Background: We interviewed employees at Schoolfundr that have previously worked with other fundraising platforms for their local high school’s baseball team and we learned some fascinating insights about why they would now choose Schoolfundr if they could.
Q: Thank you for joining us today. Can you start by sharing a bit about your organization and the fundraising platforms you've used?
A: Absolutely. We were the coaches of the local high school baseball team that had been fundraising for about 5-6 years. We initially used Snap for product sales and discount cards, and then later transitioned to Booster for our fundraising needs.
Q: What prompted the shift from Snap to Booster, and were there specific factors that influenced your decision?
A: Well, Snap was the first platform we used, and the main reason was the convenience. We didn't have to stand outside stores selling things. Booster came into the picture because a representative from Snap was persistent in getting us to take a meeting. Booster, on the other hand, was recommended by a friend and through word of mouth.
Q: Interestingly, you stuck with the same platform for so long. Can you share the initial reasons for choosing a platform that deducted 20% of your funds?
A: Coaches and organizers typically don't want to deal with meetings or extensive fundraising efforts; they just want to focus on coaching. The 20% deduction was frustrating, but at the time, we accepted it as the norm, especially considering the convenience of not having to sell products in person.
Q Looking back, how did the deduction impact your organization, and what adjustments did you have to make?
A: Losing 20% had significant consequences. We couldn't afford lights for night games, struggled to buy new uniforms and equipment, and missed out on buying much-needed dirt for the baseball field. It limited our capabilities and hindered our overall growth.
Q: Were there instances where you had to make specific adjustments due to the deduction?
A: Absolutely. The lack of funds affected various aspects, from basic facilities like lighting to essential items like uniforms and equipment. We had to make compromises and prioritize our needs.
Q: Were you aware of alternative fundraising platforms that did not charge fees during your search for a platform?
A: No, coaches were not aware of better options. Losing 20% seemed like the only option, and the belief that they couldn't do any better was prevalent. It became the norm, and we didn't explore alternative platforms.
Q: If you had used a platform that didn't make you sacrifice 20%, what resources would you have had access to?
A: Without the 20% deduction, we could have had access to essential resources like dirt for the baseball field, new uniforms, additional equipment, and even snacks for the players.
Q: After realizing the impact of losing 20%, did you lose motivation for future fundraising projects?
A: The 20% deduction was an expected norm, and everyone was frustrated by it. Coaches, in particular, were saddened because they wanted to do it for the kids. Parents, too, had an emotional toll, not wanting to be taxed twice. It impacted motivation because people were hesitant to give as much or at all, knowing that a portion would be deducted.
Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences. Fundraising challenges can have a significant impact on organizations, and finding the right platform is crucial for future success.
Get the latest news, tips, and stories from Schoolfundr every week. Straight to your inbox.