Philanthroper - donate $1 a day to awesome NPOs(philanthroper.com)
philanthroper.com
Philanthroper - donate $1 a day to awesome NPOs
https://philanthroper.com
4 comments
Your page doesn't function well as a landing page or give enough information straight away about how it all works. The comment from Ben Thacker (facebook comment) is the kind of thing you need to get to the user quickly:
"For US bank-account-holders only, an interesting idea. Choose whether or not to donate $1 per day to a variety of charities pre-vetted by Philanthroper. Religious/personal appeals are excluded, and the website makes its money from ads, not by taking a cut. The only fee is a 1% charge for the payment processing."
https://www.banksimple.com/ has a pretty epic page/intro, open source too. Do some testing anyway, but it's a good idea you have got going there. Congratulations on your launch.
"For US bank-account-holders only, an interesting idea. Choose whether or not to donate $1 per day to a variety of charities pre-vetted by Philanthroper. Religious/personal appeals are excluded, and the website makes its money from ads, not by taking a cut. The only fee is a 1% charge for the payment processing."
https://www.banksimple.com/ has a pretty epic page/intro, open source too. Do some testing anyway, but it's a good idea you have got going there. Congratulations on your launch.
Thanks for the feedback. We'll definitely be thinking about the best way to draw in new visitors and give them a clear understanding of what the site's about.
According to my experience with non-profit web projects the "About" page is even more important than on other site. Maybe you want to make it even easier to reach and add some more information, pictures... to build trust and make sure that real people are behind this and that it's not a scam.
What do you think about Give Well's analysis of charities? http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
Hey, this is Mark Wilson, Founder of Philanthroper.
I truly respect their approach in that they're really going after impact measurement and tangible metrics. But if we all listened to GiveWell, there would be 10 charities in business. Literally. That's how many they've deemed worthy of your support.
GiveWell is kind of like that kid you knew in grade school who said he'd only marry a supermodel. Standards are great, until you realize that sleeping alone for your entire life might not be the best way to actually live.
I truly respect their approach in that they're really going after impact measurement and tangible metrics. But if we all listened to GiveWell, there would be 10 charities in business. Literally. That's how many they've deemed worthy of your support.
GiveWell is kind of like that kid you knew in grade school who said he'd only marry a supermodel. Standards are great, until you realize that sleeping alone for your entire life might not be the best way to actually live.
This is Holden Karnofsky, co-founder of GiveWell. Mark, we're glad to see your new project, and we appreciate the kind words re: respect for what we do. A couple points of clarification:
1. We don't claim (and have never claimed) that our recommended charities are the only ones worthy of support. Our goal is to identify, and drive money to, outstanding charities; our audience is donors who want to do as much good as possible, but don't have the time/resources to research charities on their own. We recognize that our methodology is not the only way to identify promising groups (though we believe it is most efficient for serving our audience). Think of us as investors: we work to find outstanding opportunities, but don't claim that all non-recommended opportunities are bad ones.
You can see more about how we think about this issue at http://blog.givewell.org/2009/05/07/small-unproven-charities...
2. In your analogy, it seems to me that the problem with "that kid's" behavior is that you can't unilaterally decide whom to marry. But you pretty much have your pick of where to give - there aren't any major charities that will turn you down as a donor. Given that situation, why not give to the best charity/charities you can find? We don't encourage anyone to "sleep alone," i.e., not give to charity.
Our recommendations aren't for everyone. We recognize the value of Philanthroper as a way to hopefully get people to give more than they would otherwise, and wish you the best with this mission. We hope that you'll consider featuring our top charities among others, because - like the others you plan on featuring - they are organizations with something special to offer.
1. We don't claim (and have never claimed) that our recommended charities are the only ones worthy of support. Our goal is to identify, and drive money to, outstanding charities; our audience is donors who want to do as much good as possible, but don't have the time/resources to research charities on their own. We recognize that our methodology is not the only way to identify promising groups (though we believe it is most efficient for serving our audience). Think of us as investors: we work to find outstanding opportunities, but don't claim that all non-recommended opportunities are bad ones.
You can see more about how we think about this issue at http://blog.givewell.org/2009/05/07/small-unproven-charities...
2. In your analogy, it seems to me that the problem with "that kid's" behavior is that you can't unilaterally decide whom to marry. But you pretty much have your pick of where to give - there aren't any major charities that will turn you down as a donor. Given that situation, why not give to the best charity/charities you can find? We don't encourage anyone to "sleep alone," i.e., not give to charity.
Our recommendations aren't for everyone. We recognize the value of Philanthroper as a way to hopefully get people to give more than they would otherwise, and wish you the best with this mission. We hope that you'll consider featuring our top charities among others, because - like the others you plan on featuring - they are organizations with something special to offer.
