Most people are inherently good in at least some small, out of the way corner of themselves. I have always thought this and maybe that is what gets me into relationships with some pretty bad people. On the other hand, I have seen quite a few people (who society might perceive as being "bad") do some very good things under the right circumstances.
Take me for example. I am not a saint by anyone's standards, but this year I actually donated to Obama for President. It was the first time in my life I actually made a donation to a political campaign. Barak Obama is something of a physical embodiment of his message of change, and I thought then, and do now, that he is the first person of color to have a realistic chance of being elected President.
Most Americans would like to do something for someone, to feel as though they make even a small difference in our world. Just working to pay the bills takes up most of our time, and even with the best intentions it is hard to get anything done, so most of us end up doing very little.
Today I ran across a site that claims to allow anyone and everyone to do something positive for various causes just by clicking on links to sponsor sites. A friend of mine had links to this site on her Myspace page, so I checked them out. I thought it was a cool idea, but I wanted to dig a little deeper before I gave the site any publicity. After all, there are so many things on the web that are either totally bogus or pretty questionable at best.
Greater Good Network is run by CharityUSA.com, a for-profit company based in Seattle, Washinton. It has been around in one form or another since 1999. The company sells advertising on its site. The advertisers pay CharityUSA on a per-click basis for the traffic the site drives to theirs. A part of the proceeds are then donated to the charities represented on the site.
Article comments
1 - Pete
Thanks Mike; you have helped me help them. Hearty barks and meows to you~
2 - Samantha Klein
This sounds more like an ad than a review.
It seems inappropiate to me to review a fundraising organization as a Web site. The more important issues would be about the effectiveness of the effort and I would expect a review of a fundraising organization to rely on more research than using the "references" they give themselves (snopes).
While CharityUSA.com seems to be a shadowy private, for-profit organization that doesn't even identify the people behind it at their corportate Web site, just a quick Web search turned up a filing with the State of Washington.
This report provides a bit of financial information for the company's 2007 fiscal year. For that fiscal year, the company reported "raising" $11,280,900 of which $1,724,030 or 16% went to charity. Of the $1.7 million given to charity, $498,735 came from cash contributions, which CharityUSA passes through to charities. The remaining $1,225,295 given to charities came from advertising revenues and sales commissions. That's less than 12% of the %10.7 million in revenues from those sources.
As the company notes in this report, they pass through 100% of "sponsor advertising" to their partner charities. They also use this "fact" repeatedly on their Web sites to pitch their "service." They do not provide a breakdown of revenues in the Washington State report, but clearly if they are passing through 100% of advertising revenues and only donated $1.2 million total in 2007, the vast majority of their revenues are in sales commissions and the vast majority of those revenues are going into the company's coffers, not to charity.
I don't think there's anything illegal here, but I feel that the company misrepresents itself and its accomplishments. Their FAQs say, for example, that "GreaterGood.org is an independent charitable organization" when it's not a charitable organization in any sense of the word (and therefore conveniently not subject to the state disclosure laws charities must follow). It's a company that hit upon a clever way to make money from Web advertising and affiliate programs. It probably does no harm - since they are clever enough to pass through actual cash donations - but I don't think it is the altruistic organization many seem to think it is. It's no different than any company who says if you do X, we will donate Y - with Y not amounting to much.
3 - Natasha Burton
Thanks to both Mike and Samantha for researching this. I would agree that the company seems shady...that is why I was doing research on them. It was the fact that they have not published really specific explanation of how they work with their "affiliate" sites, who is really selling the merchandise in their “shops,” etc. I will keep in mind that greatergood.com seems to be a perfectly legitimate as an online vendor, and will consider that were I to do business with them, a couple of the dollars I spend might go to charity. Unfortunately, now that I feel they have misrepresented themselves, I am not sure I want the rest of the dollars going to the people at CharityUSA.
4 - sc
I was thinking of giving to this charity until I read Obama in write up. No Way
5 - PashaP
To Samantha Klein:
You failed to make any distinction between the facts and your opinions. If you had only taken more time to read Mike Johnston’s article (and the WA State Commercial Fundraiser Profile Report for Charity USA you provided), you might have realized your opinions lack critical thinking. Maybe you were unable or unwilling to analyze without bias, but in my opinion, your viewpoints are unnecessarily negative, cynical, and baseless. I also wondered whether your misperceptions, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the facts were intentional, but I will leave this for the readers to decide as I explain further.
When you presented the reader with percentages and dollar amounts that go to charity, why would you question the amount when detailed explanations were clearly provided in the same (one-page) report, showing how money is raised, distributed, and used? It seems you were unwilling to read the rest of the (one-page) report, so I’m asking readers exactly how would we expect Charity USA to be able to partner with 40 countries, send buyers to 23 countries, work with payments to charity that vary between three and thirty percent, network with companies on Click-Thru Campaigns that don’t cost the user anything to participate, and absorb the cost of bank/financing fees from credit/debit card donations?
