The way we think about charity is dead wrong | Dan Pallotta

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

Prevodilac: Ivana Krivokuća Lektor: Mile Živković

I want to talk about social innovation

Želim da govorim o društvenoj inovaciji

and social entrepreneurship.

i društvenom preduzetništvu.

Igrom slučaja imam trojke.

I happen to have triplets.

They're little. They're five years old.

Mali su. Imaju pet godina.

Ponekad kažem ljudima da imam trojke.

Sometimes I tell people I have triplets. They say, "Really? How many?"

Oni kažu: ''Stvarno? Koliko?''

(Laughter)

Ovo je fotografija dece.

Here's a picture of the kids -- that's Sage, and Annalisa and Rider.

To su Sejdž, Analisa i Rajder.

Now, I also happen to be gay.

Takođe sam gej.

Being gay and fathering triplets is by far

Biti gej i biti otac trojkama je ubedljivo

the most socially innovative, socially entrepreneurial thing

najjača društveno inovativna i društveno preduzetnička stvar

I have ever done.

koju sam ikad uradio.

(Laughter)

(Smeh) (Aplauz)

(Applause)

The real social innovation I want to talk about involves charity.

Prava društvena inovacija o kojoj želim da govorim

ima veze sa humanitarnošću.

I want to talk about how the things we've been taught to think

Želim da govorim o tome kako ono što smo naučeni da mislimo

about giving and about charity

o davanju, dobrovoljnim prilozima

i neprofitnom sektoru

and about the nonprofit sector,

are actually undermining the causes we love,

zapravo podriva ciljeve koje volimo

and our profound yearning to change the world.

i našu duboku čežnju za menjanjem sveta.

But before I do that, I want to ask if we even believe

Ali pre nego što to uradim, želim da pitam da li uopšte verujemo

that the nonprofit sector has any serious role to play

da neprofitni sektor igra bilo kakvu ozbiljnu ulogu

in changing the world.

u menjanju sveta.

A lot of people say now that business will lift up the developing economies,

Mnogi danas govore da će poslovi pokrenuti ekonomije u razvoju,

a da će se društveni poslovi pobrinuti za ostalo.

and social business will take care of the rest.

Ja zaista verujem da će poslovi pokrenuti

And I do believe that business will move the great mass of humanity forward.

veliki deo čovečanstva ka napretku.

Ali uvek ostaje tih 10 ili više procenata

But it always leaves behind that 10 percent or more

that is most disadvantaged or unlucky.

koji su najugroženiji ili nesrećni.

A društvenom poslu su potrebna tržišta,

And social business needs markets,

and there are some issues for which you just can't develop

i postoje neki problemi zbog kojih se jednostavno ne mogu razviti

the kind of money measures that you need for a market.

takve novčane mere koje su neophodne za tržište.

I sit on the board of a center for the developmentally disabled,

Član sam odbora centra za ometene u razvoju,

and these people want laughter

i ti ljudi žele smeh

i saosećanje i žele ljubav.

and compassion and they want love.

How do you monetize that?

Kako to pretvoriti u novac?

And that's where the nonprofit sector and philanthropy come in.

To je mesto gde neprofitni sektor

i filantropija uskaču.

Philanthropy is the market for love.

Filantropija je tržište za ljubav.

It is the market for all those people

To je tržište za sve te ljude

for whom there is no other market coming.

za koje ne postoje druga tržišta.

And so if we really want, like Buckminster Fuller said,

Tako da ako zaista želimo, kako je Bakminster Fuler rekao,

a world that works for everyone,

svet koji svima odgovara,

with no one and nothing left out,

gde niko i ništa nije izostavljeno,

then the nonprofit sector has to be

onda se o neprofitnom sektoru mora

a serious part of the conversation.

ozbiljno razgovarati.

Ali čini se da to ne funkcioniše.

But it doesn't seem to be working.

Zbog čega se naše dobrotvorne akcije protiv raka dojke

Why have our breast cancer charities not come close

to finding a cure for breast cancer,

nisu približile pronalasku leka protiv raka dojke,

or our homeless charities not come close

ili zašto naše akcije za beskućnike nisu bliže

to ending homelessness in any major city?

zaustavljanju beskućništva u bilo kom većem gradu?

