> Long to short, the website "loses" over $500 per week in donations. Had the NPO paid for a better site their ROI and general goodwill would be much better. >

> Long to short, the website "loses" over $500 per week in donations. Had the NPO paid for a better site their ROI and general goodwill would be much better. > Btw, the NPO does the same for their social media marketing. More "opportunity" is left on the table. This is true in the cases where the money not spent with this organization is spent either with a less efficient (by some metric) organization, or on non-charitable causes such as a new car or a new cat for the potential donor instead. If the more expensive website simply relocates charitable donations from one important cause to another, the total goo might actually decrease even if the ROI on the website was good for the individual organization. If an investment brings in "new" money, it's obviously worthwile. I guess my point is that it's good to compare organizations on various metrics, but not to the degree where they start using their resources to outcompete each other instead of doing good.