One person's cow is one organization's faxes

If you read (or have read) the above article, you learned today that Kiva's fabled "direct donor-to-lender" gambit was...just that. A way of labeling the philanthropic "produce" for better marketing. They say as much when they admit that they're looking for a way to engage the mother in Des Moines who wants to give $25, and see something direct and tangible for her generosity, when in fact that donation is going to microfinance organizations, or serving as yet another tile in the mosaic of general operating funds. (Yes, the stuff of Henri Matisse's dreams.) Basically, if you thought Kiva was different, that you could actually contribute towards a visible object to be purchased by a known individual, rather than an anonymous check to an anonymous orgazation, well...plus ca change.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like Kiva. I am glad to see their model explained with greater transparency because the myth of Kiva gets at the heart of my concerns regarding our philanthropic vocabulary. With their person-to-person gimmick, Kiva became shorthand for the phenomenon wherein even the hoi polloi, armed with $100 and a tax return, demand to see *exactly* where their money was going, to ensure that it was spent exclusively on their desire project, etc. To me, this fosters a culture of entitlement where donors start wanting to see the cow, the desert stove, the whatever, that their $10 buys. You know what, donors? Your $10 went to our heating bill. Your $36 paid for the synagogue's faxes. Deal.

So I'm glad to see Kiva, under pressure, being like, yeah, that $25 goes to overhead. We just put a face to that overhead, SAME AS EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITH AN ANNUAL REPORT TO SEND YOU.