Ethics of Web Site Funding

A friend, who is the new head of an international not-for-profit organization in Europe, contacted me a few months ago to get my opinion about the propriety and ethics of funding a new Web site for the organization. Enough time has passed that I can now write about it here and solicit your opinions because I believe it is a valid issue. I will, naturally, leave out names.

Here’s the deal – a major for-profit corporation that sells its products to the constituents of the not-for-profit stepped forward to fund a new Web site. A board member at the not-for-profit has financial ties with the corporation and facilitated the arrangement. The site would be developed by the company’s PR agency, one of the top 3, at a whopping cost of $800,000 to $1-million. My friend felt the amount was exorbitant and asked what I thought about it.

First, I responded that it was beyond exorbitant … that what the PR agency was proposing is called larceny. There’s no other word for it. The PR agency was clearly taking advantage of any good intentions by its client and the not-for-profit by inflating the cost. The cost of developing Web sites has dropped significantly and this not-for-profit could have a first-class site for under $100,000.

I knew what the major PR firm would do – lacking in-house skills, they would outsource the job and mark it up about 1,200 percent.

Second, I was troubled by the seeming lack of transparency and compromise of integrity. I felt it was a conflict of interest for the not-for-profit to have a major outside conglomerate fund a site that would serve the needs of the not-for-profit’s audiences and stakeholders around the world. What sort of branding did the corporation expect? What price would have to be paid for the $1-million investment? My friend did not know.

Lastly, I believe the major PR firm was unethically profiteering from the situation by grossly inflating the amount for a Web site. Yes, the PR firm is not that savvy about doing sites but they know enough about budgets and what is acceptable versus what is larceny. Their behavior was clearly the latter.

Category: Featured, Reputation management