dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4619

justin
..needs sleep
Mod
join:1999-05-28
2031
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)

2 recommendations

justin

Mod

[ECO] audits?

I noticed from the FAQ on the ecology fund that charityUSA is the parent company, and it is a for-profit internet concern. Normally if you give to charities that are "non profits" you can look up the expense ratio of the charity, as they are required to file full financials, to determine what percentage of the donation makes it through and out the back-end. Often and even for very reputable charities, it is shockingly low: they have expense ratios of 50% to 80% or more. I was curious to know what the ratio was for CharityUSA

Of course clicking on a banner is not giving in the sense that writing them a check is giving. However, they do seem to equate clicks or actions with sq feet, and sq feet seem definitely to have a calcuable monetary value ...

so I'm wondering if anyone has done any kind of due diligence on the claims of CharityUSA and the ecology fund. Their FAQ is long but seems very unspecific?

Starfish
Per Ardua Ad Astra

join:2000-12-28
Netherlands

Starfish

Justin, do you already know about this link?

»kimberlychapman.com/char ··· und.html

Perhaps that one might give you some answers?!?



(I'm aware of the fact that it was rated as a "This one-click charity is Not Recommended." But the listed problems do not weigh *that* heavily to give it a not recommended score IMHO)

justin
..needs sleep
Mod
join:1999-05-28
2031
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)

1 edit

justin

Mod

no i hadn't seen that. Its quite a huge task that person has taken on to be a one stop rating shop for these type organisations.

It disturbs me that for profit online charities can get away with publishing no third party audited figures! With all the best intentions in the world, a person with just a phone, email and a PC cannot determine how much of what goes in, goes out, and spot checks that some monies go out (by calling up places that are listed as beneficiaries) only verify that some monies arrived. If 80% of the revenue that charityUSA.com collects goes towards executive Ferraris (as it can do as they are 'for profit') then would people still support them?

A registered non-profit has oversight and 3rd party audit rules, otherwise the tax department takes away their non-profit designation. A private for-profit can do whatever it wants to do. It would be interesting to see who the key owners of CharityUSA were, and what their lifestyles are like.
justin

justin

Mod

following the money trail further
this article is interesting

»www.silicon.com/networks ··· 4,00.htm

so charityusa is owned by a company further up. Unsurprisingly, they declined to be interviewed for the article.

k_o
Que Hora Es?
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
Lakeport, CA

1 edit

k_o to justin

Premium Member

to justin
Good Question!
Checked the BBB for any complaints - not registered.
»search.detroit.bbb.org/n ··· 36004313

googled and got this article
»www.silicon.com/networks ··· 4,00.htm

from this page
»www.freddie.ca/2004_01_0 ··· ive.html

Called the CharityUSA office number
(listed on the BBB site)
734-213-7777 in Ann Arbor, MI. First time got SBC generic voicemail:o

This # was for CS only and claims no knowledge or access to this informtaion.
Gave me an email address to send my inquiry to
timkunin@therainforest.com

She also told me that CharityUSA is owned by Homeline Communications.
edit: couldn't find anything about Homeline Com. Red herring, perhaps.

Will update shortly.

justin
..needs sleep
Mod
join:1999-05-28
2031
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)

justin

Mod

the key info is that these sites are owned by
Tim Kunin and Greg Hesterberg
you can google up much info on them. They apparently bought the collapsing "GreaterGood" which appears to have eaten 26 million in VC money trying to be a dot-com, and probably didn't do much good at all. They bought it for "less than a million" when they were at that stage running the EcologyFund. Apparently, the GreaterGood had some pre-existing relationship with Tim (it was a main client and then bought his semi-charity site, that had spiralled out of his control due to the old problem "help, too much traffic").

Tim and Greg are often described as "ecological activists" and "both sons of breast cancer victims". When interviews with them get around to the money, they rather carefully say that their intention is for their company to be profitable, that they can "make a decent living", so that they can continue passing money to good causes.

My cynical side is somewhat mollified that behind this web of sites (Ecology Fund is just one) there are two guys who have names, do give interviews, and not a group of faceless corporates who hide behind cute web front-ends.

On the other hand I don't see why a true charity has a need to remain privately held, LLC, and not register as a non profit if their stated intentions (to make a "decent living") are correct. A registered charity does not have to pay taxes, can still pay its management a "decent living". Where as, they pay taxes on their profits, which presumably means less money goes to buying rainforest land. And they also have to put up with people like me being suspicious (as there financials are hidden).

I'm also curious to know how one can do company accounts when you get pure revenue in, pay management salaries, profit-shares, and expenses, and write checks to charity. What is taxable and what is not in that muddle?

JMartin
Premium Member
join:2001-03-20
Dallas, TX

JMartin to justin

Premium Member

to justin
On the site previously quoted, they list that the method of payment is "sponsors pay beneficiaries directly" which would seem to indicate that as part of the advertising benefit, the advertiser get the tax benefits.

justin
..needs sleep
Mod
join:1999-05-28
2031
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)

justin

Mod

said by JMartin:
On the site previously quoted, they list that the method of payment is "sponsors pay beneficiaries directly" which would seem to indicate that as part of the advertising benefit, the advertiser get the tax benefits.

Wait - thats interesting.
* So Nasty internet company advertisers on the "CharityUSA network"
* they are quoted a CPC (cost per click) but told that part of that (an unknown percentage) must be paid to charity
* Nasty Internet company promises faithfully to do this
* Charty Y gets lots of random checks from various nasty internet companies? (all tax deductions for the nasty internet companies)
* Tim and co get checks as well which are used for running the business and paying themselves.

