Hey, what can I say? I read Redstate. It’s been fun watching Republicans implode. However, Redstate pointed to a recent RFP issued by the Republican National Committe that seems to encapsulate all the technical problems that the Republicans are experiencing. I point out this RFP only as an instructional guide as to how NOT to write an RFP for your website redesign. The RNC issued a TWO page RFP for a complete redesign of their website. The modus operandi for the redesign as expressed by Michael Steele:

Chairman Steele made his tech priorities clear at the event: “…bottom line is if we haven’t done it – let’s do it. If we haven’t thought of it – think about it. If it hasn’t been tried – why not? If it’s going to be ‘outside the box’ – then not only keep it outside the box, but take it to someplace the box hasn’t even reached yet.”

The project objectives are so ambitious and so vague that’s it’s clear that this is one of those terribly unprofessional RFPs where the actual vendor has already been “pre-wired”. Redstate’s Erick Erickson goes on to say as much.

…Because there is no way any competent person would put together an RFP like this. It’s crap. It is not legitimate. It is unprofessional. It is illusory.

Either they don’t know what they are doing, or they’ve already picked their consultant and are going through the motions. If it is the former, well, the RNC is screwed. If it is the latter, Michael Steele’s claims about bidding out work was B.S.

The scope of this RFP is vast. Not only is the RNC asking for a redesign of the GOP website, but the RNC is asking vendors to re-engineer their social network, work on templates for “30+” state parties, build a “sharing system” for voter file data, AND build a donations platform.

Interestingly, Kimbia gets mentioned first as on the GOP’s list of preferred technologies:

Integrate outside products through common API’s, widgets, or iframes (examples: Kimbia fundraising, Voter Vault, Widgetbox, Ning).

No mention of other donation platforms? Not Google Checkout or Amazon Flexible Payments System? We know that Google is run by crazy “libtards” (I say this endearingly) but Jeff Bezos is a Republican, isn’t he? But wait, there’s more. The RFP also pulls out a classic user request that you found more often in the 1990s:

An aesthetically pleasing site that is intuitive and fun to use should be the overall goal.

Yes, I’ve never heard of any client or nonprofit want a site that was NOT intuitive and fun to use.

Flash interfaces can often make mundane tasks exciting, and having Flash developers who understand user behavior will make the site more user-friendly.

This is not only untrue but Flash can be horrible for users if overused.

An ideal client [I think they meant vendor -Allan] will have a CMS that is already built out and ready to plug into the system, so the only programming time will be building the outward facing presence.

Yes, the RNC wants a complete rebuild but only front-end development work can be done. And, your CMS should ready to plug in. Also, your response is due on 3/18. The large scope, the low amount of detail and the nearing deadline are all clear signs that this RFP is not exactly legitimate. Nonprofits would do well to stay away from this example and head completely in the opposite direction.

Straight from the Google Checkout Team:

We’re writing to let you know that Google Checkout’s free transaction processing offer for non-profits has been extended until 2010. However, in an effort to bring more consistency to the eligibility guidelines for our non-profit offerings, only those non-profits who are also members of our Google Grants program will be eligible for free donation processing. All other non-profits will transition to Checkout’s standard fee structure on March 1, 2009.

If you’re a Google Grants recipient, please make sure to link your Grants account with Checkout by February 15, 2009 to continue to receive free transaction processing without interruption. Learn how to link your accounts:
http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?answer=72722

If you’re not a Google Grants recipient, we strongly encourage you to learn more about the program and apply. Google Grants awards free AdWords advertising to non-profits who meet certain eligibility guidelines, and integrates with Google Checkout to help you increase your online fundraising. Plus, if you apply for Google Grants by March 1, 2009 and you’re accepted, we will retroactively credit you for any Checkout fees incurred while your
application was pending. Learn more about Google Grants:

http://www.google.com/grants/

If your organization falls outside of our guidelines or decides not to apply for a Google Grant, we realize this news may come as a disappointment and hope that you’ll still find Checkout’s ease of use and competitive rates compelling reasons to keep using our product. You’ll be charged a low 2.0% plus $0.20 per transaction for all payment types (Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover), and there are no monthly, setup, or gateway fees. Learn more about Google Checkout fees:

http://checkout.google.com/seller/fees.html

Please visit our Help Center or reply to this email if you have any additional questions. Thank you for using Google Checkout for Non-Profits.

