I have always considered justgiving to be one of those truly inspired and yet oh-so -simple, ideas that the Internet brought with it and one that has become fairly synonymous with its sector i.e. charity.
My first words last weekend, when my sister asked me to sponsor her to do a fun run, were ‘just email me your justgiving page details’. Imagine my surprise when she said she would ‘put my name on the form’…yes, believe it or not, she actually had a piece of paper and a pen and, horror of all horrors, NO JUSTGIVING page! I had no idea that people still did that and if I my memories of calling in the debts on those forms are anything to go by, she will be years collecting up her pledges, just as I was when I attempted my sponsored silence about 25 years ago.
However, collect her cash or not, what I hadn’t thought about until a recent chat with a charity who shall remain nameless – and why would I, I usually simply tick the ‘Gift Aid’ box and move on, was the 5%. I guess if I had thought about it I would have known and indeed felt it fair enough that justgiving received some kind of admin fee for their trouble and enterprising idea, but 5%? This seemed to be a bit of a hornets nest.
5 % of the circa £25 million donated via justgiving in this year’s London Marathon is, now, let me see… yes, £1,250,000. That is quite a lot of money diverted from charity even before we move onto the admin costs of the charities themselves. And, it seems that the normal card transaction fees are outside of this charge, making the 5%, or 5.75% if you include VAT, quite a hefty sum.
So, my question is this, is it wrong? justgiving are set up as a profit making private enterprise an d in answer to their critics state that “Fundraising costs in the UK [...] between 15% and 25% (source: www.charityfacts.org). So Justgiving’s 5% represents excellent value, especially for smaller charities with limited resources.”
I don’t know what to think about this. It is a dilemma and if I am honest, if I had thought of it, I would a) be fairly well off and b) doubtless be justifying my fee on the basis that some 5000 registered charities benefit from the £340million or so channelled through justgiving.
However, it seems that the gripe from charities is that not only do they have to pay the 5%, they also have to accept the rise and rise of justgiving as a charity brand in its own right, taking limelight from their own brands and marketing efforts. A whisper tells me that there are a couple of new entrants who are charging less than justgiving and allowing charities the option of white labelling their online fundraising tools.. so who are they, does anyone know? will they be the ones to level the playingfield and is there really a problem here, or is this a storm in the charity digital tea-cup?
![[del.icio.us]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Ma.gnolia]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/magnolia.png)
![[Reddit]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Twitter]](http://charitymash.com/resource/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
June 9th, 2009 at 09:33
Hello Vicky, thanks for writing the article, you make some great points. However, there are a couple of things I’d like to pick up on. Describing the 5% of the £25 million raised for the London marathon (a new record online, I might add) as being diverted from charities is somewhat disingenuous. Would that much have been raised without the amazing efforts of the people who use our site, and the ways our website helps people reach out to their networks online? I doubt it.
And for us to have been able to process that amount of donations in the lead up to the marathon required an investment of £1.5 million in our world-class technology infrastructure. Our profits (which we didn’t always make – our investors put up with £5 Million in losses in our earlier years) go back into the business to make our website better, and improve the service to individuals and charities alike.
On the subject of improving our service, you mention a point about charity brands, and that is one of the things we are addressing with our new site, launching very soon. One of the developments we are working on for the new site is the allowing charities to take more control of their presence on JustGiving, to let their brand and logo be more prominent, whilst our own branding and logo fade into the background. But this is just one new development for us, as we’ve been building our new site for over 18 months so that we can constantly provide new and useful services to charities and individuals to help them raise more online.
Jonathan Waddingham, charity champion, JustGiving.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:45
On a slightly different note, the update for the iPhone enables payments to be made from within applications, directly from your iTunes account. Mobile applications, especially iPhone, have a lot of potential for fund-raising and awareness but the downside is that the App Store takes 30% of the transaction (ouch!). When push comes to shove, that’s not massively different from the fees on other mobile transactions such as SMS but it does make the platform less attractive to non-profits.
June 12th, 2009 at 10:10
Justgiving take almost 10% of the net amount donated (or just over 7% of the gross amount) in charges and fees. It’s a little like booking an airflight only to find you have to pay more to check-in. From the numbers they publish I reckon they DEDUCT £4.5 million a year from UK charity donations. That is money that should have been going to help others who are less well off. The argument that the money would not otherwise have been raised is without merit. Those running JustGiving should feel shame for running this scam. They are taking money from the least well off and least able to speak for themselves.
Put another way, that is £4.5 million of fund raising (walking, cycling, collecting, etc) that does not go to the intended charity but to the fat cats at JustGiving.
Shameful.
June 16th, 2009 at 17:12
Dear Pete, rather than feeling ashamed of what we do, we’re really proud of the amounts raised by the amazing users of our website. Far from being ‘fat cats’, the team that started JustGiving, led by CEO Zarine, have been recognised as adding a tremendous amount to the sector. In fact, the RSA this year awarded Zarine the Albert Medal for ‘democratising fundraising and technology for charities’. http://justgiving.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/justgivings-ceo-zarine-kharas-awarded-rsa%E2%80%99s-albert-medal-for-democratising-fundraising%E2%80%99/
To answer your question about the merit of our argument that not as much would’ve been raised without our site? Well, the people who raised all that money and donated told us – consistently, 30% of sponsors on the site said that they wouldn’t have donated if they hadn’t been sent a link to an online fundraising page.
