Articles About Online Fund Raising Missed the Mark

To the Editor:

With eagerness, I went to the Chronicle Web site to read the most recent report on online fund raising. But my eagerness turned to disappointment as I realized the significant gaps in data, perspective, and balance in two of the articles (“All Aboard: More and more large nonprofit groups are raising money online, new Chronicle survey finds”; and Nonvirtual Reality Hits Giving Sites, June 14).

Three things particularly surprised me: First, how short on data the summary of year 2000 online fund-raising numbers was; second, that Adam Corson-Finnerty’s well-reasoned critique of venture-capitalbacked dot-coms drew nary a mention; and, third, how the reporters failed to even contact the oldest and arguably largest of the dot-coms, CharityWeb.

I only need to look at the 2000 numbers of our own clients to realize there are gaping holes in the survey. Our clients who are listed in the Philanthropy 400 would have expanded your list of online fund raisers and taken up slots 7, 10, 14, 16, 24, and 25. Expanding the survey to all charities doing online fund raising, not just those on the 400 list, would have brought even more of our clients onto the list in slots 36, 37, 39, and numerous positions later on. This is a sign that there are many, many success stories The Chronicle is missing. Finally, 2000 numbers are old news by June, as you well note in the text and the captions. May I suggest a quick summary of calendar-year numbers in February and then more detailed fiscal year numbers in August?

Adam Corson-Finnerty, who is a leading expert on online fund raising and a development officer at the University of Pennsylvania’s library, has written several astute, clear articles critical of venture-backed dot-coms. He even goes so far as to say that all venture-backed dot-coms in the online fund-raising space will fail. Why? Because the online fund-raising market is not big enough to sustain the kinds of returns expected by venture capitalists.

Instead of Mr. Corson-Finnerty’s point of view, the author presents Pete Mountanos of CharitableWay blaming nonprofits for being too slow to act. Imagine the CEO of Ford blaming declining profits on folks who aren’t perceptive enough to understand what a tremendous value the Explorer is.

Finally, The Chronicle chose not to speak to the very dot-coms whose clients have raised the most in 2000 and 2001. So far in 2001, CharityWeb has processed more money for its clients ($1.2-million) than Helping.org ($1.1-million).

Kurt Hansen
CEO and Founder
CharityWeb
Mountain View, Calif.

Editor’s Note: To conduct its survey, The Chronicle asked for data from all charities listed on last year’s Philanthropy 400, which ranked the charities that raised the most from private sources.

***

To the Editor:

Our online donation site, GiveForChange.com, was not mentioned in Janet Fix’s article (“Nonvirtual Reality Hits Giving Sites,” June 14) even though GiveForChange launched a week before Charitableway and since then has generated more than $1-million in donations.

The site features roughly 400 groups that are specifically progressive and are nominated and chosen for their effectiveness and commitment to social change. Using matching grants and focusing on our core values, GiveForChange is an example of how online philanthropy can work.

While online charity poses unique challenges for sites like ours, as detailed in your article, we are confident that GiveForChange can be a means to raise funds for worthy groups for decades to come.

Christina Allen
Vice President Online
Working Assets Funding Service
San Francisco