Shark tank for NGOs?
One request I get frequently from the funding circles I run is whether it's possible for a funder to observe a round. This is quite understandable—I think how grantmaking happens is fascinating and mysterious, even to other grantmakers.
A compelling idea that came to mind is creating "Shark Tank but for charities." While I know readers here appreciate blog posts as a medium, I suspect video content would be more engaging and accessible for most audiences. In theory, three grantmakers with different but complementary perspectives on NGOs, plus a cohort of charities, could create a compelling episode.
I believe this format could have a few benefits:
1) Making philanthropy engaging and accessible Generally, philanthropy isn't perceived as particularly fun or interesting, yet I believe it genuinely can be. Our funding circles are social and entertaining while enabling better decisions than traditional grantmaking approaches. I suspect that donor fatigue stems more from format limitations than inherent disinterest in giving.
2) Providing calibration opportunities for donors One of the most common questions doctors receive is "Is this normal?" Grantmakers often have similar uncertainties. There's no formal school for grantmaking, and best practices remain opaque. A show featuring real interactions between charities and grantmakers could illuminate key dynamics: what questions to ask, what exemplary organizations look like, and how decisions get made. I could even envision post-credit segments where grantmakers elaborate on their reasoning for additional depth.
3) Demonstrating effective grantmaking practices Well-chosen "Sharks" could pose essential questions I wish were asked more frequently in the NGO sector: "What's your theory of change?" or "How does your cost-effectiveness compare to similar interventions?" The rigorous questioning that makes Shark Tank compelling should be applied more consistently to charitable work.
Potential concerns (and why I'm cautiously optimistic):
1) NGOs wouldn't participate I'm not convinced this is true. When I asked several organizations, many expressed interest if there was a reasonable chance of funding (say, above 33%). If grantmakers selected five projects they were genuinely considering funding, or issued an open call, I believe there would be substantial interest. Many entrepreneurs now appear on Shark Tank primarily for publicity—we could similarly feature all participating charities with donation QR codes during the show, ensuring visibility to potential funders regardless of outcome.
2) Grantmakers wouldn't participate I know this concern is unfounded, as I've already floated the idea with several grantmakers who expressed genuine interest. Like podcast appearances, there's some reputational risk, but for certain personalities, it would be genuinely enjoyable. I'm confident I could recruit two other grantmakers, particularly for episodes focused on cause areas where they have expertise and passion.
3) The show wouldn't be entertaining without hostile interactions. This concern has more merit. I expect both grantmakers and charity representatives would be more collegial than the sometimes cutthroat for-profit environment. However, I suspect it would remain compelling, especially with innovative organizations. And some grantmakers are ok with being critical even in a setting like that (although maybe not to quite the same extent).
What's your take? Promising concept or misguided idea? If there's sufficient interest, my next step would be producing a pilot episode to test the format.
P.S. I appreciate that others have had this idea (example 1, example 2) but I have not seen anyone execute it (if someone has I would love to see the link!).
We should call it Impact Tank
Love this idea, Joey! Looking forward to seeing you on screen soon :)
A few thoughts on how you might address your point that the show might lose some entertainment value without the hostility of a for-profit setting - by designing the tension through structure rather than conflict:
1. Competition-oriented (Chopped/America’s Got Talent–style):
Rather than discrete Shark Tank–style pitches, each episode could be a mini-competition (more like Chopped or America’s Got Talent). Three organizations take turns presenting their pitches and are questioned by the judges. At the end, all receive feedback in front of each other, creating a learning opportunity beyond their own pitch, and one is selected for the grant. This keeps the tone collegial yet competitive, since it is understood upfront that only one will be funded. It also addresses your point about NGO participation: with a clear chance of success for each charity - roughly the 33% bar you cited as reasonable - they are likely to view participation as worthwhile.
A possible concern is that viewers might interpret picking one cause over another as a moral value judgment (e.g., “poverty vs. animals”). That could be mitigated by introducing a transparent evaluation rubric - judges could score on factors like cost-effectiveness, scalability, and evidence base, plus more subjective elements like “clarity of theory of change” to allow for some discretion across judges. Revealing the aggregated scores at the end would make the decision feel principled rather than arbitrary, while offering audiences clear transparency into strong grantmaking practices.
2. Fixed pledge, flexible allocation:
At the start of the show, each funder commits a set amount. At the end, they decide how to distribute it across the presented charities (including the option of allocating zero). That keeps the tension of “who gets what” while reducing the perception of moral judgment by removing the binary funding/no funding decision, because each charity can still receive some funding. The focus then is on allocating limited resources strategically, rather than declaring a 'winner' and a 'loser' - much like real-world funding portfolios.
One other idea for potential entertainment/engagement - some element of audience participation:
Viewers could also “play funder” with a small virtual budget, allocating among the charities in real time through a live poll. It would make the format participatory and educational, letting people compare their instincts to the experts’.
Additionally, these structures make explicit your point that “each donation is a rejection of all other charities, even if the public doesn’t see it that way.” By showing how funders allocate limited resources, the show could educate viewers on this fundamental aspect of grantmaking.
Hope these ideas are helpful or spark something interesting. Best of luck - and really looking forward to seeing how this evolves!