April 21, 2008
The Nonprofit Profession Lost Out in 'Oprah's Big Give'
By Joshua Horwitz
As Oprah’s Big Give wrapped up its first season on ABC Sunday night, the big winner was Stephen Paletta, a technology entrepreneur from New York, whom the judges felt best negotiated the obstacles to effective philanthropy that they had put in his way.
He ended up walking away with a cool $500,000 for himself and another $500,000 to give away (the contestants did not know there would be a cash reward for the winner until the last moments of the show).
While Mr. Paletta did perform admirably given the parameters of the show, Big Give was a loser for the professionals who run nonprofit organizations and foundations.
Television offers a great opportunity to educate and to make people passionate about causes — especially when a philanthropist and television personality as popular as Oprah Winfrey is sponsoring the lessons.
But the show ended up featuring amateur and embarrassing efforts at giving. It passed off as entertainment people wasting thousands of dollars of donated money and did little to help the American public learn what it really takes to change the lives of other people. Oprah’s last words on the show Sunday night were to encourage the television audience to “give big,” which is a worthy goal, but the television program failed to show average Americans how they can become effective and strategic philanthropists.
The premise of Oprah’s Big Give was that 10 people were given bundles of cash they had to give away in ridiculously short time periods with all sorts of weird restrictions that changed each week. Part of each challenge was for the players to use their cash as a multiplier, and they were judged, in part, on how they got noncontestants to participate.
Their efforts were judged by several high-net-worth individuals who have developed their own philanthropic endeavors: the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver; Malaak Compton-Rock, the founder of StyleWorks and the wife of the comedian Chris Rock; and Tony Gonzalez, a tight end for the Kansas City Chiefs football team.
Notably absent from this group was a professional foundation officer or any person skilled in evaluating effective giving.
My irritability with Oprah’s Big Give developed after watching week two of the show and went up and down as the show progressed. In that episode, contestants were each given $4,800 and a car and just 48 hours to find a worthy cause and turn the original dollars and the car into something more.
A few of the contestants banded together and did a wonderful job raising money for a children’s home. At the end, they gave the cars to the home to help with transportation needs.
However, one of the contestants, Angelo, identified a veteran wounded in the Iraq war whom he had hoped to help, but instead he embarrassed the veteran and squandered Oprah’s resources.
Angelo persuaded the manager of a local TGIFriday’s restaurant to give the veteran free meals once a week for a year. Angelo then gave the veteran $4,600 of the cash. Then, inexplicably, and as the cameras rolled, Angelo gave the car — a brand new Ford Edge, worth more than $35,000 — to the restaurant manager, as the veteran looked on in disbelief. Angelo later explained that it was important to reward donors to “inspire” others. In a just result, the judges kicked Angelo off for his poor effort and judgment.
While I am sure the producers were overjoyed that they got an “aha” moment — the kind of moment that reality television thrives on when a person does something truly idiotic and self-destructive — I was in disbelief.
Unlike, for example, in Hell’s Kitchen, where the result is a trendy Los Angeles couple being told that the flank steak they ordered is burned beyond recognition, here more than $35,000 in charitable giving had gone up in smoke. At a feeding center for the needy in my neighborhood, that money would have provided a meal to 105,000 people. And what is worse, the veteran got a pittance.
If I was irritable in week two, I was fuming by the end of week four.
In that episode, the Maloof brothers, wealthy Las Vegas entrepreneurs and owners of the Sacramento Kings basketball team, gave each contestant $100,000 to give out in just 24 hours. The catch was that the seven remaining contestants could not give out more than $500 to one person or $10,000 to one place, and they could not give cash.
The losers that week were truly pathetic.
Kim was so directionally and geographically challenged that she could barely find a charity to which she could give the bulk of her money.
She ended up buying some toys for a pet shelter and giving away free gas to people, on a first-come-first-serve basis, rather than even attempting to figure out for whom a tank of gas would be truly helpful. She left more than $80,000 on the table.
The other loser in week four, Eric, promised the family of a deceased police officer that he would pay for the funeral but then got busy and missed it. Eric left $70,000 unused.
Even the winner in week four, Stephen, did not come out smelling like a rose. He ended up spending all of his $100,000, but he did so by going to a low-income neighborhood and, to beat the time limitation, giving away random appliances and home electronics regardless of the needs of the household. Getting a new refrigerator is not so great if your electricity is about to be turned off.
