[jbigelow76]

This is somewhat orthogonal but am I the only one that usually finds businesses built on "do X and help charity at the same time" as pretty weak? It's strikes me as though the business operator doesn't believe in the value they are providing so they piggyback off the value of donating to charity.

There are exceptions, things like the Humble Bundles, but I tend to buy those primarily as call to actions for charity donations themselves. Out of two bundles I've only ever played one game. I never got the sense of the value piggybacking (maybe determining how things get split is part of it).

I just get wary when charities are thrown into the mix with these things. It seems like something bolted on at the last minute to boost conversions.

[skizm]

The donation isn't so much about piggy backing (although I see why it seems like that since I made that marketing comment). The money ensures that the sender is serious while not simply providing a platform for celebrity entrepreneurs to further enrich themselves (not what I had in mind while reading this guy's idea but an equally valid business model I suppose). As far as the sender and receiver are concerned the only thing the fee does is ensure that sender is serious about this email. You could just as easily collect the fee as the middle man and not distribute it to either. The charity thing just helps senders feel a little better about where their money is going (while helping the world suck a little less). Remember, people don't like feeling manipulated and paying a company to "prove" that you are serious about an email isn't something that would sit well with me.

The comparison I had in my mind is something along the lines of paying a fee to complete a bitcoin transaction. The fee is distributed to a "charity" of sorts (the bit coin miners) and goes toward making the world suck less (making sure the block chain is secure). Also it legitimizes the transaction so the sender knows these bit coins are the real deal. If that doesn't make sense feel free to ignore that last paragraph :P

[corin_]

The selling point here would be that the charity donation isn't thrown in there as a value-add, it's that the cost is a necessary feature and to prove the case of necessity over greed the money will be going to a good cause rather than the receiver's bank account.

[jbigelow76]

That is true, and my point was more an aside about businesses that have a profit motive and incorporate a charity component to it so this probably wasn't the best thread to muse in.

That being said, I don't know if the charity aspect would still accomplish the desired goals. What if the recipient started skimming emails, with no real intention of following through, just because they want to see their favorite charity get a few more bucks? If the money went to the recipient instead I would probably think there would be a greater likelihood of it being read as anybody I'd be willing to pay to read my emails would stand lose only their sense of integrity but the charity aspect might make it easier to blow off.

I might be splitting too fine a hair here.

[corin_]

Interesting thought, but if your aim was to get as much money as possible for a charity then a.) skim reading as opposed to reading fully doesn't earn your charity any more and b.) if anything, people are more likely to spend money again if you pay them attention and respond fairly

[jbigelow76]

Hmm, you've got a point. I didn't think about the possiblity of email conversations and how that would impact any cost imposed as well as whether charity was involved.

[drumdance]

I this case it's more about the relative value of time for the recipient vs. the sender. It comes across as a little snotty to say "pay me if you want to talk to me." But charity still conveys the value discrepancy.