GiveMeaning Changing Charity for the Better
Update: An interesting discussion about Give Meaning has begun due to some recent articles in the Vancouver Sun. Check the comments on this posts to follow links to find out more.
—
The day before Halloween, I wrote a post about GiveMeaning, a Vancouver non-profit with some great ideas of taking the old Unicef coin-collecting boxes to the next level.
Last week I received a letter from GiveMeaning, containing two $5 “GiveMeaning Cards,”that I may use to make donations to the charity or cause of my choice. The letter, addressed to “Dear Blogger/Reporter” and signed by GiveMeaning’s CEO, explained that they intend to “empower the $5 donor,” and help people understand that even the smallest donations make a difference.
(Click to see the image full size on Flickr)
This morning, after a quick search for “children,” I used one of those cards to help build an HIV/AIDS center in Malawi, Africa and as the letter suggested, I’ll give the other as a gift (to my wife, in this case) for someone else to donate.
The site, at www.givemeaning.com, contains progress reports on projects, a tag cloud indicating the most popular causes, and a sign in area where donors can track their funds, and kids can track their fund raising with their own secure blogs. You may also purchase GiveMeaning Cards in several different amounts to be given as gifts.
Overall, I was pretty impressed with the ideas and execution of this campaign, but I thought I’d give a quick of what I liked and what I thought could improve.
For starters, it’s clear that I loved the idea from the beginning. When I received the letter in the mail I was even more impressed. They had obviously done their homework and tracked the “word of mouse” they received online as well as in the traditional media. Not only that, but the $5 card gave me something else to talk about; and although it’s their money, it did make me feel good to do it. By donating, I have been given an account, and now I can easily login and make donations to other charities and watch their progress. Also, members can create new causes and monitor the funds raised online.
As far as where they could make improvements, here’s my two cents: They understand blogging, that’s clear. But as yet, no one from GiveMeaning has left a comment on my blog, or (that I know of yet) reciprocated with a link to me. They are obviously not obligated to do so, but that’s just good ‘blogger relations,’ and would inevitably cause more posts like this one (among other bloggers, I mean). Also, they took the time to research my name and company name for the sake of the envelope, but the letter itself was a little less personal. I know that addressing it to me specifically, with perhaps a word or two about my post would take more effort and therefore more cost, but it’s safe to say that it would also bear even better results. After all, the letter was dispatched only to those people who had already gave mention of the program; so we are already “fans.” An ounce more of the empowerment that they mentioned in the letter would go a long way, me thinks.
Overall, I think this a great program. A fine example of using social media for a great cause. If you are a representative of GiveMeaning or from the agency that created the program and you’re reading this, then kudos to you. Leave a message in the comments, we’d love to hear from you.
Update: Tom Williams, CEO of Give Meaning, has replied in the comments below, directly from Africa. Despite limited connectivity, he gives updates of his work (daily, it seems) on his blog.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
November 17th, 2006 at 11:04 am
First, an apology for practicing poor blogger relations. I do however have a somewhat legitimate excuse. I am currently in Africa and have very limited access to internet. Part of my intended outreach was obviously to actually reach-out via your blog but this trip was somewhat last minute. Thanks again for your very kind words.
The personal touch is what we try to do as best we can. In this case, as you rightly assert, we didn’t do as good of a job. I promise we’ll do better next time.
Thanks,
Tom Williams,
CEO, GiveMeaning
November 17th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Tom, you’re off the hook!
It was clear to me that you guys “get it,” and I suspected that this post wouldn’t go without a response. I just didn’t expect that said response would come from Africa, from the CEO himself.
Keep up the good work, and please keep me up to date on your progress. I’m more than happy to spread the word.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Jordan,
Thank you so much for your invaluable comments and feedback.
The GiveMeaning team appreciates your postings.
I would love to run some ideas by you in regards to blogging and social responsibility.
Please drop me a line when you have some time.
Hannah Lee
Director of Corporate Relations, GiveMeaning
November 19th, 2006 at 2:37 am
Hi Jordan-
I am the office manager at Givemeaning and I”m the one who licked all the envelopes for the mail outs!
It was great hearing all your feedback and I know the Givemeaning will take all your feedback seriously! I was thrilled to see that Tom our CEO ( and my husband) was able to get connected with you.
Jessie Williams
Office manager, Givemeaning
November 20th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
It’s awesome to hear from you guys. Keep up the great work.
I respect the decision to keep costs low and lick the envelopes yourself, but I suggest that next quarter you invest in one of those little wet-sponge-envelope-licker-doo-dads. They’re not as tasty, though.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Excerpt of article in The Vancouver Sun newspaper of January 19, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=b76ff000-c8e8-4789-9ed8-806df2c2945a
During the year ending Sept. 30, 2006, GiveMeaning received $234,643 in donations for which it gave tax receipts, according to a financial statement filed with Canada Revenue Agency. Tom Williams said these are largely donations from individuals.
It received another $730,350 from other registered charities. Williams said these donations were made specifically to pay GiveMeaning’s overhead.
He refused to identify any of these donors. I found this strange: My sense is that, while some donors request anonymity, most registered charities or foundations publicly report where they are placing their money, not so much for recognition as for transparency.
More generally, I do not understand why certain undisclosed charities would give money to pay overhead for what is essentially a charitable conduit.
In the case of GiveMeaning, that overhead is disproportionately large. Of the $982,705 in total donations it received (and issued tax receipts for), GiveMeaning spent $666,070, or 68 per cent, on administrative expenses.
Those expenses included $199,043 for professional and consulting fees; $153,646 for salaries, wages and benefits; $28,433 for advertising and promotion; and $24,019 for travel.
I asked Williams whether he receives a salary. Well, yes, $90,000 per year. And his wife, country singer Jessie Farrell, who works part-time for the foundation “when she can,” gets $30,000. So together they collect $120,000 per year, plus expenses.
After subtracting overhead costs, just over $300,000 was available for charitable purposes in 2006, but only $172,000 was actually given to charities (the remainder is still on the foundation’s books). That $172,000 represents just 17.5 per cent of total donations.
But that’s not the end of it. Many of the charities that receive money have their own overhead. So the net amount available for true charitable purposes is even less.
Williams insists that, whenever a person gives money for a particular charity, 100 per of that money gets to the named beneficiary. That may be true, but it does not mitigate the fact that the vast majority of the overall money collected during 2006 went to administration.
Williams says this was due largely to start-up costs: “Yes, we have spent more than we have given away. Just like any other start-up business, it takes time to get profitable,” he said.
He said the financial return for the year ending Sept. 30, 2007, which is just now being filed, will show a greater percentage of overall donations going to charity. We shall see.
The Vancouver Sun January 19, 2008
January 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am
I know this blog posting is somewhat dated now, but like the poster above me, I think it’s worth noting that a series of articles in the Vancouver Sun have exposed Tom Williams and Give Meaning as a scam.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Following what Steve said, I thought I’d point out to an exciting ongoing discussion at MapleLeaf on GiveMeaning:
http://www.mapleleaftwo.com/tom-williams-responds-to-david-baines-vancouver-sun-article/
Quite an interesting development 😉
January 31st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I appreciate the comments, and I regret that I don’t have more time (at the moment, at least) to do some of my own digging for my clarification.
Instead, I will direct readers to the link in Vivian’s comment above, where there is an epic discussion of the matter, with links to all of the aforementioned articles.
Because I’m too under-informed to comment, I will just agree with Tris Hussey; that I liked the idea of Give Meaning, and their approach to charitable giving. It was that affinity, coupled with their blogger outreach that spawned the above post.
It makes me think I should publish an update, pointing folks to this very lively discussion.