In other reality shows, the opportunity cost is low: If the contestant screws up, they don’t get something that never was theirs to begin with. But here, Oprah allocated the money for charitable purposes and it was wasted – mostly to give drama to the show so it had high ratings.
So if Oprah puts the show on for a second season, here’s what she should do if she wants to teach a serious lesson about charitable giving.
At the end of each episode, she should introduce a real hero — a trained foundation officer, perhaps, or an accomplished nonprofit leader — to save the day and make the money work.
Something like Supernanny, where an experienced child-care provider pulls the hapless parents and undisciplined kids back from the brink and creates order out of chaos.
If our hero had three golden rules for the contestants, here’s what they would be based on:
- Listen carefully. Too often donors have a preconceived idea of what needs to be done. Gifts of time or money are ineffective if they don’t match an actual need.
- Understand that general-support grants are like gold. They give an organization maximum flexibility and place resources where they are needed most. Some of the best philanthropy on Oprah’s Big Give was when contestants helped out with needs for the kinds of things donors usually hate to pay for — like salaries and utility bills. The decision to give the cars to the children’s home was something that deserved a lot of praise because it probably was something the organization would have trouble acquiring any other way.
- Move beyond the quick fix. Most contestants on Oprah’s Big Give looked to find a person in need, help them with an immediate problem, and move on. Effective philanthropy often does require a quick fix, but it can’t end there. Smart donors must spend part of their resources on understanding the problems that cause the immediate need and then develop a long-term action plan to solve the underlying issue. This requires them to focus on a few causes and, ideally in collaboration with other donors, devote resources to a mix of research, advocacy, and direct services.
If anybody has earned the right to experiment with philanthropy, it is Oprah Winfrey. She has given tens of millions of her own money away and another $51-million through her Angel Network foundation.
She has clearly inspired others to give as well.
So while her show sometimes gave me heartburn, I admire her for starting a serious discussion about the meaning and effectiveness of philanthropy among average Americans.
For those of us who depend on philanthropy and especially for those who dole it out, the conclusion of Big Give seems like an opportunity to take a hard look at our own work. After all, we don’t want our judges — the boards of directors who oversee charities and foundations —to send us packing.
Joshua Horwitz is executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, in Washington.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Foundation 'Under Siege' After Obama-Clinton Debate
Next: John McCain Discloses Data on His Charity Giving
I hope Mr. Horwitz response to the Big Give is sent to Oprah.
— Diana Marquis Apr 21, 01:47 PM #
I couldn’t even force myself to watch anymore after I saw the $100,000 in 24 hours episode. What a farce!
Maybe the best we can hope for is that some other people see how ridiculous it was. Of course, one presumes that Oprah made money from the show. Maybe she’ll be more informed and responsible in her giving than her contestants were.
— Michael Wyland Apr 21, 01:56 PM #
Excellent assessment, Mr. Horwitz! I watched every episode of the Big Give with a mixture of horror and (guilty) pleasure. One thing that was given in the first episode to a homeless woman was the donated time of a finance coach. I wish more had been made of this “give,” because that sharing of knowledge and advice is something that might truly go on giving, unlike a a few hundred of even afew thousand dollars.
— Megan Jenkins Apr 21, 02:04 PM #
I completely agree, and am grateful for someone other than myself to see the downside of the “Big Give.” I loved that Oprah was trying to bring the average viewer into a world of giving, but I was really turned off by the prospect of someone being sent home each episode. Yes, there were those contestants who did not use their money effectively, but Mr. Horwitz is correct in believing that a funds specialist should have been utilized to ensure that the contestants had the proper tools to make the right decisions.
I, too, hope that this repsonse to the show somehow lands in the hands of the producers of the show in the case of a second season.
— Jessica Ferron Apr 21, 02:36 PM #
This blogpost is the first i’ve heard about this show. I’m appalled, although i didn’t have a very positive impression of Oprah’s philanthropy, from what i’d heard about the failings of her donated school in Africa. IMO, we need to provide some basic philanthropic literacy to the growing set of ad-hoc, sudden, and micro-philanthropists, lest we continue what i see as a freaky drift towards philanthropy as donor massage, and a superficial attempt to appear to be doing good while squandering precious resources. This gives more meaningful philanthropy a dip in the mud.
— phil klein Apr 21, 02:37 PM #
With great influence/power, comes great responsibility. Oprah and her crew should have put more thought into how to really relay a message of responsible philanthropy. There are so many good things that come out of Oprah’s philanthropic agenda and willingness to use her brand to further it. Is it too much for TV to expect that the American (and worldwide) public would be able to handle a more nuanced message?