Jonathan Waddingham, charity champion, JustGiving
June 16th, 2009 at 19:25
Hi Vicky
I’m one of the founders of Bmycharity – http://www.bmycharity.com. Like Justgiving, we charge a commission on the donations we collect, though our typical charge is lower than Justgiving’s (http://www.bmycharity.com/for_charities.aspx). We’re very proud of the nearly £25 million raised through Bmycharity so far, and now that the market has matured new pricing models are emerging. We’re also pleased that some of the other organisations that help with online sponsorship are starting to acknowledge that it’s the brand of the charity that should shine through on every fundraising page – and that every page represents an opportunity not just to collect donations, but to build relationships. That’s why every Bmycharity page contains a content management system (CMS) enabling each charity to recruit new supporters, engage volunteers, provide services and much more – all for free. Charities that build relationships rather than just asking for money are rewarded with higher average donations (our current average is £38.90, 32% higher than the figure reported by Justgiving in April 09).
On the question of profiteering from charitable fundraising, we believe in keeping overheads low. My co-founder Matt Cooper and I were volunteering for Whizz-Kidz when we started developing Bmycharity, and we have never had any additional investment, so we’ve built a very lean business that does not have to repay millions of pounds to investors and lenders. We failed Oxfam’s ethical supplier questionnaire because we paid ourselves nothing and worked 80 hours per week, qualifying according to Oxfam as a “sweatshop”. (We offered them the opportunity to grant us an exemption or pay us more, and they agreed to offer an exemption!).
Now that the market for online fundraising is maturing prices will go down, and organisations with low overheads and flexible platforms will continue to ensure that charities pay low fees and benefit from great opportunities to engage with new supporters.
Ben
June 16th, 2009 at 20:30
We’ve been using Justgiving since the early days of the site. Yes we pay a fee to justgiving but in return we are able to offer a service to our fundraisers that would be impossible to replicate in house.
Over the last few years we’ve noticed that the vast majority of our fundraisers raise more by using the site, this is because the average donation from each sponsor is higher and they’re able to reach out to more people converting vague pledges of support into to actual cash. Gift Aid recovery is also much higher through justgiving meaning that each page is worth even more to us than it’s equivalent paper form.
Processing donations on traditional paper sponsor forms can be a very labour intensive process, especially to claim Gift Aid. Because of Justgiving we’re able to use this time to concentrate on other areas of our work.
As a charity we use them because they’re helping us to make the most out of our fundraising. If we felt that the service was depriving us of income or damaging our brand there is no way that myself as a fundraiser or the trustees of the charity would be using or promoting the site. The fact that justgiving bmycharity and others have support from 1000s of charities suggests the model is a good one.
Ian
Fundraising Manager, Meningitis Research Foundation
June 16th, 2009 at 20:55
Jonathan, Ben, Ian,
Thank you all for your comments – the debate goes on and it is great that everyone is using the opportunity to debate what is clearly a very important issue to charities and those who work for and with them.
I don’t profess to know the answers to the debate I raised, but welcome thoughts from other charities and indeed JustGiving and similar providers. Perhaps, like many things, the suppliers of these facilities will evolve, as Jonathan suggests that Justgiving will, to ensure that charities are able to maximise their brand equity and direct relationships with donors?
Vicky
June 19th, 2009 at 20:26
I have to say that this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart as we develop our site OneGiving. I have worked in Philanthropy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Nonprofit and Social Policy Change for most of my career and I pretty much consider myself a bleeding heart, a passionate advocate for social justice and change. For much of my life, I thought to myself, I don’t need to make a lot of money, I’m on this planet to promote change and to do good. But more recently, I started realizing that there are a lot of very wealthy people out there doing good that don’t have an expertise in the arena of philanthropy. Yes, they have a lot of expertise in giving their money away, but unlike in their business affairs, they have not translated this same strategic giving and really begun to track accountability in giving. The emergence of sites like JustGiving and others (like ours to come) are taking the best of philanthropy and nonprofit experts, combining it with technical expertise to create a service. Why is it that other businesses can make money on their services but we aren’t able in ours? My goal in all my consulting has always been – to teach corporations how to give strategically to help their bottom line and to align their business goals with philanthropy to be a better fit and with foundations to be more strategic than charitable (a word I don’t like) and with nonprofits to find ways to add in elements of sustainability and entrepreneurialism so as not to remain at the mercy of donations. As we move forward further into the 21st century, it is my hope that the line between corporations and nonprofits begins to blend as both sides take on a triple bottom line approach. The giving sites and services provided, from what I can tell, have their hearts in the right place and are providing a service. Shouldn’t this be compensated? It is money that otherwise wouldn’t have been tapped as rapidly by the nonprofit world. Just food for thought.