Why has poverty remained stuck

Zašto je siromaštvo još uvek ostalo zaglavljeno na 12 procenata

at 12 percent of the U.S. population for 40 years?

od ukupne populacije Sjedinjenih Država već 40 godina?

A odgovor je da su ovi društveni problemi

And the answer is,

these social problems are massive in scale,

ogromnih razmera,

our organizations are tiny up against them,

naše organizacije su sićušne u poređenju sa njima,

and we have a belief system that keeps them tiny.

i imamo sistem verovanja koji ih održava sićušnim.

We have two rulebooks.

Imamo dve knjige pravila.

We have one for the nonprofit sector,

Imamo jednu za neprofitni sektor

and one for the rest of the economic world.

i jednu za ostatak ekonomskog sveta.

To je aparthejd i diskriminiše

It's an apartheid, and it discriminates

against the nonprofit sector in five different areas,

neprofitni sektor u pet različitih oblasti,

the first being compensation.

od kojih je prva kompenzacija.

U profitnom sektoru, što više vrednosti stvorite,

So in the for-profit sector, the more value you produce,

the more money you can make.

više možete zaraditi novca.

But we don't like nonprofits to use money

Ali mi ne volimo da neprofitne organizacije koriste novac

to incentivize people to produce more in social service.

kako bi podstakle ljude da stvaraju više u socijalnim uslugama.

We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone

Imamo visceralnu reakciju na ideju da bi bilo ko

would make very much money helping other people.

mogao zaraditi dosta novca pomažući drugim ljudima.

Interestingly, we don't have a visceral reaction

Zanimljivo je to da nemamo visceralnu reakciju

to the notion that people would make a lot of money

na ideju da bi ljudi mogli zaraditi dosta novca ne pomažući drugima.

not helping other people.

You know, you want to make 50 million dollars

Znate već, hoćete da zaradite 50 miliona dolara

selling violent video games to kids, go for it.

prodajući nasilne video igrice deci, samo izvolite.

We'll put you on the cover of Wired magazine.

Stavićemo vas na naslovnicu magazina Vajerd.

But you want to make half a million dollars

Ali ako želite da zaradite pola miliona dolara

trying to cure kids of malaria,

pokušavajući da izlečite decu od malarije,

and you're considered a parasite yourself.

i sami ćete biti smatrani parazitom. (Aplauz)

(Applause)

And we think of this as our system of ethics,

Ovo smatramo našim sistemom etike,

but what we don't realize is that this system

ali ne shvatamo da ovaj sistem

has a powerful side effect, which is:

ima jedan snažan neželjeni efekat,

It gives a really stark, mutually exclusive choice

a to je da daje veoma krut, međusobno isključiv izbor

između činjenja dobrih stvari za sebe i svoju porodicu

between doing very well for yourself and your family

or doing good for the world,

i činjenja dobrih stvari za svet

najbistrijim umovima koji stižu sa naših najboljih univerziteta,

to the brightest minds coming out of our best universities,

i šalje desetine hiljada ljudi

and sends tens of thousands of people

koji bi mogli doneti velike promene u neprofitnom sektoru

who could make a huge difference in the nonprofit sector,

marching every year directly into the for-profit sector

da ulaze svake godine direktno u profitni sektor

because they're not willing to make that kind of lifelong economic sacrifice.

jer nisu spremni na takvu celoživotnu ekonomsku žrtvu.

Biznisvik je uradio pregled, posmatrajući kompenzacione pakete

Businessweek did a survey, looked at the compensation packages

for MBAs 10 years out of business school.

za poslovne administratore poslovnih škola

And the median compensation for a Stanford MBA,

i srednja vrednost kompenzacija poslovnih administratora sa Stenforda

with bonus, at the age of 38, was 400,000 dollars.

sa bonusom, u 38. godini, iznosila je 400.000 dolara.

U međuvremenu, u istoj godini, prosečna plata generalnog direktora

Meanwhile, for the same year, the average salary

for the CEO of a $5 million-plus medical charity in the U.S.

jedne humanitarne firme u SAD vredne preko 5 miliona dolara

was 232,000 dollars, and for a hunger charity, 84,000 dollars.

bila je 232.000 dolara, a za humanitarce u borbi protiv gladi 84.000 dolara.

