It’s certainly not the only service of its type, but the relatively new Crowdwise.com — founded in part by actor Ed Norton — was profiled in Sunday’s New York Times.   He and his partners do seem to have at least a basic grasp on individual fundraising:

He knows that a majority of people who now donate to charity don’t do so online; they write checks. But he and his partners contend that Crowdrise, with its mix of edginess, silliness and good-humored competition, can change that habit, especially for young people.

But the important thing is that the focus here — with its ability for donors to have personal pages — is on the viral potential of philanthropy.  The article is a quick and interesting read.

One more thing about the $50 million raised via text messaging after the Haitian earthquake:  Convio’s survey stressed the generational differences between those who texted (or who considered it) and those that gave some other way.  They found that while 77% of US donors were aware of the Haiti text-to-donate efforts, 17% of Millennial respondents and 14% of Gen Xers said they actually made a donation using text message, while only 3% of Boomer and Mature respondents did.

While it is a compelling storyline that younger people are giving, especially since — as Vinay says — non-profits have already “optimized fundraising with seniors,” what would be of more interest to me is how long these people will stick around.  (Read on …)

Convio released a study yesterday (summarized neatly on USA Today’s “Kindness” blog) about the frenzy of mobile philanthropy or texts-to-donate that happened around the Haiti earthquake.  At least $50 million was raised this way, from about 6.5 million people.

My first reaction when it was happened was that this was the tipping point for this not-so-new way to give.  (Read on …)

Just a quick link to yesterday’s “Wizard of ID” comic strip.  One thing I like to mention in my lecture on online fundraising at NYU’s Graduate School of Philanthropy is how the internet has inspired greater vigilance by donors and required greater accountability on the part of not-for-profits.  Even if that increased reporting doesn’t take place online.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy released the results of their annual survey of online fundraising this week.  While online fundraising continues to grow, that growth has slowed down a bit.  The magazine attributes this to the economy, although it also notes that online isn’t off as much as some more traditional methods of fundraising.  Other notable findings include:

• Despite its growth, the Internet still provides only a fraction of overall revenue — still in the low single-digits percentage-wise for most groups.
• Asking for low dollar amounts ($1 – $5) in order to get wide participation is working.  Although for some groups this has resulted in fewer, but larger, gifts.
• Stand alone emails — as opposed to those that are integrated with direct mail or some other channel — still aren’t doing well unless they include an urgent deadline.
• Rented lists still haven’t caught on, but “chaperoned” campaigns — where another group or company sending emails on behalf of a non-profit — work very well
• Personalizing campaigns — either through creative use of social networks like Facebook or by letting donors have their own fundraising pages and goals — also is very successful.

The New York Times technology blog had an observation worth noting today.  It turns out the idea of a facebook isn’t all that new.

Bryan Benilous, a historical newspaper specialist at the digital-archive company Proquest, said he and his colleagues came across a Boston Daily Globe article from August 24, 1902, titled, “Face Book The New Fad,” describing a party game where revelers sketch out cartoony caricatures for fun.

“I think it is interesting to note the similarities with this first iteration of Face Book as a shared social experience,” said Mr. Benilous. “It’s almost like having friends write on your wall in a much less tech-savvy way.” (Read on …)

When the new presidential administration sweeps into town, bringing its agenda of change, public broadcasting won’t be immune as some major changes are in store in the world of PBS, NPR and the CPB.

An article published late last month by Steve Behrens and Dru Sefton in Current, considers those changes, many of which are laid out in a chapter from the New Democracy Project’s book “Change for America.”  This chapter — and the entire book — should be taken very seriously because Obama has used the services of 15 of the book’s authors on his transition team. (Read on …)