Rather, I was hoping to start a discussion on what is a reasonable service fee for being a middle man. In my original article, I pointed out charities like Save the Children (a vast international charity with staff in thousands and offices around the world) takes only 8% for their overhead costs. Sites which act like a fundraising middle man, like FirstGiving for example, can sometimes charge service fees as high as 7.5%.

Many of you left great comments – both on the original blog post and in the version of this that is attached to my facebook profile. I’m honored that FirstGiving also decided to make an official comment, which I’m including here:

Malaria No More is one of the world’s leading charities fighting malaria in Africa. For exactly $10, they can protect an entire sleeping site from malaria for up to five years. As of the writing of this post, donations on behalf of Henry Green are now enough to protect over 250 sleeping sites (or an estimated 1,000 people).

That’s the good news. The bad news is that, of the 250 sleeping sites that Malaria No More could be helping with this donation, only 231 sleeping sites will be served. That’s an estimated 75 people (most likely much more) that won’t be (but should be) sleeping under a mosquito net.

Find out more after the jump…

How could this be?

The reason actually has nothing to do with Malaria No More – and everything to do with the way in which the donations were collected. John Green, like many Americans trying to raise funds for charity, decided to use the website FirstGiving.com.

FirstGiving.com allows anyone to create a custom donation page for their favorite charity. Anyone making a page can set a fundraising goal, provide a deadline, and allow donors to leave comments and rally others to donate. It’s interactive and a very “Web 2.0″ way to fundraise.

What makes FirstGiving.com great is that it avoids the mess of having to handle the money yourself. FirstGiving processes all donations for you and sends the funds to the charity of your choice. No need to worry about accounting or wiring funds. FirstGiving is essentially your trusted middle man.

FirstGiving allows anyone to fundraise for their favorite charity. Progress bars, custom images, donor comments, and more make this a very interactive and community-based way to fundraise.

But what’s the catch?

The thing that gives me pause about FirstGiving.com is that, for the mere privilege of acting as a middle man, they take $7.50 from every $100 donated. For anyone who has raised funds for charity via PayPal, you’ll know that FirstGiving is charging more than double what it would cost to raise the funds yourself.

But it’s just 7.5%, right? Well, think of it this way. For every $133.33 donated to Malaria No More via FirstGiving.com, one family that could have received a mosquito net will have to go without. That’s one family that’s at risk of dying when they shouldn’t be. Hate to say it but it’s true: 7.5% is the difference between life and death.

But what is fair compensation for a middle man?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe everyone in this world has a right to earn a living. The staff at FirstGiving.com are no doubt highly passionate and hardworking people that deserve to be compensated for their work – even if that work is helping to raise funds to help charitable causes.

But how much should it cost to be a middle man? Let me put this in context: Save the Children is one of the biggest charities in the world. They take a cut from every dollar they receive. With that cut they can hire engineers to do water projects, rent warehouses to store emergency relief, and have offices right in the communities they serve.

How much does Save the Children take from every dollar to fund this vast international operation? Eight percent. Why does FirstGiving.com, a small 20-person company based in Massachusetts, need to have nearly as big a percentage cut as Save the Children?

In fact, why isn’t FirstGiving.com (the US site) at least as competitive as their counterparts in the United Kingdom? I am a huge fan of the UK version of FirstGiving – called JustGiving.com. Why? Because 100% of every dollar donated (by UK citizens) goes straight to the charity.

If you are not a UK citizen, JustGiving will still handle your donation – but they will just charge a mere 5% fee. This needs to be emphasized: if you are American, more of your money reaches the charity of your choice if you use the UK site instead of the American site.

The Need for the Web 2.0 Middle Man

Efficiency aside, the reason why sites like JustGiving, FirstGiving, and Facebook Causes (which charges 4.75%) need to exist is because most charities simply don’t get it. John Green could have easily pointed people to Malaria No More’s own official donation page. While that does guarantee 100% of the funds go directly to the charity – it is fundraising without community interaction.

Using only the official donation form, John could not set a fundraising goal, time limit, or give an explanation as to who the donations are in honor of. In turn, donors could not track how many donations were made nor would they be able to interact (via donation page comments) with other supporters.

With so many of us engaged in “Web 2.0″, why is giving money to important causes stuck in “Web 1.0″? It’s because most charities don’t have any impetus to change. Their biggest donors are still baby boomers and most charities fail to see the value in investing to become more accessible to a tech savvy generation.

In many respects, FirstGiving, JustGiving, Facebook Causes, and even what I’m doing are ways to try and push old fashioned charities into the 21st century. The problem is that many charities are dragging their feet, kicking, and screaming every step of the way. Although the tragedy in Haiti is pushing many charities forward, there is still a long way to go. The charities that adapt the fastest will be the ones to survive.