Nema šanse da ćete ubediti mnogo ljudi

Now, there's no way you're going to get a lot of people

sa talentom da zarade 400.00 da naprave žrtvu od 316.000 dolara

with $400,000 talent to make a $316,000 sacrifice every year

svake godine da bi postali direktori kompanije u borbi protiv gladi.

to become the CEO of a hunger charity.

Neki će reći: "Pa to je zato što su ti biznis tipovi pohlepni."

Some people say, "Well, that's just because those MBA types are greedy."

Not necessarily. They might be smart.

Ne nužno. Možda su pametni.

Jeftinije je za tu osobu da donira

It's cheaper for that person to donate

100,000 dollars every year to the hunger charity;

100.000 dolara svake godine u humanitarne svrhe,

uštedi 50.000 dolara na porezu,

save 50,000 dollars on their taxes --

so still be roughly 270,000 dollars a year ahead of the game --

tako da je ipak otprilike 270.000 dolara godišnje u plusu,

now be called a philanthropist because they donated

nazivaju ga filantropom jer je donirao

100,000 dollars to charity;

100.000 dolara u humanitarne svrhe,

verovatno sedi u odboru za borbu protiv gladi,

probably sit on the board of the hunger charity;

indeed, probably supervise the poor SOB

verovatno nadgleda jadnička

who decided to become the CEO of the hunger charity;

koji je rešio da postane direktor humanitarne firme,

(Laughter)

i čitav život ovakve moći, uticaja

and have a lifetime of this kind of power and influence

and popular praise still ahead of them.

i slave tek ima pred sobom.

Druga oblast diskriminacije je reklamiranje i marketing.

The second area of discrimination is advertising and marketing.

So we tell the for-profit sector, "Spend, spend, spend on advertising,

Govorimo profitnom sektoru: "Trošite, trošite, trošite na reklamiranje

until the last dollar no longer produces a penny of value."

dok poslednji dolar više ne donosi ni peni."

But we don't like to see our donations spent on advertising in charity.

Ali ne volimo da vidimo

da se naše donacije troše na reklamiranje humanitarnih svrha.

Our attitude is, "Well, look, if you can get the advertising donated,

Naš stav je: "Vidi, ako možeš da obezbediš doniranu reklamu,

znaš, u četiri sata ujutru, ja sam okej sa tim.

you know, to air at four o'clock in the morning, I'm okay with that.

Ali ne želim da se moje donacije troše na reklamiranje.

But I don't want my donation spent on advertising,

I want it go to the needy."

Želim da odu siromašnima."

As if the money invested in advertising

Kao da novac uložen u reklamiranje

could not bring in dramatically greater sums of money

ne bi doneo drastično veće sume novca

to serve the needy.

koje će služiti siromašnima.

'90-ih godina, moja kompanija je započela

In the 1990s, my company created

the long-distance AIDSRide bicycle journeys,

vožnje biciklom na duge staze AIDSRajd

and the 60 mile-long breast cancer three-day walks,

i trodnevne šetnje duge 96km protiv raka dojke,

i tokom devet godina,

and over the course of nine years,

we had 182,000 ordinary heroes participate,

imali smo 182.000 običnih heroja koji su učestvovali

and they raised a total of 581 million dollars.

i prikupili ukupno 581 milion dolara.

(Applause)

Prikupili su u ove svrhe više novca i brže

They raised more money more quickly for these causes

than any events in history,

nego bilo koji događaj u istoriji,

all based on the idea that people are weary

zasnovano na ideji da su ljudi umorni

of being asked to do the least they can possibly do.

od toga da se od njih traži da urade najmanje od onoga što mogu.

People are yearning to measure the full distance of their potential

Ljudi žude da izmere

svoje potencijale u celini

on behalf of the causes that they care about deeply.

u korist svrha do kojih im je duboko stalo.

Ali morate da ih pitate.

But they have to be asked.

Uspeli smo da toliko ljudi učestvuje

We got that many people to participate

by buying full-page ads in The New York Times,

kupivši reklamu preko cele strane Njujork Tajmsa,

Boston Glouba, na radiju i TV reklamama u udarno vreme.

in The Boston Globe, in prime time radio and TV advertising.

Do you know how many people we would've gotten

Da li znate koliko bismo ljudi sakupili

if we put up fliers in the laundromat?

da smo postavljali flajere po perionicama?

