What is BOP? And Why You Should Care

Bottom of the pyramid (BOP) is greater than half of the world population. And if you are reading this, chances are you are not BOP. But, read on anyway. Once upon a time BOP was the "third world" and the model of interaction (if any) with the BOP was charity or social services (like welfare). Activists ruled as the keepers of our conscience. With globalisation came the need for cheap(er) labor and BOP became the "emerging market". Entrepreneurs ruled. But then things got complicated. First world infrastructure (innovated at the dawn of the industrial age) did not scale in sustainable fashion to meet either the third world/emerging market needs or first world lifestyle. Worse still, communication channels (innovated in the computer age) became digital - making all this mess in live action, color video for all to see at the click of a button. So now what?
Now is the time to merge the best of activism and entrepreneurship and think of BOP as an innovation engine. It is the space for activism, entrepreneurship and business model innovation that allows for leapfrogging tired old industrial age technologies that are proving too costly in terms of environmental as well as human health. More than half the world population is a good market incentive for innovation.

We stand at a crossroad today where either we continue to export sustainability-challenged technologies or we partner with the BOP as the "next bench" to develop new technologies and create a new market at the same time.  

So - Is BOP Market or Strategy? A Mirage at the bottom of the pyramid? Capitalism gone haywire or Socialism gone haywire? A case for philanthropy? OR its not my problem; because its not interesting? or I can’t do anything about it?


I prefer to think of BOP as an innovation driver and as we know innovation is an extreme sport. Life would be dull without it. So watch it, support it, get involved. MediaX is kicking off a year of 21st Century Conversations with an all day seminar on Wednesday July 21called Social Media and Social Technologies: Changing Personal and Civic Conversations. the topic for my panel is : The New Realities of Grassroots and Civic Activism.

How About Accidental Entrepreneur ?

I have decided that the term "social entrepreneur" really does have a lot of baggage. One particularly vitriolic comment on our earlier post says "Distribution of poverty and collateral misery" is the goal of a socialist - further confusing the issue of social versus socialist. Hence I am now proposing - how about accidental entrepreneur? Accidental because the person would really rather do social good (remove poverty not distribute it like peanut butter) but must engage in business in order to be self sustaining.

Social Entrepreneur or Activist Entrepreneur?

Back in Bangalore, I was recently discussing our stint at Stanford's Digital Vision Program with a few friends when some good ideas came up. I was giving my usual spiel on Social Entrepreneurship when my good friend Partho Ray chirped up and said that instead of "Social Entrepreneur" we should perhaps consider the term "Activist Entrepreneur".

His reasoning was that while the word "entrepreneur" captured the concept of a passionate individual or group focusing on doing something positive very well, the word "social" has negative connotations as it tends to represent the average NGO and/or politico who is typically a stumbling block to progress. He felt that the concept of "social entrepreneur" is an oxymoron. The "socialist" is typically some guy out to bring the least common denominator to society, he is out to promote poverty as a virtue and to bring everyone down to a lower common level of wealth. On the other hand, an "activist" is a person out to disrupt the status quo, to bring about positive societal change and raise the level of the least common denominator itself.

Sounds familiar? A socialist society encourages shared community resources and distribution of wealth, even though unearned, and discourages private ownership. Distribution of poverty and collateral misery is the goal of a socialist, though he may not think so. On the other hand, a capitalist society encourages creation of individual wealth through personal initiative and ownership. How do you distribute wealth without first creating it? Sounds reasonable?

In a sense, "social" and "entrepreneur" do not mix very well and "social entrepreneur" may be an oxymoron. However, an activist sounds like a positive person who has his heart in the right place.

Now that's an interesting idea worthy of a fresh debate. Social Entrepreneur or Activist Entrepreneur? Does anyone want to take this theme forward?

Shashank