AmericaBlog has an interesting post on the radically different styles of philanthropy undertaken by Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates. Certainly, advancing the very notion of philanthropy is important, and something that both of these individuals have and continue to accomplish.
From Brand Republic, August 25, 2006, in an article entitled User-generated content uncovered: Power to the people:
By getting involved in user-generated content, you can get people more involved in your brand than they ever have been before, increase their loyalty, even make them your brand advocates. And you can find out exactly what they think about your product. For brands, this means a change from traditional marketing methods such as advertising to getting involved in dialogues with consumers.
The same applies to non-profit organizations, who need to better utilize the internet and maturing "Web 2.0" tools that facilitate social networking and media distribution, such that they elevate their ability to connect with a global community that can provide for them financial sustainability for operations and growth.
It is imperative that solutions are found addressing the problem of non-profits being in constant financial survival mode, where an Executive Director might find herself fundraising 80% of the time, rather than focusing on her core competency of effective positive change in the world.
From Philanthropy News Digest:
Software giant Oracle Corp. has confirmed that its co-founder and CEO, Larry Ellison, has decided not to follow through with the $115 million pledge he made to Harvard a year ago, the New York Times reports.The donation, which would have been the largest single philanthropic gift the university had ever received, would have been used to establish the Ellison Institute for World Health, a research organization devoted to examining the efficiency of global health projects. University spokeswoman Sarah J. Friedel said Harvard has not heard directly from Ellison or Oracle that he would not be making the donation. If the reports are true, she added, the university would be "disappointed with Mr. Ellison's decision to withdraw his commitment."
Ellison, one of the world's wealthiest people, with a personal fortune of roughly $16 billion, decided to cancel his plans for the donation after the resignation in February of Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers. According to Oracle spokesman Bob Wynne, the two men had discussed the donation but never made a formal agreement. "Larry Summers was the brainchild of this project," Wynne said. "His departure is what caused Larry Ellison to decide against making the donation."
Ellison withdraws a pledge of $115 million for a research organization bearing his name dedicated to world health, not personally commenting on the withdrawl. Oracle's spokesman confirms that it was a personal relationship issue that caused the withdrawl.
Two days earlier, Buffett gives away billions to organizations in other names, electing to place his money with qualified people and organizations in a way that will have a tremendous global impact.
Which story is indicative of a trend? What were the motivations behind each man's decision? Mortality? Legacy? Love? What was the intention behind the money - was it to truly make a difference in people's lives and the planet itself, or was it PR or maybe a tax deduction?
The intention of money is important. People of any economic means who make the commitment to positive change with their money, reap rewards and cause greater impact than any comparable throwaway donation.