Hype vs. Reality in Media Representations of Social Innovation

As we investigate the implications of social innovation for the developing world, it is important to keep a skeptical approach. New and intriguing ideas often make compelling news stories, and as the rate of innovation increases we will need to evaluate such news with a critical eye. Many of the innovations highlighted this week speak to my point.

Since most of the articles covered this week were published two or more years ago, we can evaluate the success of such endeavors and determine whether or not they live up to the high expectations set by the all-too-often sensationalistic media. A quick search reveals that most fall short, and a case-by-case comparison reveals a common trend for those that don’t make it: lack of affordability or financial sustainability.

• Brian Silver’s plan to make one billion pairs of adjustable prescription glasses for the developing world has not taken off. Silver began developing his idea in 1985, and although the technological challenges has been handled and surmounted, he has not been able to bring the glasses to enough consumers to make an impact, mostly because they are not affordable for those Silver hopes to serve. Silver’s organization, the Centre for Vision in the Developing World, operates as a nonprofit organization, with most of its funds (around $3 million) coming from silicon technology company Dow Corning in the form of philanthropic donations. Silver’s reliance on donations rather than investment and rigorous R&D mean that he is unable to make the glasses cheaply enough for consumers in developing markets to be willing to buy them.

•  Raspberry Pi, despite seeing remarkable success in the U.S. and U.K., has not lived up to the hopes of the 2013 TechCruch article that praised “the potential of the Pi as a low cost learning-focused computing platform for developing countries.” Again, affordability is the main obstacle, and the vision of millions of students across the African continent using these small computers remains wishful thinking.

•  Of the gadgets featured in “Five Innovative Technologies that Bring Energy to the Developing World,” only one has seen even moderate success. Voto, the biomass-fueled flashlight and charging device, has not taken off. Yanko Design’s window-mounted solar electrical socket remains just a concept that has not yet been sold commercially. Potential Energy, which operates as a nonprofit, has donated a few thousand stoves, but no R&D investments have been made to make the stoves affordable for African consumers. GravityLight has turned to crowdfunding and could see some success in the future, but so far they have not sold any lamps commercially.

These examples carry with them a word of caution – a good idea with a good intention does not guarantee success. Based on this assessment, it would seem that social innovators need to be just as entrepreneurial and profit-driven as they are inventive and socially conscious in order to make a far-reaching, sustainable impact.