Davanje u dobrotvorne svrhe je u škripcu, u SAD-u,

Charitable giving has remained stuck in the U.S., at two percent of GDP,

na dva procenta BDP-a otkad smo počeli sa njegovim merenjem '70-ih.

ever since we started measuring it in the 1970s.

That's an important fact, because it tells us

To je važna činjenica, jer nam govori

that in 40 years, the nonprofit sector

da neprofitni sektor za 40 godina

has not been able to wrestle any market share

nije uspeo da se izbori za udeo na tržištu

away from the for-profit sector.

van profitnog sektora.

And if you think about it, how could one sector

I ako razmislite o tome, kako bi jedan sektor mogao

possibly take market share away from another sector

da oduzme udeo u tržištu od drugog sektora

if it isn't really allowed to market?

ako mu zapravo nije dozvoljeno da bude u prometu?

And if we tell the consumer brands,

Ako kažemo potrošačkim markama:

"You may advertise all the benefits of your product,"

"Možete reklamirati sve prednosti vašeg proizvoda",

ali humanitarcima govorimo: "Ne možete da reklamirate sva dobra koja činite",

but we tell charities, "You cannot advertise all the good that you do,"

where do we think the consumer dollars are going to flow?

gde mislimo da će se slivati novac potrošača?

Treća oblast diskriminacije je preuzimanje rizika

The third area of discrimination is the taking of risk

in pursuit of new ideas for generating revenue.

u potrazi za novim idejama za stvaranje prihoda.

So Disney can make a new $200 million movie that flops,

Dizni može da napravi novi film od 200 miliona dolara

koji pretrpi neuspeh, i niko ne zove tužioca.

and nobody calls the attorney general.

But you do a little $1 million community fundraiser for the poor,

Ali napravite malo lokalno prikupljanje sredstava za siromašne

od milion dolara i neka to ne proizvede 75 odsto profita

and it doesn't produce a 75 percent profit to the cause in the first 12 months,

toj svrsi za prvih 12 meseci,

and your character is called into question.

i vaše ime je dovedeno u pitanje.

So nonprofits are really reluctant to attempt any brave,

Zato neprofitne organizacije nerado pokušavaju bilo kakve hrabre,

izazovne, nove poduhvate velikih razmera

daring, giant-scale new fundraising endeavors,

for fear that if the thing fails,

iz straha da ako stvar propadne, njihove reputacije

their reputations will be dragged through the mud.

će biti ukaljane.

Vi i ja znamo da kada zabranite neuspeh,

Well, you and I know

when you prohibit failure, you kill innovation.

ubijate inovaciju.

Ubijanjem inovacije u skupljanju sredstava ne možete prikupiti više prihoda.

If you kill innovation in fundraising, you can't raise more revenue;

Ako ne možete da prikupite više prihoda, ne možete da se razvijate.

if you can't raise more revenue, you can't grow;

and if you can't grow, you can't possibly solve large social problems.

A ako ne možete da se razvijate,

nikako ne možete rešavati velike društvene probleme.

The fourth area is time.

Četvrta oblast je vreme.

So Amazon went for six years without returning any profit to investors,

Amazon tokom šest godina nije vraćao ni malo profita ulagačima,

and people had patience.

i ljudi su imali strpljenja.

Znali su da se na kraju puta nalazi dugoročni cilj

They knew that there was a long-term objective down the line,

of building market dominance.

stvaranja dominacije na tržištu.

But if a nonprofit organization ever had a dream

Ali kada bi neprofitna organizacija sanjala

of building magnificent scale that required that for six years,

o izgradnji veličanstvenog poduhvata koji bi to zahtevao tokom šest godina,

no money was going to go to the needy,

novac ne bi odlazio siromašnima,

u potpunosti će biti uložen u izgradnju tog projekta,

it was all going to be invested in building this scale,

we would expect a crucifixion.

očekivali bismo da nas razapnu.

The last area is profit itself.

I poslednja oblast je sam profit.

