GreaterGood shuts down.
July 21, 2001 8:51 PM Subscribe
GreaterGood shuts down. I wondered why hunger site, the rainforest site and all the rest had been undergoing 'routine maintenance' all week.
FreeDonation.com is still running strong. They offer more causes to donate to, and you can donate much more per day.
posted by kidsplate at 9:28 PM on July 21, 2001
posted by kidsplate at 9:28 PM on July 21, 2001
So there're all these hungry people out there. And these glorious corporations donate money to charities based on the number of times people click on a banner, with the one condition that people are then exposed to their ad, or brand. And we're told how much of a difference a few cents can make to these poor people.
Well, if a few cents makes all the difference to these hungry kids, why does Half.com (just an example I saw on the site) makes me jump through a damn hoop before they'll give them any money? I realize that without the promise of brand association pretty much no corporation would donate anything, but these sites take it to a new extreme.
Ultimately, I don't know what I'm complaining about, cause they are giving money to good causes. We live in the real world, where there's no such thing as a free lunch...even if someone is starving, and you've got all the money in the world.
posted by Doug at 9:52 PM on July 21, 2001
Well, if a few cents makes all the difference to these hungry kids, why does Half.com (just an example I saw on the site) makes me jump through a damn hoop before they'll give them any money? I realize that without the promise of brand association pretty much no corporation would donate anything, but these sites take it to a new extreme.
Ultimately, I don't know what I'm complaining about, cause they are giving money to good causes. We live in the real world, where there's no such thing as a free lunch...even if someone is starving, and you've got all the money in the world.
posted by Doug at 9:52 PM on July 21, 2001
the premise of hungersite, as I understood it, was that the site received a little money for each ad viewed (the page your clickthrough took you to) and then if you clicked through one of the ads, an additional bit of money was sent to the site.
basically it's the same rate as any advertising, the difference being that this money was donated to the specified cause instead of going into the site owner's pockets.
posted by rebeccablood at 9:58 PM on July 21, 2001
basically it's the same rate as any advertising, the difference being that this money was donated to the specified cause instead of going into the site owner's pockets.
posted by rebeccablood at 9:58 PM on July 21, 2001
I'm still wrapping my mind around those figures. The investors put in $20M ... the net donations to the programs were around $4M. Good grief. I wonder what operating expenses were, since as suggested, this is something that could run on a shoestring.
(I remember somebody saying of Evite, "It should be about four guys and a perl script.")
Revenues at $0.10/click (what were they supposedly worth at the end? anybody)? could have brought in $20M/year. Even just $2M/yr at a penny per. At current typical banner ad rates, though, you're looking at a range no higher than six figures. The sponsors would have to be willing to "donate" at much higher rates -- though 501(c)3 deductibility ought to ease the burden somewhat.
There was a newsgroup discussion (and I think something came up here, but I could be wrong) about the surprising figures behind high-profile charity drives like the AIDS rides, which are sponsored by Tanqueray and run by the for-profit consultancy the Palotta Group. A (no-longer-free) WPost article looked closely at the situation, since the typical return to charity on these rides is around 1/3 of the money raised -- and sometimes is much less. The pledges could be rolling in, but the consultants have already spent money on promotion and logistics and providing services (like food, water, and massage breaks) to riders. Those substantial bottom-line costs eat up a considerable amount of the money, and are not reduced that much when fewer people ride or pledge, so less money is available to be returned in donations.
I think this scrutiny is good, but I disagree that this is a bad way to donate. The argument goes that you're better off "just giving money". Unfortunately, that may be more efficient for you, but the charity can't count on check-donation givers to return as reliably as event participants. The camaraderie and emotional relationship they develop are irreplaceable boons to a charity that may otherwise be little more to someone than another envelope in a pile of junk mail.
(I would like to see whether the corporate sponsorship -- which in some cases doubles pledges -- tends to cover those logistical costs or not. The reporters in these stories gloss over that particular fact, which someone in the non-profit world would immediately want the answer to.)
At the same time, by comparison, traditional events that are less obviously outsourced -- say, an art fair, or a fundraiser dinner -- have costs of their own, and a rule of thumb is often that upfront expenses shouldn't ever be more than 50% of the expected take. For a dinner, there are the costs of the food, the caterer's labor, the rented tables, hall, or tent, even entertainment. For an art fair my dad used to run, a Civil War band played for "free" -- no salary -- but required a fee for uniform and instrument upkeep that seemed to rise every year. Keep the 20-year tradition, or chuck it for the bottom line? It's not as easy as some people think to be a non-profit.
