A touching little video reminding us to be “kids” again.

Anything is possible and we, as entrepreneurs, have the ingenuity, know-how, passion, love and drive to change the world.

That’s how I choose to live my life. I will change the world and I will enable others to do the same!

I occasionally find it difficult to properly research and decide what charities I should support. In those times, I find solace in relying on my personal network to help me decide, since their interests are typically similar to my own. Other times, that same network has shared charitable gems worth of my donation, but I haven’t had the financial resources to give what I would like.

In general, though, I know of so many good causes that yet another problem arises: I’m spread a little thin. It’s at times like these that I wonder, “Do I make a small donation or put my credit card away because it won’t have the same impact as a one-time, larger one?”

Pocketing our gifts can be a real shame, particularly when our hearts ring true to a cause. It is especially true when the overall pool of financial resources for charities is dwindling. More often than not, the times in which a small donation ceases to be a barrier is in the context of community giving. By community giving, I mean the act of linking my network to pool resources for a specific cause. When giving in a community, the collective efforts of the group really add up!

Here’s one example of how I created traction among my own network for a cause…

I raced for Team LIVESTRONG in the Austin Triathlon last Labor Day. Like many of these teams, full sponsorship required that I raise a certain amount. I knew I was going to race one way or the other, but I had my doubts on whether or not I could reach the minimum required. Fortunately, the Lance Armstrong Foundation had the resources and tools to help me achieve my goal. I was able create a community of givers in my network by using a Facebook app and e-mail marketing created by the Lance Armstrong Foundation to easily surpass what I thought was possible!

$5 here. $30 there. There were some larger donations, of course, but without community giving, I may have never seen those donations, particularly the smaller ones. Effectively, my community was compelled to give not only because they liked the cause itself, but because they knew others in my community, saw how important it was to them and could see how even the smallest donations among them added up.

Seeing the impact my fundraising efforts had for Team LIVESTRONG, I have reciprocated: joining social giving communities across networks even during times of financial hardship. To me, it wasn’t the amount that mattered. My show of support, when multiplied by my community, was the vehicle for change.

In the end, community giving, whether via social or trusted networks, helps everyone win. Charities win though donations and brand loyalty; donors find opportunities to participate; everyone leverages a known community of givers with the same cause mindedness that charities can approach in future campaigns.

You receive multiple Nondisclosure Agreements (“NDAs”) for your business and they all look very similar; however, your attorney should review all of your NDAs because there are some dangers lurking.  You are a non-profit so you think, “not much of what we have is confidential and certainly there is no one that will do inappropriate things with our information.”  You would think that NDAs would be uniform, but they are not.  Below are five things to look out for.

1. Residuals Clauses – These are clauses that say the Recipient can reuse what is retained in their unaided memory.  There are certainly situations where this is appropriate; however, they must be drafted properly.
2. Assignment – The famous one-way assignment where only one party can assign the agreement.  Do you really want your NDA assigned to your competitor?  That doesn’t make sense to me.
3. Independent Development Exclusion – Most NDAs have exclusions to what is confidential.  Many times, the “independent development” exclusion is left out.
4. Reverse Engineering – Did you know that by law reverse engineering is legal in certain circumstances?  Therefore, you need to have a contractual “no reverse engineering” provision.  If your non-profit is creating any kind of software, this provision is necessary.
5. Severability – There is some bad case law in my opinion that says if you do not have a severability provision in your NDA and one of the provisions is invalid, the whole NDA is invalid; therefore, you must have a severability clause.

The five items listed above are just a handful of things that your attorney looks for when reviewing NDAs.

The term “Social Benefit Organization” is not an attempt to detract non-profits’ focus on providing a social service. My problem with the term “non-profit” is that:

It’s exclusive: some non-profits have a desire to or actually do turn a profit. The concept may seem foreign to some. Yet, in an environment with increasing demands on and decreased funding for non-profits, only the strong and innovative survive. If a non-profit’s profits – it even sounds awkward – are reinvested to further an organization’s stated mission, then let them make money. Just don’t call them “non-profit.”

It can carry a negative connotation: cancer researchers, animal rights activists, do-gooders, world-changers… all positive, but not, necessarily, focused on delivering their good works effectively and efficiently. There are poorly-run organizations in all sectors and that will, likely, never change. Yet, labeling a company “non-profit” simply implies – to me at least – inefficiencies in their model.

