Career in Development Communications (Non-Profit Sector) 08-17

Development Communications in the Non-Profit Sector

While having communications related positions in the non-profit sector is not something unheard of in the past, the rising value of development communications roles in the sector is a relatively new development. A simple look into job listings at non-profit organizations will most likely result in at least a handful of openings that involve communications roles.

So, what exactly is development communications and what does it involve? According a report   from the World Bank, it is “communication that supports sustainable change in development operations by engaging key stakeholders.” Depending on the organization, the role itself can involve a number of different things. For the most part, the major responsibilities include materials development, public and press engagement, messaging, and in some cases, event planning and fundraising as well.  

A development communications role involves creating materials such as newsletters, reports, marketing and donor materials etc. geared towards different target audiences. From customized materials to attract donors to videos and website content to engage the public, the range of materials may vary, but what is of growing importance in a communications role is the ability to use a multitude of communication tools to effectively tell an organization’s story. 

Going hand in hand, a communications position (particularly a higher-level role) would also involve overseeing the strategic message of the organization as a whole and ensuring the delivery of a common message. In smaller or mid-sized non-profits that do not have an entire team, one can be found wearing multiple hats. Along with public and press engagement, some communications roles also involve engaging in fundraising activities, scheduling and event planning.

With rapidly growing rates of information exchange as well as the tools to get the information across, the rise of development communications in the non-profit sector has as much to do on the technological end as it does on the evolving nature of NGOs and the public. The need to stay connected with the public, donors, peers and various other stakeholders continues to grow and also plays an important role in the overall well-being of an organization.

So, what are some of the basic skills for someone interested in development communications? For starters, most job listings seem to specify a degree in Communications, Journalism or a related field. However, having knowledge in development related issue areas such as health, microfinance etc. in which the concerned organization focuses its work on is also as important.

 It also requires excellent written and verbal communication skills, along with copy editing skills. Being able to effectively write content that is catered to different audiences is a must. If you have samples to demonstrate your work, it will only make your case stronger. Expertise in social media applications and multimedia tools is expected. 

Being proactive early on in this area by creating profiles and mastering the use of these tools could prove to be beneficial. There are a number of blogs and other online resources that can be used easily, many of which are free. Experts also suggest creating a blog where you can demonstrate your work readily.

While basic proficiency on applications such as Powerpoint will be expected, having some design experience (Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop etc.) could also be very useful. A recent emerging trend that continues to be adopted by organizations is the use of infographics and data visualization to tell stories about specific issues and demonstrate an organization’s work (see infographics from the Gates Foundation and Amnesty International for examples).

In smaller to mid-sized organizations, there may not be a complete team, which means that being flexible and willing to take up multiple projects is something one should be prepared to do. Lastly, getting experience through an internship or volunteer opportunity would be the best way to go about exploring the field and honing your skills.

By: Kesang Chungyalpa 

View at the original source 

Philanthropy in India Is Taking Its Own Route -03-29

Philanthropy in India Is Taking Its Own Route

Philanthropy is the flavor of the month in India: Wipro chairman Azim Premji recently became the first person in the country to sign up for the Giving Pledge, a commitment by the world's richest people to dedicate the majority of their wealth to charity. P.N.C. Menon, founder of the Sobha group, has promised to devote half of his fortune to philanthropic efforts.

In Mumbai, the Philanthropic Week organized by Indian foundation Dasra brought together some key players to discuss the roadmap ahead for charitable giving in the nation. Among the key themes that emerged was the dawning realization that India must find its own path to encourage citizens and companies to donate their time and money toward social good.

Premji recently transferred 12.5% of his holding in Wipro -- worth US$2.2 billion -- to the Azim Premji Trust. He also joined the Giving Pledge campaign, which was started by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2010 and now includes more than 100 individuals and families from all over the world.

Following Premji was Dubai-based Menon, who founded his company as an interior decoration firm in 1976 and grew it to a conglomerate that includes construction, engineering and information technology businesses. "I don't think you should keep all of [the wealth you have created] for your family," he said after making the pledge, according to Arabian Business. "A large portion of it should go to society. I have decided that 50% of my wealth should go to society."

In Menon's statement lies one reason for the different trends in philanthropy among different societies and nations. Some would say that though his wealth amounts to a comparatively smaller US$600 million, Menon's gesture means more than Buffett's because Menon could leave the entire amount to his family. Buffett can't: The estate tax in the U.S. has a top rate of 40%, while countries like India and China have no such provisions. (Estate duty was abolished in India in 1985, but current finance minister P. Chidambaram has been making noises about reintroducing it.)