June 24th, 2009 at 15:25
Dear Jonathan,
Perhaps your CEO would like to apply for a “commercialising funding” award, as that is what you are doing. Your statistic that 30% of sponsors would not have donated misses the point. Would these people not have donated if a paper form was put in front of them? I think they would have – in truth it is a creative statistic on your part in an attempt to justify profiteering from charities and in turn from the people those charities support.
Do you feel the pride that you speak of when you see an old person who needs a Zimmer but cannot afford one? That’s where your profit came from Jonathan.
The money raised would have been raised without your business; the difference is that the worthwhile causes would have the money, not you.
Hopefully some of the big charities will get together and create a non-for-profit organisation to collects donations on the web. Then there will be absolutely no place for outfits like yours.
June 24th, 2009 at 17:51
I don’t think that’s a fair accusation, Pete, and I’m not convinced the money would have been raised without JustGiving.
I remember going round friends and neighbours, first to get sponsors and then again to collect the money. It’s bloody hard work and having to chase your mates up for a few quid is not a great way to spend your evenings. JustGiving removes that pain, provides greater reach, trust and leaves the peer-to-peer fundraiser free to concentrate on jumping out of plane, climbing a mountain or laying in a bath of spaghetti hoops….
Rule 1 of of the internet is, if you something easy for people to do, they’re more likely to do it. JustGiving.com unquestionably makes it easier for people to make donations and for the fundraisers to collect the money from them. They also handle Gift Aid and deposit the money straight into the charity’s bank account.
I’m not a big JustGiving fan, but I’m honest enough to admit that JustGiving does provide a valuable service to non-profits (by connecting them to peer to peer fundraisers) and it is only fair that it makes money from that provision. Many charities’ staff don’t work for free. Many businesses, independent fundraisers, project managers and consultants, including myself, provide services to non-profits for which we expect to be paid. That’s business and, if our services do not provide a beneficial return on investment, we don’t get hired.
The questions isn’t should they do it for free, that would be commercial insanity, but does the rate genuinely represent a good deal for charities (or is there a better alternative) and is their brand becoming more important than the charities they service.
As for the big charities, who make up less than 5% of UK charities and receive over 80% of UK funding, if they were to set up a transactional service, would it really benefit the smaller charities in the direct way that JustGiving helps fundraisers to do, or would it work, albeit benignly to grab a greater slice of the pie for themselves?
June 30th, 2009 at 09:53
Justgiving have recognised that they are going to be accused of profiteering from their service. I think that is why they have been asking the question that they report the 30% statistic. It’s not a reliable statistic however. Which would you be more likely to respond to: an email with a justgiving link [delete button] or a person with a form standing in front of you? [Do you ever say no?]
Point made I think.
I have not had a problem collecting money – most people give the money up front before the event happens. Okay, I might not get the chance to boast of my achievement so much this way, but the charity does get all the money and all the gift aid too. None of it is siphoned off in fees etc.
Justgiving are NOT being honest. For example, they list their fee as 5% but then add VAT on top of that. How would you feel if your favourite chocolate bar was priced on the shelf as £1.00 and that became £1.15 at the till?
They also claim to take their spoils from the gift aid – but again that is a misleading statement since they calculate their 5% + 15% fee over the whole amount.
(it doesn’t even end there, as they are collecting fee for others too)
I agree that this could be a useful service Alec – but it’s been setup to use that “could” as an excuse to take money that would otherwise have gone to the charities into justgiving’s profits.
Look at this from another angle – lets says someone asked you to donate money for a good cause and in return she would sit in a bath of beans – but she would deduct 10% of what you give as a reward(profit) for herself. Would you think that was acceptable?
If justgiving had been setup as a charity themselves then their overhead would have been lower – the fees they collect for themselves and others would have been lower too. The charities – all charities Alec, would have got more of the cash.
But they’re not a charity – more of a parasite.
July 2nd, 2009 at 16:44
Call me ‘confused’ – I have been called that a lot ;-) but what do zimmer frames have to do with it?
I think we are losing sight that at the end of the day Just Giving are a business and not a charity. They are here to provide a service, and one that there was a definite gap in the market for. they also have staff and overheads to pay, just like any business and charity. No I don’t work for JG by the way! I can only go by personal experience of dealings with them.
Working for a charity for 12 years I have always found them open, transparent and accountable, with staff that will always go that extra mile to help if there are any enquiries. No-one has mentioned for example that JG do all the paperwork and claim all the gift aid back on behalf of the charities – that’s a lot of paperwork for a small to medium sized charity to cope with!
Again from personal experience, I truly believe that we as a charity would not have received as much revenue from fundraising events if it were not for Just Giving. We hold one huge annual event for example which is heavily attended by individuals and corporates alike. Emailing contacts with a button ‘donate now’ or similar is instant. You will find that people will remember to donate and find it easier because they simply get their credit or debit card out, leave a message maybe on the page and bosh it’s done and forgotten about.
