New Competition for ‘Traditional’ Nonprofits

While reviewing an online donation form recently, I came across this default question: “keep me informed about how my gift is being used.”  This seemed like an opportunity to find out exactly how a donation would be used by our organization. e.g. to support research, to sponsor an event, to provide constituent service.  However it turned out that this question was actually intended as an opt-in for email communication.  Needless to say, I advised that we revise the language so the constituent isn’t promised something that we aren’t prepared to deliver.

Yet in a recent Chronicle of Philanthropy article, Give and Take (subscription required), many new nonprofits were profiled that can tell donors exactly how their funds are used by allowing constituents to contribute directly to a project of their choice.  This trend is referred to as ‘direct giving’ or ‘peer-to-peer philanthropy’ and is utilized by organizations such as GlobalGiving, Kiva, DonorsChoose and ModestNeeds.

These nonprofits are maintained through mostly optional fees added to the donation, although GiveMeaning is trying the advertising route. Since none of these organizations are self-supporting yet, it’s unsure whether this concept will survive and, if so, which of these charities will remain.  However, the ability to donate directly to a cause is an area where many traditional nonprofits cannot compete, especially when donations for specific causes are discouraged so funds received are not ‘restricted’ in their use.

Without the Internet, this type of philanthropy would not exist.  Make a donation to one of these organizations and see how your constituent experience compares to what you’ve received from most traditional nonprofits.  For a profile of these types of sites, visit Peter Dietz’s Social Actions

Group Fundraising – converting donors to fundraisers

Peter Dietz, micro-philanthropy consultant, hosted a Nten webinar on group fundraising last week, reviewing many new services which allow constituents to do their own fundraising for charities they support.  Although funds raised in this manner still represent a small portion of online fundraising, this is clearly a growing trend that nonprofits should take full advantage of.  Major points:

  • There are currently about 20 services of this type, all which have widely different revenue and commission structure, ranging for 0% for GiveMeaning (which is sponsored by corporations) to some that charge up to 10%.  It’s best to review what each offers and choose one to focus on, rather than confusing constituents with multiple options that work differently
  • Chipin and FirstGiving heavily use widgets which allow placing fundraising buttons on pesonal web sites / blogs;  many of the other services will probably add this capability
  • Group fundraising works best when funds are being raised for a specific purpose and the nonprofit organization makes it clear how the donation will be used
  • Other differences between the available services:
    • whether they can be used only for 501c3 organizations or by anyone
    • whether they are intended to raise money for specific targets or for any purpose
    • whether they share donor data with the recipient organization
    • some are setup as for profit organizations, others are nonprofit
    • whether or not a fundraising goal can be established

More is available at Nten’s web site.  This is an area that should be explored by all nonprofits.  As Peter suggested, ‘give them (supporters) what they need,’ then ‘get out of the way.’