Some interesting stuff around, some of which I actually missed. But here are a couple of articles and comment:
The numbers in the article are interesting (and the comments a typically mixed bag) but there is a clear feeling that fees should be on the merchant, and, in juxtaposition, that fees should reflect the work and benefit. Contactless is easy for everyone, but uses expensive facilities. EFTPOS is cheaper, but a bit slow. Cash is cheapest, but something of an issue for the merchant.
Putting aside the issue of integrating into POS systems, it is certainly possible to envision Givahoy specifically replacing some cash transactions. If the customer is in credit, they could just enter a cafe, order their coffee on the phone (run a Givahoy app and pick their drink, attaching their name to the transaction) and wait patiently. Better for both customer (easy, no queuing) and merchant (no costs, potential for customer awareness).
Very cautious in this area, as it is extremely sensitive, but there is a question as to whether it might be worth evaluating an aspect of this. If a person were advocating on behalf of the shelter in which they stay, would people give to that charity knowing it benefits the person whose story may have touched them? And would that aspect add to the authenticity of the person?
Among other things, this demonstrates the potential benefit of cheaper transactions. Even a tiny cost reduction means a significant proportionate increase in funds reaching the intended goal.
This is a strong argument in favour of centrally-coordinated communications. Protection for donors via contact rules and content review, as well as a clear and effective opt-in/opt-out process will simply prevent this sort of thing which is bad for everyone.
And the implication of sharing mailing lists is not a good thing at all.