Donating money via text is easy from a donor perspective, but it it efficient? Originally written for a class at The Heller School, Brandeis University.

1. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
Philanthropy
via
Text
Messaging:
The
Future,
or
Just
a
Fad?
With
four
out
of
every
five
Americans
owning
a
cell
phone,
they
have
become
nearly
ubiquitous.
Originally
designed
as
a
means
to
place
and
receive
calls
from
anywhere,
they
have
evolved
into
a
confluence
of
hardware
and
software
capable
of
interacting
with
the
world
around
us
in
ways
Alexander
Graham
Bell
likely
never
even
considered
when
the
first
telephone
was
created.
While
many
homes
in
the
United
States
still
contain
land
lines
(i.e.,
traditional
phone
wires
traveling
through
a
solid
medium),
more
and
more
individuals
are
cutting
out
this
service,
electing
to
only
utilize
a
mobile
phone.
According
to
recent
study
data
collected
by
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
as
part
of
their
twice-­‐
yearly
National
Health
Interview
Survey,
over
20%
of
US
households
have
opted
to
give
up
land
lines
and
use
only
cell
phones
(Park,
2009).
With
this
in
mind,
it
can
be
argued
that
for
the
majority
of
people
in
the
US,
the
cell
phone
has
become
an
effective
tool
to
get
in
touch
or
rapidly
transmit
information.
This
extends
beyond
using
our
voice
and
reaches
into
the
ever-­‐growing
world
of
text
messaging.
For
further
confirmation,
just
ask
the
closest
teenager;
texting
now
far
outpaces
phone
calls
when
it
comes
to
communicating.
According
to
data
collected
by
the
Nielson
Company,
teens
aged
13-­‐17
are
623%
more
likely
to
use
their
fingers
rather
than
their
voice
when
talking
to
friends
(Rosen,
2010).
Similar
research
has
supported
these
numbers
(Horrigan,
2008;
Lenhart,
Purcell,
Smith,
&
Zickuhr,
2010;
Page 1

2. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
Yen,
2009).
While
text
messaging
is
becoming
a
routine
way
to
communicate
among
teens,
the
activity
is
certainly
not
exclusive
to
this
age
group
(Amoruso,
Bosanko,
&
Verclas,
2010;
Currie,
2009;
Health
2.0,"
2007;
Stepanek,
2010;
Yen,
2009).
The
sheer
penetration
of
mobile
phones
in
the
US
market,
combined
with
an
expanding
wireless
network
and
increasing
sophistication
in
both
hardware
and
software,
has
led
to
a
host
of
innovative
uses.
One
area
that
has
seen
particular
attention
in
the
past
six
months
is
the
use
of
text
messaging
to
transfer
money.
For
example,
it
is
now
possible
to
purchase
an
item
or
pay
an
individual
using
commercial
services
like
PayPal
("Paypal,"
2010).
On
a
less
commercial
note,
the
recent
earthquake
in
Haiti
highlighted
the
ability
provide
monetary
support
to
nonprofit
organizations
to
carry
out
their
mission
with
simple
text
messaging.
Donating
money
via
text
is
not
an
entirely
new
concept,
having
been
used
successfully
in
2005
to
raise
$400,000
after
Hurricane
Katrina
and
$200,000
in
2004
after
the
Indian
Ocean
tsunami
that
devastated
Sri
Lanka
(Choney,
2010;
MacLaughlin,
2010).
It
wasn’t
until
the
recent
earthquake
in
Haiti,
however,
that
a
turning
point
was
reached
with
text
donations,
resulting
in
both
a
tremendously
popular
avenue
for
providing
support
as
well
as
an
emerging
controversy
within
philanthropy
circles.
The
essential
question
being
raised
is
whether
mobile
giving
is
a
viable
long-­‐term
strategy
to
support
philanthropic
efforts,
or
if
it
is
just
a
fad
that
will
not
result
in
increased
engagement
and
unnecessary
fees.
Page 2

3. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
Public
response
to
the
disaster
in
Haiti
provides
a
useful
illustrative
framework.
When
news
of
the
earthquake
in
spread,
the
response
was
swift
and
massive.
In
addition
to
the
expected
reporting
on
the
aftermath
of
the
catastrophe,
news
outlets
for
the
first
time
publicized
the
ability
to
make
donations
using
text
messaging.
This
was
reinforced
across
social
networks
such
as
Facebook
and
Twitter,
where
instructions
on
how
to
easily
donate
$5
or
$10
to
organizations
were
shared
among
peers.
In
the
days
that
followed,
the
ability
to
provide
financial
support
via
text
messaging
was
promoted
heavily.
Both
traditional
news
outlets
(TV,
radio,
newspapers)
and
newer
media
outlets
(blogs,
Twitter,
Facebook)
encouraged
the
use
of
mobile
giving.
Major
nonprofits
such
as
the
Red
Cross,
along
with
many
smaller
groups,
also
encouraged
this
route,
both
to
increase
total
cash
raised
as
well
as
to
discourage
the
donation
of
goods
that
provide
zero
benefit
(Assiciated
Press,
2005;
Durham,
2010;
Shaikh,
2010).
With
a
swell
of
donors
providing
small
amounts,
over
30
million
dollars
was
raised
in
a
matter
of
days
to
provide
relief
support
(Choney,
2010).
While
the
ease
and
volume
of
donating
via
text
message
had
an
undeniable
impact,
several
details
of
this
approach
need
to
be
reviewed
to
provide
a
more
complete
portrait
of
text-­‐based
giving.
By
considering
the
full
cycle
of
text
donations,
including
processing
time,
fees
associated
with
mobile
giving,
and
systemic
limitations,
a
more
informed
opinion
can
be
formed
to
address
the
question
of
whether
or
not
this
is
a
viable
long
term
philanthropic
strategy.
Page 3

4. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
From
the
individual
donor
perspective,
there
is
instantaneous
satisfaction.
For
example,
if
you
wished
to
donate
$10
to
the
Red
Cross
to
support
relief
efforts
in
Haiti,
all
you
would
have
needed
to
do
is
send
a
text
message
with
the
word
“HAITI”
to
90999.
A
confirmation
text
would
arrive
almost
instantly,
and
once
you
responded
in
the
affirmative
a
second
message
thanking
you
for
your
generosity
would
be
received.
Thus,
you
would
assume
that
$10
is
now
on
the
way
to
Haiti
by
way
of
the
Red
Cross.
Figure
1
illustrates
the
process,
as
it
would
look
to
a
donor
using
an
iPhone.
The
actual
course
of
action,
however,
is
not
as
expeditious.
Behind
the
scenes,
the
following
activities
take
place
Figure
1:
Sample
Text
Donation
(MobileActive.org,
2010;
Stanger
&
Giorgianni,
2010):
1. You
send
a
text
message
to
your
organization
of
choice
2. You
wait
for
your
phone
bill
3. You
pay
your
phone
bill
4. Your
wireless
carrier
pays
an
intermediary
set
up
for
such
funds
5. The
intermediary
pays
the
charity
you
selected
When
all
is
said
and
done,
it
can
take
60-­‐120
days
for
your
donation
to
make
it
to
the
intended
organization,
pending
the
timing
of
the
billing
cycle
and
how
quickly
you
Page 4

5. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
remit
payment.
Thus,
your
full
donation
amount
would
make
it
to
its
destination
as
intended;
it
simply
would
take
longer
than
you
probably
anticipated.
The
reason
behind
this
delay
is
in
fact
coupled
with
the
convenience
of
using
text
messaging.
The
steps
a
donor
is
spared
in
the
giving
process
are
mediated
by
two
agents
previously
uninvolved
in
the
giving
process:
an
individual’s
wireless
service
provider
and
a
third
party
entity
established
to
set
up
and
administer
mobile
donations.
From
the
donor
perspective,
all
that
is
witnessed
is
an
additional
$10
fee
added
to
their
monthly
bill,
and
possibly
any
associated
charges
with
sending
a
text
message
(unless
your
wireless
provider
opts
to
waive
fees).
If
the
donor
had
a
prepaid
calling
plan,
the
funds
would
be
donated
from
their
remaining
balance
assuming
they
had
enough
funds
to
cover
the
donation.
As
a
for
profit
enterprises,
wireless
providers
want
to
ensure
that
the
customer
pays
their
bill,
including
the
donation
amount.
Thus,
the
donation
essentially
remains
in
limbo
until
the
monthly
bill
is
paid.
It
should
be
noted
that
in
the
case
of
the
Haiti
earthquake
almost
all
wireless
carriers
opted
to
waive
normative
fees
associated
with
text
messaging,
and
Verizon
Wireless
chose
to
advance
the
$2.8
million
donated
by
its
customers
to
the
Red
Cross
(MobileActive.org,
2010;
Richtel,
2010).
In
the
recent
Chile
earthquake,
wireless
carriers
have
followed
a
similar
pattern
of
waiving
fees,
although
it
is
unclear
if
any
have
offered
to
advance
funds
donated
to
speed
relief
efforts.
Page 5

6. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
The
intermediary
handling
the
administrative
aspects
of
mobile
giving
also
requires
monetary
support
to
continue
functioning,
growing,
and
supporting
the
organizations
that
take
advantage
of
the
service.
Revenue
is
generated
through
monthly
fees
charged
to
the
nonprofit
organization,
which
vary
based
on
the
number
of
ways
the
nonprofit
chooses
to
employ
mobile
services
("mGive
Pricing,"
2010;
Mobile
Cause,
2010).
While
these
fees
are
necessary
to
operate
a
functioning
business,
they
create
(perhaps
unintentionally)
a
dividing
line
between
those
who
can
or
cannot
take
advantage
of
the
mobile
giving
channel.
In
addition,
there
are
limits
set
by
the
wireless
carriers
regarding
how
much
a
single
person
can
donate
in
a
single
billing
cycle
via
text
message,
typically
$55
(Stanger
&
Giorgianni,
2010).
The
rationale
behind
this
monetary
ceiling
underscores
the
very
reason
the
channel
was
created:
it
is
so
easy
to
make
a
donation
that
protections
were
put
in
place
to
ensure
that
children
do
not
use
text
messages
to
donate
more
funds
than
the
person
paying
for
their
monthly
bill
can
afford.
Setting
limits,
however,
eliminates
the
opportunity
for
a
mobile
donor
to
contribute
more
than
the
maximum
amount
unless
they
choose
to
a)
space
out
their
donation
over
multiple
billing
cycles,
or
b)
follow
up
a
text
donation
with
a
donation
via
the
web,
telephone,
or
by
simply
sending
a
check
(which
has
unlimited
donation
potential).
Recurring
donations
are
currently
not
available,
although
this
is
under
development.
As
a
result,
prior
to
setting
up
this
type
of
service,
a
nonprofit
organization
would
need
forecast
how
many
donations
they
anticipate
receiving
via
text
message
and
Page 6

7. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
strategize
on
how
they
will
advertise
the
opportunity.
If
they
did
not
believe
they
would
receive
enough
donations
(or
perhaps
publicity)
to
make
the
effort
worthwhile
–
the
fiscal
break
even
point
is
estimated
at
750
$5
donations
or
375
$10
donations
over
the
course
of
a
year
–
it
likely
makes
sense
to
avoid
this
channel.
Thus,
smaller
nonprofits
may
not
be
able
to
incorporate
mobile
giving
as
a
fundraising
strategy,
potentially
placing
them
at
a
disadvantage
when
compared
to
larger,
more
established
organizations.
This
also
implies
nonprofits
situated
locally
in
an
effected
area
might
have
less
of
a
chance
for
support
when
compared
to
larger,
international
organizations
that
have
wider
name
recognition.
Balancing
the
adoption
of
a
new
and
exciting
avenue
for
donating/raising
funds
with
the
realities
of
supporting
its
implementation
is
not
easily
accomplished.
On
one
hand,
it
is
likely
that
many
donations
received
via
text
messaging
would
have
not
been
collected
if
the
conduit
had
not
been
so
easily
and
rapidly
accessible.
Mobile
phones
are
increasingly
omnipresent,
with
the
average
person
having
a
mobile
phone
within
arm’s
reach
19
hours
a
day
(Fox
&
Jones,
2009).
This
makes
it
possible
to
immediately
respond,
decreasing
the
probability
that
an
individual
will
get
distracted
and
neglect
to
follow
through
on
intent
to
donate.
Another
possible
outcome
is
that
the
act
of
donating
via
text
encourages
an
individual
to
become
involved
on
a
longer-­‐
term
basis
with
a
specific
issue
or
cause,
which
would
be
beneficial
to
the
philanthropy
field.
Page 7

8. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
Some
have
raised
concerns
the
immediate
satisfaction
of
donation
facilitated
by
mobile
giving
will
encourage
a
form
of
“slacktivism,”
or
the
practice
of
doing
something
that
feels
good
and
provides
immediate
satisfaction
but
does
not
involve
much
personal
effort
and
has
no
political
or
social
impact
(Livingston,
2010b;
Moroziv,
2009;
Wikipedia,
2010).
In
this
instance,
the
term
would
be
applied
to
include
those
that
donate
once
via
text,
and
then
assume
they
have
done
their
due
diligence.
It
is
simply
too
early
to
tell,
however,
if
those
who
used
text
messaging
to
support
Haiti
relief
efforts
will
remain
engaged,
or
repeat
the
act
for
other
causes.
At
this
moment
in
time,
we
exist
in
a
transitory
period
between
established
and
emerging
approaches
to
crate
social
benefit,
and
debates
on
how
to
best
move
forward
are
topics
of
animated
discussion
on
philanthropic
circles
(Bernholz,
2010;
Bernholz,
Skloot,
&
Varela,
2009;
Stannard-­‐Stockton,
2010).
Nonetheless,
what
is
apparent
is
that
the
ability
to
contribute
to
and
participate
in
an
issue
of
personal
meaning
is
changing
with
the
advent
of
new
media.
Upon
reviewing
evidence
both
supporting
and
dissuading
the
use
of
text
messaging
for
fundraising,
a
reasonable
case
can
be
made
for
either
side.
Some
would
argue
that
the
ease
of
donation,
wider
pool
of
donors,
and
attention
to
a
cause
gained
is
worth
the
costs
associated
with
the
effort.
Others
would
disagree,
indicating
that
the
delays
in
fund
disbursement,
administrative
costs,
limits
on
giving,
and
uncertainty
regarding
long-­‐
term
impact
outweigh
the
benefits.
Page 8

9. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
While
earthquakes
are
relatively
common,
it
is
highly
unusual
that
two
earthquakes
of
such
magnitude
would
strike
in
such
a
short
time
period.
The
result
of
this
experience,
however,
highlights
the
fact
that
this
is
an
area
devoid
of
clarity
and
ripe
for
policy
development.
With
mobile
donations
receiving
such
mainstream
attention,
policies
and
standards
need
to
be
created,
revisited,
and
amended
to
incorporate
response
to
natural
disaster.
At
the
time
of
this
writing,
standard
policies
do
not
exist,
and
any
decisions
regarding
fees
or
advanced
payments
are
at
the
discretion
of
each
individual
provider
for
each
individual
event.
Having
explored
both
sides
of
this
conversation,
one
thing
is
absolutely
clear:
philanthropy
can
and
should
take
advantage
of
mobile
avenues
to
attract,
engage,
and
maintain
networks
of
supporters.
The
success
of
text
based
donations
and
other
mobile
activities
indicates
there
is
a
population
willing
and
able
to
engage
using
their
phones.
Efforts
to
develop
applications,
ideas,
and
methods
to
support
these
efforts
should
be
promoted
and
sustained.
It
is
easy
to
see
how
an
organization
or
grassroots
effort
could
share
organizational
updates,
event
announcements,
requests
for
support
(monetary
or
otherwise),
or
related
news
as
an
effective
part
of
an
overall
strategy.
The
wireless
service
provider’s
current
position
as
an
intermediary,
however,
is
problematic
and
makes
text
message
donations
a
less
appealing
approach.
The
general
focus
for
these
companies
generating
maximum
profit
(they
are,
after
all,
Page 9

10. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
commercial
entities),
evidenced
in
part
by
the
fact
that
there
are
even
charges
associated
with
text
messaging,
an
activity
that
requires
little
from
an
infrastructure
standpoint
and
is
arguably
free
(Bender,
2009).
Until
a
universal
“crisis
response”
policy
is
created
by
the
industry
–
or
the
FCC
and
other
affected
parties
working
with
the
industry
–
outlining
what
fees
are
waived,
when
they
are
waived,
and
guidelines
for
rapid
fund
disbursement
is
established,
it
is
cumbersome
to
involve
them
in
ongoing
philanthropic
efforts.
It
only
delays
the
distribution
of
funds
to
the
intended
organizations
and
places
arbitrary
limits
on
the
amount
that
can
be
donated
by
a
single
person.
From
the
organizational
perspective,
having
wireless
companies
involved
is
also
problematic
as
no
individual
contact
information
is
not
transmitted
with
the
text
donation
–
the
nonprofit
simply
receives
a
check
in
the
amount
of
total
donations
(Livingston,
2010a).
This
makes
it
less
useful
for
long-­‐term
engagement
purposes
with
potential
supporters.
Thus,
mobile
strategies
are
useful
for
engaging
current
supporters,
but
less
useful
as
an
ongoing
fundraising
strategy
unless
coupled
with
broader
activities.
As
smart
phones
continue
to
increase
in
popularity,
and
with
applications
for
these
devices
becoming
more
sophisticated,
the
possibility
of
using
mobile
applications
rather
than
text
messaging
is
already
here.
A
dynamic
community
exists,
developing
ideas
to
simplify
the
process
of
connecting
organizations
and
causes
to
those
who
are
interested
in
participating.
For
example,
Mobio
is
a
service
that
allows
an
individual
Page 10

11. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
to
store
payment
information
within
an
application
that
can
read
barcodes,
so
all
an
individual
has
to
do
is
point
their
phone
camera
at
the
barcode,
enter
a
pass
code,
and
confirm
payment
(Mobio,
2010).
Other
services
allow
organizations
to
create
and
brand
applications
quickly
and
cheaply,
so
that
messages
and
alerts
can
be
pushed
out
to
supporters.
This
arena
is
where
we
will
likely
see
significant
growth
in
adoption
in
the
coming
years.
The
result
of
these
efforts
would
minimize
or
eliminate
the
need
to
use
a
wireless
carrier
as
an
intermediary,
freeing
up
the
potential
for
larger
and
more
frequent
donations,
and
helping
to
encourage
a
broader
segment
of
the
population
to
be
engaged.
References
Cited
Amoruso,
M.,
Bosanko,
J.,
&
Verclas,
K.
(2010).
2010
Nonprofit
Text
Messaging
Benchmarks.
Retrieved
February
22,
2010:
www.e-­‐benchmarksstudy.com/mobile
Associated
Press
(2005).
Useless
tsunami
aid
includes
thong
panties.
MSNBC.com.
from
http://is.gd/9TfPI.
Bender,
E.
(2009).
Guess
What
Texting
Costs
Your
Wireless
Provider?
Retrieved
March
1,
2010:
http://is.gd/9TxMp
Bernholz,
L.
(2010,
February
22).
What
Matters
About
Mobile?
http://is.gd/9TqlP.
Bernholz,
L.,
Skloot,
E.,
&
Varela,
B.
(2009).
Disrupting
Philanthropy:
Technology
and
the
Future
of
the
Social
Sector.
Retrieved
from
http://is.gd/9Toop
Choney,
S.
(2010).
Mobile
giving
to
help
Haiti
exceeds
$30
million.
MSNBC.com.
Retrieved
March
2,
2010,
from
http://is.gd/9RgdT.
Currie,
D.
(2009).
Public
health
leaders
using
social
media
to
convey
emergencies.
(Cover
story).
Nation's
Health,
39(6),
1-­‐30.
Durham,
C.
(2010,
March
4).
Help
not
hinder
Haiti.
http://is.gd/9TeTi.
Fox,
S.,
&
Jones,
S.
(2009).
The
Social
Life
of
Health
Information:
Pew
Internet
and
American
Life
Project.
Health
2.0
(2007).
from
Economist
Newspaper
Limited:
http://resources.library.brandeis.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com
/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26523211&site=ehost-­‐live&scope=site
Horrigan,
J.
(2008).
Mobile
Access
to
Data
and
Information:
Pew
Internet
and
American
Life
Project.
Page 11