Of course, I know you’re going to ask what the eligibility guidelines are. They are:

To be eligible for the Google Grants program, organizations must fit our eligibility criteria.

In the United States – Read our legal requirements.

Other countries/regions – We are currently accepting applications from eligible charitable organizations based in these areas.

If your country/region isn’t listed and you’d like to be notified via email should Google Grants launch in your country/region, please send us your contact information.

Beyond the legal requirements, organizations must also meet our policy guidelines to be considered for a Google Grant. When we consider your application to the program, we review not just the content included in your application, but we also closely review your website, as this is where users will be taken via your Google Grants ads. Please review the policy guidelines we consider when reviewing your application and website below.

Eligible nonprofits include, but are not limited to, the following focus areas:

• Animal rescue & conservation
• Arts
• Disaster & relief services
• Education
• Environment
• Health
• Science & technology
• Voluntarism &community outreach
• Youth advocacy & programs

Ineligible nonprofits include, but are not limited to, the following concentrations:

• Commercial non-profits
• Credit-counseling services
• Mutual membership benefits (networking, professional, alumni, and other membership organizations)
• Portals and directories

Be aware that any organization with the following components on site are not eligible for the program: political/lobbying content; religious content which proselytizes or discriminates on the basis of religion; Google AdSense; car/boat/real estate donation-focus; and entirely fee-based programs.
Google reserves the right to award advertising to any organization. Selections are made at Google’s sole discretion, and decisions regarding award recipients are final.

I think the upshot is that if you’re a direct service nonprofit, you’re still A-OK in Google’s books. If you don’t do direct service, you’ll still have to pay the fee. I find it odd that they exclude credit-counseling services specifically. Are they seen as not being a direct services organization too much in cahoots with funders who can pay (like banks)? Interesting. It’ll be interesting if they include socialmarkets in that mix. I’ll be finding out soon.

A Google search for “Burma” now turns up the following URLs that users are being directed to within Google Ads on the right-hand side of the page.

www.unicefusa.org
www.WorldVision.org
www.DirectRelief.org
www.FoundationBurma.org
www.charitynavigator.org
www.gfa.org/Burma-Cyclone
imcworldwide.org/cyclone_nargis
doctorswithoutborders.org

The potential for abuse of disaster relief-oriented keywords remains high. Clearly, opportunistic nonprofits could hijack the concern that donors rightly have for Burma and do a quick Google AdWords buy to redirect possible donations to their organization. One could make the case that nonprofits that had made buys on SEO keywords before the Cyclone Nargis hit should be given higher priorities than Johnny-come-latelies. Two of these new organizations, Direct Relief and UNICEF, also have Google Checkout accounts which I believe will lead to discussion as to the “purity” of Google’s presentation of contextual ads for this search. Is Google acting in a self-serving manner if two out of eight charities receiving top positioning for the “Burma” keyword also happen to be users of its Google Checkout service? Lucy Bernholz rightly raises that question in her post on this issue as well.

Although I don’t necessarily agree with the rest of her positions, like the creation of an online stockticker mechanism to track online fundraising (too many structural barriers to that currently), it’s important to note that one does not need to be a megacharity like UNICEF or World Vision to get good AdWords placement on Burma. It could also very well be the case that Google is just allowing the AdWords buys to ride for now without any cherrypicking on its end. You may notice the anomalous nonprofit in the list, foundationburma.org, which is run by the Foundation for the People of Burma. It’s a tiny 501c3 that had slightly under $900,000 in annual revenue in 2006. Clearly, they understood what this could mean in driving their fundraising. Kudos to them.

In this case, the keyword “Burma” doesn’t attract a lot of traffic so max suggested CPC for Burma is $1.25 with a monthly budget of $30. Be aware that these AdWords figures will rise along as more donors seeking to donate to this issue click on these ads. However, for now, for the cost of three tickets to the movies, your organization can be up there next to UNICEF and World Vision. As competition in the AdWords marketplace continues, it’s clear that future disasters are going to require bold action by relevant nonprofits to place their AdWords quickly and decisively. If your organization doesn’t know how to use Google AdWords and serves in a first- or second-responder capacity to crises either international or domestic, you should definitely ensure that Google AdWords knowledge is ingrained within your fundraising staff. This responsibility, I believe, is a good fit for the more business-oriented and math-savvy IT director.