I don’t like asking people to sponsor me. I don’t mind sending them an email though. It’s then up to them. It’s all down to personal choice at the end of the day. We issue paper sponsorshop packs and forms, but also information on Just Giving. We have a saying in that its not the challenge of doing a sponsored event that’s hard, it’s collecting the money afterwards.
If you really think 5% is bad, perhaps I should refer you to the National Lottery so called set up for good causes, which donates only 28p in the £1 to good causes, the majority of that going to opera houses, ballets or similar. Again ok if that’s what you are interested in, but better spent being given to the charities and organisations which really make a difference to this country and the people who live in it at grass roots.
July 2nd, 2009 at 17:13
How sad that Pete has such a Luddite view of things. The whole point is that charities can offer their supporters as wider choice as possible when it comes to making donations.
It’s not Justgiving’s fault if they need to make a charge for their services. Or is it your bank’s fault for making charges to administer your account, or an accountant for doping your book keeping? Charities are consumers too, they have the right to choose how and what they use to bring in donations.
I know a hospice that has its own Worldpay account to keep online donation charges to a minimum, but they lso use the excellent service offered by Justgiving for sponsored event donations, because they can’t beat it and it would cost more to set up their own.
Pete is sdaly wrong about paper forms for getting in donations. Sadly many charities lose a lot of £ from people who don’t cough up before or after the event. Justgiving and the other service providers offer an instant way to donate that meets the lifestyle of many younger people in particular.
Even CAF’s online service makes a charge and they are a charity!
Pete, get a life.
July 2nd, 2009 at 17:49
Pete… what you say above is bordering on the libelous. I’ve never read such an ill-informed rant. You ought to be ashamed, mate.
Vicky… “charities… also have to accept the rise and rise of justgiving as a charity brand in its own right, taking limelight from their own brands and marketing efforts.” You must be confusing JG with Virgin, surely? We will see.
I talk to charities all the time. I’ve heard absolutely no zero evidence of this “taking the limelight” accusation. Those that think this (if there are any) are on the path to irrelevance, for the power shifted long ago to the donor, and donor activists. Donors as partners.
JG and Bmycharity were a godsend to charities. The web will supply the tools for people to self-organise and fundraise, allowing charities to focus on what they do best: delivery and being the gatekeepers of social impact.
July 3rd, 2009 at 20:12
Steve, All,
I posed the question..
Cmash is the forum for the debate and a valuable one too if this debate is representative. As Alec points out, many individuals/orgs benefit from their service provision to the charity sector – I am included here. The question always comes down to ‘fairness’ of terms and that is obviously a subjective area. With competition in the JG market place, it would imply that the buyer has choices?
We don’t want to censor on Cmash, so let’s keep this, and other debates, clean and worthy of our intellects.
Have a good weekend all
Vicky
January 17th, 2010 at 13:17
Let’s not forget that charity fundraising someone is a highly professionalised field – in most fundraising the margin taken out by the costs of fundraising is easily 10% often more – salaried and commission staff, event organisation, venues, publicity, security. Some might be donated or sponsored, but we’re still talking a lot of overhead. That’s why charities like regular direct-debit commitments, they come with a lot less overhead.
All in all services like justgiving, charitiestrust were some of the first to make it possible for individuals to raise funds in a trustworthy manner without the kind of overhead charities have. Once people realised this was a)possible b)extremely popular, hopefully a newer generation will come making it slicker, easier, and leaving more to the charity.
What would make an immediate difference at justgiving is perhaps if they were more transparent about it, and perhaps allowed the fundraiser to choose to cover the fees. They would know what the fees are, be able to offer to cover them (a bit like Kiva’s option do donate-a-little-to-them when you make a loan) – and either way know exactly the amount the charity really got.
March 18th, 2010 at 19:16
JustGiving is a brilliant wheeze for benefiting the people who set it up. It could operate without a fee and rely instead on Google ads on its pages to cover its costs, like many other websites do. Once a website is up and running, it actually costs very little to run and can become a licence for printing money, as I’m convinced JustGiving is. I do get the occasional request from worthy young people looking for sponsorship for some great endeavour in aid of charity. If they exhort me to put my credit card details into JustGiving, I’m afraid I always reply to say that giving to JustGiving is contrary to my ethics and that it should be called Just Taking. Instead I ask for the details of how to donate to the charity directly, which is far more ethical than supporting this scam. If there is, as the author suggests, a website that provides the same service as JustGiving, but does not cream off anything for itself, then that would be handy to know about.
March 22nd, 2010 at 15:32
Dear All,
There is some lively and passionate debate here!
Charities choose to use JustGiving. These charities are free to run their own fundraising or to use websites similar to JustGiving.
Any charity that wants to offer the most to those it supports will ask itself two questions. How do I generate the most money? And how do I minimise the cost incurred in doing this? Many charities believe that JustGiving offers the best (not perfect) answer to these questions, as illustrated by the volume of donations given this way.