Nearly sandwiched between the announcements by Premji and Menon was the Dasra Philanthropic Weekend (DPW). There were no big-ticket announcements at the DPW, but none was expected. "Through DPW, Dasra is building a [platform] for different stakeholders to come together and work on the most scalable and sustainable ways to improve the lives of people in India," says Radhika Nayar, head of the Indian Philanthropy Forum at Dasra.

 "The week brought together a broad range of stakeholders -- social entrepreneurs, family and corporate foundations, corporations, impact investors, government leaders and philanthropists -- to learn about the most effective ways to solve India's social challenges and begin the essential work of collaborating with each other."

Is Compulsory CSR the Way Forward?

Amid all this, a debate was going on about a government proposal to make it compulsory for companies to spend 2% of their net profits on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The proposal -- part of the Companies Bill that has cleared the lower house of Parliament and is awaiting the assent of the elders -- has been diluted somewhat to make it more acceptable to businesses.

The different views were aired in January at a seminar in Mumbai a month before the DPW. 

Leading NGO (non-governmental organization) Child Rights and You [CRY] held a summit on corporate responsibility "to bring together key voices on the corporate responsibility debate in order to build greater convergence between stakeholders". CRY has only a peripheral role in the debate, which has recently acquired new dimensions.

But the debate on CSR has no easy solution. To start with is the question: What is CSR? "Various definitions of CSR have been making the rounds for much too long," notes Bhaskar Chatterjee, director general & CEO of the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs, which has been mandated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to develop a clear definition. "The CSR provisions of the Companies Bill seek to create an enabling, catalytic environment wherein corporates can harness their core competencies and business acumen with the freedom to think through and decide their own CSR initiatives."

Chatterjee adds that the new policy "is likely to create a telling positive impact on the development sector landscape in the country in the years to come. [The Bill] will allow the CSR juggernaut that is imminent to acquire a decisive objective and purpose."

But so far, the government's initiative has left many unanswered questions. For example, the Tatas run Jamshedpur, which started as a corporate township 100 years ago and now has a population in excess of one million. It wasn't initially conceived as CSR, but it could be argued that running what is now the most populous city in the state of Jharkhand should qualify under a modern definition of the term.

Dileep Rangekar, co-CEO of the Azim Premji Foundation, supports the CSR provision with the proviso that "When organizations and individuals don't do something willingly, the State steps in. In the long run, a practice of setting aside a percentage of your profits to societal good would be useful as long as it does not come across as coercion."

But Rohini Nilekani, philanthropist and chairperson of Arghyam, a foundation she set up with a private endowment to work on water and sanitation issues in India, says she has been "against the 2% rule from the beginning" because "I don't think government should outsource its governance. And, secondly, making it mandatory is going to straightjacket [CSR] in a way that may not necessarily yield the best results. But now that it's been done, we just have to make the best of it."

"Philanthropy comes from the heart with its associated passion," adds Ajay Kela, president and CEO of Wadhwani Foundation. "I am skeptical that forced philanthropy will work. This forced CSR has the other downside of spending valuable corporate resources to document or game the CSR rule."

According to Nilekani, provisions should also be put in place to "ensure that the focus remains on the company's overall real responsibilities inside its fence. Companies get away with a lot of things, like pollution of water sources. There is no use doing charity outside if you cause some of the problems yourself. I would say that the media and public pressure has to remain on inside-the-fence corporate practice."

The CRY summit discussed the 2% solution and also featured a talk by John Elkington, an author, thinker and creator of the term "triple bottom line," or combining the three goals of a socially responsible organization -- financial, social and environmental. Elkington told India Knowledge@Wharton that the India picture is mixed "with some very sparkling companies doing great things." He emphasized the importance of environmental sustainability as part of CSR effortseakes a couple of points. First, most people tend to ignore family businesses. . "It's not just the financial, social and ethical aspects," he said. "CSR has also got a very strong environmental aspect. I think even the Tatas have tended to downplay the environmental aspect."

Corporate India had been waking up to environmental issues, but the growing number of protest groups, which had become more pronounced over the past few years thanks to crusading federal environment ministers, have been a rude awakening. Environmental concerns have throttled several major projects in the nation recently. The Times of India reports that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called environmental clearances the new "license-permit-quota raj." Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has banned mining in several parts o the country, including the entire state of Goa.