Even a shoestring non-profit has expenses. A friend runs a center for troubled neighborhood families and teens. They have to have a very keen eye at their bottom line. If they send out an appeal this month, how much will postage and copying cost? Will the typical 10-20% donation rate from that mailing even cover all their costs? Will going out to get funds jeopardize their real mission?
Even online, these are not easy questions to answer. The internet may make it easier to reach wide numbers of people, but it also increases that level of anonymity and you end up with the same chimerical cost-benefit relationships that sunk many for-profit businesses.
posted by dhartung at 10:11 PM on July 21, 2001
(I remember somebody saying of Evite, "It should be about four guys and a perl script.")
Revenues at $0.10/click (what were they supposedly worth at the end? anybody)? could have brought in $20M/year. Even just $2M/yr at a penny per. At current typical banner ad rates, though, you're looking at a range no higher than six figures. The sponsors would have to be willing to "donate" at much higher rates -- though 501(c)3 deductibility ought to ease the burden somewhat.
There was a newsgroup discussion (and I think something came up here, but I could be wrong) about the surprising figures behind high-profile charity drives like the AIDS rides, which are sponsored by Tanqueray and run by the for-profit consultancy the Palotta Group. A (no-longer-free) WPost article looked closely at the situation, since the typical return to charity on these rides is around 1/3 of the money raised -- and sometimes is much less. The pledges could be rolling in, but the consultants have already spent money on promotion and logistics and providing services (like food, water, and massage breaks) to riders. Those substantial bottom-line costs eat up a considerable amount of the money, and are not reduced that much when fewer people ride or pledge, so less money is available to be returned in donations.
I think this scrutiny is good, but I disagree that this is a bad way to donate. The argument goes that you're better off "just giving money". Unfortunately, that may be more efficient for you, but the charity can't count on check-donation givers to return as reliably as event participants. The camaraderie and emotional relationship they develop are irreplaceable boons to a charity that may otherwise be little more to someone than another envelope in a pile of junk mail.
(I would like to see whether the corporate sponsorship -- which in some cases doubles pledges -- tends to cover those logistical costs or not. The reporters in these stories gloss over that particular fact, which someone in the non-profit world would immediately want the answer to.)
At the same time, by comparison, traditional events that are less obviously outsourced -- say, an art fair, or a fundraiser dinner -- have costs of their own, and a rule of thumb is often that upfront expenses shouldn't ever be more than 50% of the expected take. For a dinner, there are the costs of the food, the caterer's labor, the rented tables, hall, or tent, even entertainment. For an art fair my dad used to run, a Civil War band played for "free" -- no salary -- but required a fee for uniform and instrument upkeep that seemed to rise every year. Keep the 20-year tradition, or chuck it for the bottom line? It's not as easy as some people think to be a non-profit.
Even a shoestring non-profit has expenses. A friend runs a center for troubled neighborhood families and teens. They have to have a very keen eye at their bottom line. If they send out an appeal this month, how much will postage and copying cost? Will the typical 10-20% donation rate from that mailing even cover all their costs? Will going out to get funds jeopardize their real mission?
Even online, these are not easy questions to answer. The internet may make it easier to reach wide numbers of people, but it also increases that level of anonymity and you end up with the same chimerical cost-benefit relationships that sunk many for-profit businesses.
posted by dhartung at 10:11 PM on July 21, 2001
Ever the cynic, I wondered about the reasons behind the last line of the article "The company did not disclose specifics of their financial condition." Might there be something they really didn't want the faithful to know i.e. salary/renumeration amounts?
The term "for profit charity" seems a contradiction in terms. I do think this could be done on a grassroots level with respect to site/server matters, but would require the services of several people to navigate through the bureaucratic aspects of such an endeavor.
posted by sillygit at 10:20 PM on July 21, 2001
The term "for profit charity" seems a contradiction in terms. I do think this could be done on a grassroots level with respect to site/server matters, but would require the services of several people to navigate through the bureaucratic aspects of such an endeavor.
posted by sillygit at 10:20 PM on July 21, 2001
I believe that the hunger site was started by one guy; at some point the administrative details overwhelmed him, and he was happy to give the oversight of the hungersite to greatergood. (of course I can't find an article about this right now).
from there, greatergood expanded their sites to include kids aids, rainforest, breast cancer, and others.
greatergood also had a shopping portal, where you could choose a charity and shop at a large number of online sites; the charity would receive a portion of your purchase cost.
again, my impression was that all of these endeavors were based on a normal banner ad arrangement, turning the money received over to charity. and I guess that I thought the profit from the hungersite all went to the UN world food program, and that any profits would have been derived from the shopping portal.
now that its down, there's no way to check any of this, and I may have freely made some assumptions that never were true.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:35 PM on July 21, 2001
from there, greatergood expanded their sites to include kids aids, rainforest, breast cancer, and others.
