I've heard of iGive.com, I've visited the web site, I've even considered using it to raise funds for our kids' school. But somewhere in the back of my head I am hearing phrases like: it's too good to be true & there's no such thing as a free lunch. Is it too good to be true? Or is it, in fact, a free lunch? As they describe it: You shop, they win! Help your favorite cause for free. Doesn't that sound too good to be true, mamas? Much as I oppose most advertising, I do understand its role in all this, so maybe that's the deal here? Buyers forced to see a few ads, money flows to charity. Now that kind of advertising I can take. Like the vocabulary & rice game we shared recently.
Anyone have experience with iGive? How, exactly, did it work? From what I can tell, the only minor hassle is that you have to shop through the iGive website (an extra step), and you have to confirm that the store you're purchasing from is participating. And, of course, someone's got to set up the charity as a recipient. Are there other online giving sites like this that might be better? Do tell!










The concept is simple, when you shop online through any "Shop & Donate" mall, merchants pay a commission to that mall. The mall in return provides the listed percentage as a donation, with the balance covering administrative and operating expenses.
If you are interested in a new alternative for online fundraising,go to GiveStream ( http://www.givestream.com ). It offers a set of free and easy-to-use online fundraising and community-building tools that help nonprofits create their own branded easy giving center. And we're offering a contest for a matching grant of up to $10,000 for nonprofits who sign up now! Please let me know if you have any questions. michael (at) givestream (dot) com
In my opinion GiveStream is better because it provides non-profit organizations with a dedicated fundraising center where supporters do not have to login or search for their particular non-profit from an endless list other organizations.
Posted by: Michael Ben-Nes | December 12, 2007 at 11:52 PM
There's an article in today's NYT on this very topic, though it focuses on in-store rather than online transactions: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/us/13giving.html?ex=1355288400&en=250d64cf1c746db0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.
Seems there are some downsides, like are the charities getting the money? Who's counting? Who's taking the tax deduction? Are people givign less $ directly b/c they're doing this instead? Personally, I think the conveninece of say, buying a $20 bag of groceries when I'm buying my own is terrific - I can see what I'm buying and it hits home when i'm buying food for my own family. I'll bet that raises more $ to alleviate hunger than relying on checks to the food bank.
In the end, is it marketing run amuk or a great way to raise funds? There's just a little something about a WWF logo dangling from 45 turtlenecks that doesn't seem quiote right. But, if someone's gonna buy those t-necks anyway, why not save some wild animals why they're at it?
Posted by: Lisa | December 13, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Hi Lisa,
Your concerns are similar to ours.
You can read our post about the NYT article in our blog: http://blog.givestream.com/2007/12/17/whos-getting-what/
Posted by: Michael Ben-Nes | December 18, 2007 at 06:43 AM