Holden, this is a pretty fair response - and I of all people know the difficulty of digging through the noise of the industry. I do think that, intrinsically, there's an implication that comes with that pie chart on your front page and a choice of 10.
There are a lot of NPOs, but there is just as much fear-mongering that justifies that little voice in peoples' head, tipping the scales as to whether they donate or not. This voice stops people from donating to anyone, lest their dollar be the dollar that buys an office supply rather than an air-dropped meal. In this economic climate, the impact of that voice is far worse than the consequence donating to an inefficient charity.
I think that this is something you could deal with by simply rebranding that idea a bit. 'The 10 Best Charities' is such a better sell than "There Are Only 10 Worthy Charities We've Found So Far." I really feel like that pie graph says the latter.
Again, it's not your mission - I'm sincere in saying that. I think it's the presentation. And that presentation alone would never be enough for me to exclude your top picks.
But clearly, we should chat more in another venue. I'm markATphilanthroper.com.
There are a lot of NPOs, but there is just as much fear-mongering that justifies that little voice in peoples' head, tipping the scales as to whether they donate or not. This voice stops people from donating to anyone, lest their dollar be the dollar that buys an office supply rather than an air-dropped meal. In this economic climate, the impact of that voice is far worse than the consequence donating to an inefficient charity.
I think that this is something you could deal with by simply rebranding that idea a bit. 'The 10 Best Charities' is such a better sell than "There Are Only 10 Worthy Charities We've Found So Far." I really feel like that pie graph says the latter.
Again, it's not your mission - I'm sincere in saying that. I think it's the presentation. And that presentation alone would never be enough for me to exclude your top picks.
But clearly, we should chat more in another venue. I'm markATphilanthroper.com.
Mark, thanks for the feedback. I think you raise a fair point. We always have a little bit of a balancing act with "headline" communications (i.e., introductory/"hook" content as opposed to pages deep on our site). No headline/chart can capture everything we're trying to say (and not say) while still being simple and intuitive. We're always discussing the tradeoffs and would be happy to speak further with you; I'll shoot you an email.
I think you mirepresent the approach of GiveWell.
They currently recommend only 10 charities of 408 (about 2.45%) because they have limited resources. If you could scale the proportion to all US charities you would end up with more than 30.000 recommended charities (2.45%).
Besides would you argue the same way with your broker if he only recommends a couple of stocks for your portfolio? If you want to make an impact/return you can't just take a little of everything but have to foucs.
Nevertheless I applaud you for your project. I'm currently thinking about setting up something similar in Germany. One thing I'm wondering about is if some extra incentive is necessary to make people donate/spread the word. Why should I donate now instead of tomorrow or next week (or never)? If you haven't done already you might want to have look how Groupon did it: http://www.groupon.com/raleigh-durham/deals/donorschoose-org.... Like they do with their normal deals there is a tipping point and donation matching (interestingly from a foundtaion not a corporation -> they would have donates anyway but why not trying to double it).
They currently recommend only 10 charities of 408 (about 2.45%) because they have limited resources. If you could scale the proportion to all US charities you would end up with more than 30.000 recommended charities (2.45%).
Besides would you argue the same way with your broker if he only recommends a couple of stocks for your portfolio? If you want to make an impact/return you can't just take a little of everything but have to foucs.
Nevertheless I applaud you for your project. I'm currently thinking about setting up something similar in Germany. One thing I'm wondering about is if some extra incentive is necessary to make people donate/spread the word. Why should I donate now instead of tomorrow or next week (or never)? If you haven't done already you might want to have look how Groupon did it: http://www.groupon.com/raleigh-durham/deals/donorschoose-org.... Like they do with their normal deals there is a tipping point and donation matching (interestingly from a foundtaion not a corporation -> they would have donates anyway but why not trying to double it).
My company is part of One Percent for the Planet. When you are part of it, you give 1% of your turnover to accredited environmental organisations. I like these kind of "give something no matter what to help the others/the Planet". The more people will be part of these actions, the better we will be.
http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/
http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/
just some feedback...
i would drop the registration process for new donors, or at least make it optional (ie put it at the end of the donation process where all they do is just enter a password or something).
i really dislike these things on shopping carts and moreso on donation sites. great idea!
i would drop the registration process for new donors, or at least make it optional (ie put it at the end of the donation process where all they do is just enter a password or something).
i really dislike these things on shopping carts and moreso on donation sites. great idea!
I agree with ookblah above. Also, letting people donate with PayPal would decrease the friction of making one. Best of luck!
We've gotten some good press so far [1], and we're completely thrilled to finally be live.
Today's featured NPO is particularly great; Computer Aid International refurbishes the computers you would have thrown out -- or, at least recycled -- and distributes them throughout Africa and Latin America (over 175,000 since they started in 1998).
Seems like just the sort of thing HN would be interested in!
[1] http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/philanthroper-hopes-...