greatergood also had a shopping portal, where you could choose a charity and shop at a large number of online sites; the charity would receive a portion of your purchase cost.
again, my impression was that all of these endeavors were based on a normal banner ad arrangement, turning the money received over to charity. and I guess that I thought the profit from the hungersite all went to the UN world food program, and that any profits would have been derived from the shopping portal.
now that its down, there's no way to check any of this, and I may have freely made some assumptions that never were true.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:35 PM on July 21, 2001
oh, and dan - the net donation to the UN world food program was $4 million; amounts raised for their other charitable causes aren't given.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:36 PM on July 21, 2001
posted by rebeccablood at 10:36 PM on July 21, 2001
Regarding FreeDonation: while it looks to be another good site, with good intentions, I don't like that at least the For the Children donation page is a bit misleading. It's not misleading in the making-stuff-up sort of way; instead, it's misleading because it makes you feel that your money is going to go towards helping children of the third world with vaccines and food, when instead, the donations currently are going to two American groups who service kids here.
Again, noble goal, and noble donation recipients, but not what's mentioned on the actual pages where you are donating.
posted by delfuego at 11:37 PM on July 21, 2001
Again, noble goal, and noble donation recipients, but not what's mentioned on the actual pages where you are donating.
posted by delfuego at 11:37 PM on July 21, 2001
Ever since Greater Good got involved, the Hunger Site felt more and more commercial and less and less charitable. I visited less frequently, and I noticed that their donation totals had been trailing off. I'm angry that Greater Good took an awesome project that helped people and drove it into the ground.
Some other click to donate sites to try: ecology fund, red jellyfish and care2.com. I have about 15 others (well, 10 after the Greater Good disaster) listed on my blog.
posted by neuroshred at 12:23 AM on July 22, 2001
Some other click to donate sites to try: ecology fund, red jellyfish and care2.com. I have about 15 others (well, 10 after the Greater Good disaster) listed on my blog.
posted by neuroshred at 12:23 AM on July 22, 2001
Just FYI, the comments on Evite were by Peter, and the quote was "Evite should be 5 folks with some PHP and a MySQL database."
I repeat it because it's a more apt summary than ever. Once again proving that people with good intentions don't always have any common sense.
Sigh.
posted by anildash at 12:40 AM on July 22, 2001
I repeat it because it's a more apt summary than ever. Once again proving that people with good intentions don't always have any common sense.
Sigh.
posted by anildash at 12:40 AM on July 22, 2001
Seems snarky coming from someone who, at the time, was working for epinions. :-)
posted by fooljay at 12:57 AM on July 22, 2001
posted by fooljay at 12:57 AM on July 22, 2001
If anyone is looking for similar sites, OneWorld is still going strong (original and best?).
posted by andrew cooke at 2:58 AM on July 22, 2001
posted by andrew cooke at 2:58 AM on July 22, 2001
In any and all charity groups asking for money donations, I never give unless I know specifically what share of donations goes to the cause presented and what amount goes for "maintenance and salaries," having had a relative at one time who made a very nice salary by soliciting for a charity.
posted by Postroad at 3:55 AM on July 22, 2001
posted by Postroad at 3:55 AM on July 22, 2001
Ever since Greater Good got involved, the Hunger Site felt more and more commercial and less and less charitable. I visited less frequently, and I noticed that their donation totals had been trailing off. Ahhh - this must be the new internet business model people have been looking for! Kidding... kinda... I mean... I believe that the hunger site was started by one guy; at some point the administrative details overwhelmed him, and he was happy to give the oversight of the hungersite to greatergood. Seems like the "corporate think" thing is death and the new business model for the internet is NONcorporate, which won't make many corporations happy - LOL. It's like the internet just doesn't support the bloated corporate think middle man kind of structure at all. (Just thinking out loud here.) That $20 million figure just KILLS me. :-D
posted by thunder at 9:20 AM on July 22, 2001
posted by thunder at 9:20 AM on July 22, 2001
Unfortunately, when GG took over the HungerSite, they instituted "caps" -- so they would donate, say, $10,000 daily, as long as at least that many people clicked -- and more than that always did. As a regular HungerSite user up until some time last year, I saw the message "You have donated 1 1/2 cups of food to a needy child..." (which always made me feel so good!) change to "You have helped to donate 10,000 cups of food today!" So I stopped visiting. *sigh*
posted by tweebiscuit at 12:22 PM on July 22, 2001
posted by tweebiscuit at 12:22 PM on July 22, 2001
« Older Apple ][ font | The ultimate online community: Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rebeccablood at 8:52 PM on July 21, 2001