Founders Cram Session
April 15th 2006
“Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
- Margaret Mead
(Individual
Founder Statements are at bottom of document)
|
Created By: |
blichtenwalner |
|
Created
Date: |
4/14/2006
3:21 PM |
|
Revised
By: |
blichtenwalner |
|
Revised
Date: |
7/17/2007
5:24:00 PM |
Contents
1..... Team
Building and Introductions
2..... Refined
Vision Statement & Core Values
3..... Review
of Founder’s Memo Printout (Lead: Eric)
4..... Roundtable
of Deeper Personal Objectives (1:15 – 2:00)
5..... Review
of Eric’s Progress & Projector Demos (2:00 – 3:00)
6..... Whiteboard
Drawings & Visual Brainstorming (3:00 – 3:30)
7..... Idea
Generation & Open Verbal Discussion (3:45 – 4:00)
8..... Equity
Structure & Founder’s Agreement (4:00 – 5:00)
9..... Core
Business Model Discussion (5:15 - ???)
10........... UI
/ Design / Branding
11........... Website
Specifications Document (5:00 – 6:00)
12........... Business
Plan Section Writing & Editing (6:15 – 7:00)
13........... Project
Planning & Tasking (7:00 – 7.30)
14........... Business
Plan Master Template (7:30 – 8:00)
15........... Dinner
(8:00 – 10:00)
Agenda
11.30 –12:00pm Eric & Dennis here to prep (all welcome)
12:00 –12.30pm Teambuilding & Introductions
12.30 – 1:00pm Refined Vision Statement & Core Values
1:00 – 1.15pm Review of Founder’s Memo Printout (Lead: Eric)
1:15 – 2:00pm Roundtable of Deeper Personal Objectives
2:00 – 3:00pm Review of Eric’s Progress & Projector Demos
3:00 – 3.30pm Whiteboard Drawings & Visual Brainstorming
<break> 15 min only please (snacks)
3.45 – 4:00pm Idea Generation & Open Verbal Discussion
4:00 – 5:00pm Equity Structure & Founder’s Agreement
5:00 – 6:00pm Website Specifications Document (Lead: James & Shelley & Ali)
<break> 15 min only please (team photos)
6.15 – 7:00pm Business Plan Section Writing & Editing (Lead: Dennis & Ben & Yelena)
7:00 – 7.30pm Project Planning & Tasking (Lead: Jeff)
7.30 – 8:00pm Business Plan Master Template (Lead: Dennis)
8:00 – 10:00pm Dinner on Eric (optional)
1 Team Building
The team introduces themselves. It should take the entire hour to go through everyone.
Each introduction should be structured, in-depth and include:
1) Background
2) Experience
3) Why we want to participate in the project
4) Goals for the future
5) Ability to invest time/energy/$ to this project
6) Thoughts on exit strategy
Eric lead off with a quick thank you to all for joining us. Mentioned we all have personal reasons for being here.
1.1 Eric
Melin
1.1.1 Background
We all know what he does
But we don’t know the story
SEO was not his dream
Considers himself a pure true entrepreneur
Likes serial, parallel or social entrepreneur
Finance or Tech – generalist
Finished undergrad with Dennis
Wanted to start a company before going to business school
Went into consulting to learn a lot in a short time
Developed idea for Corporate Awareness Group
Developed business plan
Shopped it around
Tried to do it all himself
Had team
Never got funded
Was during the height of dot com bust days
Still very passionate about the idea:
A wireless and DB tech tools for socially responsible investors
Very wide scoping
Screen portfolio for human rights, tobacco, drugs, etc….
Could make decisions based on their own personal values
Initially their prototypes would include rating by stock ticker
While at Payne Webber, was working in grant writing library
Books full of information
Showed how they were donating their dollars
Displayed where giving went
It would be really cool if we could bring this online
Not purely philanthropy
Just issue side
Combine all the data for a feedback system
Dot com bust and nobody touched any product .com like
Decided he had to prove himself first
Was consulting on the side at the time
Called work Spider Splat
All of a sudden was making money doing it
Started company
Moved into office space
So on…
SpiderSplat was kinda an education / MBA for him
Wanted to build one for the sake of success and proof
Goals and things change
Ideas evolved over time
Where he see s the most social need existing
Where he can make the biggest impact
Only real goal is to create social change as tangible as possible
SpiderSplat is not an explosive model
BCG or McKinsey of space
To be the best of the best of consulting was vision
Not the way the market is
In one of the hottest spaces in the entire world right now
Tough to remain personally excited
Discovery.com deal on his desk was huge but it still did not excite him
Now a stable company, even if small
Has a track record of building a successful company
No promises except he thinks it’s really a good model
Has to have a lot of checks and balances to ensure it is not his own singular vision
Has not had a management team at spider splat
Taking a different approach with P.org
Wants to make it so it can just run
Not so boxed in as he tended to do at SS
Kinda burning out and seeking something more passionate to keep him going
Search space is starting to gain respect
“The world is flat book”
More of a generalist – not any one thing
Knows how to put a business together
1.2 Dennis
1.2.1 Background
Met Eric at BU
Always been kinda a techy but not really that techy
Knows business and technology
Keys on positioning
Identifying opportunities
Eric and Dennis have been talking about him being an entrepreneur
10 Years later, started talking about what needs to change
Sees that something needs to change
Would like to be a part of something to cause that change
Needs to know that what he’s doing is not strictly for profit though profit is nice
Wants to fill a role
Prepared to work pt for 12 month & then decide what he’s going to do next
Engaged, about to be married in November
Does not go around shopping for funding
1.3 Ben
Lichtenwalner
Background
Air Products 7 years, Support,
Development, Technical Architect, Project Management
Married
TechTarget – Project manager
All along felt something was missing
When what I really enjoyed was making people’s lives better.
Had been doing this through church, and nonprofits
Wanted to combine work life with this passion
Saw article on Eric
Really was not interested in joining P.org project, just figured we had a lot in common and wanted to meet him
Joined on P.org same time wife and I were considering NY area
Now VP of Technology for mid-szed nonprofit in NYC - Teach For America
Now living / Working in NYC
1.4 James
1.4.1 Background
Met Eric through link of common friend (Alec who also knows Dennis)
Part of startup that focused on college portals
COO in charge of Business Strategy and technical plan
Formally created company in October 99
By January 2000 connection with Genzobar (sp?)
