still going strong!

Through many phone calls and emails, I feel like I got to know Christine and I know how important helping Yubaraj is to her. She has made this her mission and to see this outpouring of support for Yubaraj through GiveMeaning makes me happy for both Yubaraj and Christine.

For GiveMeaning, Kevin linking to Yubaraj couldn't have happened at a better time. We are now days away from launching what is basically a whole new version of the GiveMeaning website. Without spoiling the surprise, I will say that the new site is designed around the deep belief of mine that people are most likely to do something in response to a story the one Kevin wrote. GiveMeaning wants to facilitate that desire in an even more direct way than we already do.

The site launch date has become a bit of a running joke but we're determined to get it as perfect as we can before launching it. It is coming within the next couple of weeks.

Labels: aid, charity, interational, media, yahoo, yubaraj

If you haven't seen this already, you have to check it out

A day after Christmas, Philip Greenspun wrote that a friend of his had received a "water buffalo for Christmas from her dad." The gift was made through Heifer International's catalog of "ethical gifts." On their website, they call their catalog "The most important gift catalog in the world." Wow. Quite the claim. We're all familiar with the appeal of buying "ethical gifts" for friends and family. Many international relief and development charities have similar catalogues and new websites have emerged in recent years as online catalogues of these gifts.

Here's the catch: As Phillip's blog post said "If you read the fine print on the page, however, it turns out that there is no actual buffalo and no actual family and you won’t get a photo of your family and your buffalo. The money simply gets dumped into the common fund at the charity. We are trying to decide if this is the crummiest possible Christmas present."

The defense goes like this: "Donors are too lazy, or too uninterested in the details of our activities, so we're going to publish anecdotes that can be easily related and sold to the average consumer." At the best case, this is just lazy and unimaginative and at the worst case, well... In the days of heightened paranoia around "transparency ad accountability" and all of those other multisyllabic words that all cry "who can we trust?" isn't it some relatively dark shade of outright dishonesty?

The other problem with these unethically presented ethical gifts is that they let the donor off the hook. "Well ma, I bought you the Water Buffalo so that's my contribution for the year. Maybe for your birthday, I'll buy a pig, then we'll really have made a difference!"

Not only does it let the donor off the hook but it lessens the likelihood that you can engage that donor in the actual good work that really is happening on the ground.

I think it's high time we treat donors more intelligently, yes, even those that only have $100 to give. Instead of giving them this dumbed-down approach to giving, find new ways to express what it means to take on the problems of a community, embrace media like the one I linked to at the top of this post. Take some of your massive fund-raising budget and spend it on inexpensive video cameras, and a small centrally located edit suite, license some songs, and start posting 'em to YouTube like the clip I posted the other day.

That's the way to engage donors, not treat them like they need to be lied to.

Of course, I can't help but mention that it's this more respectful, intelligent approach that we do at GiveMeaning, but that aside, really, I'm saying to all my colleagues and "competitors" (your view, not mine): Treat donors with more respect and assume a higher degree of intelligence and interest in your work than in the "most important gifts" variety.

Labels: charitablegifts, charity, charitygifts, ethicalgifts, fundraising, greengifts, marketing, media, nptech, philanthropy

This morning, Lucy Bernholz over at Philanthropy 2173 asked "What foundations are blogging" and "Which foundations or donors are doing anything in virtual worlds or social networks?"

I had just finished reading Phil Cubeta's blog this morning in which he writes "Philanthropy blogging is becoming an awful lot like reading way too many professional journals: The official story told by the officials in official upper middle brow language that will upset no one and change nothing, often accompanied by advertising, or a business model that ties the words back to an influx of cash and a nice soft life. "

So in response to Lucy's question and to Phil's point, I ask "What foundations's representatives or donors are saying anything interesting or world changing on their blogs?" The list then becomes small if not almost entirely non-existent.

What I take from Phil's post is that bloggers who represent foundations, donors, charities, whatever, they must actually ENGAGE. And this starts ultimately by being able to talk about what's wrong with the sector and/or specific programs and interventions... It means throwing out ideas fearlessly that break the status quo and it means one of us philanthropshere bloggers actually being the ones to break the Gates Foundation story not just commenting on the story.

And you know, by being "out-there" it may mean you're less popular at the next schmoozefest, but guess what? You'll be headlining the event, because people crave the real deal.

On the Social Networks & Virtual World's Question

I have blogged previously about canceling my MySpace account. As someone who consults to many charities about IT and media strategies, I can tell you that if any charity or foundation representative boasted that they were spending time on MySpace or Friendster, let alone Second Life or any virtual world, I would tell them they are wasting their time.

Organizations are far-better served investing resources in making their own sites more interesting, including having content and activities that encourage that organization's supporters to be the ones creating a new audience. Kiva and DonorsChoose have introduced blog badges to some success but even the big sites have a long way to go to leveraging their content to turn their supporters into their spokespeople.

Labels: blog, charity, innovative, media, philanthropy, web, web2

I received an amazing early birthday gift today! Late last year, we raised money for an orphanage in Indonesia to buy a new minibus to transport the kids to school.

