Comments on: Quick update http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/ Exploring how to get real change for your dollar. Thu, 17 May 2012 06:14:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Michele Rodriguez http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-56235 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:12:00 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-56235 Our organization uses Just Give on our basic donation page on our website. I like them better than Network for Good because they charge us less (only 3% with zero other fees) and we're small so every little penny saved counts. I also like their backend better because it is lighter and less complicated. You still receive the ability to have a donor give a gift or make a donation in memory of a loved one and even make a recurring gift and, like Network for Good, essentially Just Give is handling your donation not your organization. I can offer an even better solution for nonprofits that I'm currently working on implementing and that is using Google Checkout. Nonprofits that have a Google Grant (as ours does) get free credit card processing until 2010 and can integrate Google Checkout into their website. If you ask me, that's really helping when you consider the AdSense grant that comes along with it drives traffic to your site too! Of course, the org is essentially handling the donor information whereas with Network for Good and Just Give your organization doesn't. Another one to check out, and one we use right now when we have paid events, is Click and Pledge. It is comparable to Network for Good's Donate Now package but is less expensive if your charity is small. Click & Pledge's credit car fee is an expensive 4.5% but the sign up fee is a once a year $50 and there is no monthly fee. You get the easily customizable and integrated shopping cart/check out that Network for Good offers too. Network for Good's costs are $150 down/3% per transaction/$29.95 per month. We don't receive enough online donations to make that initial set up fee/monthly fee outweigh the higher transaction cost of Click & Pledge. Our organization uses Just Give on our basic donation page on our website. I like them better than Network for Good because they charge us less (only 3% with zero other fees) and we’re small so every little penny saved counts. I also like their backend better because it is lighter and less complicated. You still receive the ability to have a donor give a gift or make a donation in memory of a loved one and even make a recurring gift and, like Network for Good, essentially Just Give is handling your donation not your organization.

I can offer an even better solution for nonprofits that I’m currently working on implementing and that is using Google Checkout. Nonprofits that have a Google Grant (as ours does) get free credit card processing until 2010 and can integrate Google Checkout into their website. If you ask me, that’s really helping when you consider the AdSense grant that comes along with it drives traffic to your site too! Of course, the org is essentially handling the donor information whereas with Network for Good and Just Give your organization doesn’t.

Another one to check out, and one we use right now when we have paid events, is Click and Pledge. It is comparable to Network for Good’s Donate Now package but is less expensive if your charity is small. Click & Pledge’s credit car fee is an expensive 4.5% but the sign up fee is a once a year $50 and there is no monthly fee. You get the easily customizable and integrated shopping cart/check out that Network for Good offers too. Network for Good’s costs are $150 down/3% per transaction/$29.95 per month. We don’t receive enough online donations to make that initial set up fee/monthly fee outweigh the higher transaction cost of Click & Pledge.

]]> by: Holden http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-103 Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:52:57 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-103 That certainly adds helpful context. I'd be interested in hearing about people's experiences with JustGive and PayPal. You probably know about this already, but just making sure - there is a single form that will register you in all but 4 of the states that require it. http://www.multistatefiling.org/ That certainly adds helpful context. I’d be interested in hearing about people’s experiences with JustGive and PayPal.

You probably know about this already, but just making sure - there is a single form that will register you in all but 4 of the states that require it. http://www.multistatefiling.org/

]]> by: Matthew Monberg http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-81 Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:58:26 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-81 Registration is costly and difficult. We are in the middle of registration right now, so I'm speaking from current experience. I think it should be mentioned that Network for Good provides a way for donors to give to charities while remaining anonymous, and does offer the donor the opportunity to cover processing fees if they wish to. Back in December, the Children's HopeChest online giving page went down, and was not going to be up in time for capturing year-end gifts. Having Network for Good really saved us. We redirected our giving page to our profile on the NFG site, and sent an e-mail to all of our donors asking them to give via Network for Good. This conversation strikes me as similar to the "straw ratio." Should we pick the cheapest merchant out there, looking only at the discount they charge? Surely there is more to the picture--as Katya is pointing out. For the past several years, we've had nothing but problems with the CHC online giving page--related to our online authorization and merchant processing vendors. There are times I would've paid 10% of the gift just to have it work right. Going with Network for Good because they register in all 50 states is nice...but that's not really their unique selling point. It's about ease of use. And that's worth a little extra--in my opinion. I can see how donors would disagree with that position, but they don't live in the hell that online giving can be if it is done wrong or you have the wrong merchant. Registration is costly and difficult. We are in the middle of registration right now, so I’m speaking from current experience.

I think it should be mentioned that Network for Good provides a way for donors to give to charities while remaining anonymous, and does offer the donor the opportunity to cover processing fees if they wish to. Back in December, the Children’s HopeChest online giving page went down, and was not going to be up in time for capturing year-end gifts. Having Network for Good really saved us. We redirected our giving page to our profile on the NFG site, and sent an e-mail to all of our donors asking them to give via Network for Good.

This conversation strikes me as similar to the “straw ratio.” Should we pick the cheapest merchant out there, looking only at the discount they charge? Surely there is more to the picture–as Katya is pointing out.

For the past several years, we’ve had nothing but problems with the CHC online giving page–related to our online authorization and merchant processing vendors. There are times I would’ve paid 10% of the gift just to have it work right.

Going with Network for Good because they register in all 50 states is nice…but that’s not really their unique selling point. It’s about ease of use. And that’s worth a little extra–in my opinion.

I can see how donors would disagree with that position, but they don’t live in the hell that online giving can be if it is done wrong or you have the wrong merchant.