Those of us who are keen to maximise the money going to charities need to also ask two questions. Can charities really do this cheaper themselves? And if they can’t, is JustGiving the best outsourced option? These are questions to be engaged with, not speculated or pontificated about.
Without having access to company finances it is not possible to definitely answer the first question. What we can say is that given the scale benefits JustGiving now enjoy, it is unlikely that for small and medium sized charities, internal fundraising is cheaper. There may be odd exceptions here and there but on the whole this is likely to be true.
The second question is more interesting. For a business that has very few variable costs, charging 5% + VAT sounds high. However, debating whether it is reasonable or not misses the point. If there were a cheaper way to do what Justgiving does, then why doesn’t an organisation emerge to do it? This is not a rhetorical question. Maybe it is because no one has the financial backing (JustGiving’s shareholders sustained £5m losses in the organisation’s early years). Maybe no one can bring together the right combination of charity and IT people (after all, charity types are not usally javascript types). Maybe no one can manage as well as their charasmatic CEO – or, maybe JustGiving are providing the best service at the lowest cost.
It is impossible to theorise definitive answers to these questions. What we can do though is make the market challenge JustGiving’s operating model. If there is a operating model that can service charities better, or an alternative operating model that can offer the same service at a lower cost, then those who are concerned about what they see as a JustGiving rip-off should try to create it. It is little use complaining and then doing nothing.
As a for-profit entity JustGiving will rise or fall in the face of competition. What will emerge is a either reluctant acknowledgement that financial transactions do actually have a cost – or, a serious challenger to the incumbant monopoly.
So, what I am saying? I’m saying that we don’t know whether JustGiving is expensive or not. What we do know is that it is wide open to competition from a better or cheaper operating model. So if you think you can do it better, I warmly and sincerely invite you to do so. Less of the JustTalking, please.
August 15th, 2010 at 20:08
“I remember going round friends and neighbours, first to get sponsors and then again to collect the money. It’s bloody hard work…”
And so it should be! justgiving has made it far too easy to stick up a “look at me: aren’t I good” sponsorship beside every little 10k run you do. What happened to achieving for the hell of it?
And as a web developer by career, I am on the side of those who say 5% sounds excessive.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:40
I am uncomfortable with JG’s 5%(+). WHere does that figure arise from and how was it arrived at by JG? What does JG do with the (substantial?) profits its makes? If it is simply lining the pockets of its shareholders I would think that the charge of profiteering may have some validity. If however it in turn uses its profits in a socially, ethicially way that may be a different matter.
September 23rd, 2010 at 03:14
Many charities have website that you can use to donate directly. Just Giving is as someone has said Just Taking and is morally wrong. It is not truly honest as to what it receives when someone donates – you have to read the fine print and grab a calculator to work it out. I think people need to spread the word and NOT donate through this money grabbing site.
October 31st, 2010 at 18:57
I can only speak for the Charity I’m involved in – we like many others I’m sure – have no paid staff. Gift Aid is a hugely important part of our income. I do wonder if those so critical of JG and the like have ever had to administer Gift Aid using volunteer staff? To effectively keep on top of even a relatively small numnber of donations requires the use of paid staff or the use of an agency. No one else can do this as cheaply as the giving websites. And OK, I can’t prove it, but it seems clear to me that more donate, and more donate using Gift Aid when they can use a website.
November 2nd, 2010 at 01:51
The jury seems to be out about justgiving. I was recommended it in good faith by a friend whose cause I had joined and sought sponsorship for.She is an astute businesswoman, and urged me to pool my sponsorship money with hers and her friends on ‘justgiving’.The one thing that made me hesitate was accounting for the money I had raised to members of the school where I work and – more importantly – the church I attend. Many people from the church would not have understood, because they don’t have internet and are not computer savvy. So I will tell my friend that I will be holding up the cheque in church, written out directly to the charity, for all to see. I don’t think that they would have contributed more through ‘justgiving’,and I think that they will feel reassured that they really can see where their money is going. Having said that, I am still heart and soul with my friend, for whose Aspire Spinal Injury cause I swam 22 miles in 24 hours, over 5 weeks in a swimming pool (with no jellyfish or ferries in sight – where were they?)
Best wishes to all fundraisers!
Jane
December 8th, 2010 at 16:54
Hi, wondered if anyone could help me.
I am off to Romania in March and hoping to raise funds before I go to give a donation to the founders of the charity Lovelight Romania. Instead of the old fashioned way of friends and family giving cash, I wanted to take the justgiving approach as its easy, all the money is in one place, and with a target etc. However, I don’t think Lovelight are registered as a UK charity, and I can’t find them on the justgiving database, and after reading comments regarding the fees I am a little reluctant to go with justgiving now. I wondered if there is an alternative? Somewhere where people can all donate in one place to one account and possibly see the progress on reaching the ‘goal’ ?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, my email is doddsleanne@hotmail.com
Thank you.