— Amie Latterman Apr 21, 02:56 PM #
There are different ways to give back and the Big Give is just trying to create a movement of doing something to help brighten a person’s day. Sounds to me like Mr. Horwitz is just a little bitter that he wasn’t invited to be a part of the show. The Big Give was a groundbreaking primetime show and I am sure there will be variations of it to come. If you want to do it the “right” way Mr. Horwitz just band your investors together, go to the networks, and get your own show. Sounds like you would even like to host the show.
— Troy Hanson Apr 21, 03:39 PM #
I’m GLAD I didnt watch this. Example – Toys for an animal shelter?! Ridiculous! Animal shelters need $$$ for vet services and $$$ to increase spay/neuter programs. When in doubt ASK the charity what they need, and they WILL TELL YOU!
— Kara Apr 21, 03:40 PM #
Dear Mr. Horowitz:
Please let me know when Oprah calls to ask you where to give money? My employer has 22 lawyers with clients in San Angelo, Texas that don’t have money to pay for justice. While the El Dorado case drags on, thousands of other poor Texans will be denied access to justice because soemone has to show up to insure justice works correctly or the children from El Dorado will be in limbo for years.
Sam Prince
Director of Development
Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas
— Sam Prince Apr 21, 04:12 PM #
First:
In 2001-2002, I spent the entire year researching how philanthropy is given and what is a new possibility.
At the end of this effort, I was told over an over again, it was altruistic and nothing people would listen to.
There is an incredible opportunity to learn how to measure roi on philanthropic investment.
Second:
I am not as skeptical and finding the Big Give so negative.
In a matter of days, some of these people, including Stephen changed the quality of life for a number of non profits and the people they serve. They also made a difference to individuals in ways that I think America needs to see.
The episode re: the woman who lost her daughter and
the assistance to military personal coming home to debt and inability to support their families is a message of how badly we need change in this country.
I believe in what I do so passionately, I am constructing a new website related to measurement and progress in the economy from a non profit, community and commercial interest view. It will be launched at the end of June.
One of the weakest things about the philanthropy world is how it manages its media and encouraged giving and teaches people.
I want to make a difference to that.
Thank you for writing this article.
All the best,
Lavinia Weissman
— Lavinia Weissman Apr 21, 04:31 PM #
Excellent article and I hope Oprah receives a copy.
— Cameron Hernholm Apr 21, 04:37 PM #
I think this is great thing Oprah is doing. I would like to obtain the knowledge needed in order to do something like this myself. God has put something in my heart and I know it is for me to start a non-profit organization helping low-income mothers with computer training and job skills, giving clothes for them to feel confident when they start a job. I am doing my research and I know it will happen because it is Gods will that I do this.
— Madelon W. Stuart Apr 21, 04:40 PM #
I agree with everyone’s frustrations to a point.
Organizing a nonprofit is NOT an easy task at all. Oprah’s show make alot of people really take a look at the nonprofit world. It is not always what you see in the newspapers it what isn’t seen.
What Oprah did was make people aware that there are so many families out there that are in need.
We are a small all volunteer nonprofit that does alot of good for children and could do more but not a large enough organization to make large donors sit up and take notice.
Thus we have put in our hearts, souls and lives into helping others and will continue to make a difference no matter what happens. (with NO salaries taken)
We work with special needs children with horses that need us too which many are familiar with therapeutic riding (TR) but the small TR nonprofit organizations such as ours and many others solely depend on the public and if they can get grants.
What isn’t realized is that TR is VERY simular to SUPER NANNY in many ways. Miracles do happen in this field with the children and youth but go unrecognized because we are small (as many other org’s) nonprofit that needs the help to become larger and help more children/youth and their families.
If a show was done about the accomplishments and followed the consistant improvements that are made in a TR atmosphere it would be a HUGE hit.
B. Peffer
Executive Director
The Pocono Equestrian Center
www.PoconoEquestrian.org
— B. Peffer Apr 21, 04:58 PM #
Joshua Horwitz expresses my sentiments to a tee. Quick work! I actually think there is a chance Oprah might have him on her show, since I think some of the problems came from thoughtlessness rather than intent.