So the for-profit sector can pay people profits

Profitni sektor može da plaća ljudima

in order to attract their capital for their new ideas,

kako bi privukao njihov kapital za svoje nove ideje,

but you can't pay profits in a nonprofit sector,

ali ne možete isplaćivati profit u neprofitnom sektoru,

so the for-profit sector has a lock

pa profitni sektor ima samo za sebe multibilionsko tržište kapitala,

on the multi-trillion-dollar capital markets,

and the nonprofit sector is starved for growth and risk and idea capital.

a neprofitni sektor umire za razvojem,

rizikom i idejnim kapitalom.

Postavite tih pet stvari zajedno - ne možete koristiti novac

Well, you put those five things together --

you can't use money to lure talent away from the for-profit sector;

da privučete talente iz profitnog sektora,

ne možete se reklamirati ni približno u onoj meri

you can't advertise on anywhere near the scale

the for-profit sector does for new customers;

u kojoj to profitni sektor čini radi novih klijenata,

you can't take the kinds of risks in pursuit of those customers

ne možete da preuzimate slične rizike u potrazi za klijentima

that the for-profit sector takes;

koje profitni sektor preuzima,

you don't have the same amount of time to find them as the for-profit sector;

nemate istu količinu vremena da ih pronađete

kao što ima profitni sektor,

and you don't have a stock market with which to fund any of this,

i nemate berzu kojom biste finansirali bilo šta od ovoga,

čak i kada biste uopšte mogli,

even if you could do it in the first place --

i upravo ste ostavili neprofitni sektor

and you've just put the nonprofit sector

sa krajnjim nedostatkom u odnosu na profitni sektor

at an extreme disadvantage to the for-profit sector,

na svakom nivou.

on every level.

Ako imamo bilo kakvih sumnji u vezi sa posledicama ovih odvojenih pravilnika,

If we have any doubts about the effects of this separate rule book,

this statistic is sobering:

statistika je otrežnjujuća:

od 1970. do 2009. godine,

From 1970 to 2009,

the number of nonprofits that really grew,

broj neprofitnih organizacija koje su se zaista razvijale

koje su prešle granicu od 50 miliona godišnjih prihoda,

that crossed the $50 million annual revenue barrier,

is 144.

je 144.

In the same time, the number of for-profits that crossed it

Istovremeno, broj profitnih organizacija koje su je prešle

je 46.136.

is 46,136.

Dakle bavimo se društvenim problemima koji su ogromnih razmera,

So we're dealing with social problems that are massive in scale,

and our organizations can't generate any scale.

a naše organizacije ne mogu da stvore ništa od tih razmera.

All of the scale goes to Coca-Cola and Burger King.

Sve odlazi Koka-Koli i Burger Kingu.

Zašto razmišljamo na ovaj način?

So why do we think this way?

Pa, kao i većina fanatičnih dogmi u Americi,

Well, like most fanatical dogma in America,

these ideas come from old Puritan beliefs.

ove ideje potiču iz starih puritanskih uverenja.

The Puritans came here for religious reasons, or so they said,

Puritanci su došli ovde iz religijskih razloga,

ili su bar tako rekli,

but they also came here because they wanted to make a lot of money.

ali su takođe došli ovde jer su hteli da zarade puno para.

They were pious people,

Bili su pobožni ljudi ali takođe

but they were also really aggressive capitalists,

i veoma agresivni kapitalisti,

and they were accused of extreme forms of profit-making tendencies,

i bili su optuživani za ekstremne oblike nastojanja za stvaranjem profita

compared to the other colonists.

u poređenju sa drugim kolonistima.

But at the same time, the Puritans were Calvinists,

Ali istovremeno, puritanci su bili kalvinisti,

so they were taught literally to hate themselves.

tako da su bukvalno bili naučeni da mrze sami sebe.

They were taught that self-interest was a raging sea

Bili su naučeni da je lični interes burno more

that was a sure path to eternal damnation.

koje je siguran put ka večnom prokletstvu.

This created a real problem for these people.

Ovo je stvorilo pravi problem za te ljude, zar ne?

Here they've come all the way across the Atlantic to make all this money,

Prešli su čitav Atlantik da steknu toliki novac.

Sticanje mnogo novca vodi pravo u pakao.

but making all this money will get you sent directly to Hell.

What were they to do about this?

Šta je trebalo da rade po ovom pitanju?

Well, charity became their answer.

Dobročinstvo je postalo njihov odgovor.

