7 ms·

Facebook also takes 5%+ of the donations sent through it's platform. https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951 https://www.facebook.com/help/90137061667395

Facebook also takes 5%+ of the donations sent through it's platform. https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951 https://www.facebook.com/help/901370616673951 I know they have to cover "fees", but it seems like it's not really necessary for a multi-billion dollar company to do that, when there are lots of non-profits (Charity Water comes to mind) that actually put the ENTIRE amount towards charity and pay the processing fees through other fundraising methods (private donors, etc).

captheorem 9y ago
The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting, mostly. It's not a profit center. In this particular case, the fees are waived.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  How do you know in which cases the fees are waived?
- will_brown 9y ago
  >The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting What is that? You mean verifying whether or not the entity is a 501(c)(3)? Because that takes about 1 minute to verify, and if vetting is what I think it is, making the cost a percentage of donations is exactly what you say its not, a profit center, directly taking money away from the 501(c)(3).
  - evgen 9y ago
    Really? You managed to determine if the people running the FB page were actually entities in control of or authorized by that 501(c)3 to engage in fundraising activities using their name? You were able to ensure that the destination for funds was legit and the collection process didn't violate some obscure FB term of service? You are truly a wizard to be able to do that in about 1 minute, you should get Facebook to hire you...
simonk 9y ago
The Charity Water is just a marketing gimmick the money they get from "private donors" would of just gone to the cause then. There are real fees from the credit card company to absorb and it seems like they are doing a lot of work in looking into what charities to work with and making sure its not a scam.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  It's not really a gimmick. They actually do make sure all those donations that people give to different fundraisers go directly to the things they donated to. They do specific fundraisers to handle admin/office costs, but those aren't conflated with the actual donations they solicit on a per-project basis. The point is that they actually raise 105% of the funds rather than just 95% of them. I don't think that qualifies as a "gimmick."
  - rubatuga 9y ago
    You mean 105.3% right?
  - elefanten 9y ago
    But what does that achieve overall? They still have to raise the extra "admin" funds from donors just the same. Same net donation is made to the charity and same net fees are paid. The only difference is that they can make the donors for individual charity projects feel like more of their money is going to the cause. So it's a marketing gimmick.
    - joelrunyon 9y ago
      Maybe. Maybe not. Admin costs + charity projects are actually separate bank accounts. You can see their financials on their site[1], but part of their angle is that you can actually see where the money is going. It's not just ethereal, it's where their money is actually going. Half of what this post is about is The Red Cross not being trust-worthy because of their lack of transparency in where funds go + are allocated to projects. It might be marketing - just as knowing your funds are secure in a bank - or your overall brand reputation is marketing - but it's not a gimmick. [1]https://www.charitywater.org/about/financials.php https://www.charitywater.org/about/financials.php
659087 9y ago
This person gets it. This is why Facebook wants you to donate through Facebook. Not because they "care".

captheorem 9y ago

The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting, mostly. It's not a profit center. In this particular case, the fees are waived.

joelrunyon 9y ago
How do you know in which cases the fees are waived?
will_brown 9y ago
>The 5% is to cover 501c3 vetting What is that? You mean verifying whether or not the entity is a 501(c)(3)? Because that takes about 1 minute to verify, and if vetting is what I think it is, making the cost a percentage of donations is exactly what you say its not, a profit center, directly taking money away from the 501(c)(3).
- evgen 9y ago
  Really? You managed to determine if the people running the FB page were actually entities in control of or authorized by that 501(c)3 to engage in fundraising activities using their name? You were able to ensure that the destination for funds was legit and the collection process didn't violate some obscure FB term of service? You are truly a wizard to be able to do that in about 1 minute, you should get Facebook to hire you...

simonk 9y ago

The Charity Water is just a marketing gimmick the money they get from "private donors" would of just gone to the cause then. There are real fees from the credit card company to absorb and it seems like they are doing a lot of work in looking into what charities to work with and making sure its not a scam.

joelrunyon 9y ago
It's not really a gimmick. They actually do make sure all those donations that people give to different fundraisers go directly to the things they donated to. They do specific fundraisers to handle admin/office costs, but those aren't conflated with the actual donations they solicit on a per-project basis. The point is that they actually raise 105% of the funds rather than just 95% of them. I don't think that qualifies as a "gimmick."
- rubatuga 9y ago
  You mean 105.3% right?
- elefanten 9y ago
  But what does that achieve overall? They still have to raise the extra "admin" funds from donors just the same. Same net donation is made to the charity and same net fees are paid. The only difference is that they can make the donors for individual charity projects feel like more of their money is going to the cause. So it's a marketing gimmick.
  - joelrunyon 9y ago
    Maybe. Maybe not. Admin costs + charity projects are actually separate bank accounts. You can see their financials on their site[1], but part of their angle is that you can actually see where the money is going. It's not just ethereal, it's where their money is actually going. Half of what this post is about is The Red Cross not being trust-worthy because of their lack of transparency in where funds go + are allocated to projects. It might be marketing - just as knowing your funds are secure in a bank - or your overall brand reputation is marketing - but it's not a gimmick. [1]https://www.charitywater.org/about/financials.php https://www.charitywater.org/about/financials.php

659087 9y ago

This person gets it. This is why Facebook wants you to donate through Facebook. Not because they "care".