A poll last week surveying Internet Evolution
readers on their online philanthropy habits has produced some interesting results, which give a nod to the side of the room suggesting we do not yet use the Web to its fullest potential.
The poll was devised to supplement our Big Report -- The
Internet and the Developing World -- which outlines challenges
developing nations face in adopting Internet-run technologies.
The report also looks at several Web 2.0 philanthropy sites
(RealityCharity, Firstgiving, Kiva, MicroPlace) attempting to bridge the gap between the developed and underdeveloped worlds via transparent, interactive giving portals.
More than 400 readers have weighed in thus far, and, based on our results, a majority of Internet
users are not taking advantage of these technologies. Additionally, most find giving to the developing world via the Internet is "way too
risky":
Dane Bodien Low, a Canadian student using the Firstgiving portal to raise funds for NPO Room to Read, tells me that it is due to skepticism/paranoia that we are not yet seeing the full potential of online philanthropy.
"The only downside with working with online fundraisers is that people
are hesitant to donate online using their credit card," he says. Low, who has raised $5,571 toward his $17,000 goal thus far, is optimistic that Web 2.0 philanthropy will gain grassroots support as people familiarize themselves with the ease of giving online. "It really is just going to come down to exposing to the public just how
easy Web 2.0 has made it for people to make a massive difference
through mass collaboration."
In addition to feeling uneasy about where their money is going, some potential donors simply feel online giving isn't satisfying. According to IQCrewer rmwilliamsC2C, "The point is online donations can [be] cold and impersonal. It might
sound hokey [but] I think folks like to hear someone say 'thanks' when they
call into a local or national fund raising organization."
While this may be part of the problem, sites like RealityCharity and Kiva are making efforts to personalize online giving by implementing social networking features and allowing fundraisers to post photos, back stories, and updates, thus generating a sense of connectedness for donors. These sites also combat the trust issue by posting constant updates of funds raised/loaned.
Regardless, just like anything else brand new, online philanthropy will have to prove itself to the say nayers and the archaic types who've developed a fondness for licking envelopes and an aversion to pointing and clicking.
In the meantime, take our new poll, whydontcha: Tools of the Web. It's wholly unrelated to this topic and is less likely to make you feel bad about yourselves.
Nicole,Many thanks for your excellent research in this area.This information has been very helpful in my work at a large not-for-profit.
I’ve been impressed with Kiva’s capabilities both in their innovative use of Web 2.0 features and especially with their use of PayPal to navigate around credit card concerns.
Using PayPal probably saves Kiva a lot of hassle and money, especially in regards to PCI DSS.Most anyone who would be a Kiva lender would have a PayPal account and be comfortable using it.This seems like a masterstroke for both Kiva and PayPal – the partnership relationship is shown on Kiva’s site and is posted below.
The Partnership: PayPal is a proud supporter of Kiva.org's mission and organization. As an official partner, PayPal provides Kiva.org with access to technology, research, workplace resources and employee volunteers. Additionally, PayPal provides Kiva.org with free payment processing - Kiva.org's largest variable cost - thus enabling 100% of the loaned funds to reach entrepreneurs in developing countries. Kiva.org uses PayPal's innovative payment solutions to securely and seamlessly distribute funds around the globe.
I think many of the reservations regarding online giving are
from the various forms of spam we get about helping some child with a story
about missing legs, limbs, families or other such sob stories that request
money. While some may be true, the stories themselves are utterly unbelievable and almost
certainly, in those situations, the money never gets to where it is supposedly
going to go.
Also, I think that people are sometimes lazy. If I'm going to donate
money, I don't want to go through and research charities to find out if my
money is going to be used. I'd much rather donate to a charity I know is
reputable and just be done with it.
The outcome of your latest pole is again quite interesting––it reveals the reservations many people have regarding online philanthropy. What caught my attention though during the poll and the reactions it catalyzed, is that the focus was very much on donating to 3rd world (and related) projects and the apparent dangers here.
Fundraising projects closer to home, for Wikipedia and Creative Commons for instance, have been rather successful. I think that the mere fact that these efforts are more 'palpable' to us doesn't cover the whole picture. This because especially the aforementioned examples made a great deal out of giving donors an idea of where their money actually went, and frequently sent out updates about the latest developments. Moreover, donors were credited and treated in a personal way. So maybe this strategy might be helpful for other causes as well––although I do not want to underestimate the negative effect of distant initiatives on people's trust and generosity.
Good points. Users are absolutely concerned about fraud and worried their dollars are not going to those in need. For this reason, however, many charity evaluator sites have sprung up on the Web. There's a list of them in the Big Report which gives a brief outline of how each one operates and what services it provides. These sites are here to let you know which charities/NPOs operate appropriately and which ones take a big chunk of your donations for overhead/admin costs, fancy functions, etc. Intelligent Giving, for example, rates the U.K.'s largest charities, using a scoring system to evaluate the transparency of their annual reports. A similar site in the U.S. which evaluates annual reports to assess financial health of U.S.-based charities is Charity Navigator.
I remember when 9/11 happened there were many websites that were taking donations from people over the internet and some of those websites ended up just ripping people off and not giving any of the donations to 9/11 charities. That would be my biggest concern with donating over the interent. Other than that I would have no issue with it.
Your post did address the issue of comfort of using online credit cards and the idea that people want to be thanked.
The thought that came to mind was
1. Maybe there is a concern with regard to end use of funds collected. Does the charity provide audited reports on usage of funds. "Did the money i sent help the people who really need it"
2. Lack of Independent charity rating systems and also awareness of the charity could be an issue. The related issue is how are some of the older charities such as CRY using the internet and how do they compare with some of the charities mentioned in the report.
3. Personal contact with people who benefited is also important to some people and im not sure the Internet medium is useful there, for now atleast.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been working with Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) to look into the attacks on its Chinese servers.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Data mining of social networks means people might face unforeseen consequences as a result of their seemingly innocuous personal choices and associations.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
Some of the "cool" people are testing a new Web service: Blippy. It could be a great data source for corporations to glean info about customers’ credit card purchases. But it has all sorts of possible privacy and security problems. Buyer beware!
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
