Patent Publication Number: US-2013246297-A1

Title: Bid-Based Charitable Impact Statement

Description:
BACKGROUND  
     Field of Invention  
     The invention related to the system and method of dynamically providing a donor statement of the exact impact of an asset donation. 
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention is a useful and novel method for evaluating the effect of an asset donation on the community it is meant to serve. 
     Before discussing the direct historic prior art of impact statements, it is important to understand the various uses of the term “impact” in charitable prior art. Impact statements are distinctly used in developing philanthropic strategy, preparing audits, evaluating impact on donor, and the tactical evaluation of a proposed donation. 
     Philanthropic impact, or high impact philanthropy, is a planning methodology that first defines the donor&#39;s vision of how their funds will change the world. The planning then moves to maximizing the social good based on the vision statement. The donors are subsequently directed to organizations responsible for executing the steps necessary to bring the changes desired. Philanthropic impact is distinct in there is not an attempt to evaluate dollar-to-dollar outcomes or determine the success of the strategy. 
     Impact statements are also used in audit systems attempting to evaluate direct and indirect effects of donations previously committed and fully utilized. The audit systems may measure direct results (200,000 shoes delivered) and indirect effects (resulting in a 15% rise in middle school attendance). For instance, the U.S. Pat. No. 7,212,992 tracks the flow of donations as it moves through a network until the funds are exhausted. Each donation is assigned an index to allow the data to be tracked through a donation pipeline. The resulting impact statement is a notification, after donation, of where the donation is distributed and the good delivered. 
     The next category of impact statement uses an evaluation of the net effect to the donor instead of the charity. U.S. Pat. App. No. 2002/0133436 demonstrates a typical configuration of donor impact statements. The application prompts the user to input donations and the system returns the net impact of the donation over each taxation period. It is also found in the prior art the statement can be forward looking to allow the donor to gauge the value of a proposed donation. 
     Tactical Evaluation 
     The third distinct use of impact statements is tactical evaluations of an anticipated donation by presenting potential result(s) of the donation. This group of prior art relates more closely with the present invention. 
     While the promise of specific deliverable for a specific donation is as old as charity, the broad use of impact statements began with the television commercials of the Christian Children&#39;s Fund that used celebrity Sally Struthers claiming “for seventy cents a day, you can feed a child like . . . ” The call to action of the commercial focused on the relatively inconsequential sacrifice of say giving up a soda to provide a day&#39;s nourishment for a child. The effectiveness of the message on culture was demonstrably catalyzed by parodies of the commercials still produced today. These early impact statements tended to focus on the impact metric portion of the calculation (“seventy cents a day . . . ”) instead of the total impact of the full donation (“feed a child for a year . . . ”). 
     The second type of tactical valuation of an impact statement is used today in organizations such as the United Way. The system asks the user to enter an anticipated monetary donation and then employs a back-of-the-napkin calculation to estimate the various potential impacts a donation could benefit if later employed in such manner. For instance, if a sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) is entered into a United Way Impact Calculator, the system returns a list of alternative choice the institution could make:
         provides 33 children in need with shoes and clothing for a school year, or   provides 20 days of respite for caregivers of a disabled family member, or   provides 16 months of after-school tutoring for at-risk children, or   provides 12 families with emergency assistance after a disaster such as a fire, or   provides 10 months of food to help families in crisis, or   provides 6 substance abuse prevention programs to schools, or   provides 5 months&#39; stay for mothers and their children in a domestic violence shelter, or   provides 5 transitional apartments for homeless families, including utilities and budget classes, or   provides  5  job skills and training courses to help  10  people gain full-time employment, or   provides 3 families with the necessary information, assistance, and counseling to prevent foreclosure on their home, or   provides 2 summer programs for children with hearing impairments to learn critical communication and social skills, or   provides 1 parents of children with autism given specialized intervention, training and education       