Lavasa, a huge township project being developed by the Hindustan Construction Company (HCC), is in trouble because of environmental concerns. Environmental activists have blocked South Korean firm Posco's US$12 billion steel project in Orissa. In the same state, U.K.-listed Vedanta Aluminum is in limbo because its allotted mines are said to be located on a tribal religious shrine. The government has offered a different source of aluminum but that has not stopped activists from protesting. In Mumbai, plans for a second airport have been ruled unlikely to disrupt the natural habitats of flamingos and other wildlife but the project is now being held up because of a few mangroves. The project was first proposed at least two decades ago.

A Closer Look at Giving

All of these developments are philanthropy related, but in many ways, they have very little in common, providing an example of how the issue is coming to a head on several fronts.

From a Western point of view, India is a parsimonious country. It has a World Giving Index rank of 133, the worst in the region and even below that of Bangladesh (109) and Nepal (115). Gates and Buffett recently visited India to promote the Giving Pledge and encourage wealthy Indians to give more. They were met with smiles, but little support. According to a Bain report on Indian philanthropy, private charity contributions as a percentage of GDP are only 0.4% in India, compared with 1.3% in the U.K. and 2.2% in the U.S. The report noted, however, that "India is recognized as a nation of givers. But we have a tradition of being quiet givers." A more recent Bain report, which was unveiled at the DPW, said that "achieving congruence on results-related issues can help increase the impact of philanthropy in India".

From an Indian point of view, giving is something that everyone does. Ashok Advani, publisher of Business India and a participant at the Dasra seminar, wrote in a signed editorial that "For centuries, the richest people in the country have given money to causes... Giving has been a way of life -- seva, daan, zakat, charity or philanthropy -- by whatever name in vogue."

Indians also give to religion. The richest temple in the world is the Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh, today run by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), a trust whose members are appointed by the government. Only the Vatican is ahead of it in wealth. 

Tirupati is the most visited religious site in the world; the number of pilgrims can reach 500,000 on special days. Many make donations of small gold items. In February 2011, the TTD deposited 1,175 kilograms of gold (worth US$64 million at current prices). This type of deposit is derived from the temple's collections of small donations by devotees. The bigger items -- such as the 3 kilograms of gold donated by liquor baron Vijay Mallya on his 57^th birthday recently --  are not included in this.

"Religion has been a big driver for philanthropy throughout history and across the planet," says Lynne Smitham of the U.K.-based Kiawah Trust, which partners with Dasra in its philanthropic endeavors. "Temples and churches have been thought of as trustworthy and benevolent." According to Nayar of Dasra: "Indians give significantly to temples, but this giving is ad-hoc, short-term and most significantly, does not prioritize impact."

"I do not agree with the premise that India does not have a strong culture of philanthropy," adds Poornima Dore, program officer at the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. "Religious giving is probably the largest component, but there is a lot [taking place outside of that] as well. There are foundations such as ours that have been in this domain for over 75 years across the country and that is clear evidence of a strong culture that has been institutionalized." The Tatas have been deeply involved in philanthropy -- from hospitals to institutes of higher learning and sports to culture. The Tata philanthropic trusts control 66% of the shares of Tata Sons, the holding company of the US$100 billion Tata group.

While the main debate centers on finding the right philanthropy model for India, other issues are also clamoring for face time. The net result is a certain amount of confusion as talk about CSR steps on the toes of impact giving or charity grapples with for-profit philanthropy. So what did the DPW, which is considered the most high-profile of the meetings on the topic, achieve? "DPW brought together over 500 stakeholders," notes Nayar. "Dasra disseminated knowledge, facilitated discussions and announced key partnerships with the aim of inspiring collaboration among participants."

"It is difficult to measure the success of an event and I am not going to try to do it since we could not be there for all of the days," adds Dore. "Dasra has definitely grown over the years as an organization. I think the turnout was good." Smitham says that "for me it was immensely successful. It was a week of extremely important, relevant and urgent meetings on Indian social issues and a chance to listen, learn and exchange ideas on effective solutions."

"Events like DPW are great platforms to raise awareness around philanthropy in India," notes Kela of the Wadhwani Foundation. "As we know, India does not have a strong culture of philanthropy outside of giving to the temples. So advocacy and raising awareness is a good thing. Also, India has thousands of non-performing and low-impact NGOs. A systemic approach to address the issue of impact is also very welcome."