Campus Craze
Huge penetration real fast
Got out just before the bubble burst
Still viable product
Still have personal commitment to August
Seeking next opportunity
Micro-philanthropist himself
Sees himself as a user too
Especially interested in a technology guidance section
Definitely committed to part time
Recently married (March 25th )
Wife is product manager for Yankee group in charge of Surveys
Took over product team at Genzobar
1.5 Shelley
1.5.1 Background
First time meeting most of us
Grew up in Torronto
Undergrad in COMP Sci
Joined IBM for 6 years
PM / Designer role after development
Working hard but not feeling much personal reward
Came to MIT for Management degree
Very interested in Entrepreneurship
New enterprises
Volunteering program in school
Not very effective
More marketing than really helping
No real impact on people
Wants to merge desire to with entrepreneurship and making a difference
Learned about team MIT 50k
1.6 Jeff
1.6.1 Background
Born in
Went to
Was a crazy free spirit kinda guy, military helped him focus that
By the time he left he was ranked number 1 cadet, in charge of 200 cadets
Felt like herding cats
Project management was awesome
Went to FL was stationed there for 2 years
Through
Has some good photos and stories to share
Got own
ship in
Beautiful place – more great experience
Ship captain at sea stories are true, have to put people’s lives at risk
Coast Guard is sending him to grad school at Harvard
Idea is that he learns stuff and then goes back to Coast Guard for 4 years
Is committed there
Has a safety net
Developed
idea for
Globalgiving.com takes 10%
Can do it for a community for 5%
Multiple communities could be 3%
Part of it is combining model of nonprofit and for profit
Socially minded for profit firm can develop bank resources for greater efficiencies
Somebody at MIT connected him to Eric
This is a similar model to what he is interested
Tech and entrepreneurship will be lessons to learn
Married 9 months ago
She comes first and foremost – the focus of his life more than anything else
Time that he spends on this is time that he’s not spending with her
1.7 Ali
1.7.1 Background
Met Eric via 50k
Worked for Lycos
Mother suffered cancer / chemotherapy
Chose to go back to school – business may be able to carve niche for something better
Joined MIT Sloan
Started working for pharmaceutical consulting company
Again, disenchanted for nothing tangible
Left last year
Soul-searching for 4 or 5 months
Looked at 50K
Saw posting for us
Was also approached to help start a bio-tech company
Building a company from nuts and bolts
Finds p.org idea interesting
Transparency is key
Nation-wide movement that also works locally
Very interesting to him
2 Refined Vision Statement & Core Values
2.1 Eric passed out copies of “The Law”
2.2 Lots of people seeking to do good for the world
2.2.1 But it gets so polluted
2.2.2 They break from the fundamentals of human nature
2.2.3 In order to design systems that work to help others
2.2.3.1 Needs to be based on fundamental human instincts
2.2.3.1.1 We’re all designed to compete
2.3 Efficient or Social Capitalism
2.3.1 To be free of government structure
2.3.2 A lot of the problems are created in the nonprofit space because they are setup to leverage the benefits of the legislation
