KivaFriends Liaison: Topics for the next check-in (now 10 FEB 2011)

[Guest]

.

[iampaul]

This is hardly a restrictive layer between the organization and its public.

If there were fairly clear notice on Kiva's website somewhere that KF is to be the way to channel communications back and forth, I might agree. That is not how KF is described on Kiva. And, of course, being an organization independent from Kiva, KF would have to agree to that as well.

There have been many calls here for some sort of beta testing before changes go live.

When that happens, hopefully Kiva won't simply pick on certain individuals without their consent as was done with Mona during the trials of the donation screen changes.

A free-for-all open conference telephone call may not be the best place to have dialogue with 750,000 lenders.

Seriously I doubt any of the conference calls that were held came close to that scenario.

In my opinion, Kiva is more akin to a public company than to a private one for a number of reasons. I would say that such conference calls could rightly be compared to shareholders' meetings. Have you been to any shareholders' meetings? I have. Have you been to any where more than a small fraction of the shareholders were present? I have not. Generally it is the larger shareholders and people who have some other particular interest in the company operations who are in attendance. Does that sound like it might also describe the people who participate in KF too? Yet those other public companies notify all shareholders about their meetings and that they have a right to attend at such and such a place and time. Shouldn't Kiva do the same?

Paul

[David2051]

A free-for-all open conference telephone call may not be the best place to have dialogue with 750,000 lenders.

I say let Kiva explore the best ways to communicate (that is John's job as I understand it) and then like Kiva Friends have always done, we critique and offer suggestions to enhance it.  

I agree, and think some alternatives need to be explored.  I thought the presentations part of the conference calls was great, and it was nice to be able to ask questions as well.  It is so difficult to communicate in text only modes such as this with no vocal, tone of voice cues. 

However, I don't think it's a stretch to call the Q&A portion of the conference calls a free-for-all.  I think putting Kiva staff on the spot and getting off the cuff answers to questions on the calls benefited no one.  It only provided fodder for much dissection and criticism and provided quotes to pull out later.  I would like to see Kiva carefully consider the questions lenders raise and have the time to put together well reasoned responses. 

[alan]

I agree, and think some alternatives need to be explored.  I thought the presentations part of the conference calls was great, and it was nice to be able to ask questions as well.  It is so difficult to communicate in text only modes such as this with no vocal, tone of voice cues. 

On the other hand, for people whose mother tongue is not American English, text communication may be better in many cases. And there are a whole lot of such people among the lender community. That's not to say the conference calls were not of value to those who participated, but they were best suited to a specific fragment of the lenders: those whose command of spoken idiomatic American English was up to the task, and who were able to be available for the calls, given time-zone constraints.

[Diane R]

On the other hand, for people whose mother tongue is not American English, text communication may be better in many cases.

One nice service the KF community provided, when both the monthly conference calls and KivaFriends chat were in operation (ahem), was to provide summarization of the call topics in real-time, typed into the chat by someone who was listening (or participating in the room at Kiva HQ, when Gerard provided this service).  This same person would then summarize questions that had been typed into the chat window (some by non-American-English speakers, some by people who were unable to dial into the conference call because of their location or situation) and relay those verbally on the call so they could be addressed.

It was a lot of work for the people summarizing, but it was a valuable real-time extension of the call itself and solved a little of that problem... at least I got that impression from people who used it.

--Diane.

(EDITS to clarify the arrangement)

[AccountAbility]

In my opinion, Kiva is more akin to a public company than to a private one for a number of reasons. I would say that such conference calls could rightly be compared to shareholders' meetings. Have you been to any shareholders' meetings? I have. Have you been to any where more than a small fraction of the shareholders were present? I have not. Generally it is the larger shareholders and people who have some other particular interest in the company operations who are in attendance. Does that sound like it might also describe the people who participate in KF too? Yet those other public companies notify all shareholders about their meetings and that they have a right to attend at such and such a place and time. Shouldn't Kiva do the same?

Paul

I basically agree with most of what you say. But essentially we are looking at just two avenues of communication which ought not to be exclusive.  There are negatives to conference calls (time zones, timid lenders, unavailable lenders, limited space for lender questions or comments, non-native language, etc) just as much are there are negatives to thinking that communicating to Kiva Friends is communicating to the larger lender base.

But if there are positive uses for communication links with/through Kiva Friends then I think that is a worth pursuing --even if it isn't a replacement for wider more public communication.  Yes public companies have shareholder meetings, but then so do those company sponsor special meetings with analysts and other segments of their public that desire details and answers in much more depth than available through a stockholders meeting.  And the conference calls really didn't rise to the level of stockholders meetings most of the time.

Dan

[iampaul]

I basically agree with most of what you say. But essentially we are looking at just two avenues of communication which ought not to be exclusive.