The orphanage is home to about 50 children ranging in age from 6 - 17. Because of the wide range in age of the kids, the orphanage must transport the kids to several different schools, which means several bus trips a day. In addition to school transport, the orphanage also needs a vehicle to go to the market each day to pick up fresh produce for the children's meals.

The project reached it's goal back in November with most of the funds being raised directly through the site and additional donations being raised off-line.

This video is what we got from the Canadian charity responsible for this project.



Jess and I watched it together first and we were moved to tears! Talk about "Return On Generosity!!!"

Labels: charity, fundraising, indonesia, media, orphanage, philanthropy, world, youtube

Austin Hill, a guy I've never met but feel like he's a kindred spirit, posted an interview on GiveMeaning that I did via email.

Just on my way to a meeting. More later.

Labels: gifter, interview, media, online, web, web2

Happy New Year, everyone. I was telling Jessie that I remember being in 5th grade, talking about the 21st century as this far-away time, imagining what life and the world be like. I must admit my disappointment that personal Jettsons-like vehicles aren't the norm, and that life on a daily basis isn't much different from when I attended Campus View Elementary.

That said, if I have to compare 2007 to a more recent time when I dreamed of the future, say when I started GiveMeaning, a lot has changed.

When I started GiveMeaning in the summer of 2005 wise, intelligent, experienced people told me there was both no need to change anything about the charitable sector. Worse yet, trying to form some kind of business that could eventually profit from charity was not only bad business but just bad form.

Two years later, Philanthropy, social consciousness, charity, altruism, the desire to do good, to change the world is THE topic. Magazines launched, new web ventures launched, thinking changing, evolving.

I'm happy to see a more vocal voicing of a desire to find meaning in our lives. There is of course, danger that by turning up the volume on the conversation around doing good, that we overdose and overwhelm. Or that with all the recipes to do good, that we end up buying a bunch of ingredients, and then settling on take-out.

As for me personally, here are my New Year's resolutions (in no particular order):

Blog more: I want to do more with this blog. I want to get out of the office a lot more, not just in Africa but everywhere where we have projects going on (which is pretty much everywhere in the world). There are so many people that start projects on GiveMeaning that I am totally amazed and inspired by. I want to help tell their stories.

Women's Rights Now: I have registered the domain womensrightsnow.org I'm going to create a simple petition site that I want to use to advocate for what is the simplest, smartest one thing we can do to change the world: Ensure women's rights and gender equality the world over. I hope to launch the site before the end of January.

Get out there: The greatest joy and most inspiration I get is talking to young people. I want to get out to more schools this year.

And now on to my first day back in the office. Enjoy!

Labels: charity, givemeaning, media, npo, philanthropy, resolutions, web

stick around i got a hunch
we'll bomb this town and stop for lunch
and never, nevermind these awful cries
it's not as real if you don't look in their eyes

These are lyrics from Stabilo's song that I downloaded tonight.

I know why I'm restless. Before a flight, I almost always buy an armful of magazines and newspapers to read on the plane. Tonight, it seemed as though all of what I read stitched together in my mind. Here are the threads I'm weaving with:

Vanity Fair: article on neo-cons fingerpointing at the Bush administration now that Iraq is more than a quagmire.
Us Magazine's (my guilty pleasure) feature on holiday gifts that give back,
The Walrus - "Stars in Africa"
Globe & Mail - Christie Blatchford's weekend article about Shawn Denty, a Canadian soldier who with help from his family, friends and neighbours back home in Oakville, got medical equipment donated to a hospital in Kandahar City, Afghanistan.

First, on its own for a second, because I'm just so beside myself about this, I have to separate this from all other thoughts. US Magazine's feature on "Holiday gifts that give back" includes a US $2,600 Gucci hobo bag that gives 20% of sales to UNICEF-run programs in Mozambique.

Never-mind whether it's 20% of gross or net sales. I just can't help but see it as shockingly crass. Anger-making crass. In another blog entry, I want to rant about this more but I'll move on.

This article in The Walrus spoke about how Oxfam has a staff position for "Artiste liaison manager" responsible for reaching out to potential celebrity spokespeople. It also spoke about a book called "Compassion Fatigue," the title (for these purposes) says it all.

Vanity Fair's Iraq article made me think back to the failure of Operation Gothic Serpent in Somalia (aka "Blackhawk down") which made me think back to the days that Republicans said that the US has no business in the business of nation building. The loss of US lives in Somalia weakened the voting public's will to support these kinds of interventions. Clinton thought there was not enough political support at home to intervene in the Rwandan genocide.

Then, I came into my hotel room and logged on to the BBC website and read a debate about what to do about Darfur. It bears noting that I accessed this link to the debate because I had originally clicked on an article about what George Clooney had to say about Darfur. It's from there that I linked in to the debate. And, you know: on one level, there you go. Clooney helped me click through. And when I clicked through, I read the Debate. So there.