December 13th, 2010 at 15:33
I created my own website and used that to collect money. It took about half a day, why bother with these intermediaries? The reason I chose my own path was because I wanted to raise money for a friend who has cancer to help her with childcare. JustGiving et al don’t want to know about personal endeavours to help people directly, they force you down the route of intermediaries who have to raise money to pay salaries before it reaches recipients – Charity is an industry. In the meantime, what does one do to help a friend or a neighbour or a family member directly? Pen and Paper, or a homegrown website – networking is easy, a post to a link on Facebook can reach thousands in hours.
December 24th, 2010 at 15:39
I’ll certainly be making sure that any future donations/sponsoring I’m involved in is on an ‘old fashioned’ paper based form. There seem to be a number ‘middle men’ conpanies emerging who profess to be helping charities but who seem to slice off a big proportion for themselves. If JG really felt they were so honourable then they should notify the giver that there is a 5% rake off. Help for Hospices, Help for Heroes all con the public and rake rake off money that should be going directly to charities.
January 11th, 2011 at 09:07
Salman Taseer’s daughter speaks out on her father’s assassination in a moving piece for the NYT.
January 18th, 2011 at 12:32
I know of Virgin Giving Money, Everyclick, and Bmycharity as competitors / alternatives to Just Giving. Can anyone name any others?
March 15th, 2011 at 16:36
HEy!its good if you use some amount for charity..you should continue it ..
April 26th, 2011 at 22:01
I recently did a charity fundraising event and used VirginMoneyGiving. When i spoke to the charity afterwards they explained to me that by using virgin the costs for them were almost nonexistant but when people use Justgiving, they get charged a monthly fee for each page thats live and over a couple of months the money raised can be lost to charges and fees.
I agree the the rise of this form of fundriasing is great for increasing awareness and reaching a wider audience however it doesn’t sit comfortable with me that a percentage of funds raised are not given to the charity. While I hear the arguments of costs of running this etc, how is it that Virgin minimise the costs to the charity much more than others like just giving.
Its simple case of that while people choose to use sites like just giving the charities will raise more money but will not see the full potential of whats been offered by the public for them.
This is my personal view based on the discussion I had with a major charity today. I may not know what I’m talking about but I can’t argue with what the charity told me.
June 12th, 2011 at 22:11
Hi,
I know this is an old link but after reading a few comments really felt I needed to comment. It is in response to the comments be Pete.
I have to take issue with what you are saying. The whole point is many of the people would not have the opportunity to give and mny more would not follow it through without just giving. I used it through my facebook page to collect for a small charity and got donations from manchester, london, birmingham, hull, New Zealand and many more. Do you honestly think I would have put a piece of paper in front of them?
It also allows me to send a simple link to many that I would never normally approach – with excellent results.
Your argument is way off. They may make profit, yes. But without just giving the charities would not be getting anywhere near the amount they are – and this goes for the smaller charities in particular.
Dave
June 15th, 2011 at 08:32
Currently JustGiving siphons off the charity donations and gives the money to their private shareholders.
There is no need for this. There are many similar non-profit services that do not take 5% of the donation. Virgin have such a service.
The owners of JustGiving may be proud, but I don’t know how they can live with themselves.
August 3rd, 2011 at 14:54
I think it’s appalling that ‘JustGiving’ take so much money away, SPECIFICALLY because they do not make this clear at all.
Do you really think if people knew how much of a profiteering racket JustGiving was that they would give a penny?
And the argument of well if it wasnt for us there wouldnt have been all those donations. That is not a valid excuse and Jonathan knows it.
Would you tip at a restaurant that only gives 5% of the tips to their waiters? Would you be fine with the management of that restaurant saying hey if it werent for us running the place they wouldnt get any tips.
Nonsense nonsense nonsense. The only disingenuous thing about all of this is that JustGiving think people are pathetically guilt trip ridden enough to fall for the excuse of ‘without us thered be no charity’.
Hang your heads in shame JG and I look forward to seeing your organisation flop and become replaced by newer more ethical ones.
August 3rd, 2011 at 14:56
meant to say “that takes 5% of tips from waiters”
August 30th, 2011 at 22:39
People have gone to great length above to point out how much money is being taken away from charities through ‘operational costs’ at the likes of justgiving.
No-one has mentioned how much money is spent on ‘operational costs’ within the charities themselves. Headquarters, sourcing materials, foodstuffs, wages and so on.
Yes, it’s possible to do charitable works for nothing on occasion… but everyone has to make some kind of living. If that living is full-time charity work, or full-time in support of charitable works, then they are going to have to take a %.
There is no ‘whiter than white’ anywhere down the line here.
August 30th, 2011 at 22:42
P.S. Stella… many restaurants DO only pay the staff a % of their tips. Many also share this % equally between the staff. This is unfair as there can be quite a disparity between wonderfully friendly and helpful staff and those who just turn up, do the job well enough not to get sacked and go home.
September 1st, 2011 at 23:50
In response to @Jonathan Waddingham and his defence of the 5% he charges:
“Describing the 5% of the £25 million raised for the London marathon (a new record online, I might add) as being diverted from charities is somewhat disingenuous. Would that much have been raised without the amazing efforts of the people who use our site, and the ways our website helps people reach out to their networks online? I doubt it.”