Maybe I wasn't making myself clear. I was not advocating for conference calls. I was advocating against restricting the target audience of whatever replaces them to only KivaFriends as John had stated here:

I'll look into alternate ways that we can make sure the KivaFriends community can interact with people on the Kiva team!

John has already revised that statement to replace "KivaFriends" with "Kiva community."

Paul

[waywardcats]

However, I don't think it's a stretch to call the Q&A portion of the conference calls a free-for-all.  I think putting Kiva staff on the spot and getting off the cuff answers to questions on the calls benefited no one.  It only provided fodder for much dissection and criticism and provided quotes to pull out later.  I would like to see Kiva carefully consider the questions lenders raise and have the time to put together well reasoned responses. 

Having participated in many of the conference calls I would disagree with you here at least to some extent.  Yes, there were some statements made by the Kiva leadership which were (at least imo) over-analyzed and  deconstructed.  However, there was a lot that was said that was very valuable to the lender community.  For example, a conference call was the first time the lender community heard about lender funds being held "in escrow" and I think that the lender reaction to this information was valuable for Kiva to hear.  I think Kiva can and does gain valuable insight into their lender base when they hear questions from lenders and lender reaction to new ideas.

But it is this part of John's post that bothers me most:

We've been under more public scrutiny as of late, so I'm not comfortable hosting community calls again just yet.  Maybe next year we'll be in a better position to move forward with these again.

Why is public scrutiny unwelcome for Kiva? 

Kiva promotes:

    * Dignity:   Kiva encourages partnership relationships as opposed to benefactor relationships. Partnership relationships are characterized by mutual dignity and respect.

    * Accountability:   Loans encourage more accountability than donations where repayment is not expected.

    * Transparency:   The Kiva website is an open platform where communication can flow freely around the world.

Source: http://www.kiva.org/about

Is Kiva not willing to be accountable to what is said off the cuff on conference calls?  Does Kiva not believe in free flowing communication?  Does Kiva not have a partnership with their lenders?

-Kerry-

[JohnAtKiva]

Hey Kerry.  You've given me some stuff to think about.  I'd like to take some time and collect my thoughts before responding to your posts and others.  Hope that's ok!

Best,
John

[AccountAbility]

However, there was a lot that was said that was very valuable to the lender community.  For example, a conference call was the first time the lender community heard about lender funds being held "in escrow" and I think that the lender reaction to this information was valuable for Kiva to hear.  I think Kiva can and does gain valuable insight into their lender base when they hear questions from lenders and lender reaction to new ideas.

-Kerry-

The conference calls started after there was a fair amount of criticism aimed at Kiva for a seeming lack of communication--period.  The first few conference calls went quite a ways toward diffusing some of that concern.  Under the circumstances it was inevitable that lenders would hear about things they had not heard before.  But that hardly leads to a conclusion that open conference calls accomplish this best.

I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but when you are under the public microscope, off-the-cuff and quotable spontaneous answers are fraught with potential hazards.  Just think about all the flack Matt got for his perhaps less than thought through Tweets a few months ago.  Kiva is no longer the little mom and pop shop it started out as.  While I decry the way the spin meisters handle the public at one end and the lawyers put gag orders on staff at the other end, nevertheless some responsible level of care needs to go into the communication process with lenders and the public.

All I can say to Kiva is keep the communication coming.  And make it as two way as possible.

Dan

[waywardcats]

The conference calls started after there was a fair amount of criticism aimed at Kiva for a seeming lack of communication--period.  The first few conference calls went quite a ways toward diffusing some of that concern.  Under the circumstances it was inevitable that lenders would hear about things they had not heard before.  But that hardly leads to a conclusion that open conference calls accomplish this best.

You are right of course Dan, and I am not trying to say that the community conference calls are the only method of communication that is acceptable.  But I do think that stopping the conference calls and not replacing that dialogue with some of form of open two-way communication makes for a less transparent Kiva. 

I don't want to put words in John's mouth, but when you are under the public microscope, off-the-cuff and quotable spontaneous answers are fraught with potential hazards.  Just think about all the flack Matt got for his perhaps less than thought through Tweets a few months ago.  Kiva is no longer the little mom and pop shop it started out as.  While I decry the way the spin meisters handle the public at one end and the lawyers put gag orders on staff at the other end, nevertheless some responsible level of care needs to go into the communication process with lenders and the public.

Of course I think most KivaFriends are familiar with the incidents you refer to here, and if not a simple search* here at KF will find references to them.  I am not unsympathetic to why John gave this reasoning for discontinuing the calls. But it is my belief that in spite of whatever "responsible level of care" is put into communications, it is not possible to avoid the occasional misstep. Such is human nature.  Is avoiding embarrassment a good enough reason to indefinitely discontinue this type of lender communication?  I don't think so but YMMV.

All I can say to Kiva is keep the communication coming.  And make it as two way as possible.

Indeed.  I hope that we can get some method of two-way communication back sooner than later. 

-Kerry-

*One might try twitter as a search word for example.