But then, when I click through and I read the Debate, I think back to the neocon article. The one where a bunch of intellectuals talk candidly about the failure of the war in Iraq, a war that they all famously advocated for. The glossy pictures of these individuals all giving their best "ponder pose" that accompany their finger-pointing and deflections really does give weight to the ol' "a picture is worth a thousand words."

The connection between the debate about what to do in Darfur and the Vanity Fair article is this: There is no way that the US, or Canada (with its mission in Afghanistan) is going to send peacekeeping troops into Darfur. And a UN peacekeeping force is what's needed.

What is needed to stop the violence in Darfur is for the lives of each UN soldier to be equal to that of each innocent man, woman and child in Darfur. All life is equal in the world except in politics.

This is my new campaign idea: Give soldiers something worth dying for. If we want to end the genocide in Darfur, we must be willing to pay with our soldiers lives. It's just that I can't see any Canadian or US politician being so bold as to say so. Incidentally, I think that a Canadian military presence in Afghanistan is worthy and so this "war worth fighting for" is specifically talking about Iraq.

But are you willing to support the politicians who propose they send your country's soldiers in to intervene, knowing that any foreign troops will be treated by the government of Sudan as hostile invaders? Are you willing to risk the lives of our soldiers to save the lives of their men and women and children.

It's 4:12am now. A busy week ahead of me here in Toronto.

Labels: africa, charity, darfur, media, music, philanthropy, toronto

I did it! After months of trimming my MySpace "friends" from 300 down to 60, I was able to finally let go of MySpace and permanently delete my account.

Reasons for leaving MySpace:

1) The only "friends" I communicated with on MySpace weren't my real friends. I would occasionally exchange the inside joke comment with a real friend but the reality is, I prefer to converse in person with my real friends. The majority of my "friends" were people I had never met, nor likely to meet. I don't have enough time to see my real friends as it is, so any free time I do have is better spent with them in person.

2) MySpace has become overrun with "spam bots" automatically sending semi-personalized messages from bands, consumer products and sex-trade workers, none of whom are exactly friends I want to bring over to the house for a home-cooked meal.

3) There is really nothing to do on MySpace. I don't use groups, I use YouTube for video or Yahoo's video search. Craigslist is still the classifieds king and I gave up stumbling through MySpace profiles long ago.

4) I grew up. A similar transition occurred for me in the print media world: I canceled my Maxim subscription and started a subscription to Esquire magazine. It's a rather sad social commentary that I can trace my slow evolution into full-fledged adult man through magazines and websites, but these are the tools of our time.

MySpace apparently just served more page views than Yahoo during the month of November (though the measurement methodology is in question) so I'm not likely to be creating a mass revolt.

I'm not in anyway linking my account cancellation to the end of social networks but let's face it: If socializing now passes as what occurs on MySpace or any other social network, our society is truly done for.

Prediction: The next social network will be almost entirely mobile and will use geo-locating to deliver what is really socializing using a network.

If anyone needs motivation to end their social networking account, you can find it here.

Labels: media, myspace, online, socialnetwork, socialweb, web

Thanks to a post on Tactical Philanthropy, I have learned that a new reality show is about to air in the UK where five wealthy individuals will live "undercover" for 10 days living in the most deprived areas of Britain. At the end of the 10 days, each of the "contestants" will give £50,000 to the family that they each believe is the most deserving of their generosity.

This idea is fraught with problems. We all know that "reality television" is as produced as fictional reality. Even with "undercover" cameras, it's unlikely that these people will earn enough credibility or find their way within a community in 10 days. Add the producers' desire to package the show so as to maximize viewers, you have a stylized version of homelessness which is conveyed and then accepted as reality.

I find the following quote from the Guardian laden with irony: "Mr Elliott says his motivation is not a desire to appear on television but a means to redistribute a slice of his £60m fortune: "I don't think charities are good at it. They don't tend to pick out the most deserving cases. They tend to pick out the sexy ones and the politically correct ones." And yet this man will decide who is the most deserving person in 10 days?

I hope to all hope that any participant will receive a generous appearance fee otherwise, it's impossible for me not to see this show as exploiting poverty for financial gain, whatever the producers' and participants' stated motivations.

I watch more TV than I should and for the most part (except for the Unit, Prison Break and 24), it's mostly junk that I love. When Jess gets her way and we watch an episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, I'm almost always teary at the time of the grand reveal. I want to believe that there is a television concept that could be massively popular in raising awareness for important issues. I want to find that vehicle!!! I've been pitched several and always, the problem has been I've found that the concept is always more exploitative and doesn't hold enough respect and regard for its subject.

I still think that YouTube content like the Free Hugs video is far more engaging and can lead to far than a slick reality show. Guys like my Web of Change buddy Nipun Metha who has created KarmaTube which marries viral video with suggestions on how to act if you're inspired by the video clip you're seeing are enabling grass-roots content to drive action.

It's only a matter of time before someone pitches WorldVision and the other big TV advertisers a new format to deliver their infomercials. I wonder what would happen if one of the big guys were to embrace a different concept that uses a mix of Western volunteers and their own field workers in their television informercials.

Hmm.. I'd be interested to see what that show looks like.

Labels: entertainment, homeless, media, philanthropy, television