2.4 What makes us different?
2.4.1 We’re trying to accomplish it the hard way
2.4.2 It would be a whole lot easier to put another 501c3 in place
2.4.2.1 Don’t want to take advantage of the government’s tax incentive systems
2.4.2.2 This is a ground rule
2.4.2.3 “The Law” makes this case
2.4.2.4 If we want to make this big, we have to take away all the crutches we can
2.4.2.5 There is a Marketing / PR buzz factor behind this too
2.5 Make or break factors for Eric
2.5.1 Transparency
2.5.1.1 Follow open source fundamentals
2.5.1.2 Totally transparent
2.5.1.3 Everything
2.5.1.3.1 All documents are publicly accessible
2.5.1.3.2 All financials
2.5.1.3.3 Give everyone read only access to our books
2.5.1.3.4 3% as commission structure initially set, but whatever works
2.5.1.4 We would like to hear what a lawyer says on this
2.5.1.4.1 What about accuracy concerns?
2.5.1.4.2 Once published it can be used for anything
2.5.1.4.3 One of things that creates competitive advantage is keeping some things hidden
2.5.1.4.4 Eric clarified , what about not every last document?
2.5.1.4.4.1 Talking about financials
2.5.1.4.4.2 Exposing details can be a competitive advantage
2.5.1.4.4.3 Money in exactly equals money out, save transaction fees
2.5.1.4.4.4 More / Most Transparent is competitive advantage
2.5.1.4.5 But still a lot of legal concerns
2.5.1.4.5.1 Dealing with sensitive issues
2.5.1.4.5.2 A lot of chances to be sued
2.5.1.4.5.3 One way to go under is tying up resources on stupid debates
2.5.1.4.5.4 So much administrative concern
2.5.1.4.5.5 Talk about it and set it up as a plan for the future
2.5.1.5 From user perspective
2.5.1.5.1 What about anonymous donors?
2.5.1.6 Three Concerns:
2.5.1.6.1 Investors
2.5.1.6.2 Donors
2.5.1.6.3 Public / Competitors
2.5.1.7 Instead, run blogs
2.5.1.7.1 Much more frequent than anybody else out there
2.5.1.7.2 Encouraging micro-philanthropists
2.5.1.7.3 Less sophisticated investors
2.5.1.7.4 3% they may like
2.5.1.7.4.1 But dig deeper and see a 50K salary may not like it
2.5.1.7.5 Need to strike a balance
2.5.1.8 See a P&L
2.5.1.9 See efficiency reasons
2.5.1.10 Comparison to credit card rates
2.5.1.11 Good point for other discussions
2.5.1.12 Compare to others
2.5.1.13 Offer by Tier:
2.5.1.13.1.1 Literally offer to give numbers for larger investors
2.5.1.14 Summary: Find a balance and decide on it later
3 Review of Founder’s Memo Printout (Lead: Eric)
3.1 Eric
3.1.1 Obviously Eric already has contributed some money
3.1.2 Pays himself bare minimum from SS
3.1.3 Does not lead an expensive lifestyle
3.1.4 Does not want to self fund again though either
3.1.4.1 Not practical or effective
3.1.5 Will have some money to push things along, but only to keep it alive
3.1.6 Not going to be big if he is putting 100k into it
3.1.7 Charitable Trust
3.1.7.1 Not interested in making a lot of money off this
3.1.8 Doors will open if success here
3.1.9 Does not necessarily want equity in the venture
3.1.10 Gives him righteous indignation when seeking money?
3.1.11 Maintains that he does not want equity in the venture
3.1.12 Could be argued against
3.1.13 Makes it easier to get buy in from others?
3.1.13.1 What about having a stake in how the organization performs?
3.1.14 Uncomfortable making money from this organization knowing it will make him money in his other organizations (bleed off to other benefits)