Survival of the Fittest

Even though Save the Children has been around since the great depression and is able to build clean water wells at a price few charities can beat ($2,500 per well), most of my friends tend to donate to Charity: Water instead. Why? Charity: Water makes it easy for you to donate and bring your community with you.

If I wanted to, I could setup a donation page at mycharitywater.org in under five minutes. I can have a custom logo, fundraising goal (at the cost of $5,000 per well), and give an explanation for my fundraising. Donors, in turn, can leave messages and track the progress in real-time. And, unlike FirstGiving, JustGiving, or Facebook Causes, there is no transaction fee.

Similarly, in the face of the crisis in Haiti, on the ground charities like Partners in Health have made it easy for people to setup a custom donation page right on their own official website. Sure, you could use middle men instead – but then part of your donation will never reach the shores of Haiti.

Wake-Up Call to Charities

I once told staff at Save the Children that their organization’s capacity to adapt to the needs of my generation in the next five years will determine whether or not they will survive fifty years down the road. That isn’t an exaggeration – and that statement is by no means limited to any one particular charity.

The socially conscious in my generation are making it clear that they value convenience and community-interaction over cost-efficiency. The more charities embrace this kind of fundraising, the quicker this doesn’t have to be a choice between efficiency vs. interaction. And, the charities that embrace this first are the ones that will earn the loyalties that will last years to come.

What do I mean by “earning a living”? Well, in the near term, I would like to be able to stop borrowing from friends and family to pay for things like meals, clothes, and even basics like getting a haircut. In the long term, I’d like to one day live that “American Dream” somewhere in suburbia.

At the same time, I want to be able to follow my passion. Helping others – especially in ways that connect people using technology – is a dream come true. Even though I believe we can end extreme poverty, I want to be able to continue to help others for the rest of my life.

The desire to earn a living from your passion maybe a no-brainer for many people reading this. But it deserves discussion because not everyone agrees that you should be able to earn a living if your passion is fighting poverty.

Far too many people believe that, if you want to help the poor, you have to be poor yourself and/or take a vow to live a Spartan-like existence. I couldn’t disagree more with such a sentiment – and I say that as someone who is virtually penniless.

Ending extreme global poverty won’t be done in a single summer service trip or by volunteering every second Sunday. It requires a large contingent of dedicated men and women who have the expertise, training, know how, and logistical support to do this day in and day out.

To expect everyone fighting poverty to do so unpaid is just as silly as expecting every doctor to work without pay. Sure, many do – but it’s not scalable to the whole. I’m also not trying to suggest we turn communist. I fully believe people should be compensated for the work they put in – no matter the job.

And, again, to most of you this is a no-brainer. But, having done this for a while, I’m constantly surprised at how some people turn into haters because they feel that anyone who earns a living helping the poor is somehow “getting rich off poverty”. These are accusations even I’ve had to deal with – despite the fact that I can’t even afford to go see a movie without borrowing from mom & dad (sad but true).

I’ve also seen this accusation used in a way to dismiss the anti-poverty message of others. For example many people insist that, if anti-poverty scholars truly cared about fighting poverty, they wouldn’t charge for the books they write. This begs two questions. First, is writing a book about poverty easier than writing other kinds of books? And, second, are only those who write about poverty the ones who care about poverty?

In my opinion, my friend John Green and my inspiration Dr. Jeffrey Sachs equally care about global poverty. The difference is one writes teen fiction and the other writes about global poverty. Both put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their work – and both deserve the right to earn a living from the fruits of their labor.

With so many people out there trying to help the poor – and so many charities to chose from – I think many of us have developed unrealistic expectations as to what it takes to fight poverty in a long-term sustainable manner. Just because I do this unpaid – doesn’t mean everyone else has to. Just because I don’t take a cut from donations – doesn’t mean real charities don’t have to.

As far as I can tell – with the lack of progress I’ve had in sustaining my work thus far – my work will continue to be unpaid, unemployed, and unplanned. But, I would like to one day earn a living from this passion. And, if that ever happens, I would hope that my work isn’t perceived as less sincere, less honest, and any less genuine than it is right now.

Based upon popular request, here are the revised (and simpler) voting instructions on how to get me to Davos to talk to world leaders about global poverty:

1. Go to YouTube.com/Davos
2. Click the button you see that says “Vote”.
3. Select my video called “A Message to Davos”.
4. When the video starts playing and you see me talking, click the green thumbs-up button underneath the video.
5. When the red thumbs down button turns grey, your vote has been recorded in the server.
6. You can repeat this every single day until the 15th.

You do not need to sign-up for anything or give your personal information to YouTube or the World Economic Forum.

