Don’t petition the White House, Use Change.org
The Country Moved to the Left Last Night
Republicans, Rape, Life, and Control of Women
Change.org’s Success and Caution to Users
Change.org and its founder, Ben Rattray, find themselves the center of attention in the upcoming issue of Forbes magazine. The article, already published online, tells the story of Ben stumbling into the online petition world and within a few years the site becoming a hub for online slacktivism – along with making millions of dollars.
Yes, the website that promotes individuals to create their own vision of social change is a for-profit business soliciting non-profits to get your email address.
The service is free, and with a name like Change.org the company even sounds like a not-for-profit. But it’s not. It was founded in 2007 and spent the better part of two years flailing around for a profitable business model until Rattray hit upon a clever approach. Change.org charges groups for the privilege of sponsoring petitions that are matched to users who have similar interests. For example, when a person signs a petition about education and clicks “submit,” a box pops up and shows five sponsored petitions on education to also sign. If a user leaves a box checked that says “Keep me updated on this campaign and others,” the sponsor can then send e-mails directly to that person. It’s not clear from the check box that your e-mail address is being sold to a not-for-profit. Rattray says an imminent site redesign will make the company’s business model more transparent. Change.org has 300 paying clients, including Sierra Club, Credo Wireless and Amnesty International, and its revenue so far this year is $15 million.
Change.org’s business model might be why you suddenly started receiving emails from groups that you no little to nothing about. I do not begrudge the business model. In fact, it is nice to see that a company can make money doing good in the world. I do begrudge them when they brand themselves as progressive change and then work with anti-worker groups.
This hasn’t stopped it from becoming a target for political strong-arming. Earlier this year Change.org succumbed to pressure from labor unions and declined to renew ad contracts with two education reform groups, Stand for Children and StudentsFirst (headed by Michelle Rhee, the former schools chancellor of Washington, D.C.), because they favor reforms some see as antiunion. Stand for Children and StudentsFirst were baffled, saying they hadn’t broken any of Change’s terms of service. Rattray says Change.org plans to release new policies in October clarifying who can and cannot advertise on the site.
The decision to drop the two so-called reform groups came only because progressives held a progressive company responsible to it’s mission statement. I look forward to them clarifying their policies by the end of this month.
So how much does Change.org get for each email they sell to Sierra Club, CREDO, or StudentsFirst? $1.75. According to the Forbes article, Change.org’s revenue thus far for 2012 sits at $15 million. That translates into more than 8.5 million email addresses sold to other groups. If GenNetWorth’s assumptions are accurate it means Rattray earns $250,000 a year and has a net worth of $2 million. Pretty damn good money for creating a site that has allowed once powerless individuals to stand up to big banks, huge meat conglomerates, the South African government itself!
Yet, StudentsFirst still has an organizational page at Change.org and an active petition. Their page claims more than two million supporters (read it as users who have signed one of their petitions). According to tax forms StudentsFirst spent $337,000 to cultivate their email lists. Much of that money went to Change.org. We can decipher that through the number of signatures compared to other petitions sites used by StudentsFirst. They pale in comparison to the number of people using Change.org.
Change.org users should be aware of site’s monetary goals and not succumb to its do-gooder reputation. This is not to say no good can come from the site. Please do not read this post in that manner. I have signed many petitions and recognize the volume of positive change initiated through the petition site. It is merely post to caution people on the petitions they sign. They could fall prey to a anti-worker like petition or one that supports so-called “clean” energy with calls to create jobs.
Photo by huskyte
-
antonioni
- No public Twitter messages.