3.1.15 This is his “next thing” after SS
3.2 Dennis
3.2.1 No capital to invest
3.2.2 Willing to put in as much time as necessary in marketing role
3.2.3 Mother has a print shop
3.2.4 His fiancée is also in marketing
3.2.5 Marketing is a big expense
3.2.6 Can’t leave full time job for 12 to 18 months
3.2.7 Dennis stated an estimate / range of the salary he would need to join Full time
3.2.8 Equity-wise would like equal stake
3.2.9 Small equity stake is enough for him
3.2.10 Would join full time if funding is in place
3.3 Ben
3.3.1 Similar to Dennis
3.3.1.1 No substantial capital to invest
3.3.2 Would be interested in FT, but not immediately, due to obligations to Teach For America
3.3.3 Would need similar salary requirements
3.3.4 Could not leave TFA / NY for at least a year
3.4 Shelley
3.4.1 Student
3.4.1.1 No capital to invest either
3.4.2 To make project scaled not looking for huge VC investment
3.4.3 Would prefer to see Angel money
3.4.4 Reward will come if it is successful
3.4.5 How much we want to redistribute the money?
3.5 James
3.5.1 Does not live lavishly
3.5.2 Does have a lot of obligations
3.5.3 Net Worth / Assets is how develops and reinvests
3.5.4 Had money before the wedding
3.5.5 Owns a lot of properties
3.5.6 Compensation is higher than others that were mentioned
3.5.7 Feels everyone should chip in some money
3.5.8 Even if it’s only $1 or $2
3.5.8.1 Enables us to say everyone helped start with investing too
3.5.8.2 Definitely here more for the equity side of things than the cash
3.5.8.3 Wants to be part of the contributions to society
3.5.8.4 Not sure he wants to do this long term for the money – not really in it for the job
3.5.8.5 Ultimately the org will be run by the people
3.5.8.6 Goal is a platform that runs itself
3.5.8.7 Key is getting to critical mass
3.6 Jeff
3.6.1 Works for Coast Guard, stated his estimate of current salary
3.6.2 Married, planning family and house
3.6.3 Little capital to add
3.6.4 Sees two potential paths:
3.6.4.1 Trust 51%
3.6.4.2 Anyone investing receives cash + some interest
3.6.4.3 If we do put hours in, there should be some return
3.6.4.3.1 Should start tracking hours somehow?
3.6.4.4 Encourage us to work harder if equate equity stakes to projects
3.6.5 Would like to have a tiny percentage stake just to say it
3.6.6 Contractually obligated to Coast Guard for 4 years after school
3.6.7 Protecting percentage is important
3.6.7.1 More interested in 1% that cannot be changed than 10% now
3.6.7.2 More about protecting for the future
3.6.7.3 Keeping some around for us / employees
3.7 Ali
3.7.1 Married 10 months ago
3.7.2 In another startup
3.7.3 Not much for capital to invest
3.7.4 Small options
4 Roundtable of Deeper Personal Objectives (1:15 – 2:00)
4.1 See Above Sections
5 Review of Eric’s Progress & Projector Demos (2:00 – 3:00)
5.1 Eric ran through items of interest on his laptop
5.1.1 Hundreds of email conversations
5.2 Articles
5.2.1 Articles that are related
5.2.2 The more content you write, there is always something we can use it for
5.2.3 Dennis does this stuff a lot 50+ contributed articles, fiancée does PR
5.2.4 Big picture ideas
5.2.5 Best way to make something material, send him an outline or abstract, he’ll run a first draft
5.3 Intranets.com
5.4 Hosted Exchange
5.4.1 Developing relationship with SS Client
5.5 P.org Demo itself
5.5.1 Founders on the website
5.5.2 Need to water down so current employers are not concerned
5.5.3 Maybe call us Founding Workateers
5.6 Advisors
5.6.1 Eric has a complete list
5.6.2 Adding Seth Macfarland – old high school buddy of Dennis’s
5.6.2.1 Creator of Family Guy TV show
5.6.3 How many do we want?
5.6.3.1 More = more access
5.6.3.2 Too many = time strain, esp. for CEO
5.6.3.3 For each we add, there should be a need targeted
5.6.3.4 Limit will be 15
5.6.4 How do we decide who not to bring on
5.6.4.1 Political allies is a concern – it may help or hurt terribly
5.6.4.2 Eric is pursuing Dr. Vernon Smith, Nobel prize for economics in a Philanthropic sector
5.6.5 Definites:
5.6.5.1
5.6.5.2 Lawyer
5.6.5.3 VC
5.6.5.4 Bednarik (checking with campaign manager)
5.6.6 Many more in conversations
5.6.7 Definitely something that should be a committee decision
5.6.7.1 Balance that may be missed could be raised
5.6.8 Decision should require 2/3 vote of founders for the time being
5.7 All Personnel decisions, for now, will be determined by the founders
5.7.1 This will be done by a 2/3 vote of the founders
5.8 More Vision
5.8.1 Competitive Bidding Process
5.8.1.1 Go to the site today and you would get the wrong impression
5.8.1.2 Someone commits to do work for a defined dollar amount
5.8.1.2.1 Perhaps a couple dollars an hour
5.8.1.3 Market based competitive bidding process
5.8.1.4 Sponsor gets names on list and recognition, etc…
5.8.1.5 How does someone find what they are seeking to support financially?
5.8.1.5.1 Once a bid is met, why would they compete to pay more?
5.8.1.5.1.1 For example, the person will perform the work, why give them more?
5.8.1.5.2 Why would we not invert?
5.9 Inverted / Reverse Auction Model
5.9.1 I will do it for 500?
5.9.2 I will do it for 450
5.9.3 I will do it for 400
5.9.4 And so on
5.9.5 ELance paradigm?
5.9.6 Inverted model exists, can we make it work?
5.9.7 Going standard model (bidding up) is what we are trying to do differently though?
5.10 Build Up Model (Standard Auction Process)
5.10.1 % Increase over required could go to the org
5.10.2 Set Tiers, highest donation = grandest solution
5.10.3 Workateer needs to promise higher value if more is paid
5.10.4 The only people who want the value to go up is a workateer or someone who benefits from it
5.10.5 Most people want it to go down
5.10.6 Is there value to the donor for having profile promoted for overbidding / lots of projects
5.10.7 Need incentives
5.10.8 What if we did three tiers?
5.10.9 Key Stakeholders:
5.10.9.1 Org
5.10.9.2 Donor
5.10.9.3 Workateer
5.10.10 Money goes to org
5.10.11 Org decides how to spend?
5.10.12 Too Complicated model?
5.10.13 If somebody overbids you on project you already won the bid, you’ll be annoyed
5.11 Blind Auction Model
5.11.1 What if he dollar value is not known?
5.11.2 Secretive
5.11.3 The Workateer may benefit, but the donor does not necessarily know
5.11.4 Donor is still only payi8ng the value they are willing to see the project completed
5.11.5 Why would the donor be bothered?
5.11.6 Wouldn’t this model attract that grey area of workateers?
5.11.6.1 Those who would not volunteer, but want to help while making some money?
5.12 General Model Concerns
5.12.1 The workateer must agree to do the task / effort if they hit the price point
5.12.2 If there’s not enough money to cover cost, the aggregate must be paid?
5.12.3 People really care about what they’re getting
5.12.4 Are we making the solution cost-efficient?
5.12.5 Who are we benefiting – Workateer, Donor, philanthropic cause or some combination?
5.12.6 Needed to table discussion for now
5.12.7 Proposals for each method?
5.12.8 Then discuss and review?
5.12.9 What about time wasted when project fell through / was overbid?
5.12.10 Speak to donors for their ideas?
5.12.11 What about Tax incentives?
5.12.12 NEXT STEPS
5.12.12.1 Develop alternate models
5.12.12.1.1 Blind Auction
5.12.12.1.2 Reverse Bidding
5.12.12.1.3 List Key points:
5.12.12.1.3.1 Consider Efficiency
5.12.12.1.3.2 Impacts to:
5.12.12.1.3.2.1 Donor
5.12.12.1.3.2.2 Workateer
5.12.12.1.3.2.3 Benefitting Entity
5.12.12.1.3.3 James Three Points:
5.12.12.1.3.3.1 Some person or company really needs to get something done for a good cause
5.12.12.1.3.3.2 I would love to help projects out for “X” time, skills resources, etc…. (Workateer)
5.12.12.1.3.3.3 I would love to help out but I don’t have X, but I have money (donor)
5.12.12.1.3.3.4 Could be combinations of Each
5.12.12.1.3.3.5 Skillsets
5.12.12.1.3.3.6 Time
5.12.12.1.3.3.7 Money
5.12.12.1.3.3.8 How does “trust me” work when you say, “give me more money than that other guy?”
5.12.12.1.3.3.8.1 What happens if one person does not complete the effort and walks away from project?
5.12.12.1.3.3.8.2 How does trust work in general?
5.12.12.1.3.3.8.3 Dennis to take a stab at business requirements
5.12.13 Can we include scrolling donor names to “Celebrate” their donations?
5.12.14 Can we include a celebrated Workateers Site / Section?
Dennis’s Mark Up Chart:
|
|
Reverse Bids (Donors) |
|
- Pay more money for charity - Set levels - More value as Bid increases - Workateer must propose what you get |
- Pay Less money for charity -
|
|
|
Reverse Bids (Workateers) |
|
- Will work for more money |
- Will work for less money -
|
6 Whiteboard Drawings & Visual Brainstorming (3:00 – 3:30)
6.1 See Section 5
7 Idea Generation & Open Verbal Discussion (3:45 – 4:00)
7.1 See Section 5
8 Equity Structure & Founder’s Agreement (4:00 – 5:00)
8.1 Eric ran through his spreadsheet of tentative structure
8.1.1 Some people have roles assigned that may not remain
8.1.2
8.2 Project Online
8.2.1 Dotproject.net
8.2.2 Jeff ran through the demo of the project structure
8.3 Volunteers help on P.org
8.3.1 Eric has received some offers to help / volunteer on the project
8.3.2 Send to department heads
8.3.3 Department heads will develop
8.3.4 Eric knows someone in tech / finance cross over
8.3.4.1 We need this
8.3.5 James cannot develop tech himself
8.4 Titles
8.4.1 Anyone interested develops three titles of interest and sends to Eric
8.4.2 CTO / CIO
8.4.3 CFO is a weakness for us, Ben is interim (regular CIO), but team understands need to fill once we get funding
8.4.4 Shelley shifted to Business Development (?)
8.5 Founding team
8.5.1 Those who attended the meeting today only
8.5.2 Exceptions will require 2/3 vote of those present today
9 Core Business Model Discussion (5:15 - ???)
9.1 Goals and Missions:
9.1.1 Make the Philanthropic Giving process more efficient
9.1.2 Serve the needs of those giving small amounts or those providing small scale services
9.1.3 Avail donors of opportunities to contribute to social causes that align with their personal values
9.1.4 Deliver charitable funds that would otherwise not be donated (for a variety of reasons)
9.1.5 Return and support transparency and trust to the micro-philanthropic
9.1.6 Leverage the internet to build viable and focused philanthropic relationships (many to many)
9.1.7 Build an organization
9.1.8 Develop a market place that directs excess, available, or below-market rate services to be used toward social issues
9.2 Perhaps the recipient of the philanthropic endeavor is the real goal?
9.3 Two types of Donors:
9.3.1 Bargain Hunter
9.3.1.1 Seeks to spend as little money as possible to get a philanthropic effort done
9.3.2 Activist Donor
9.3.2.1 Will give more if they see a cause that is valuable to them personally
9.3.2.1.1 Cause must be good
9.3.2.1.2 Their donation will, in some way, encourage more people to do that?
9.4 Fraud rate
9.4.1 May be 4% to 5%
9.5 Parallel Systems
9.5.1 Can we run parallel systems?
9.5.2 Ask:
9.5.2.1 Would you like to bid up?
9.5.2.2 Would you like to bid down?
9.6 Possible Approach (Product Roadmap)
9.6.1 Start off with reverse bidding model
9.6.1.1 Easy to understand
9.6.1.2 Proven business model
9.6.2 Then move on to new model of blind auction that raises funds
9.6.3 But is this disingenuous to our supporters? (“Bait and Switch”?)
9.6.4 Transition Method could be to move 0 Bidder projects to new model?
9.6.5 Run both systems in parallel?
9.6.6 Can we keep the system in place and allow bidding up or down?
9.7 Escrow System
9.7.1 We will probably need an escrow system
9.7.2 In the early stages we may want to limit the dollar values to prove model
9.7.2.1 $100 or less?