In 2009 they raised £47.2 million. I think it’s disingenuous of you to suggest that they couldn’t do it without you and your sticky 5% fingers.
Since you can donate to people through Virgin (http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/giving/) for FREE I think it’s fairly obvious that, yes that 5% HAS been diverted from the charities for which it was intended.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:48
You can’t blame JustGiving for making a small profit, after all they need to find £100000 + salaries for their executives, certainly for their CEO Zarine Kharas.
A lot of happy people making obscene money out of charity.
September 11th, 2011 at 20:15
I think a lot of you are missing the point about charities.
They are set up to make money for the execs.
The volunteers on the ground care about the cause not the people making the money at the top.
People see the word ‘charity’ and are instantly blinded by it so donate money.
At the end of the day a charity is just a different business structure.
im not saying all are bad as some of the smaller ones do a great job but the HUGE ones are in it for the profit.
Has anyone here donated a PC to a School in Africa?
I guarantee that even if you think you have you most certainly have not.
That kind of equipment is exported and sold in Lagos to the highest bidder.
Some might end up in Schools but only if they happen to be the people paying the most for it.
The people who run these Charities are making HUGE amounts in African bank accounts.
After all whos going to check anything once it leaves the UK?
That’s just one example..I could go on and on.
September 13th, 2011 at 14:10
Interesting debate, and it is amazing to me how people can get so passionate about a business model.
Markets make or break companies and their pricing models change based on whether there is competition and on whether people are ready to pay for it or not. If the market does not see value in the cost that the company is charging (5+% that JG is charging) then they would go elsewhere, wouldn’t you think? As others have been quick to point out on the site, there are choices out there.
To expect someone to build and maintain a conduit to channel funds to the right place and then not charge anything at all is rather naive. SO then the question is only of HOW MUCH. And that goes back to my point earlier about the markets influencing pricing. Why sweat over the profits that a business may or may not make when you do have the choice of simply not using it?
I do acknowledge that this debate at least helped raise the awareness of how much JG charges in fees (and how others are cheaper, as they are quick to advertise).
I would rather have people motivated to divert money to charity by making money themselves, than not have the charity get that additional money at all. Get my drift?
September 16th, 2011 at 16:52
It’s about the amount of money they make, where do you draw the line? The CEO and MD are making a reported salary of £260k plus between them, a luxurious living made off the back of charitable donations. I and most people I know would never subsidise these corporate-style salaries.
I do agree there are choices, better ones.
BT donate claim to be non-profit making, charging just 15p on debit cards per transaction and no fee charged to the charity. Justgiving charge a fee of £15pm?
I ended up contacting a small charity directly, posted me a standing order and tax gift declarationform, they benefitted 100% and that includes the tax gift allowance.
October 5th, 2011 at 15:13
JG are very bad. I will never use them again, and would not have if knew of the fees.
November 8th, 2011 at 05:09
It’s really a nice and helpful piece of info. I am glad that you simply shared this helpful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
December 10th, 2011 at 23:24
Sounds Good. Here’s … Sounds Good. Here’s another way to make some real cash and get your own website. w w w dot areyounext dot ws
December 14th, 2011 at 22:27
Thank you for this very helpful advice, Paula! Flashing ads and widgets I have not! Plus I’m holding off on AdSense on my second site for precisely the reason you mention. Getting backlinks may be easier if it is not bombarded with advertising.Amy Tanathorn’s last post…Dec 8- Jogger Stroller Special Features and Best Models Reviewed
January 2nd, 2012 at 01:50
Simply want to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your post is just nice and that i can assume you are knowledgeable on this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to clutch your feed to stay up to date with forthcoming post. Thank you one million and please keep up the rewarding work.
January 6th, 2012 at 15:19
Every service is another business and as such will require fees for time and expenses, which is acceptable. What we dont want is to be funding the fat cats next purchase of latest sports car or 10 bedroom house. Admin fees are acceptable if all thats taken is the actual admin fees expenses and not where 99.9% of the fee going to fat cats. It happens daily and justgiving and others like it should hang thier heads in shame for taking food and living ability from those who desperately need it. I bet those fatcats enjoyed massive xmas dinners and wasted a lot of the food or went abroad on holidays. Well the starving people world wide had none. While I’m here though, i’d like to say that why not put prevention of more child birth in those poverty stricken countries and then the numbers wont go up as much and those alive stand more chance of greater help no being spread so thin. There you, thats my voice. today.
