Anyone know what happened to <a href="http://www.thehungersite.com">The Hunger Site</a>? It went down a few weeks ago "for maintenance", and is now entirely gone. I hope it returns . . . Well, at least there's still <a href="http://www.webreleaf.com">WebReleaf</a>.
The Hunger Site was shut down a couple of weeks ago when its board of directors decided not to invest anymore money into it. The company that ran it was named GreaterGood.com (I think). They also ran a similar rain forest site that I believe was also nuked. There was an AP news release about this a couple of days ago.
I just did a search and found the following from the Seattle Post Intelligencer : http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/business/32203_greatergood21.shtml ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charity Web site GreaterGood.com shuts down It raised money to fight world hunger and rain forest destruction Saturday, July 21, 2001 By JOHN COOK SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER A Seattle Internet company that allowed individuals to donate money to social causes by clicking on banner advertisements or shopping at specified online storefronts has shut down. GreaterGood.com, best known for operating The Hunger Site and The Rain Forest Site, two popular online destinations that were committed to fighting world hunger and rain forest destruction, closed on Tuesday after the board of directors decided not to invest more money. "We are sorry when any investment doesn't work, but I am particularly sorry that this one didn't work," Paul Goodrich, a managing director at Madrona Venture Group who served on GreaterGood.com's board, said yesterday. "I think it had the potential, unlike other firms we have been involved with, to really change the way people thought about charitable causes." Founded in 1999, GreaterGood.com was a for-profit company that raised more than $20 million from a group of investors that included Madrona, Arch Venture Partners and OVP Venture Partners. The company employed about 26 workers who also operated click-to-give sites under the names The Breast Cancer Site and The kidsAIDS Site. But it was The Hunger Site, which GreaterGood.com acquired last year from Indiana resident John Breen, that was by far the firm's most popular. It was featured in Salon.com, the New York Times and a November column by personal finance columnist Jane Bryant Quinn. That sort of attention attracted about 600,000 visitors per day who clicked on advertisements and a "Donate Free Food" button that resulted in more than $4 million for the U.N. World Food Program, America's Second Harvest and Mercy Corps International. Those payments helped send more than 30 million pounds of food to the hungry, Goodrich said. Hunger relief organizations greeted yesterday's news with shock and disappointment. "Oh no," said Susan Hofer of America's Second Harvest. "First Webvan, now The Hunger Site." Both Webvan and The Hunger Site were responsible for donations to the Chicago organization, which distributes food to 26 million hungry Americans each year. "I hope it isn't true," added a shocked Matthew De Galan, chief development officer at Mercy Corps, a hunger relief organization based in Portland. Mercy Corps received $159,000 through its six-month partnership with The Hunger Site, resulting in food donations to people in India, El Salvador and Eritrea. While that is still a small portion of Mercy Corp's $130 million in annual donations, De Galan said the loss of future royalties from The Hunger Site will hurt. GreaterGood.com, which was cash-flow positive in the final quarter of 2000, fell on tough times this year when the online advertising market slumped, causing advertisers to reduce their budgets and renegotiate contracts, Goodrich said. Executives at the company could not be reached for comment. The Web site yesterday simply read: "GreaterGood.com is undergoing routine maintenance. We are very sorry for the inconvenience Thank you!" Goodrich said he has already received several calls from people who are interested in purchasing some of GreaterGood.com's assets, including The Hunger Site. "As an investment this was a disaster," said Goodrich. "But even though it was an unsuccessful financial investment it was a very successful operation from the standpoint of the benefiting charities. ... I am hopeful that the good work can continue and somebody will quickly get the site up and operating again."
Good Morning Rocket Fans! Hummm... I wonder if the breast cancer site is tied to these. Its a site that gives free breast cancer mammograms for underprivileged women that could not afford them. All you do is go to the site and click on a link. Every time you click, someone gets a free mammogram It went down about two weeks ago and every time I go to it now it says that its down for maintance and will be back up soon. But it hasn't.
Opps! Dam you! You're too fast with the postin there Doc! Guess I should have read the whole article!
There was some sketchy stuff related to the GreaterGood. The site was well-run and easy-to-maintain while it was owned the individual guy. We were sponsors of it a year or two ago as well. At some point after The Greater Good bought them out (we were no longer active sponsors at this point), we got a notice from the UN Hunger Commission (where we originally mailed checks to) that they had terminated their relationship with TheHungerSite because they weren't getting paid properly. Apparently, one change was that checks went to The Greater Good and then on to the UN, and there were lost funds or something like that. Anyway, at that point, things were a bit sketchy in my opinion -- when the UN stops accepting free money, you know something's weird. The Hunger Site then established relationships with lots of smaller relief organizations and seemed to be doing OK. One odd thing was they kept trying to expand their services instead of keeping it simple -- adding merchandise, etc. Less than a month ago, we were in contact with them working on partnership ideas and ways to promote their site. We had spoken to their people less than a week before their "disappearance" and they gave no indication they were closing down -- and we were in contact with some higher-level people in the organization. That annoys me a bit because it was a waste of time and money on our part. Anyway, I'd be pissed if I was the guy that originally founded the site. There was -zero- work involved and it should have been completely automated. No reason for there to be 20+ people working on those sites. It shouldn't have taken even one person full-time to run and maintain TheHungerSite. Just my opinion.
Yeah, it was. It was a whole collection: thehungersite, therainforestsite, thebreastcancersite, thelandminesite, and one for vitamin b or something like that That's too bad . . . I bet someone else could do this all over again, and run it correctly . . . hmm . . . maybe I will.