It became this economic sanctuary,

Postalo je njihovo ekonomsko utočište

where they could do penance for their profit-making tendencies --

gde su mogli da se iskupe za svoje težnje ka stvaranju profita

za pet centi po dolaru.

at five cents on the dollar.

I naravno, kako možeš da zaradiš u humanitarnom radu

So of course, how could you make money in charity

if charity was your penance for making money?

ako je to tvoje iskupljenje za sticanje novca?

Financial incentive was exiled from the realm of helping others,

Finansijski podstrek je izbačen iz oblasti pomaganja drugima

so that it could thrive in the area of making money for yourself,

tako da je mogao da se razvija u oblasti zarađivanja za sebe,

and in 400 years, nothing has intervened

i za vreme od 400 godina, ništa se nije umešalo

to say, "That's counterproductive and that's unfair."

da kaže: "To je kontraproduktivno i nefer."

Ovu ideologiju čuva jedno opasno pitanje, a to je:

Now, this ideology gets policed by this one very dangerous question,

which is, "What percentage of my donation goes to the cause versus overhead?"

"Koji procenat moje donacije ide u dobrotvorne svrhe

naspram drugih troškova?"

There are a lot of problems with this question.

Postoji mnogo problema sa ovim pitanjem.

I'm going to just focus on two.

Ja ću se fokusirati samo na dva.

First, it makes us think that overhead is a negative,

Prvo, čini da mislimo da su dodatni troškovi negativni,

that it is somehow not part of the cause.

da nekako nisu deo dobrotvorne svrhe.

Ali apsolutno jesu, naročito ako se koriste za razvoj.

But it absolutely is, especially if it's being used for growth.

Ideja da su troškovi nekako

Now, this idea that overhead is somehow an enemy of the cause

neprijatelji humanitarne svrhe

creates this second, much larger problem,

stvara drugi, mnogo veći problem, a to je

which is, it forces organizations to go without the overhead things

da primorava organizacije da rade bez troškova

koji su im zaista potrebni da bi napredovale

they really need to grow,

in the interest of keeping overhead low.

zarad održavanja troškova niskim.

Naučeni smo da humanitarne organizacije treba da potroše

So we've all been taught that charities should spend

as little as possible on overhead things like fundraising

što je manje moguće na troškove poput skupljanja sredstava

under the theory that, well, the less money you spend on fundraising,

pod teorijom da što manje novca potrošite na to,

the more money there is available for the cause.

više novca preostaje za dobrotvorne svrhe.

Well, that's true if it's a depressing world

Pa, to je istinito ako smo u depresivnom svetu

in which this pie cannot be made any bigger.

u kome ta pita ne može da se poveća.

Ali ako smo u logičnom svetu u kome ulaganje u skupljanje sredstava

But if it's a logical world in which investment in fundraising

actually raises more funds and makes the pie bigger,

zapravo podstiče više sredstava i povećava pitu,

then we have it precisely backwards,

onda je stvar upravo obrnuta,

and we should be investing more money, not less, in fundraising,

i trebalo bi da ulažemo više novca, a ne manje,

u skupljanje sredstava, jer je to

because fundraising is the one thing

that has the potential to multiply the amount of money

ono što ima potencijal da uvećava količinu novca

raspoloživu za dobrotvorne svrhe do kojih nam je tako duboko stalo.

available for the cause that we care about so deeply.

I'll give you two examples.

Daću vam dva primera. Pokrenuli smo AIDSRajds

We launched the AIDSRides

sa početnim ulaganjem od 50.000 dolara rizičnog kapitala.

with an initial investment of 50,000 dollars in risk capital.

Within nine years, we had multiplied that 1,982 times,

Za devet godina, umnožili smo to 1.982 puta

into 108 million dollars after all expenses, for AIDS services.

u 108 miliona dolara nakon svih troškova za AIDS usluge.

We launched the breast cancer three-days

Pokrenuli smo tri dana protiv raka dojke

with an initial investment of 350,000 dollars in risk capital.

sa početnim ulaganjem od 350.000 dolara rizičnog kapitala.

Within just five years, we had multiplied that 554 times,

Za samo pet godina, umnožili smo to 554 puta

into 194 million dollars after all expenses,

u 194 miliona dolara nakon svih troškova,

for breast cancer research.

za istraživanje raka dojke.