12. Jodi
Sperber
March
10,
2010
Lenhart,
A.,
Purcell,
K.,
Smith,
A.,
&
Zickuhr,
K.
(2010).
Social
Media
and
Young
Adults:
Pew
Internet
&
American
Life
Project.
Livingston,
G.
(2010a).
5
Real
Challenges
For
Non-­‐Profit
Texting
Campaigns.
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
Mashable.com:
http://is.gd/9RtVy
Livingston,
G.
(2010b).
Why
We’re
In
the
Age
of
the
Citizen
Philanthropist.
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
Mashable.com:
http://is.gd/9RM5L
MacLaughlin,
S.
(2010,
March
3).
Online
Giving
and
Rapid
Response
Trends.
http://is.gd/9UWOz.
mGive
Pricing
(2010).
Retrieved
March
3,
2010,
from
http://www.mgive.com/Pricing.aspx
Mobile
Cause
(2010).
Pricing
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
http://clients.mobilecause.com/plans/retail#text2give
MobileActive.org
(2010).
SMS
Text
Donations
and
the
Haiti
Earthquake
Retrieved
March
2,
2010,
from
http://is.gd/9QuTY
Mobio
(2010).
Mobio
Identity
Systems,
Inc.
Retrieved
March
3,
2010,
from
http://is.gd/9UZkB
Moroziv,
E.
(2009).
The
brave
new
world
of
slacktivism.
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
Foreign
Policy:
http://is.gd/9RKWw
Park,
W.
(2009).
Latest
study
finds
1
in
5
US
homes
are
wireless
only.
Retrieved
March
4,
2010:
http://is.gd/9LIUO
Paypal
(2010).
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
http://is.gd/9RvYZ
Richtel,
M.
(2010,
February
18).
Wireless
Companies
Speed
Up
Texted
Haiti
Donations.
Blog
posted
to
http://is.gd/9RDvW.
Rosen,
L.
(2010,
February
22).
Generation
'Text':
FB
me.
http://is.gd/9LAUz.
Shaikh,
A.
(2010,
March
4).
Nobody
wants
your
old
shoes:
How
not
to
help
in
Haiti.
http://is.gd/9Tewc.
Stanger,
T.,
&
Giorgianni,
A.
(2010,
January
14).
Haiti
relief
update:
What
to
know
about
text
donations.
http://is.gd/9QEIQ.
Stannard-­‐Stockton,
S.
(2010,
March
2).
The
Cost
of
Information
Sharing
in
Philanthropy.
Blog
posted
to
http://is.gd/9TpKL.
Stepanek,
M.
(2010,
January
15).
TextAid:
The
New
Normal?
http://is.gd/9Lhun.
Wikipedia
(2010).
Slactivism
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
http://is.gd/9RK6B
Yen,
H.
(2009).
Popularity
of
text
messaging
is
edging
out
cellphone
calls.
Retrieved
March
4,
2010,
from
Associated
Press:
http://is.gd/9RbMx
Page 12