39 ms·

"No money ever changes hands with Humanity Box", but their partner, GiveForward, a for-profit company, seems to charge fees: http://www.giveforward.com/learn#fe

"No money ever changes hands with Humanity Box", but their partner, GiveForward, a for-profit company, seems to charge fees: http://www.giveforward.com/learn#fees http://www.giveforward.com/learn#fees. GiveForward's remarks defending why they are for-profit: http://help.giveforward.com/customer/portal/articles/757696-why-isn%E2%80%99t-giveforward-a-non-profit- http://help.giveforward.com/customer/portal/articles/757696-...

eli 12y ago
> "Many non-profits spend up to 40% of their resources fundraising...At GiveForward, almost all donations go directly to a person or family." I might be misunderstanding, but this seems disingenuous. Presumably as a nonprofit, they could continue to raise money through the exact same fee structure they have now. This would not require any additional fundraising resources. Plenty of nonprofits have models that do not require fundraising. Do they post financials online? Voluntarily disclosing the same information that nonprofits are required to disclose would certainly help their argument.
- notahacker 12y ago
  The point they're making is essentially "since we raise funds for charities at a vastly lower cost to them than virtually any other fundraising effort they make, why shouldn't we make a profit if we can?". A point they could also have made is that a large proportion of charities' (often much higher per dollar raise) fundraising costs go directly or indirectly to profit-making companies anyway.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >why shouldn't we make a profit if we can? I guess it comes down to the definition of "if we can". Because, if they don't, then more people they are presuming to save might be saved.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  I agree. I am 100% for social entreprise, but something about GiveFoward's for-profit model has always rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, I'd say what they are doing gives social enterprise a bad name. They're simply asking for money from people who are willing to give out of pure kindness, then taking a larger-than-necessary cut (by definition of profit) of that generosity. That means that an outsized proportion of that generosity is going somewhere other than to its intended purpose, and away from sick people in need. More generous donors are then necessary, else goals may not be met and sick people may continue to suffer. It's a little sickening, really, to have these emotional pleas made on their site and promoted by them, all the while knowing that profit is being made. Paying salaries and expenses? OK. But, going beyond that to profit? Seems a bit predatory. Then, there's this: https://www.shareasale.com/shareasale.cfm?merchantID=51956 https://www.shareasale.com/shareasale.cfm?merchantID=51956
patja 12y ago
About a year ago there was a fascinating Econtalk podcast episode with Dan Pallotta, an advocate of for-profit charity organization structures. See http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.htm... Much of what he had to say resonated strongly with me. Particularly the discussions around talent/leadership hiring and the advantages of scale and reduced overhead % that can be achieved by bringing a profit-motivated higher level of skills/talent to bear on the problems faced by charitable organizations.

eli 12y ago

> "Many non-profits spend up to 40% of their resources fundraising...At GiveForward, almost all donations go directly to a person or family." I might be misunderstanding, but this seems disingenuous. Presumably as a nonprofit, they could continue to raise money through the exact same fee structure they have now. This would not require any additional fundraising resources. Plenty of nonprofits have models that do not require fundraising. Do they post financials online? Voluntarily disclosing the same information that nonprofits are required to disclose would certainly help their argument.

notahacker 12y ago
The point they're making is essentially "since we raise funds for charities at a vastly lower cost to them than virtually any other fundraising effort they make, why shouldn't we make a profit if we can?". A point they could also have made is that a large proportion of charities' (often much higher per dollar raise) fundraising costs go directly or indirectly to profit-making companies anyway.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >why shouldn't we make a profit if we can? I guess it comes down to the definition of "if we can". Because, if they don't, then more people they are presuming to save might be saved.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
I agree. I am 100% for social entreprise, but something about GiveFoward's for-profit model has always rubbed me the wrong way. In fact, I'd say what they are doing gives social enterprise a bad name. They're simply asking for money from people who are willing to give out of pure kindness, then taking a larger-than-necessary cut (by definition of profit) of that generosity. That means that an outsized proportion of that generosity is going somewhere other than to its intended purpose, and away from sick people in need. More generous donors are then necessary, else goals may not be met and sick people may continue to suffer. It's a little sickening, really, to have these emotional pleas made on their site and promoted by them, all the while knowing that profit is being made. Paying salaries and expenses? OK. But, going beyond that to profit? Seems a bit predatory. Then, there's this: https://www.shareasale.com/shareasale.cfm?merchantID=51956 https://www.shareasale.com/shareasale.cfm?merchantID=51956

patja 12y ago

About a year ago there was a fascinating Econtalk podcast episode with Dan Pallotta, an advocate of for-profit charity organization structures. See http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/pallotta_on_cha.htm... Much of what he had to say resonated strongly with me. Particularly the discussions around talent/leadership hiring and the advantages of scale and reduced overhead % that can be achieved by bringing a profit-motivated higher level of skills/talent to bear on the problems faced by charitable organizations.