Now, if you were a philanthropist really interested in breast cancer,

Ako ste filantrop koji je stvarno zainteresovan za rak dojke,

what would make more sense:

šta bi imalo više smisla:

go out and find the most innovative researcher in the world

da odete i pronađete najinovativnijeg istraživača na svetu

and give her 350,000 dollars for research,

i date joj 350.000 dolara za istraživanje,

ili da date 350.000 njenom odeljenju za skupljanje sredstava

or give her fundraising department the 350,000 dollars

to multiply it into 194 million dollars for breast cancer research?

da ih povećaju na 194 miliona dolara za istraživanje raka dojke?

2002. je bila naša najuspešnija godina do sada.

2002 was our most successful year ever.

Pokrili smo samo za rak dojke, samo te godine,

We netted for breast cancer alone, that year alone,

71 million dollars after all expenses.

71 milion dolara preko svih troškova.

And then we went out of business,

A onda nam je propao posao,

suddenly and traumatically.

iznenada i traumatično.

Why? Well, the short story is, our sponsors split on us.

Zašto? Pa, ukratko, naš sponzor nas je napustio.

They wanted to distance themselves from us

Želeli su da se distanciraju od nas

because we were being crucified in the media

jer smo bili kritikovani u medijima

for investing 40 percent of the gross in recruitment

zbog ulaganja 40 odsto ukupnog dohotka za regrutovanje

and customer service and the magic of the experience,

i korisnički servis i magiju iskustva

i ne postoji terminologija u računovodstvu koja bi opisala

and there is no accounting terminology to describe

that kind of investment in growth and in the future,

takvu vrstu ulaganja u razvoj i budućnost,

osim te demonske etikete dodatnih troškova.

other than this demonic label of "overhead."

Tako je jednog dana svih 350 naših divnih zaposlenih

So on one day, all 350 of our great employees

lost their jobs ...

izgubilo svoje poslove

because they were labeled "overhead."

jer su bili obeleženi tim troškovima.

Naš sponzor je pokušao da sprovede događaje samostalno.

Our sponsor went and tried the events on their own.

The overhead went up.

Troškovi su se povećali.

Net income for breast cancer research went down by 84 percent,

Neto prihod za istraživanje raka dojke je umanjen

za 84 odsto, ili 60 miliona dolara godišnje.

or 60 million dollars, in one year.

This is what happens when we confuse morality with frugality.

To se desi kada pomešamo

moralnost sa štedljivošću.

We've all been taught that the bake sale with five percent overhead

Sve su nas učili

da je dobrotvorna prodaja kolača sa 5 odsto troškova moralno iznad

is morally superior to the professional fundraising enterprise

profesionalnog poduhvata skupljanja sredstava sa 40 odsto troškova,

with 40 percent overhead,

but we're missing the most important piece of information, which is:

ali fali nam najvažniji deo informacije,

a to je: koja je stvarna veličina tih pita?

What is the actual size of these pies?

Who cares if the bake sale only has five percent overhead if it's tiny?

Koga je briga ako prodaja kolača ima pet posto troškova ako je mala?

Šta ako je prodaja kolača prikupila samo 71 dolar u dobrotvorne svrhe

What if the bake sale only netted 71 dollars for charity

because it made no investment in its scale

jer nije napravila nikakva ulaganja u svom opsegu,

and the professional fundraising enterprise netted

a profesionalni poduhvat skupljanja sredstava je prikupio

71 million dollars because it did?

71 milion dolara jer jeste?

Now which pie would we prefer,

Koju bismo pitu tada više voleli, i za koju pitu

and which pie do we think people who are hungry would prefer?

mislimo da bi je gladni ljudi više voleli?

Here's how all of this impacts the big picture.

Evo kako sve ovo utiče na širu sliku.

I said that charitable giving is two percent of GDP in the United States.

Rekao sam da davanje u dobrotvorne svrhe čini dva posto BDP-a u SAD.

That's about 300 billion dollars a year.

To je oko 300 milijardi dolara godišnje.

But only about 20 percent of that, or 60 billion dollars,

Ali samo oko 20 posto toga, ili 60 milijardi dolara,

goes to health and human services causes.

ide u svrhe zdravstva i društvenih službi.