January 13th, 2012 at 19:13
for me, the bigger issue of ‘throwing money at problems and hoping there will be no more bad stuff happening’ is the source of the complication here. judging by the amount of people allocated to give good PR here and on other sites’ comment sections; if they’ve got enough money to be going round putting out little fires like these, they’ve probably got too much money. there are so many arguments and counter arguments, but the answer is simple: follow the money. we all know the heads of these charities get huge amounts of money; they clearly aren’t in it out of kindness. going back to the first point about charity as an alleviator of western guilt, an extreme example of how people’s desire to do good can be manipulated can be found in this article: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/11/the-burzynski-clinic-threatens-my-family.html.
of course you will get some bad eggs i hear you cry, and don’t be so cynical, just lighten up and give some money. yes, charity tugs on the heartstrings and we can’t see the issue clearly. it becomes an issue of misers vs benevolents, which is not the right fight. it is between those who wish to ensure their money goes for a good cause, against those who want to do good, but aren’t prepared to do the research. personally, and i don’t ask you to agree, but i often think that charity work can be insensitive of cultural differences.. and that it usually works out better when you help people you know. but that is a philosophical debate that will take a lot of arguing; how do you help someone? i’ll finish with a link to another example of how exploiting people’s good instincts can sometimes have a terrible effect: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/goodies_and_baddies.html. to sum up, it isn’t enough to say you will help; it is important to ask why you want to help and _how_ you will help. most of the world’s problems are a result of systemic problems and not human problems, therefore systemic change is required. this is the point where most people decide they’ve had enough and would rather drop a coin in the yellow plastic pot by the till!
‘it’s all very well sitting around discussing, at some point you need to start doing stuff’ well, ok, go ahead, but make sure you put the research in. some people here have defended the massive industry that is called charity in the west; i would say that more problems are caused by western consumption of dodgily sourced foreign goods than are fixed by teaching football to african kids [see shell in nigeria, union carbide disaster in india and indonesian rainforests for 3 foreign problems rooted in westen consumption].
luckily we are getting less interested in making money and more interested in the good things that are free! of course, people find it hard to think on a macro level, and like to keep eating and driving around, and will not elect a government which promises to take away any of their toys, so we are stuck for a while. however arguments for change are being listened more, and austerity is looking like a certainty with the current debt levels [did i read the other day that loans are being considered as collateral for.. more loans??? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9011021/ECB-lending-rule-change-could-make-an-extra-10-trillion-available-to-banks.html hopefully that was just an over-enthusiastic journo!].
well perhaps i’ve strayed slightly, but thanks for coming along for the ride.. and keep fighting the good fight! we shall overcome.
January 13th, 2012 at 21:11
i just noticed that i didn’t include any positive examples of where i think people can be charitable. for one i can name my dad, as he is funding my degree course, which allows me to waste time expostulating on political issues in between writing essays. from this position i can look down on everyone and pay no attention to practicalities, as i am living in a bubble. but if i have encouraged at least one person to give less to charity then i have achieved something of debatable success. oh yes back to examples of good interventions.. i would say nurses, teachers, doctors, road sweepers, social workers, all the (mainly public sector) working people who look after the world and get on with their job, helping people directly, and not people that jump out of air balloons or go on a walking holiday to Kilimanjaro or the great wall.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:56
It?s actually a nice and useful piece of info. I am glad that you simply shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
March 28th, 2012 at 11:55
I only recently found out that JustGiving take 5% and I think it’s disgusting that they can make that amount out of money out of charities that need it more.
Surely this warrants a web developer to build something similar, but take less commission, compete and beat Justgving.com.
Now I know, I will not be donating any more money through Justigving.com. Bring back the days of a sponsorship form until someone puts Justigving.com out of business.
Grr.
March 29th, 2012 at 17:56
JustGiving have just announced that they have passed the £1bn mark in terms of total donations. Quite an achievement…but it does also beg the question of how much money the founders/shareholders have made from this and just where the money has gone?
Just Giving state they take 5% of donations but in reality it is 5% of the gift aid adjusted number – ie 5% x 125% = 6.25% of the donated amount.
(In addition to this 6.25% they add credit card charges)
£1bn x 6.25% = £62.5m
or if the £1bn is the gift aid adjusted number (admittedly I’m not sure) then the amount is
£1bn x 5% = £50m
That is an awful lot of money.
Where exactly does it all go? I refuse to believe you need to spend anything close to £50m in development costs for what is really not that complicated a website. Interestingly, whilst I can find lots of references to the directors’ salaries online everything becomes suspiciously hush hush regarding dividend payments made to shareholders.
Furthermore, JG state they have 8,000 charities registered with them and charge £15 per month for each:
8,000 x 15 x 12 = £1.4m revenue per year – surely this is sufficient to cover the majority of staff and overhead costs?
I am all for using profit driven models to achieve socially focussed goals and you have to give credit to JG for pioneering online sponsorship. That said, when the source of income for the shareholders is ultimately individuals’ charitable donations and there are other operators (eg Virgin Money Giving) out there taking far less egregious fees it begins to appear difficult to defend morally.
May 15th, 2012 at 02:04
I was a bit shocked that justgiving was taking a percentage of donations. But after reading a lot of the comments on this debate I’ve come to the conclusion that, with 8,000 charities registered, the charities seem to think it is a worthwhile expense and we should just recognise it as part of the administration expenses that all charities have. However the charities should constantly review there expenses and look for cheaper on line giving sites or negotiate new charges with justgiving.