It’s a corporate structure, not a purpose: Non-profits exist to deliver social services. Why not define them by what they do for the world? Let some non-profits turn a profit; let some depend entirely on public support; let some live off of a huge endowment: let them all operate as each uniquely requires.

It’s incredible how a simple change in terminology can have a profound effect on people’s perceptions. George Carlin once remarked about how the term “Shell Shock” was softened-out over the decades into “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.” In his example, the new term is a disservice since it marginalizes and dumbs down the severe impact “Shell Shock” has on our soldiers. In the case of “non-profit” vs. “social benefit organization,” I’m proposing the reverse effect. I simply feel “social benefit organization” encapsulates the entire sector better while leaving in tact the underlying mechanisms in which each organization uniquely pursues their cause.

Engage in a discussion here and/or tweet about it with the hashtag #sborg

I was recently made aware of HP’s “Create Change” campaign, which allows customers to attach donations to HP.com purchases. Beth Kanter has a great little write-up on the topic and campaign. HP is doing a nice job promoting their socially responsible business practices, but they, like too many others, miss the mark in several key areas: choice, accessibility and transparency.

The term “Embedded Giving,” coined by Lucy Bernholz in 2007, and highlighted in Beth’s article, felt like it defined us nicely:

Embedded giving is the (apparently) increasingly common practice of building a philanthropic gift into another, unrelated, financial transaction. For example, rounding up your phone bill to make a gift to charity. Or using your own grocery bag and donating the nickel that the store gives you to a local homeless shelter. Or using a specific search engine because it donates a small portion of its advertising revenue to charity. Or mistaking that line on your credit card receipt for the place to calculate the tip, only to discover you’ve just made a gift to fight childhood hunger. Or adding $1 to your drug store, grocery store, gas station purchase to fight juvenile diabetes, MS, or any other number of diseases.

I read Lucy’s blog and saw that she had written several posts about embedded giving. In a nutshell: she’s not a fan.

For one, she rightfully claims that existing embedded giving campaigns have little or no accountability for the organization collecting donations or those receiving them. She also argues that current embedded giving campaigns create separation between donors and charities.

I can’t tell you how many people I’ve spoken to or countless articles I’ve read that show distrust and, sometimes, disdain for in-store giving:

Obviously, there needs to be a clear path from one’s pocketbook to the social benefit it creates and an understanding that donors have complete control of their gifts. That would be transformative philanthropy and could serve to alleviate Lucy’s concerns and those of donors everywhere.

Just wait until she see what we’re up to…

Ambassador Sada Cumber, Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

First of all, if you don’t know it already, MiniDonations is not your “typical” non-profit. Its purposefully designed around making money and self-sufficiency with a heart for pure altruism. It’s a disservice to organizations like us – and there are several – to label them “non-profit” or “not-for-profit.” I’d much rather we rally around a different term: “Social Benefit Organization” (SBO). But that’s another conversation…

As you may know, equity is typically exchanged when a for-profit raises capital. That equity may later convert into dividends or be worth cash in IPO or M&A events. Of course, non-profits are forbidden from giving equity away.

One of our founding principles involved sharing a portion of our profits with members of the MiniDonations Social Network. For the sake of explanation, imagine a 50-50 split where 50% goes to MiniDonations’ Endowment and 50% distributed amongst our Social Networking Community.

To attract large, early-stage donors, we simply need to tweak our “profit sharing” strategy a bit and employ an Endowment/Donor Community/Change Agent (or “Seed” Donor) split of, say, 50/40/10.

Turning a $100,000 profit would mean $50,000 would go into our endowment, $40,000 into the MiniDonations Social Network (as thanks to our Donor Community) and $10,000 among our Change Agents (as thanks for their “seed stage” donations). In all cases, profits allocated to the Donor Community and Change Agents would be deposited into their respective MiniDonations Donor Accounts. By keeping community profit sharing within MiniDonations, we comply with IRS regulations and, more importantly, encourage continued use of our giving management tools and social networking environment.

“Change Agents” would equally share the total profits allocated to their level. For example:

I love this idea because it marries the profit sharing aspect of the for-profit world into ours. However, the ultimate beneficiaries are not investors but charities. Our success allows our donation community to give even more to their favorite causes: think “Pay it Forward.” This could not only get philanthropists, foundations and corporations excited when funding us but might also appeal an unlikely crew as well: VCs and Angel Investors.

If you’re interested in supporting us, please donate via our wonderful partners at the Austin Community Foundation. $10, $50, $1000… anything helps our mission to promote responsible philanthropy for everyone!