Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Computer whiz kid turned charity king

DIRK MEISSNER

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 1:17 PM EDT 30/12/07

At 25, Tom Williams walked away from a lucrative career in Silicon Valley to find a way to put a deeper meaning into his life ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. D K from Calgary, Canada writes: Using his skill set to help other people, an amazing individual! I often think that people distance themselves from the issues by blindly donating to large organizations. Hopefully organizations like this one will allow people to feel connected with causes and take away the mistrust that people have with large charities whose management take home higher salaries then the people donating.
  2. A S from Toronto, Canada writes: Very inspiring...excellent article. Thank you G&M.
  3. Mean Machine from Bugtussle, Canada writes: It would be easier to give to charity if the directors of those charities donated their time rather than collecting huge salaries for the simple task of hiring a telemarketer.
  4. M Brown from London, Canada writes: Mean Machine.. I always love reading posts from someone with as little knowledge on this topic as you. I hate to berak it to you but charities depend on the large contributions made by "directors". The whole point of this company is to get regular people to donate. I don't know how you get that comment after reading this article?

    Clearly you are upset you are not one of those directors... such hard feelings towards them
  5. Ralph Grabowski from abbotsford, Canada writes: I remember seeing the report on tv when he first got his job offer from Apple (age 15) and was headed down to California. At the time, I wondered what his future might hold. It's good to read today that success did not spoil Tom Williams.
  6. Solo Vox from Montreal, Canada writes: Why isn't this fellow the Canadian of the year? Well done!
  7. Shrek Ogre from Nanaimo, Canada writes: I agree with Mean Machine and I believe M. Brown misunderstood his comment. I too have difficulty donating to large, organized charities because I know that the directors and administrators of such charities are collecting huge salaries. I'm very happy to see Tom Williams come up with a model which directs 100% of donated funds to a specific project, although I would presume that some of the donated funds are used to pay for web space etc.? Hats off to this fellow. Nice work. Wish I had acted on my negative perceptions about big charities and come up with something like this.
  8. Larry Gemmel from Val-des-Monts, Québec, Canada writes: I certainly congratulate Mr. Williams on his commitment to promoting philanthropy and his innovative approach to connecting people directly to specific projects, but I think that it is a little misleading to suggest that there is no cost to this. Whether you are a "big charity", a small charity, or the GiveMeaning Foundation, there certainly is a cost. In the most recently published T3010 report for GiveMeaning at Canada Revenue Agency (30 Sept 2006), their statement indicates that out of $666,070 in total expenditures, $493,204 were spent on "Management and Administrative Expenses" including $199,043 in "Professional and Consulting Fees" and $153,646 in "Salaries, wages, benefits, and honoraria". While Mr. Williams indicates that any expenses are paid by specific donors or advertisers who wish to support his work, the same is true for most "big charities" as well. The bottom line is that nearly $1 million in charitable donations were received by GiveMeaning and were deductible for income tax purposes, but nearly half of this money went to cover the expenses of the operation (at least in 2006). Don't get me wrong... I still think this is an interesting idea and a good way to support certain projects, but I think we need to be fair and transparent about the legitimate costs of encouraging and supporting donations. As well, GiveMeaning freely admits that most of its projects must be supported by an "Implementing Organization" that handles the donations and monitors the accountability for the projects - again there is also a cost to the work these registered charities must do to ensure that donor's wishes and intent are carried out and that the project funds are well used. This is exactly the same way that other "big charities" work as well in communities across Canada.
  9. Brian Mulroney from Canada writes: "make meaning".... i can wait till the product is being trading on the stock markets....
  10. marlene gregory from Toronto, Canada writes: Tom Williams is a fabulous role model for his generation...with heart, and soul and intelligence, he is showing the new generation how to create Light out of the darkness which lurks all around us... 'how much meaning do we make' is a glorious question we all need to ponder about Life.
  11. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: How do they keep tabs on the people getting the money?

    there have been many cases of projects like this, where the scam-artists move in, and they say they are buying blankets for starving babies, and it turns out to be a fraud.

    So how is it policed and audited?

    The larger charities at least are higher profile, and can be watched. But who knows what a coulple of people are REALLY doing with the $70,000.

    Within a year the frauds will start to be exposed from this site. Someone in the media could just do a test, and set up a bogus fake charity project, post some pics, do a few superficial things, and then rip the system off. They need to do this to show how easy it is to do.

    I think this is a bad idea, as its impossible to monitor what all these people are doing.
  12. martin sitter from writes: According to compete.com, the GiveMeaning.com site gets less than 10,000 unique users a month, that's a far cry from the 1 million claimed in this article ...

    http://siteanalytics.compete.com/GiveMeaning.com/?metric=uv

    Honesty in business is key. I love giving to charities, and do so often ... but if you're very obviously lying about your stats, then as a charity, how do I trust you with my money?
  13. John Williams from Ajax, Canada writes: There appears to be too much Marketing Genius, and not enough boring accurate Facts.

    Its IMPOSSIBLE to monitor all these people getting the money. I could start giving blankets to starving Panda Bears, and start out legit. Then one day I start buying my blankets at Dollarama, and saying they cost $5, and pocket the $4, and no one is ever going to know.

    Look folks, human nature is not very nice. Crooks and cons are going to overrun this thing. Large charities are better, as at least an external auditor can come in a look around.

    but some tiny mom-pop charity can get away with murder.

    If you don't think people will lie their butt off for $50,000, you are smoking some good stuff. They will for a few hundred, never mind more.

    I predict the fraudsters will take over in short order, if they have not already.
  14. Jimmee J. from tecumseh, Canada writes: I want to keep an open mind to a new and more effective way to donate to charity. The internet has changed the way we bank, shop, communicate etc etc, why cannot there be a new and better way to help those in need? It seems to me that I was reading on how much of our donations to the victims of the Tsusani storm in Asia never got to its destination, or how much of the help going to third world countries never reaches those in need.
    There has got to be a better way.
    And to you Tom, in your own words, I don't envy you, I admire you.
  15. Turning Tide from The Bay, Canada writes: That siteanalytics.compete.com site is not even close to accurate. I don't know how they calculate things but I can say categorically that it's counter is off by magnitudes of 100 at least. I checked my own sites and it's not even remotely close to actual people hits.
  16. David Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't believe in "charity". I believe in citizens holding their governments accountable for social welfare, through a process commonly known as "democracy".

    If governments were doing their job, there would be no need for "charity". "Charity" has become part and parcel of a highly successful scheme to defraud and cheat the vast majority of honest citizens, by those who want to duck their social responsibility. Suffice to say, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. So too are 'universal' health care and education.

    And here we are debating which fraud is more meritorious...
  17. Michael Ben-Nes from Israel writes: There is a new a new alternative for online fundraising, take a look at GiveStream ( http://www.givestream.com ). It offers a set of free and easy-to-use online fundraising and community-building tools that help nonprofits create their own branded easy giving center.
  18. S C from Toronto, Canada writes: If you go to www.techcrunch.com, every once in a while you see a website like the one profiled here on how someone (ie. an entrepeneur) tries to integrate charity/giving/etc with the web.

    If you've seen enough of this, you'll realize that the end mission of a lot of these start ups is to cash in and that the charity thing is just another front.

    Here you go: http://www.givemeaning.com/about/sponsors
  19. john setta from van, Canada writes: He is one smart cookie !

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top