With this year’s winner being selected by popular vote, does this make this year’s Davos Debates nothing more than a mere popularity contest? Not at all – and I mean that even if I lose by a landslide.

The Davos Debates would have been a popularity contest if voting was the only method of selecting a candidate. In that case, it would make a lot of sense for any of those big YouTube mega-stars to submit a video (it could even be unrelated to Davos) and win by a landslide. Free trip to Davos!

But, what I like about this year is that it combines an evaluation of ideas and a way to prove a candidates campaign & rallying ability. The first round was all about ideas. The judges didn’t care if you have 1, 100, or 1 million YouTube subscribers.

How do I know this? Because the panel of judges were as independent as you can get. You have Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Muhammad Yunus, UN Peace Ambassador Paulo Coelho, and Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington.

Just to give you an idea of how impartial these panel of judges were: the head of a US-based charity that partners with the Professor Yunus’s Grameen Bank also submitted a video the Davos Debates. He was not selected as a finalist.

The second round, is all about a candidate’s ability to rally support for their cause. I like because it combines the best of last year’s contest (the search and selection of good ideas) with the idea of transparency and opening up the selection process to the people.

The way it is setup now, whoever gets to speak at Davos can say “I have an important message and I have a lot of people who want you to hear it”. It gives much needed weight that have been missing in previous iterations of the Davos Debates.

The only trouble now is getting there.

Shawn of the Uncultured Project is in the running for a slot at the 2010 World Economic Forum Meeting. If selected, he will have a chance speak to world leaders about the terrifically strong and largely untapped power the YouTube community has as a force of good.

Watch Shawn’s video and vote here:
http://www.youtube.com/Davos
Votes can be submitted every day until the 15th of January.

Tonight it doesn’t matter if I never ever get to Davos because this drawing is awesome

Almost exactly three years later, that journey has brought me to within grasp of being able to talk to world leaders about global poverty at one of the planet’s most important conferences. I can get there – but only with your help.

Out of 75 applications from around the world (and many more that didn’t make the deadline), I was selected as one of five potential candidates to go to Davos. The winner, is determined by you – because it’s your vote that determines the winner.

I won’t lie. I’m up against some brilliant people. I wish we could all go – because I’d love to meet them all and brainstorm. At the same time, I know that it’s not like global poverty can be solved with a one week trip to Switzerland.

But this could be big. It’s the biggest thing to ever happen in my life and it could be the biggest thing for the future of this project. So, if you’d like to help, here’s how you can do so:

Things you will need [REVISED as of Jan 11th, 2010]:

1. A YouTube or Google account. Signing up for either is free. UPDATE: You don’t need to signup for anything to vote.
2. An internet connection good enough to use YouTube.
3. The ability to get online every 24 hours until January 15th.
4. If Possible: Friends & family who might be interested in voting as well.

Here’s how you can vote:

1. Go to http://YouTube.com/Davos

2. On the top half of the page, you will see something about the Davos Debates. It will have three tabs. Click on “vote”.

3. You will see five videos from the five candidates. Select my video called “A Message to Davos” – the thumbnail is my picture.

Videos Are Randomly Sorted and May Not Appeared In This Order

4. Once the video starts playing, click the green thumbs-up button. Wait a few seconds. Your vote has been placed.

When The Red Thumbs Down Turns Grey, Your Vote Has Been Cast.

5. You can vote again everyday.

It may seem that, with so many followers on Twitter and so many subscribers, this is all but guaranteed. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Without getting too academic, it boils down to public vs. private networks. My support network is very public. And, like every network, not everyone following me or subscribed will be reading my tweets, watching the videos, or reading this blog.

It’s very possible (and very likely) that many of these candidates have a group of friends, family, and colleagues who will be diligently voting. This could be close.

Every. Vote. Counts.

(Photo Seen in Featured Content is from Flickr)

Hey Shawn, I saw your Davos video (of course) and the one blaring thing I noticed is that you did not mention what is UNIQUE about YOU. Lots of people work on ending poverty. You even listed websites who are doing it too.. but you didn’t say.. what is special about YOU.

You’ve gotta start using that as your leverage. Thats why I gave YOU money instead of them. That’s why we follow you. You’ve got a unique audience because of the unique way you work – which is also important.

Mention it in your next davos, and in any of the other videos you make that describe what you do. The thing about not using guilt, about showing your viewers where the money goes.. use that. use the unique viewers you have.. we are not middle aged charity people.

We’re nerdfighters and youtubers and we are powerful – use it!

Children in Barguna, Bangaldesh watch YouTube video responses of people who told me to provide this village with clean & safe drinking water. Clean water project implemented with Save the Children.

You can see the full video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJubQzKYMGg

Are you ready for the 17th of December?