9.7.2.2 If it’s gone, it’s gone…
9.8 Differentiation / Competitive Advantage
9.8.1 How would we differentiate ourselves from Fundable.org?
9.8.2 Domain name enough?
9.8.3 Eric can make this happen with any domain name by driving traffic
9.8.4 What if we tried the new model on a different sector? (Cultural – music / art / whatever)
9.8.5 Could do in parallel?
9.8.5.1 Philanthropic and Cultural
9.8.5.2 Focus on one issue category first?
9.9 Why is the system the way it is today?
9.9.1 Because it’s not based on free market principles
9.9.2 Money goes into the bureaucratic black hole
9.9.3 People want to see / know where their money is going
9.9.4 Alternate models developed
9.9.4.1 Next Step: Everybody create 1 page format
9.10 Increase volume of micro-philanthropic services????
9.11 We need an advisor who does fundraising. Period.
10 UI / Design / Branding
10.1 Brainstorm Adjectives to Describe the site UI / Design and our Branding
10.1.1 Shelley
10.1.1.1 Minimalist
10.1.1.2 Happy / Harmony
10.1.1.3 Transparent
10.1.2 James
10.1.2.1 Warmth
10.1.2.2 Simple
10.1.2.3 Not cheesy
10.1.3 Jeff
10.1.3.1 Trustworthy
10.1.3.2 Transferability (Arrows, Connected)
10.1.3.3 Example of someone pulling someone else out of the water
10.1.3.3.1 Helping, assisting
10.1.4 Eric
10.1.4.1 No Halos
10.1.5 Ali
10.1.5.1 Vibrant
10.1.5.2 Progressive
10.1.5.3 Human
10.1.6 Dennis
10.1.6.1 Trustworthiness
10.1.6.2 Community
10.1.6.3 Generosity
10.1.7 Ben
10.1.7.1 Bright Color
10.2 Futuristic or Traditional?
10.2.1 Neither extreme
10.3 White background?
10.4 Not too much text?
10.5 Non-controversial
10.5.1 Not US Centric
10.5.2 No political, religious or racial ties
10.5.3 Diverse
10.5.4 Not using letters for pictures or pictures for letters
10.6 Layouts?
10.7 Comps?
10.7.1 Sharing Links
10.7.1.1 JetBlue
10.7.1.2 Google
10.7.1.3 UBS
10.7.1.4 Friendster
10.7.1.5 MySpace
10.7.1.6 NetFlix
10.7.1.7 Digg.com
10.7.1.8 VolunteerMatch
10.8 Competitive Analysis
10.8.1 Dennis to kick off
10.8.2 Send him any links
10.9 Charitable Trust Organizational Structure
10.9.1 Basic Model
10.9.2 Charitable Trust will be a majority owner in the entity
10.9.3 “Everything starts in poetry and ends in property”
10.9.4 A number of ways to structure it
10.9.5 Let the trust profit the most from the organization, while we maintain the control
NEXT STEPS
- Tasks and strategies in 2 weeks
- Three different issues doc from Eric
o We each create a one page doc on each and we’ll meet to discuss
11 Website Specifications Document (5:00 – 6:00)
11.1 Should be simplified
11.2 See end of section 10
12 Business Plan Section Writing & Editing (6:15 – 7:00)
12.1 Not discussed, need to resolve corps business model first
13 Project Planning & Tasking (7:00 – 7.30)
13.1 Jeff walked through the project management application on the site
13.2 All should have accounts, Jeff to setup access privs
13.3 See discussions in section 10
14 Business Plan Master Template (7:30 – 8:00)
14.1 Not discussed, need to resolve core business model concerns first
15 Dinner (8:00 – 10:00)
15.1 Team
had a great dinner at Cotton Wood restaurant at 222
16 Miscellanea
16.1 What makes us unique and different?
16.2 No favors or charity wanted – traditional VC funding is goal.
16.3 VC’s are the test of a solid business model & sizable market.
16.4 Gifts/Grants are possible for seed funding, but we don’t want agendas
16.5 Business Plan Timeline & MS. Project Plan
16.6 Handout Books & Propaganda
16.7 Setup Skype & IM on all
16.8 Intranets.com & VPN
16.9 Video Camera for Record keeping
16.10 Ben: Take Meeting Notes and be Scribe please
16.11 Checks & Balances of power – US Constitution as guide
16.12 SpiderSplat’s role
16.13 C@G old business plan demo
16.14 Printed Materials in conf room
16.15 Patent discussion – Kyle
16.16 Toys
16.17 Review of Articles & Content
16.18 Business Cards
16.19 Identity Package - Adjectives Brainstorm
16.20 Eric & Charitable Trust & Checks/Balances
16.21 Adjective Brainstorm for Image/Look/Feel & Identity Package
16.22 Process Flow Diagrams – Visio
16.23 Newsletter Task
16.24 Competitor Review:
16.24.1 CMarket
16.24.2 Fundable
16.24.3 VolunteerMatch
16.24.4 networkforgood,give.org
16.24.5 Etc…
16.25 Advisor Targets & Review
16.26 TiE-Con $219 – Saturday June 17
16.27 Next Meeting Times & 12 Month Project Timeline
16.28 Lawyers & IP
16.29 Take Picture of team
16.30 Ali Biz plan section
16.31 Task: Shelley, IDEAS competition entry
16.32 Signed “Pledge” of “Below Market Rates”
INCERTED
DOCUMENTS - FOLLOW UP SURVEYS
Philanthropist.org
Founders Meeting
Follow
Up Survey: Dennis Behrman
General
Comments & Excitement Level
I was
very impressed with the team and its qualifications. At first glance, it looks like many of the
functional areas of the business are covered by the expertise of one or more
team members.
I think
this project is potentially the most exciting thing I have ever worked on. It sounds as though the altruistic spirit and
entrepreneurial nature of the project are compelling to all founders.
Core Business Model Issue
Charitable
giving is a several hundred billion dollar per year business. I don’t anticipate any issues with driving
traffic to the site. We have a great
concept; the business model surrounding that concept is still a bit fluid and
should be tightened up.
Do we
understand our target market? The
venture has always been about micro-level contributions. I don’t think we intend (nor could we be
successful) at replacing the channels for soliciting or delivering large sums
of philanthropic donations. That may be
an expansion strategy, but certainly not a launch strategy.
Contributions, Expectations,
& Compensation
It
sounds as though there are two camps of founders. One camp consists of folks like me, who need
a salary/paycheck to pay the bills. If
you’re in this camp, then a sudden influx of money or cash flow (i.e. “salary
replacement”) would enable us to come onboard full time.
I fall
into this camp and can only join full-time if a 100% salary replacement is
possible and if relocation is not required.
I’m willing to travel as much as necessary, but not relocate for the
next two years or so.
The
second camp consists of those that have commitments that are not easily
abandoned – i.e. business school, coast guard, or other venture-funded
initiative.
Personally,
I’m comfortable with everyone’s situations so long as we all agree that if the
business takes off then we will have to fill roles as necessary for those that
cannot join full-time. I’m comfortable
working with “interim” professionals as necessary and practical.
Next Steps & Action Items
I believe that
we have two paths to choose from moving forward. We can either pursue funding and focus our
efforts on raising capital (traditional VC route or private grants), or we can
proceed in a bootstrapping fashion, building a prototype system on the cheap
and generating revenue organically.
For the
short term, these tracks appear identical.
A semi-functional prototype, a marketing plan, financial plan, product
roadmap, etc are all necessary for each track.
Once we arrive at a semi-functional prototype, we must choose our course
a bit more carefully.