There’s more I did not list; my point is, if we don’t know how to run a business of this scope or scale, who are we to judge how they run their business? Try not to make assessments without researching or presenting all the facts, or infer their business isn’t being run properly, especially when you made no claims regarding your own education, accreditation or experience in the business field or with this type of business model.
In my opinion, your failure to answer your own question, when the explanation was in the same report, indicates you came to this forum with a closed mind and preconceived notions about the company. Otherwise, please tell me how could I be wrong? And your use of the term “shadowy” might be considered libel.
You said Charity USA: “…doesn't even identify the people behind it at their corporate Web site…” If you took the time to click on “About This Site,” you would find: “The Hunger Site is owned and operated by Tim Kunin and Greg Hesterberg, co-owners of CharityUSA.com (parent company of GreaterGood Network).” (You might have to select Page 2 to find either their names or their backgrounds, depending on the amount of information each site contains about the particular site you’re on).
You also didn’t state your opinion on issues Charity USA addresses. It could be you don’t care about poor women, children, animals, literacy, breast cancer, the rainforest, or, if you do care, what are you doing to help? Are you against any form of help to the poor and marginalized, or must it be your way of helping others? Please don’t disparage people’s willingness to do something for those less fortunate than you.
The Colbert Report interview of author Sheryl WuDunn, who wrote “Half the Sky,” had a story about a micro loan (I think for $65) that was given to a woman from Pakistan who ultimately helped herself and others in her village. I learned more about her story from other sources.
Her husband would beat her, and threatened to “trade her in” because she had given birth to two daughters, when he had wanted a son instead. He was unemployed before his wife used the micro loan to start an embroidery business, and she became successful enough to hire 30 villagers, including her husband!
Empowering women, as the Charity USA report states, (is reinforced by): “…our belief that selling artisan products made by rural women is one of the most important things we do because it reduces intergenerational poverty and has been correlated with improved education for children, reduced incidence of disease, and increased family and community incomes.”
Samantha, as a woman (specifically, and a human being in general), don’t you care about the struggles and hardships women and children endure? If you think any organization is somehow self-serving, by your not describing anything compassionate about yourself, even if you think it’s off topic, readers will focus not only on your failing points but your humanity, further distancing your credibility from your ability to reason, in my opinion.
To Natasha Burton:
I am amazed by the opinion: “I would agree that the company seems shady...that is why I was doing research on them. It was the fact that they have not published really specific explanation of how they work with their "affiliate" sites, who is really selling the merchandise in their “shops,” etc.”
Notice I didn’t say “your opinion” because you have none; you clearly borrowed this opinion from Samantha, because if you read the (one-page) report, there’s more to the narrative that either of you were telling the reader, and the concept of how “affiliate sites” work is extremely simple, has been around for at least a decade, and the answer to how it works is readily available to anyone with internet access or an email account (by emailing the company or they’re affiliates to find out it’s a cost-effective way to generate revenue, and to answer your own question).
When you said: “…(I) will consider that were I to do business with them, a couple of the dollars I spend might go to charity. Unfortunately, now that I feel they have misrepresented themselves, I am not sure I want the rest of the dollars going to the people at Charity USA.” I am disappointed you used terms like “shady” and “misrepresented,” remarks that might be considered libel, instead of following through on your own research or taking a moment to think for yourself.
Two things: If you think your contribution isn’t being distributed to your satisfaction, you can visit any of their sites to join their free-to-use Click-Thru Campaigns, you are generating revenue without spending your own money, and if you do buy something, you are getting something you want, but you are helping not only this generation, but generations to come, and if you just want to donate dollars to the cause, if you had read the (I keep stressing, one-page) report, it said: “One hundred percent (100%) of monies given as contributions from the public were paid directly to charities, without any deductions for expenses incurred by CharityUSA.com, LLC, (such as credit card processing or bank fees).” That means they will forward 100% of your donation, and absorb any processing fees!
And finally, to sc:
“I was thinking of giving to this charity until I read Obama in write up. No Way.”
So am I correct to think the only deciding factor preventing your generosity to those in need is because the author that gave a favorable review of said charity gave money to Obama? What mechanism affects your ability to one moment feel inspired towards charity then rationalizes your dislike of Obama as the reason for changing your mind?
I’m sorry to have to read more into this, but in my opinion yours is a childlike response that ended up hurting others, and it sounds like your hatred (continues?) to outweigh your compassion. Maybe you need to learn how to compartmentalize…unless you’re having a joke at our expense, you’re not making a bit of sense. Please stop to think how much so little money does for poor people, women and their children, animals, literacy, breast cancer, and the rainforests.
As Gandhi said: “Become the change you want to see in the world.” I think this means you must accept responsibility for your negative viewpoint, and consider how your reaction harms the world around you.