Some believe that events like Dasra and CRY can lead to the development of a successful model of philanthropy. "India does not seem to have a culture or a model for philanthropy at a national level," says Kela. "I do believe that we should look at successful global models and adapt them to our needs and tax structures rather than reinvent the wheel. We should also learn from the mistakes of the others rather than repeat the same mistakes."

"All over the world, people will always keep doing charity," adds Nilekani. "That is based on empathy. You see someone in need and you reach out. And that is something to celebrate. But I think as societies become more globalized and modern, a new kind of wealth creation will evoke a new response, partly inspired by Western models. The newly wealthy are going to engage with new social issues and they are going to look more systematically at their resolution. So I am not at all surprised that we are following a new model now."

According to Dore, "Western models have their value and so do Indian ones. Rather than debating models, we should focus on how philanthropy can actually reach out to the most marginalized, or address the most pressing

View at the original source 

The Talent Paradox: Funding Education as a Global Public Good 01-07

The Talent Paradox: Funding Education as a Global Public Good

Addressing the massive needs of India’s education system was one small part of the discussion at the most recent World Economic Forum in Delhi. But for a country that is projected to supply approximately 25 percent of the global talent pool by 2030, what could be more important than getting education right? Especially for corporate leaders, as one CEO of a Fortune 500 company puts it “the global talent gap is the issue that keeps me and every other CEO I know up worrying at night.”

And there is much to worry about. Global demographic trends mean that soon a disproportionate share of the world’s human capital will be born in developing countries. Yet these countries, particularly those with high levels of inequality like India, do not have good education systems that can prepare their young people to be the talent that companies want to hire. India alone lacks 400,000 teachers and absenteeism within the existing teaching ranks is currently at a staggering 25 percent.

Last year, close to 60 percent of children in class 5 in rural government schools could not read a class 2 text, a number that has only risen since 2008. This education crisis is mirrored in other emerging economies. In Nigeria  , 58.3 percent of student are not meeting basic learning levels in literacy and numeracy with Ethiopia and South Africa   not far behind at 55.3 and 33.7 percent respectively.

So what can be done about this? Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, has long advocated for multi-stakeholder solutions to global, regional, and national problems as the best way to achieve sustained economic growth and social progress. And so, the solution to the global education crisis is no different. Clearly governments have a central role to play by investing in the young minds of their nations. And others are also stepping up to the plate. For example, the United Nations Secretary General recently announced a new five-year global initiative, Education First, focused on putting every child in school, making sure they learn well while there, and ensuring their education helps them become good global citizens.

But what about the many global business leaders who are wringing their hands about how the emerging talent gap could undermine their profits? Well, to that we say “it is time for businesses to move their investment in education from the halls of corporate social responsibility programs to the long-term investment and business strategies of their companies”.

Is it realistic or fair that the Indian government, for example, foots the bill for the school fees of a quarter of the world’s workforce, given the fact that a significant proportion of this future talent pool may end up living outside the country and working for non-Indian companies. “Human capital flight” from India is estimated to cost the country $2 billion for 2012 alone, and it’s on the rise.

Education is a global challenge that cannot be solved by improving a single education system in a single country. Nor can it be solved by one company or one industry, no matter of how well-heeled its CSR program is. The solution requires global collective action, specifically establishing a funding mechanism that funds education as a global public good. This type of funding mechanism could recognize and quantify the future economic value of human potential; both an economic and societal “return on investment” on capital that is very much required today. A mechanism with global reach, that would be outcome based rather than dependent on taxing the incomes of those who can least afford it.

So what’s the rationale? To multilateral donors, a funding instrument of this nature would be attractive from a value for money perspective. Indeed, there are successful precedents in other sectors in the world of development; the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) stands out in particular. GAVI’s innovative “Advance Market Commitment” or AMC addressed the market failure in the development of new vaccines by effectively setting a future floor price to attract private sector investment in R&D. Could the same GAVI principles of an AMC be applied to education? Providing an AMC around the future economic value of talent that would catalyze innovation and co-investment from the private sector, technology companies in particular, who are well placed to provide the hardware and the wiring for a state of the art education infrastructure.

Besides those companies whose core business is directly related, there is also an opportunity to incentivize the broader private sector around long-term investments in education - to create a market mechanism whereby a pooled investment today from a coalition of businesses and donors could give some enhanced access to the talent businesses will require for future growth.