Philanthropist.org
Founders Meeting
Follow
Up Survey: Eric
V. Melin
General
Comments & Excitement Level
This
survey is not relevant for me…the original founder should always be the
excitement leader. As you can all see by 500 emails, I’m very excited by the
project; it is my brainchild and likely my “what’s next” plan for my
professional career as an serial or “parallel entrepreneur”. I will make a few other comments though…I
agree with comments that this project should not be a political statement, and
must remain true to the Vision and Goals I initially rallied around.
It’s important to share with everyone that I consider myself the “idea guy”
regardless of how true this is. In the interest of maintaining my excitement
level, it’s important that I maintain the hardheadedness and craziness of a
typical entrepreneur. Even if we prove
the bidding up model implausible, I will be kicking up controversy based on the
new & unique nature of what we are trying to do. Much like the righteous indignation with the
issue of 51% equity going to charitable trust, I am much more equipped to sell
an audience on the idea, if it’s new and different. A giving/philanthropy/ or .org version
of elance.com or guru.com is cool,
useful, and definitely viable, but not terribly exciting to me.
Leading into the topic below, if asked to choose between making a substantial
difference in the world and creating a legacy for myself, I’d choose making a
difference, but again, everyone is motivated by different factors…for
me…selfishly, I really want to create/test a new & innovative economic
model based on free-market forces. This
is where my excitement stems from. I like to think of it as a
“think-tank-in-action”. If this does not work, we do still have the
efficiencies of our organization itself to leverage for more traditional
labor-exchange or marketplace, that I will be equally proud to see blossom.
Core Business Model Issue
I do not
want this issue to be a show stopper for people. However, I am laying the groundwork for a
potential organization and new economic system. The organizational issues are
ones that are practical, and left in the hands of skilled business people. The economic, structural and modeling issues
I need to poke and prod and find a solution.
I will pledge to receive outside Advice and Validation - and remain open
to change. I realize my name does not
have credibility of a famous economist, but I will be looking for some
established people to buy in. I’m
thinking about writing or researching on this topic to make my case, but I’m a
web person, my skills are best used building a web system & community. Sorry for the clichés, but I generally follow
the just-do-it approach.
I want to build consensus, and foster team contributions. In almost all areas
related to the company/organization/venture I am going to bow to the will of
the majority, but this issue is core to the idea. I will continue to make my case
philosophically and use market data to support my position, as it will be
difficult to truly motivate all of you if everyone does not buy in fully.
To put my idea in a different way…please keep in mind the scope of this
potential “paradigm shift” startup gurus always say “think big or go home” –
I’m not thinking big for the sake of creating change, rather I think the change
is necessary and important. As temping
as it sounds, do we really think the
Right now, the labor markets due not have a way to adequate compensate workers
based on the value of there time – I want our incentive system designed to
maximize the value of “workateering” time, not to force additional competition
on the supply side. Supply and demand –
we want to increase the demand side via an artificial market (aka Ego, and
desire to do good). I have seen hundreds
of web-based ventures – the viral and successful ones are when users
(workateers) have incentive to email everyone they know (vote for a cute photo,
politics, etc). Donors may wish to drive
price down to encourage competition on the fence painting, but they have less
incentive to contact 100 other donors.
Please send your 200 word paragraphs, and perhaps I will see/hear/understand
something I did not consider during our meeting. Barring further agreement, or hard-core
lobbying from the team, I’m making the executive decision that we proceed as
originally planned. I am penning
10/15/06 to revisit the decision. In 6
months, if we do not have critical mass, traction, active users, paying donors,
we will vote on a change to a more proven and less risky model (bidding down
model).
While I am convinced that philanthropist.org adds value in its ability to match
workateers and philanthropists one-to-one this is an area I am willing
to bend on and allow group giving. Much
like fundable.org and other competitors, we could allow workerteers to pool
together labor resources to accomplish a task.
Likewise, we could allow Philanthropists to pool together financial
resources to accomplish a task. I propose this feature as stage two though. I
know Dennis has some new ideas here.
Contributions, Expectations,
& Compensation
I expect
to contribute about what you all have seen these last few months – 5-10 hours
per week for the next few weeks or months.
Ben’s notes highlight these issues, but I prefer the notion of “If money
was no object, I would do X”. Beaches
& Margaritas are only fun for so long - I would do Philanthropist.org Full
time with a $100k+ salary, and a prior liquidity event at SpiderSplat yielding
over $1M ($5M is personal goal).
For now, I can only contribute more than a few hundred dollars in cash here
& there, at least for a while. If a
liquidity event occurs at my day job – I expect to contribute a large sum to
bootstrap the venture – however, the venture is not going to be bootstrapped
indefinitely. I’ve done this once,
learned a ton, but will never do again.
Next Steps & Action Items
Jeff’s task list is my priority.
Once the core-model issue is resolved, I’ve like to slice up business
plan sections, then tackle website development. We do not need to raise too
much money to build a working prototype.
Philanthropist.org
Founders Meeting
Follow
Up Survey: Jeff
General
Comments & Excitement Level
Three
main points:
- I
firmly believe that the non-profit model in this country (and most parts of the
world) is highly flawed. Accountability is almost non-existent. Marketing
prowess often trumps operational prowess when money is raised. And the vast
majority of non-profit organizations are unsustainable and therefore encourage
the downward cycle into a system of dependency. The cure for these issues is
information. I’m excited about being part of something that will allow people
to gain transparency and force a paradigm shift in the way people invest in
society.
- The
second reason I want to be part of this is to learn as much as possible. As I
told you guys at the meeting, I am interested in starting an internet based,
community focused system of giving similar to the
-
Finally, I’m eager (probably a bit selfishly so) to be part of something that
will become big. I would love to be able to share with my kids someday that I
was part of something that changed the world.
Core Business Model Issue
I spoke
with Eric during our second meeting encouraging him to stick to his guns on the
issue of his vision, and though I think we differ slightly on how to get there,
I’m happy to see he is staying the course.
Quickly,
here are my thoughts.
I love
the idea of giving more to increase the “supply” of workers. The more I discuss
the idea with friends and family (I use the “little circle of volunteers and
the huge circle of paid workers to show the gap between” description) the more
I like it and the more it makes sense. I think where I differ from several
people at the meeting was how we should get there. By using a model that we
know works, we can get the financing, traffic, and infrastructure to do
something big. I know there has been some interest in the local press on our
idea of funding up, however, imagine the press five years from now when we tell
our ten thousand daily visitors we are no longer going to bid down, but now we
are going to bid up. We’re talking New York Times type of coverage when we, a
successful, profitable, social conscientious business, dramatically alter our
model because we fundamentally believe people should pay a premium, not a
discount for socially responsible work.
We would
have a much bigger microphone to yell through if we were bigger and more
established. We talked about it for a long time and our group still had trouble
conceptualizing what it would look like to bid up. How much more will non-BU,
MIT, HBS donors be confused? Add to that the fact we will be new and we are
offering to give people more money to
do a project… I just see it as a very tough sell to people who don’t know and
trust us.