]]> by: Holden http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-72 Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:31:56 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-72 Right, that makes sense. At least, it seems safer to be soliciting through Network for Good than to be soliciting directly (via PayPal, for example) if you're unregistered in some states. It still doesn't seem 100% safe - as all the sites I looked at said, the legal issues are fuzzy, and a button that says "Donate to XYZ through Network for Good" seems like it could still be construed as a solicitation for XYZ. But it's clear that in this way, Network for Good is providing something that the for-profit processors aren't (especially useful for charities that just want to get up and running with minimal hassle). I have to be honest. It still seems to me that it's better, for all but the smallest charities, to just bite the bullet, do the registration, and use a cheaper merchant. You can register in all but four states using <a href="http://www.multistatefiling.org" rel="nofollow">a single form</a>, so this registration doesn't seem prohibitive. Still, I want to make sure this point isn't lost: that my initial post on this topic was wrong in its extreme conclusion, and I really appreciate your patiently working through the explanation with us. My initial post was vitriolic, partly because that's just my writing style, and partly because I was reacting to the current answer on your website - which truly feels like smoke and mirrors. But I was missing part of the picture, and I appreciate your straightening me out matter-of-factly rather than just reacting to my tone. That reflects well on Network for Good. (And I'm editing the original post to link to this conversation.) Right, that makes sense. At least, it seems safer to be soliciting through Network for Good than to be soliciting directly (via PayPal, for example) if you’re unregistered in some states. It still doesn’t seem 100% safe - as all the sites I looked at said, the legal issues are fuzzy, and a button that says “Donate to XYZ through Network for Good” seems like it could still be construed as a solicitation for XYZ. But it’s clear that in this way, Network for Good is providing something that the for-profit processors aren’t (especially useful for charities that just want to get up and running with minimal hassle).

I have to be honest. It still seems to me that it’s better, for all but the smallest charities, to just bite the bullet, do the registration, and use a cheaper merchant. You can register in all but four states using a single form, so this registration doesn’t seem prohibitive.

Still, I want to make sure this point isn’t lost: that my initial post on this topic was wrong in its extreme conclusion, and I really appreciate your patiently working through the explanation with us. My initial post was vitriolic, partly because that’s just my writing style, and partly because I was reacting to the current answer on your website - which truly feels like smoke and mirrors. But I was missing part of the picture, and I appreciate your straightening me out matter-of-factly rather than just reacting to my tone. That reflects well on Network for Good. (And I’m editing the original post to link to this conversation.)

]]> by: Katya Andresen http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-69 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:08:25 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-69 I tried to post here earlier but it didn't work -- one more try, because I wanted to respond. First, thanks for the update. You asked for any clarifications - the main one would be to explain that Network for Good is registered in the 39 states and has completed the 42 filings that are required in those states. (North Dakota, California and Virginia require multiple filings to be undertaken to comply with the charitible filing requirements, which is why there are 42 filings for 39 states.) So how does that help the nonprofits that use our system? As a donor-advised fund, we accept the donations FOR the nonprofits that use our system. Those donations are to Network for Good, then we grant the funds to the nonprofit directly. So that is how we cover the state registration issue for nonprofits. The funds are collected by us. Hope this makes things clearer - if not, let's continue the conversation. Oh, and regarding Kevin, he's offering $10,000 matching grants to nonprofits at Six Degrees right now, so he's doing his part! Not saying that just because I'm a Footloose fan, he really is supporting donors that fundraise for their causes with our SixDegrees charity badges. Thanks for all the feedback, we're listening and will put together a better explanation of our fees. Please weigh in when we do! All best, Katya I tried to post here earlier but it didn’t work — one more try, because I wanted to respond. First, thanks for the update. You asked for any clarifications - the main one would be to explain that Network for Good is registered in the 39 states and has completed the 42 filings that are required in those states. (North Dakota, California and Virginia require multiple filings to be undertaken to comply with the charitible filing requirements, which is why there are 42 filings for 39 states.) So how does that help the nonprofits that use our system? As a donor-advised fund, we accept the donations FOR the nonprofits that use our system. Those donations are to Network for Good, then we grant the funds to the nonprofit directly. So that is how we cover the state registration issue for nonprofits. The funds are collected by us. Hope this makes things clearer - if not, let’s continue the conversation. Oh, and regarding Kevin, he’s offering $10,000 matching grants to nonprofits at Six Degrees right now, so he’s doing his part! Not saying that just because I’m a Footloose fan, he really is supporting donors that fundraise for their causes with our SixDegrees charity badges. Thanks for all the feedback, we’re listening and will put together a better explanation of our fees. Please weigh in when we do! All best, Katya

]]> by: Jeremy Gregg http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-65 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:27:33 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/02/17/quick-update/#comment-65 I've been thinking about this issue, on and off, for years. (not sure what that says about me...but....) I responded on my blog with what I am calling, "An Open Letter to Venture Philanthropists," since I believe that it will take such a person to change this system. Read the letter here: <a href="http://theraiser.blogspot.com/2007/02/open-letter-to-venture-philanthropists.html" rel="nofollow">http://theraiser.blogspot.com/2007/02/open-letter-to-venture-philanthropists.html</a> Thanks for helping me to clarify some of my thoughts on this issue. I'll let you know if I hear from Gates, Branson or Omidyar. :) I’ve been thinking about this issue, on and off, for years.

(not sure what that says about me…but….)

I responded on my blog with what I am calling, “An Open Letter to Venture Philanthropists,” since I believe that it will take such a person to change this system.

Read the letter here:
http://theraiser.blogspot.com/2007/02/open-letter-to-venture-philanthropists.html

Thanks for helping me to clarify some of my thoughts on this issue.

I’ll let you know if I hear from Gates, Branson or Omidyar. :)

]]>