As businesses increasingly look to emerging markets as new sources of growth, it would be naïve to assume that struggling public education systems on their own will be able to provide the talent and skills that employers need. Expecting an infinite choice of highly polished resumes will simply not happen on its own and as with other critical sources of raw material, businesses may need to “backward integrate” up the talent supply chain, far further than they have in the past. Make no mistake. This is not back door privatization of the education system on a global scale. Funding should not be conflated with service delivery. We are advocating an equitable and transparent funding mechanism that has a chance of giving a quality education to all children and youth.

Education is in the so-called pre-competitive space, and businesses, donors and governments alike have a mutual interest in co-investing in the outcomes which will benefit all. But it’s a long-term game, which means investing now to develop the talent base that businesses will need 10+ years from now.

View at the original source

Corporate volunteering in China – a massive opportunity 01-07

Corporate volunteering in China – a massive 

opportunity

By Simon Brown, Asia Pacific Corporate Partnerships Manager for VSO

The role of the private sector in development is evolving rapidly, nowhere more so than in China where the role of the private sector per se has changed so dramatically in the last decade. With this in mind, VSO China began research into corporate volunteering in China earlier this year. The results, published last month (17 December) show that the appetite for volunteering is quite phenomenal. More than 99% of the nearly one thousand staff surveyed said that under the right conditions, of company support and meaningful opportunity, they would want to volunteer.  In a country with close to one billion people of working age, it’s not difficult to see the potential of corporate volunteering to help combat poverty.

The potential of volunteering and the social sector has also been recognized by the Chinese Government. In 2011 it published its 12^th Five Year Plan, which targeted a 10 per cent volunteer level by 2015, a three-fold increase from current levels equivalent to over 100 million volunteers.

Understanding why companies are (or are not) starting or scaling up community engagement programmes was one of the key aims of the research, led by VSO in partnership with Beijing Normal University. It also examined what motivates staff to volunteer and to continue volunteering and how community groups and social organizations are responding to the opportunities and the challenges of an increased interest in employee volunteering.

We interviewed close to one hundred senior managers and decision makers across a broad range of domestic and foreign companies, as well as social organizations. We also surveyed close to one thousand company staff. Some of those companies have volunteering programmes, other not; some of those staff have volunteered, other not. Our aim was to get a rounded picture of what is and is not working, and what the challenges are in scaling up volunteering in the private and corporate sectors in China.

The report is released on the eve of the third Beijing Volunteering Expo,  itself an innovation in bringing government, corporate, social, academic and media sectors together each year to celebrate and inspire volunteering in China. The full report can be downloaded from www.vsoconsulting-cn.com/en  .

China is not alone in Asia in the private and corporate sectors’ increased interest in community engagement through volunteering.  But the current scale of that interest in corporate volunteering is quite a phenomenon in China. Encouraged by government, volunteering and community contribution is at the centre of the growth that we are seeing across the whole of Chinese society.  Both foreign and domestic companies are very much part of that growth and are looking for models of corporate volunteering in China to inform their own programmes. 

As the research report shows, the potential is enormous.  Staff are looking to share their own skills and acquire new ones. They are seeking opportunities where they can make a real difference to the lives of marginalized people and to the environment.

There are challenges as well as opportunities and the research brings those to the surface.  Social organizations in China, outside of the government system, tend to be local and relatively small, unregistered and often in more remote Western regions that are beyond the reach of company volunteering programmes centred in urban, Eastern cities.  Accessibility and scalability are challenges to which we must find solutions, perhaps through networks and cooperative partnerships that provide sufficient scale and legitimacy for corporate programmes.

There’s also a balance to be struck between what works for the volunteers and what works for the organizations with which they’re volunteering. Opportunities need to be found within reasonable distance of company premises, but corporate programmes also need to reach out along value chains and into rural communities.  Overarching this, volunteering programmes must focus on meeting the needs of the poor and marginalized and be demand-driven.

But in a country of innovation, we surely will find those solutions. While there may not be an immediate opportunity for a billion people to volunteer, there is certainly opportunity to realize a significant part of the potential. To do this we need to build the capacity of companies to develop meaningful volunteering programmes; and the capacity of social organizations to engage with the corporate sector, provide opportunities and demonstrate impact.

The results of the research are hugely encouraging.  As the private sector continues to evolve in China and corporate volunteering evolves alongside it, perhaps that target of 100 million volunteers is not looking so hard to reach.