Contributions, Expectations,
& Compensation
Contributions:
5-10 hours a week sounds reasonable to me. My responsibilities in a nutshell:
wife, school work, president of Harvard’s Volunteer Consulting Organization
(possible source of some good workers), team manager of the HARBUS Foundation’s
venture philanthropy and grant making teams, board member for AFC Mentoring,
and trying to start “CommunityHero.org”.
Expectations/Compensation:
I am locked into the Coast Guard for the next five years. That being said, one
year of it I will be in school and the next four will be teaching at the
Academy in
About
the equity issue, I think it’s prudent to track hours worked for repayment and
give each founder an undilutable 1% stake. That, in addition to the 51%
charitable trust idea, has my vote.
Next Steps & Action Items
My goal is to try to keep everyone on task and working hard. I think we all
need reminders and deadlines from time to time to keep us on target. I’m look
forward to learning how to motivate a group of socially mindful,
techno-entrepreneurs to get their stuff done. The whole herding cats analogy
comes to mind…
I truly
see my responsibility as opening doors and providing you the resources you need
to get your jobs done more efficiently and easily. Please let me know if you
ever need anything from me.
Philanthropist.org
Founders Meeting
Follow
Up Survey: Shelley, “Chief Innovative Officer” - new job J
General
Comments & Excitement Level
Here is
my view:
The nonprofit organization and volunteerism is
ineffective in serving the social cause due to the many stakeholders separate
the recipient and the donor in the value chain and the multi-layer hierarchical
structure in any operational organization.
The quality of the benefits received by the people in need is directly
related to the quality of work, energy, willingness and skills and knowledge of
the volunteers or social workers in the case of public service. In economical term, volunteers and social
workers are considered as free or cheap labors.
In the reality, nothing is free; the setup causes either the quality of
work to be compromised or the compensation deserved by the people who work for
the good cause to be sacrificed.
On the other hand, there are many people who would
like to help might not have skills or time. Consequently, they would donate
money to the charity or nonprofit organization hoping that their financial
contributions would be somehow received by those in needs or used in a
meaningful way. In reality, a lot of
money is being absorbed by various administrative or other activities. As a result, the “net social impact or value”
is dramatically reduced and the situation either creates skepticism among
donors or discourage donation in the worst case.
There is a need for a more transparent and flat
volunteerism system that help establish the one-one relationship and build
trust between the donors and the recipients.
Essentially, the system will create a harmony, engaging environment to
improve the quality of the work and projects of the volunteers, encourage more
knowledge and professional workers to participate in the social work, enhance
benefits received by the recipients, increase contributions by the donors, and
finally overall social impacts made on the society.
Instead of perceived free workforce of volunteerism,
paying “free-market” rate to the volunteers who now become “workateer” would
create a more self-sustaining system of socialism and that would create a
higher quality work that benefits and add better value to the society. In the spirit of volunteerism, workateer
would propose project and commit the effort toward the project at rate of zero
dollar, and the system facilities a free-marketplace for the donors to “compete
to give” which in turn capture the market rate completely based on the
community’s evaluation and freewill instead of over- or undervalued by the
current economy. Workateers who
essentially are knowledge workers typically would have spent time in a paying
job and very minimal time on social cause in the current system while our
system would convert them to contribute more of their time to create social
impact.
Core Business Model Issue
I think
I like the idea or our big “vision”.
Perhaps, we should just stick with it.
I believe what we were debating was the execution part which his always
tricky but doesn’t necessarily need to be thought of as show stopper or
derailment. Good discussions bring out
good ideas. It’s important that we
challenge ourselves first and enough before we are being challenged in front of
others. That said, we need some clever
and sincere way to carry this out.
My guess
is that if we can try to tackle the issues of getting ‘buy-in’ through good
marketing strategy. Good scenarios, persona,
or stories would help.
Good
pilot programs or good reference projects would be important. Let say, if we could get some famous or
well-known professional (lawyers, artists, MIT professors) to post their
project and be a workateer, that would help build up credibility and create
some buzz per se (need more thought).
Below is
just a recap on an idea I had more, just thought to add it here. It’s just a thought on execution.
"Philanthropic currency and economy"
model
Providing:
1) volunteer - e.g.
- a professor donates time and delivers a lecture;
sponsor bids for it and pays for the service
- the professor posts the lecture topic on our
site and wait for bidding
- the money remains in the system and the professor
will allocate the money to workateer or beneficiary he/she chooses
- other examples are independent artists, etc
2) sponsor - e.g.
- a corporation who want to sponsor a
professor to deliver a lecture to the public or to be a speaker
to their employees
- the corporation could post an ad on our
site. They will be notified when the system finds a match or
when the volunteer replies to the ad; the sponsor then needs to go through
the bidding process
- the sponsor can bid for workateer
projects
- the sponsor certainly doesn't have to be and shouldn't
be just corporations
<- the tax deduction amount remains in the
system and will be given to the volunteer>
Receiving:
3) workateer
- someone who wants to serve but need money to
cover the materials
4) beneficiary
- someone who is in need and is pure recipient of
money donations
Contributions, Expectations,
& Compensation
Current:
MIT
full-time (10 courses in the spring) – should have 88 credits by the end of
May.
Roughly
5-10 hours on Philanthropist.org
(including talking to people, attending conferences, recruiting
advisors, thinking of models, entering IDEAS / other competition)
Beginning in June:
I’m
looking for a full time job / venture / project starting in the summer
(yes, starting, not just for the summer).
I have taken many courses now, and hope to work full-time and study
part-time (it’s challenging and not very typical, but I want give it a try)
I’ve got
different offers and opportunities but I’m still exploring. So, if we have funding and could create a
full-time salaried position opening at Philanthropist.org, I guess it’s an
option.
As for
equity, I’m not sure if I understand the 51% charitable trust idea
completely. But I think it’s fair to pay
based on the number of hours worked and contributed and I guess the 1% stake sounds
fine.
Next Steps & Action Items
Build network/references, get the model right, build up credibility. Create synergy/alliance/partnership. I need to give more thought on these.
Tasks /
interests: business development, marketing, strategy, corporate identity and
website front end and product design
Philanthropist.org
Founders Meeting
Follow
Up Survey: James
General
Comments & Excitement Level
I really
like the concept of providing an efficient one to one platform between
micro-philanthropists, meaningful projects/services with the help of
workateers. On a scale of 1 to 10, I’m
probably at a 7 right now due to the fact that I haven’t been able to carve out
enough time to contribute as much as I should to start building a good momentum
in making the platform happen.