     The third tactical valuation of an impact statement uses an asset classification system. Currently used at the Goodwill, and claimed in their U.S. Pat. App. No. 2012/0078644, the system generalizes the value of an entire class of assets into a single generalized valuation number and then divides a pre-determine impact metric into the generalized valuation. The formula being: 
       generalized valuation of item=impact metric 
     For instance, if a user selects “working computer” in the Goodwill system, then selects “1,” the impact statement will be “5.7 Hours of Job Search Classes” whether or not the item is 1983 Compaq Luggable or a 2013 MacBook Pro. Notably, the system fails to address true impact and the donation could have considerably more or less impact. This asset classification system is notably less effective than the back-of-the-napkin calculation used in the monetary donation system. There is an implicit promise that lacks credibility. To improve this slightly, and claimed in U.S. Pat. App. No. 2012/0078644, the system may ask for the condition of the item in addition to the count. As an example, having a 1983 Compaq Luggable in excellent condition may not improve the value. 
     All the impact statements heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages: 
     Monetary data entry. The most common of all systems, the solution asks for the dollar value of the donation to calculate the impact. If the item is an asset, the donor would have to personally estimate the monetary value of the asset a liquidator might be willing to pay. 
     Lack of true impact for asset donations. The impact metrics are standardized across a classification of assets so that the system can only guess at the impact a donation might have. This results in an implied promise the charity is likely unable to honor. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     An invention, which meets the needs stated above, is a system and method to provide a donor with a dynamic impact statement reflecting the true value of an asset. Information on the item specifics is collected in a variety of ways including hierarchal drop down menus, typed descriptions and barcodes. The item description is then electronically matched against one or more liquidator&#39;s item files. The donor system selects the highest bid and using an impact metric determines the amount of social good the asset will provide an organization. 
     Objects and Advantages 
     Accordingly, besides the objects and advantages of the system for impact statement described above, several objects and advantages of the present invention are:
         a) to provide an impact statement based on a specific item description;   b) to provide an impact statement immediately after entry of the asset description;   c) to provide accurate impact statements based on a bid on an asset;   d) to provide dynamic asset pricing of bids;   e) to provide accurate impact statements using an item description;   f) to provide the best bid from multiple liquidators to maximize the donation impact;   g) to provide a specific item description using a typed description;   h) to provide a specific item description using a series of hierarchal selections;   i) to provide a specific item description using the input of an identification code associated with a specific asset.       

     Further objects and advantages of this invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and the ensuing description of the drawings. 
    
    
     
       DRAWING FIGURES 
       The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate embodiments of the present invention and together with the description, serve to explain the principles of this invention. In the figures: 
       FIG.  1 A.—Flow chart diagramming the data movement between the donor systems, liquidator systems, and the charity systems. 
       FIG.  1 B.—Flow chart demonstrating various methods for entering and matching the asset description. 
       FIG.  2 A.—Flow chart depicting the communications and asset exchanges between the donor, liquidator and charity. 
       FIG.  2 B.—Flow chart illustrating the use of the invention when the charity acts as the intermediary between the donor and the liquidators. 
       FIG.  2 C.—Flow chart showing the system being used with a third-party provider facilitating the communication and movement of assets between the donor, liquidator, and charity. 
     
    
    
     KEY TERMS 
     Bid manager: system functioning to match description to item file, generate bid/bid amount, store bid, transmit bid, match acceptance of bid. 
     Impact metric: numeric figure represent the cost of a single benefit supplied by a charity. 
     Impact statement: calculated in real-time based on the true value of an asset, the total good generated by an asset donation. 
     Item File: a table, list, or database of items a buyer is willing to purchase for assets donated to a charity. 
     REFERENCE NUMERALS IN DRAWINGS 
       10  Donor, user 
       20  Charity 
       30  Liquidator 
       40  Introductory message 
       50  Asset, asset donation 
       55  Asset description 
       56  Keyed description 
       57  Index, barcode, serial number 
       58  Drop down list 
       59  Voice file 
       60  Impact metric 
       65  Impact statement 
       70  Bid 
       74  Bid amount 
       76  Bid acceptance, accept bid 
       78  Bid manager 
       80  Shipping label 
       90  Funds 
       100  Item File 
       110  Donor system 
       120  Charity system 
       130  Liquidator system 
       140  Third-party manager 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
     Referring to the drawings, in which like numerals represent like elements, 
     
       FIGS. 1A-1B 
     
     Turning to  FIG. 1A , the logic flow chart depicts the flow of data and processes within and between the donor system  110 , liquidator system  130  and charity system  120 . 
     The present invention uses a computer-implemented interactive system communicating and processing various steps across disparate systems. The process begins by soliciting charitable asset donations  50  on a donor system  110 , or a third-party system  140  representing the charity  20 . Typically, the web page, located on the World Wide Web, might explain the goals of charity  20 ; the successes of the receiving institution; the global impact; or specific impacts to individuals or groups. It is also desirable to quantitatively demonstrate how the user&#39;s  10  anticipated asset donation  50  would impact the individuals served. In order to invite the potential donor  10  to participate in the present invention, an introductory message  40  is displayed inviting participation. The message  40  would alternatively or collectively explain the outcome of the donation  50 , display images showing the resulting impact statement  65 , basic instructions to complete the form, pop-up detailed help, audio files, and/or video files. 
     Following the directions of the introductory message  40 , the potential donor  10  enters an asset description  55  to begin the process of receiving an individualized impact statement  65 . Instead of using classification or categories, the description  55  in the present invention results in a specific identification of the asset  50  to be donated. 
     The entering of the specific asset description  55  can be done using a number of methods further detailed in  FIG. 1B . Turning briefly to  FIG. 1B , in one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the user  10  enters an alphanumeric asset description  55  such “Aldo 52 LCD TV.” This may be done by either typing a description  56  into the user  10  interface, selecting a specific asset  50  from a drop down list  58 , or a combination of both a keyed description  56  and a drop down list  58 . For instance, a user  10  would begin typing “ALD” and be provided an instantaneous drop down list  58  of selections, such as:
         Aldo 30 LED Television   Aldo 32 LCD Television   Aldo 32 LCD Monitor   Aldo 40 Monitor with Antenna   Aldo 52 LCD Television       