View at the original source

A philanthropic strategy for enhancing the reach and impact of individuals, organizations and nonprofits 01-07

A philanthropic strategy for enhancing the reach and impact of individuals, organizations and nonprofits

  

By Ric Leutwyler Founder & President, Philanthropegie  
  

What would you do if you found out you were using less than 1% of the resources available to help you achieve your philanthropic goals?  Here’s what I did.

I have served philanthropic and social good organizations in some capacity for most of my adult life.  A common theme I saw along the way was that these organizations struggled to achieve clearly defined and compelling goals due to a lack of resources. 

Over time I was able to assist these organizations by helping them connect with individuals or other organizations that had what they needed.  In each case I was able to see a significant increase in the organizations’ ability to achieve their goals.

Then, it struck me.  If one connection can have such a positive impact for one organization…how much could be accomplished by facilitating hundreds, thousands or millions of connections?  I decided to find out.

In the year or so that I’ve been working on this, I’m not sure if I’ve spent more time explaining what Philanthropegie   is all about – or helping people figure out how to pronounce it? For the record, the phonetic spelling is written like this: Fil-un’n-THROP-eh-jee

Launched in summer 2012, Philanthropegie   is finally a reality. It’s much better than I originally thought it would be when we launched – and so much less than what I hope it will be in the future. We describe Philanthropegie as “a philanthropic strategy for enhancing the reach and impact of individuals, organizations and nonprofits dedicated to making a meaningful difference in the world.” You’re probably saying ‘Yeah… so what does that mean?’ If you’re bothering to read this, I’m guessing you have an interest in – maybe even a passion for? – philanthropy, social responsibility, giving back, doing good…making a difference. Thankfully, you’re not alone. There are thousands of organizations, millions of individuals and a very large, and growing, number of nonprofits that share that special interest in doing something to make the world a better place.

Far too often, we as individuals, or members of an organization or nonprofit, feel limited or constrained in our ability to make a real impact. Sometimes, it’s because we just don’t know where to start. Sometimes it’s because we don’t feel that we have the resources we need to achieve our vision of giving back, of empowering, of breaking a cycle or of giving hope. And all the while, there is actually an abundance of people, tools, services and organizations that likely have just what we need – if we could only find them.

Our strategy is to bring you together with the resources that you – as an individual, or a member of an organization or a nonprofit – need to accomplish what you feel in your heart you want to do. We believe that the best way we can make a difference, is to help others to make a difference.  To accomplish this, Philanthropegie  …

• Serves three key audiences (individuals, organizations and nonprofits) who we believe can accomplish much more working together than apart
• Makes it easy to find the resources needed for virtually anything to do with philanthropic endeavors
• Includes resource descriptions, tips, testimonials and ratings that will help users choose the best resources for their specific needs
• Supports users in building their own, personalized library of favorite resources
• Encourages the exchange of information and insight through our blog and social media channels

There is no fee to access the resources or post a resource on the website. In addition, we have no paid staff. All that you see on the site is the result of volunteer efforts.

I know we’ve only scratched the surface. Our site lists only a fraction of the wonderful resources ready to help you meet your philanthropic objectives. At this point, we have focused almost exclusively on North America – while the need is clearly a global one. It’s a start though – I believe a good one.

View at the original source

Achieving success at the Bottom of the Pyramid 01-07

  

By Paul Polak, Founder, IDE

Question: If you build a better mousetrap will the world beat a path to your door?

Answer: Without superb marketing and distribution nobody beats a path to your door.

In my work with a multitude of affordable technologies over the past 30 years, one key feature has become abundantly clear: If you have met the challenge of designing a transformative, radically affordable technology, you’ve successfully solved no more than 10-20% of the problem. The critical other 80% of the solution lies in designing an effective marketing, distribution, and profitable business strategy that can be brought to scale. Of these, perhaps the most important is designing an effective scale strategy.

Some technologies are simply not scalable. They solve a problem that exists only in a village or two but is not applicable to a thousand villages. The first step in designing an effective scaling strategy is therefore to put first priority on technologies that, if successful, can be applied to address parallel problems in at least a thousand villages.

For example, an Engineers Without Borders   team successfully fixed a broken motorized pump that supplied drinking water to several hundred families in a village in Rwanda. This mechanized piped water system was too expensive to be implemented in many other villages, but fixing it addressed an important problem in one village. Designing a robust, affordable hand pump, on the other hand, could have addressed a drinking water problem for many of the other families in the village and in thousands of other villages as well.

