Nice initiative, please consider adopting IAB standard ad sizes like 300x250, 728x90, 468x60, etc so you can access to more remnant inventory.
Right now many ad companies use Greenpeace or Red Cross for serving something when they run out of ads. It shouldn't be hard to get some impressions from them, but the standard ad sizes will be a common requirement.
I get the impression this is more geared towards sites that would run the Deck, Fusion, et al. In other words, sites that tend to have very limited advertising and don't subscribe to the IAB's definition of size standards.
"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.
> "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.
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.
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.
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.
Give me a means to host this on my site so that I don't share my users' data and browsing habits with you, and I've got a couple places I'll be happy set it up. For example, a similar drop-in chunk of code and script to host locally, along with a cron that I run once daily to fetch the day's updates.
Actually I stand corrected. You'd need an API key with GiveForward. I could see if they'd let me host the day's campaigns at an API endpoint for custom solutions.
Ummm... maybe? It could work but wouldn't be as preferable - only because that means that for as long as I'm including that on my site, I have to trust you to Do the Right Thing in terms of what you're putting inside of it, with no way to preview it.
This is really great. If you're ever interested in expanding into the environmental sector we're at the intersection of both environment and community development and would love to chat.
This is great. You should work to get publishers to donate x% of ad inventory to charity of their choosing. They can then write off the inventory's value for tax purposes too.
Given that many charities that pay up to 95% of the funds they raise to third party marketing companies, I don't think it would be out of line at all to give the sites hosting these ads a cut of the funds they raise. There's nothing wrong with offering a win-win proposition, and it would get you more traction.
I can't express how much I love this idea. This is excellent way to go about it. I hope you will grow as a platform and this can be standard way to be charitable.
Right now many ad companies use Greenpeace or Red Cross for serving something when they run out of ads. It shouldn't be hard to get some impressions from them, but the standard ad sizes will be a common requirement.
Good luck!