Had the show limited giving to individuals only, it might have avoided some of the problems. But sending people to an unknown spot to somehow find needs magically made no sense. There could have been some sort of logical starting point, such as a list of 100 local agencies — and a closing to the show to tell listeners how they can learn more and continue what they saw on the screen.
Oprah is a force of nature and the premise of the “giving big” is worth her resources. Can we use the momentum to correct the mistakes?
I hated the idea that the biggest giver got $500,000 personally. Exactly what was the point of that? What message does it send about philanthropy? Think of how it will change any subsequent edition of the show, too.
Finally, naturally I would have loved to see some more emphasis on the giving of time and talent, not just money. But volunteering is my mission, and I always want to see it acknowledged.
Susan J. Ellis
Energize, Inc.
www.energizeinc.com
— Susan J. Ellis Apr 21, 06:41 PM #
Thank you! Thank you! This program was not about philanthropy but rather sound bites that begs the obvious to those of us in the industry: what happens when the cameras disappear. I too was disheartened and was also waiting for just one contestant to have an Oprah “ah ha” moment and go about assessing needs in quite different manner! A rate opportunity so missed! Thanks again for writing the article. It made me feel that I wasn’t the only one who realized that Empress had no clothes. Kindest regards,
Bette AB Mammone
Resource Building fellowship Workshop
bettemammone@giftofjohn.com
— Bette AB Mammone Apr 21, 09:27 PM #
A great article. I hope Oprah seeks the counsel of leaders from both large and small non-profits and foundations. This should be her assignment during her hiatus this summer.
— Jean McPheters, Corporate & Grants Relations Officer, Wentworth Douglass Hospital & Health Foundation Apr 22, 07:43 AM #
Constructive criticism is a good thing but we missed the boat….we in the world of Philanthropy need to unite and be more pro-active before missing such an opportunity!
— Rosalyn Minassian Apr 22, 07:49 AM #
As a professional fundraiser, I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Horwitz’s comments. Is anyone really surprised that America’s fastest growing media magnet managed to turn this into a complete circus (to her and her sponsors’ benefit), instead of intentionally leaving a lasting, positive effect on those American families who are more deserving of the proceeds?
-TMS
Abilene, TX.
— Troy S. Apr 22, 09:06 AM #
You know you can never please everyone. I think it was a great show even with all the points that were made. I thank God for Oprah’s efforts to give PERIOD.
— Karen Apr 22, 09:53 AM #
Oprah would have done better to model the TV program after “Extreme Makeover — Home Edition.” That show did an exemplary job of showing how pulling together the right talent and resources can change lives. Philanthropy, both on the giving and solicitation side, is a high calling and can’t be taken lightly. P.T. Barnum was a great showman, but his circus wouldn’t have been better if his clowns gave away money.
— Kevin Feldman Apr 22, 12:11 PM #
In order to put a show about philanthropy on the air, of course silly rules were in place. Of course money was wasted, but the overall effect isn’t negative. First, the show did demonstrate two important lessons: (1) one person can make a difference if we try, and (2) the average person doesn’t understand how to make charitable dollars work as well as those in nonprofit do. To those who think the contestants gave for the wrong reasons, imagine how much they (and the viewers) learned as well. They didn’t know the winner would receive a cash reward. They just knew they could do something extraordinary, and hopefully, they’ll keep on serving others in the future. Could it have been done better? Yes. Might a professional fund raiser have offered better feedback? Yes, but perhaps making people feel like they don’t have to be professionals to get involved is a good thing. Could those wasted dollars have fed or housed or otherwise served people? Of course, but maybe those 105,000 lost meals paved the way for hundreds of thousands donated in the future by those inspired by watching.
The real payoff of the show, however, (and perhaps the real genius of Oprah Winfrey who may not be my favorite person but who is defintely exceptional) comes in what happens after the show. People all across this country decided they could do something to meet needs in their communities. Money and supplies were raised for a variety of causes—from a family whose father had died unexpectedly to gifts for schools or established charities. These efforts will continue far into the future. There are no cameras on these people. They are, at least in a television sense, working and giving anonymously. We all know that some philanthropy is important for no other reason than to inspire others to follow, and that is where Oprah Winfrey excels.