In many instances, the design of a scaling strategy is not very complicated. What development practitioners usually miss is the importance of building design for scale into a project from the very beginning of the design process. For example, if you need to sharpen ten pencils, the way to do it is simple. If you need to sharpen a thousand pencils, you need to use a different strategy, but it can be done. If you need to sharpen 100,000 pencils, you need a still different strategy. Each of these problems is eminently solvable, but each one requires a different series of logical steps; it’s very difficult to efficiently change from a ten-pencil strategy to a hundred-thousand-pencil strategy if you’ve already committed your resources and your time to the former.

  

About 3 million manually powered treadle pumps like this one have been sold to $2-a-day customers

25 years ago iDE (International Development Enterprises)   recognized the transformative potential of a simple, $25 treadle pump installed on a tube well. The design of that technology incorporated affordability, easy reparability, and applicability  to millions of small farms.

Yet the key challenge was to design the mass marketing and distribution strategy that would make it available to several million farmers. In Bangladesh 25 years ago, there was no pre-existing system of mass distribution in rural villages, and many of the one-acre farmers who needed a treadle pump had never heard of the technology; didn’t know how to read and write; and had no access to mass media.

  

Private sector treadle pump manufacturer

To address the problem of distribution, we recruited 75 small private sector workshops who manufactured the treadle pumps; 3,000 village dealers who sold them at a 12% margin; and we trained 3,000 well drillers through a three-day course with a diploma, who then installed the treadle pump in the field for a fee. This set up the treadle pump market infrastructure, but that alone wasn’t enough.

  

A village dealer who sells treadle pumps at a 12% margin

  

Manual well drilling in Bangladesh costs 5-10 cents per foot and drills to a depth of up to 100 feet

The next step was to create market demand, so that each of these small enterprises could sell enough volume to make a decent living. For an illiterate population unreached by mass media, flyers, brochures, or radio campaigns wouldn’t work. So we recruited several village troubadour and theatre groups to write songs about the treadle pumps, and had them perform at markets and larger celebrations, incorporating demonstrations of working treadle pumps into their performances. Finally, we created a Bangladesh-style 90-minute Bollywood movie featuring the treadle pump that played off of a truck-mounted projector to an audience of a million people every year, in village open-air settings. Our film was often the first movie that our customers had ever seen.

Without the design of a scalable manufacturing, distribution, and installation network involving thousands of small entrepreneurs, we never could have sold the first million treadle pumps in Bangladesh. Without a large-scale marketing program incorporating activities like the Bollywood movie, neither the 75 manufacturers, the 3,000 village dealers, nor the 3,000 well drillers could have earned a reasonable living by making, marketing, and installing the treadle pump. The design of the mass distribution and mass marketing strategy turned out to be much more important to the success of the treadle pump program than the design of the treadle pump itself. Design of a transformative affordable technology was a necessary, but far-from-sufficient, condition for its success.

The design of an effective for-profit business strategy, of course, pulls all of this together. Every key player in the distribution chain has to make an attractive profit. The most important person in this chain is the end customer. A basic principle I’ve learned over the past 25 years is that for $2-a-day customers, income generation is the single most important feature of a successful technology. I don’t work with any technologies for dollar-a-day customers unless the customer can get three times his money back in the first year by using the technology. A treadle pump installed on a tube well costs $25, including a profit for the manufacturer, the dealer, and the well driller. The average farmer who buys it earns $100 net income in the first year, and could potentially earn $500 a year – 1/5 of purchasers of treadle pumps earn $500 in net income right away.

  

While it’s the most important, for the ultimate purchaser alone to earn a profit is not enough. The manufacturer has to make an attractive enough profit that he is likely to continue making the treadle pumps. Each dealer has to sell at least 20 treadle pumps in a season to earn enough income so that it is in his interest to continue to market treadle pumps to customers, year after year. And finally, the well driller must install enough treadle pumps in a season to make it worth his while to continue installing them. All of these active participants in the supply chain need to earn attractive profits before the technology can be successful.

A successful social enterprise serving $2-a-day customers begins with the design of a radically affordable, scalable, transformative technology. But this is only the beginning. It will fail to make a meaningful impact unless 80% of the designer’s energy is successfully turned towards designing a profitable business capable of reaching a million customers through an effective branding, marketing and distribution system.

View at the original source