UPDATE: Check out http://www.google.com/myanmarcyclone/. While I’ve touted Google Checkout for Nonprofits in the past (heck I even use it over at socialmarkets), I believe this is a pretty blatant signal that one should adopt Google Checkout if you want premium placement. That said, Google is matching up to $1 million in donations.

UPDATE (5/14/2008 11:42 PM): Google AdWords pricing for “Burma” has risen by 500% as competition continues for the keyword. Google AdWords is now reporting the following pricing for the keyword “Burma”:

Average CPC: $0.68 (at a maximum CPC of $1.25)
Estimated clicks per day: 143 – 182 (at a daily budget of $150.00)

And “Myanmar” isn’t any better:

Average CPC: $0.62 (at a maximum CPC of $1.69)
Estimated clicks per day: 284 – 356 (at a daily budget of $250.00)

Meanwhile, Google Trends is reporting very large increases in searches on both “Burma” and “Myanmar”.

Also, Lucy Bernholz on Philanthropy 2173 mentioned this article as well.

According to sources, Network for Good charges 4.75%, while FirstGiving charges up to 7% in transaction costs to the charities. In other words, only $0.93-0.9525 of each dollar of a donation actually reaches the charity. Network for Good, in fact, doesn’t actually get permission from charities, but rather has an opt-out program if charities do not wish to have Network for Good collect donations for them. According to the FAQ’s on the Network for Good’s website, they send the money on to the charities through electronic funds transfer or a paper check on the 15th of every month.

So, in other words, the Network for Good is taking 4.75% and then holds the money for up to 31 days before moving it on to the charity. Network for Good is itself a non-profit, but those fees and the benefit of that negative float provide serious financial benefits to Network for Good far above the cause to whom the donor actually wanted to provide money to.

As a sidenote, FirstGiving actually charges 7.35%. Network for Good’s transaction costs page is here.

It’s a known practice that online donation processors make a bit of money on the float. I don’t know if there has ever been a discussion of this actually online. Should this practice be ended? It’s hard to say since the case that FirstGiving and Network for Good always makes is that they handle end-of-the-year paperwork related to receipting and tax return information. Also, they have pretty good reporting tools for nonprofits to slice and dice with. The deeper question is whether those ancillary reporting capabilities and built-in business logic is worth the float plus the transaction costs that are passed on to the donor.

Personally speaking, the value of reporting tools and business logic capabilities depreciate in time as other and more capable credit card processors go into the market. My experience with Google Checkout for Non-Profits shows that it’s more than capable of handling those particular needs. I haven’t used Network for Good or FirstGiving myself though so I can’t really speak for them.

On the other hand, when I worked at the Coalition for the Homeless, we used IATS, one of the credit card vendors behind Blackbaud’s NetSolutions. Despite a similarly high transaction fee to Network For Good, it actually lowered our net transaction costs because IATS handled the fraudulent credit card problems we were constantly being hit with and because of the instant integration with Raiser’s Edge.

So in the end, that business case being made is predicated on the ability of FirstGiving and Network for Good’s continuing development of their backend processing tools. However, if other processors such as MPayy and Google Checkout for Non-Profits, with their lower transaction fee of 0% (yes, they’re both free) can provide equally compelling backend reporting tools then it’s a total no-brainer for nonprofits.

It also depends a lot on the maturation level of your nonprofit. I believe that if you’re starting out, MPayy and Google Checkout for Non-Profits are precisely where you should be heading. If you need back-end integration though with an existing system like Raiser’s Edge, you might consider just sticking with whatever Blackbaud solution is around. Ultimately, it’s more than just transaction fees that you have to consider but unfortunately as far as the public is concerned, those fees are part and parcel of your relationship with them. Clearly, the weighting should be towards lowering those transaction costs whenever possible.

NTEN scooped us all with the news that nonprofits are now eligible to use Google Checkout for free (no gateway, processing or monthly fees) until the end of this year2008. And for the low, low rate of 2% and $0.20 per transaction after that! But wait, there’s more. The annoying problem with Google Checkout for nonprofit usage was that it forced donors to go through a shipping screen. They’ve fixed that problem.

If you’re a developer and you’re looking for the API, click here. It’s yet another huge development in the nonprofit space. Kudos again to NTEN for doing it this for us! I may be critical of their web site statistics stance but I’m a loyal member for precisely this sort of reason.