The rest goes to religion and higher education and hospitals,

Ostatak ide u religiju i visoko obrazovanje i bolnice

and that 60 billion dollars is not nearly enough

i tih 60 milijardi dolara nije ni približno dovoljno

to tackle these problems.

za bavljenje ovim problemima.

But if we could move charitable giving from two percent of GDP,

Ali ako bismo pomerili humanitarna davanja

sa dva posto BDP-a za samo jedan prag

up just one step to three percent of GDP, by investing in that growth,

na tri posto BDP-a, ulažući u razvoj,

that would be an extra 150 billion dollars a year in contributions,

to bi bilo dodatnih dodatnih 150 milijardi dolara godišnjeg doprinosa,

and if that money could go disproportionately

i kada bi taj novac mogao da ode nesrazmerno

u dobrotvorne svrhe zdravstva i društvenih službi,

to health and human services charities,

because those were the ones we encouraged to invest in their growth,

jer smo njih podsticali da ulažu u svoj razvoj,

to bi predstavljalo trostruke doprinose tom sektoru.

that would represent a tripling of contributions to that sector.

Now we're talking scale.

Sada već govorimo o većem obimu.

Sada već govorimo o potencijalu za stvarnu promenu.

Now we're talking the potential for real change.

But it's never going to happen by forcing these organizations

Ali to se nikada neće dogoditi primoravanjem

tih organizacija da suze svoje vidike

to lower their horizons

to the demoralizing objective of keeping their overhead low.

na demorališući cilj da održavaju svoje troškove malim.

Our generation does not want its epitaph to read,

Naša generacija ne želi da njen epitaf glasi:

"We kept charity overhead low."

"Održavali smo niskim troškove dobrotvornih organizacija."

(Laughter)

(Smeh) (Aplauz)

(Applause)

We want it to read that we changed the world,

Želimo da govori da smo promenili svet,

and that part of the way we did that

i da je deo načina na koji smo to učinili

was by changing the way we think about these things.

bilo menjanje načina na koji razmišljamo o ovim stvarima.

So the next time you're looking at a charity,

Sledeći put kada posmatrate dobrotvornu organizaciju,

don't ask about the rate of their overhead.

ne pitajte za stopu njenih troškova.

Ask about the scale of their dreams,

Pitajte za razmere njenih snova,

njihovih snova razmere Epla, Gugla, Amazona,

their Apple-, Google-, Amazon-scale dreams,

how they measure their progress toward those dreams,

kako mere svoj napredak prema tim snovima,

i kakvi resursi su im potrebni da bi ih ostvarili

and what resources they need to make them come true,

regardless of what the overhead is.

bez obzira na troškove.

Who cares what the overhead is

Koga je briga kakvi su troškovi ako se ovi problemi zaista rešavaju?

if these problems are actually getting solved?

If we can have that kind of generosity --

Ako možemo da imamo tu vrstu darežljivosti,

a generosity of thought --

darežljivost misli, onda neprofitni sektor može igrati

then the non-profit sector can play a massive role

veliku ulogu u menjanju sveta za sve one građane

in changing the world for all those citizens

kojima je očajnički potrebno da se on promeni.

most desperately in need of it to change.

I ako to može biti trajno nasleđe naše generacije,

And if that can be our generation's enduring legacy --

that we took responsibility

da smo preuzeli odgovornost

for the thinking that had been handed down to us,

za mišljenje koje nam je bilo preneto,

that we revisited it, we revised it,

da smo ga ponovo razmotrili, revidirali ga,

and we reinvented the whole way humanity thinks about changing things,

i preosmislili način na koji čovečanstvo razmišlja o menjanju stvari,

zauvek, za svakoga,

forever, for everyone --

well, I thought I would let the kids sum up what that would be.

pa, mislim da ću pustiti da deca sumiraju kako bi to bilo.

Annalisa Smith-Pallotta: That would be

Analisa Smit-Palota: To bi bila -

Sejdž Smit-Palota: - prava društvena -

Sage Smith-Pallotta: a real social

Rider Smith-Pallotta: innovation.

Rajder Smit-Palota: - inovacija.

Dan Pallotta: Thank you very much.

Den Palota: Hvala vam mnogo. Hvala vam.

Thank you.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)

Thank you.

Hvala vam. (Aplauz)

(Applause)