Is that what we think happens?

JMartin
Premium Member
join:2001-03-20
Dallas, TX

JMartin to justin

Premium Member

to justin
That's the way I see it, and Tim and co's income is profit. I would hope that there is some tracking between Nasty internet company and Charity Y but who knows?!

Gargoyle
MVM,
join:2000-12-29
Planet X

Gargoyle to justin

MVM,

to justin
Is anyone still looking into this?

JMartin
Premium Member
join:2001-03-20
Dallas, TX

JMartin to justin

Premium Member

to justin
I did an extensive Lexis-Nexis search including a D&B and company dossier .... came up empty.

Not sure what, if anything, is next unless we can find a real company name, location, and/or principals.

justin
..needs sleep
Mod
join:1999-05-28
2031
Billion BiPAC 7800N
Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)

justin

Mod

said by JMartin:
I did an extensive Lexis-Nexis search including a D&B and company dossier .... came up empty.

Not sure what, if anything, is next unless we can find a real company name, location, and/or principals.

Did you do it on charityUSA LLC, and/or the names of the two principals?

SurfDog2002
Premium Member
join:2002-01-07
Booneville, MS

SurfDog2002 to justin

Premium Member

to justin
From the ecologyfund.com website FAQ:
A sponsor picks a project and agrees to pay for each person who comes to the site, selects that project, and sees their ad. Normally sponsors write their check directly to the land trust involved. No sponsorship money is kept by EcologyFund or CharityUSA.com.
All monies from sponsorships generated on EcologyFund go to purchase and protect wild lands.
From these two it seems that the sponsors pay the land trusts directly for each click.
EcologyFund is presently underwritten by private funding through CharityUSA.com. We are developing revenue sources which we hope will make the site self sufficent in the future. All money from sponsorship goes directly to the land trusts. Revenue generated by Shop for Acres, Special Donations, our search feature, and Rainforest Rewards is split 50/50 with the land trusts. We also receive income through selling advertising in our opt-in, take-action, and emails; as well as on the site. Additional income is received through the sale of ecommerce products (like t-shirts) through our store.
This one says revenue from shopping is split 50/50 with the land trusts. They also sell advertising in the emails and on the site.(EcologyFund currently has E-Bay, Office Max and 123inkjets advertising on the site.)

GeorgeCr
Funny it worked last time
Premium Member
join:2003-07-18
Sheffield,UK

GeorgeCr to Starfish

Premium Member

to Starfish
said by Starfish:

»kimberlychapman.com/char ··· und.html

wrt the quoted article...

The EcologyFund site could do more to improve accessibility, and its
bad that some options don't work despite being reported. e.g. subscribing to
mailing lists for bonus donations after the initial registration.

I don't see the point of worrying about the use of cookies.
They're easily removed once you've made the donations.

On the plus side its re-assuring that someone has made the
effort to make sure the named charities are receiving the
donations.

MgKnight
Cancer Survivor
MVM
join:2000-08-04
East Freetown, MA

2 recommendations

MgKnight

MVM

said by GeorgeCr:
said by Starfish:

»kimberlychapman.com/char ··· und.html

wrt the quoted article...

I don't see the point of worrying about the use of cookies.
They're easily removed once you've made the donations.

While I have continued with my daily clicking, I must say that it is not with the same fire within me that I once had. True, the bottom line is to save the forests etc, however, as with nearly all projects there are those who will find a way to cheat. The cheat for personal gratification and no other reason.

An individual cheat on a team generally would go unnoticed, unless somehow someone else on the team just happened to pick up on the inconsistencies of that person's production. Massive numbers of people cheating on a single team stand out far clearer than just an individual. These people cheat themselves, they cheat the name of the project and most importantly the sponsors who donate the funds to the projects.

Seeing that there may be a link to the For Profit arm of all of this now makes it clearer why nothing has been done to stop the cheating. Allowing it to continue means more money to those who are running them. I know that I and others have presented indisputable evidence of the cheating to Tim Kunin and Greg Hasterberg. Nothing was ever done about it. Not only was nothing done about it, they never even acknowledged my emails. Then again, why would they, it is more cash in their pockets.

I continue clicking because I feel that just maybe doing so is honestly saving some land. I will continue as long as I feel this way. Maybe my feelings are wrapped up in a pretty pink bubble, maybe not. As much as the cheating sickens me, it is somewhat offset knowing that my daily clicks are done with honesty.

GeorgeCr
Funny it worked last time
Premium Member
join:2003-07-18
Sheffield,UK

GeorgeCr

Premium Member

Who's cheating?

from the web site:
"...plus people who are very concerned about privacy and security and choose to deny cookies as a result."

If you don't want to be tracked simply delete the cookie.
Incidentally, if you delete the cookie, then you aren't
logged in any more so any further clicks wouldn't be recorded against an account anyway.

IMHO, they could prevent cheating at the server end quite
easily. If you know a person's account type (free or subscription level), then you can work out their daily max
possible donation. The site already totals your donations, so all that would be needed is a last donated date field.

Total by account and date. If a person clicks on a subsequent date, zero the total,reset the date, and start the count afresh.

Since everything is controlled on the server, there's no way
for a single account to gain more credit. Multiple accounts
on multiple PCs for the same person is a harder one to catch.