— Nancy Apr 22, 02:19 PM #
While Oprah is one of my – and the nation’s – heroes, and a wonderful philantropist, we have to remember, the show is television. Television does not exist to inspire or inform or even entertain people; it exists to deliver eyeballs to advertisers. As a professional fund raiser, I agree with everything Horowitz said; but as a person who has been involved with and produced television, I understand what happened. The show’s producers have a particular mindset – what has worked in other shows, what creates drama, what will bring audiences back next week (i.e., the elimination feature), what can be crammed in between the ads. Commercial television has a format, and that format would have a really hard time accommodating anything approaching thoughtful philanthropy. I don’t blame Oprah for the content and design of her show; I blame her for trying to do it on commercial television in the first place.
Having said that, we must remember that American Idol did pull off a brilliant 2 hour show last year to raise money for Dafur that showcased philanthropy at its best. The show worked because, in part, it was designed by professional fund raisers and foundation leaders. Unfortunately, the suits at Fox have decided they can do it better – or at lest suck in more eyeballs – if they do it themselves and have kicked out the pros. What do you expect? It’s only television
— Patrick O'Heffernan Apr 23, 02:14 PM #
Thanks for framing your thoughts. I am in toal agreement. I do have one add…Why was electronic media, Internet, not used by anyone as a resource to get smart, seek assistance in doing the best things they could do , given the time, spend restrictions. Interesting that this was a media event, but media was not used to determine best use, best outcome opportunites. Last, it was an interesting experiment… got some visability for needs, which is a plus… but truly fell short on an education opportunity for the American public to understand how, where they can help.
— Bruce K. Ginn Apr 24, 03:08 PM #
Kudos to you for writing such a great critque of the show. While the concept is good the execution was flawed and we couldn’t believe who the chosen winner was. Truly disappointing and we won’t be turning in to see such bad television when on the surface we thought it was a great idea.
Steve didn’t deserve to win – but it seemed that the angle of ‘family values’ played a large part in the decision making process for the judges – either that or there was a lot of behind the scenes stuff that the viewers didn’t get to see.
Bottom line the show didn’t provide enough material for Steve to be the winner – we considered him a loser for giving away appliances to a neighbourhood where they may not even need them – and then the list of his disappointments went on.
We would have voted for either of the other two finalists in a heartbeat.
Maybe Oprah should do like American Idol and have the public vote – it may change the view all together.
Cheers, Dale
— Dale Cameron Apr 24, 03:40 PM #
I appreciate your view, however it’s a bit negative for my taste. There are many worthy causes and organizations and some of the worthiest are those that are everyday people or organizations that do not have a non-profit status. For the large organizations they have the real potential of getting funds from corporations, the government, and large philanthropists. For the smaller organizations that work with everyday people meeting the needs of those around them in a real and purposeful sense they are relegated to small potatoes fund raising to further their efforts. I know because we’ve begun a women’s group to help the elderly,disabled and those who have fallen on hard times and because we don’t have the money to set up as a non-profit we have no real funding. Many of the larger organizations have let those that we help slide under the scale. Does that make them less needy? No, just more desperate. Please don’t think that just because there is some large organization that everyone who is in need gets help. Everyday people and smaller organizations need the opportunity for change in their lives too. I applaud Oprah for her generosity and willingness to try something different! She did just fine for the everyday people she helped and she doesn’t need a “pro” to show her the way.
Nancy, from Dayton, OH
www.womenofthewordministries.9f.com
— Nancy Apr 25, 12:02 PM #
I would like to say that while I watched every episode of this show in hopes that someone would truly give big in a way that requires little money, I still believe Oprah has the right idea. However if a new season of this show is started I would hope that Oprah would consider mixing in challenges that have the rule of using no money or monetary donations and simply finding others out there who will donate time and goods to make a change in someones life. Most people think you truly have to have lots of resources to Give Big and I think this show missed an opportunity to really show the valuelessness of money. It is character and geneosity of spirit that makes us the big givers.
— Dahnielle Apr 27, 08:51 PM #
I think this is an excellent criticism of the show, but I wonder if we’re expecting too much out of one person, one show, one season.
For me, it was refreshing to watch a show where the goal wasn’t to eat disgusting bugs, or get selected as a mate by a D-List “celebrity.” It was a great thing to be able to watch people try to improve the lives of others, a noble deed. While some of the contestants pulled it off better than others, the fact that charity had a primetime audience (backed by none other than Oprah) will have a positive effect on all of us, I’m sure.
— Tara Jefferson Apr 29, 07:14 AM #
I have a fortune cookie fortune taped to my computer which reads, “He who waits to do a great deal of good at once, will never do anything.” Words I share with our donors regularly.
— Jennifer Summers Arriola Apr 30, 03:27 PM #