Core Business Model Issue
From my
experience, I’m a very big stickler on making sure the creation of a product is
very targeted but design a system that’s flexible enough to accommodate “more”
for the future. In the discussions that
took place in the founders meeting the primary users of the system to me is
still not 100% defined in order of importance.
However, we can definitely categorize them into 3 buckets.
- Philanthropist
- Workateer
- Worthy project sponsor
In the
current system, it doesn’t really address all 3 constituents. It’s limited to a service for hire (eLance)
model with the assumption that the workateer is also the “worthy project
sponsor”.
The good
debate that took place really points out the fact that people were split on
focusing the project on Philanthropists (i.e. make them feel that their money
is efficiently used and they have direct insight as to how it’s being used) or
Workateer (i.e. bidding mechanism for them to get maximized $ for their worthy
efforts).
We
didn’t really address what things should be considered to be “worthy cause” and
how we’re going to recruit the appropriate projects into the system.
The we
get into the model of how we get people connected… There are different opinions on how to best make
this connection... I think the best way
to go is to pick something simple and I agree with Jeff that it’s best to start
with something that works. As the user
community grows bigger… than I think we can enter more of an experimental
stage. Otherwise, it’s a big bet
upfront on applying a new model with the general population (not targeted
one). It’ll be a huge hurdle to jump
through, but big ideas is what makes huge success at the end. To me the focus is really try to focus on
what is the main objective of the platform and the “how” should be ever
changing.
Contributions, Expectations,
& Compensation
Contributions: I really would like to aim for 5 hours of
dedicated time for this project, where I can work with a more permanent
technical team that does the actual hands-on work. I think 3 meetings a week with the team 1
hour, 2 hours, 2 hours would be the best utilization of my expertise and
time. Review the work done and provide
directions as to what especially the next steps should be. If I can block off long hours of work time
than I can be more of a hands on role and create something more concrete but
hard to see that in the short term.
Expectations/Compensation:
I really
like the project based compensation approach as it’s the most fair and being
not as a good contributor at this point.
I’m happy for those that are getting more because they have done
more. At this point, I don’t really
expect any compensation besides the .1% equity stake until I get more time to
work on projects. The hourly comp being
tracked is appropriate for me and I’d be happy to be at the end of the time in
receiving something real from it in the event there is funding. I’d like to be more of a philanthropist in
donating my time for a worthy cause than a workateer… Although… interesting to think about if there
is a difference in this model.
Next Steps & Action Items
My goal is trying to get into more of a routine in providing dedicated time
for this venture and try to balance it from my full time position. I think when I travel for it, it really
throws things off a lot.
My focus
should really be focused on recruiting individual works that can start
developing on the site in a more hands on fashion.
Philanthropist.org
Founders Meeting
Follow Up Survey: Ali
General Comments & Excitement Level
I
think the concept is very interesting and novel. I especially like the
transparency and accountability aspects of the venture.
Core Business Model Issue
I
still have concerns about communicating/selling the philanthropist.org concept
of “bidding up” to corporations and individuals. Having said that I do agree
with Eric that we need to make efforts to make the concept work; from my
perspective, at least in the form a long-term goal.
In
our meeting, we really didn’t get a chance to discuss how we would recruit
“workateers.” I think we may need to spend some time towards partnering with
local companies initially.
Also
I agree with Jeff and James about starting with something that works and people
can get their arms around.
Finally,
I think we need to be smart about events, conferences, competitions that we get
involved with by articulating the benefits and value of a particular activity
beforehand. It is about making targeted connections.
Contributions, Expectations, &
Compensation
Contributions:
Currently, it is rather difficult for me to dedicate a set amount of time on a
weekly basis. As you all know, I’m involved with a start-up and that’s
certainly eating up most of my time. In my case, I think what might work best
is that I can act as an available resource to contribute to a given project and
trust that Jeff can track me down when there is a need.
Expectations/Compensation:
I
do like our approach of time and project based compensation. Currently, I’m happy with the .1% equity
stake since I intend to increase it as I get to work on projects. It is difficult for me to say, right now,
that I would be full-time, if philanthropist.org takes off. Looking beyond the
initial start-up phase, I can see myself continuing to make contributions in
various forms which in turn increase the equity stake or works towards whatever
formulation we come up with.
Next Steps & Action Items
My goal is
trying to allocate time for this venture and my focus should really be on helping
with whatever is needed.
Sorry for not following format, but if you have time and want to read a
very rough, but passionate case for blind upward bidding, see
attached. I'm not sure it keeps with the mission / vision that was
originally planned though either.
I plan to gather my thoughts in the excellent format provided before the meeting, but doubt I will get to it as I am also dotting the i's and crossing t's for closing on our house Friday.
Talk to you all at 8.
- Ben
Valuing Public Service Over Self-Service
By Ben Lichtenwalner
Easter Sunday, April 16, 2006
What if the world really valued positive change? What if you went to work every day not paid
in dollars and cents but in positive impact on lives? Why is it that fire fighters and police
rushing into the twin towers were paid half the salary of those whose lives
they were saving? Why do people line up
for miles in freezing weather to be Donald Trump’s cronies, while nonprofits
can’t fill some of their most senior positions?
Why is it that someone with a desire to help children in Africa
suffering from AIDs can’t find the money to get there, while our prime-time
Idols jet set across the
Something is wrong with this picture. But what can we do? Philanthropist.org can change the paradigm, we can change the world and this is how we can do it…
We need the best and brightest in the world to solve the
world’s problems – big and small. But
these people are not valued in our most basic compensation structures. Instead, they get a pat on the back and a
“Hey, nice job! You’re a really great
person for working in the soup kitchen on Christmas Eve”. They get a warm fuzzy and then go back to
work the next day in their drab office, working hard to provide a Trump-scale
paycheck so their family can live comfortably.
Then, maybe next year, on Christmas Eve, they’ll be back in that soup
kitchen, so they can have a warm fuzzy again.
What if these people could make a living that provided the same,
comfortable lifestyle while serving the homeless daily, or helping orphans in
Picture it – you want to help orphans in
Then, Pierre Omidyar logs on, sees your project, sees that
Melinda has bid $2500 and thinks, “Wow, this effort is worth far more than that
to me”, so he bids $3500. Great, you now
have all you need, and you can start packing!
But wait, Melinda comes back says, dang that
You get back from your trip, you have great stories to
share, photos galore, and your donor is thrilled. You show Melinda tons of pictures of the
orphans you helped. Melinda hears tales
of how you taught many children to read and educated them on good health practices
and she promotes your efforts so you can go again next year if you want. But better yet, your son’s friend Johnny sees
the great bike you bought him and learns how your son got it. So Johnny tells his mom about the cool bike
and asks, “Mommy, why aren’t you helping orphans in
We can change the paradigm and Philanthropist.org can be the tool to do it.