     The prospective donor  10  would then select the item from the resulting drop down list  58 . 
     In a second preferred embodiment for selecting an asset description  55 , the user  10  would supply an index  57  to the interface such as a keyed product serial number  57  or a scanned barcode  57 . The resulting key may be matched against a file within the donor system  110  or simply transferred to the liquidator system  130  for resolution. 
     In a third preferred embodiment for selecting an asset description  55 , the donor system  110  would create a voice file  59  from the donor  10 . The voice file  59  may be translated to text by the operating system, translated into text by the donor system  110 , or simply transmitted as a file to the liquidator system  130 . 
     Moving left to right in  FIG. 1B  the potential donor  10  enters a description which is then transmitted to the liquidator system  130  to match the description  55  to an item file  100 . In the example of  FIG. 1B , the user  10  would type “Aldo 52 LCD TV” in the donor system  110  which would be sent to the liquidator system  130  responsible for matching the description to the item file  100  and returning a similar description “Aldo LCD Television 52 in.” In the case of entering the asset description  55  using an index  57  the consumer would key, or scan, “12345-67890” in the donor system  110  that once transmitted to liquidator system  130  and used as a key to identify the item as “Aldo LCD Television 52 in.” In the third example, a user  10  selects “ePhone” from a drop down list  58 , then selects “2024” model and “X” submodel designation. This may be done within a single drop down list  58  or multiple hierarchical drop down lists  58 . The resulting description of “ePhone:2024:X” is then transmitted to the liquidator system  130  to match the description against the item file  100  resulting in the description of “2024 ePhone X-XM.” A final example would record the user&#39;s  10  voice into a voice recording file  59  within the donor system  110  and transmit either the translated text or the voice file  59  itself to liquidator system  130 . The resulting voice is matched to the item file  100  as “1972 Oldsmobile Sedan 98.” 
     Returning to  FIG. 1A , once the description has been matched to the item file  100 , the liquidator system  130  retrieves an associated bid amount  74  from the liquidator system  130 . The bid amount  74  may be stored in the liquidator system  130 , calculated based on an amount stored in the liquidator system  130 , or retrieved from a third party and then matched to the description  55  in the liquidator system  130 . 
     Once matched, the bid  70  comprises a transaction identifier, the asset description  55 , and bid amount  74 , which is stored in a bid manager  78  in the liquidator system  130 . 
     The bid amount  74  is transmitted to the donor system  110  to prepare the impact statement  65 . The bid amount  74  is compared to impact metric  60  stored on the donor system  110 . The impact metric  60  is the cost of delivering a single service or product to the entity or individuals served. For instance:
         1 pair of shoes: $3.19   1 day of meals: $0.78   1 semester of job training: $448.00   1 laptop with software: $249   30 days of fresh water: $12.49   1 campaign stop: $700.00       

     As an example of comparing the impact statement  65  to the bid amount  74 , if the asset donation  50  bid amount  74  is $1,400.00, the above example impact metrics  60  would result in the impact statement  65 :
         439 pairs of shoes, or   1,795 days of meals, or   3 semesters of job training, or   6 laptops with software, or   9 years, and 4 months of fresh water, or   2 campaign stops.       

     The impact statement  65  is displayed to the perspective donor  10  to encourage the asset donation  50 . If the donor  10  accepts the bid amount  74 , the systems then begin the processes for collecting the asset  50  and distributing the funds  90  to the charity  20 . To accept the bid amount  74 , the donor  10  may not be shown the actual bid amount  74 . Instead, the donor  10  may accept, or approve, the impact statement  65 . The system may allow the donor  10  to select from multiple impact statements  65  or to choose from only a single impact statement  65 . The result is the donor system  110  transmits the bid acceptance  76  to the bid manager  78  in the liquidator system  130 . In response to the bid acceptance  76 , the liquidator system  130  generates a shipping label  80 . In the most preferred embodiment, the shipping label  80  may then be transmitted to the donor system  110  for printing by the donor  10 . The system may also allow the shipping label  80  to be emailed to the donor  10  or printed and then shipped to the donor  10 . The shipping label  80  may comprise packing and shipping materials to assist in the efficient donation of the asset  50 . In another embodiment, the generated shipping label  80  may also be emailed or shipped by the liquidator system  130 . 
     In the last branch of  FIG. 1A , the liquidator  30  transfers funds  90  to the charity system  120 . As used herein, the charity system  120  may comprise a server managed by the charity  20 , a server managed by third-party  140  on behalf of the charity  20 , a banking institution to receive the funds  90 , or a third-party to convert the funds  90  into the promised impact. Funds  90  comprises cash, cash equivalents, points, promises, and/or goods. 
     
       FIG. 2A 
     
     Referring now to  FIG. 2A , the flow chart demonstrates the exchange of data and assets  50  between the donor  10 , liquidator  30 , and charity  20 . Before examining the role for the manager of the consumer-facing donor system  110 , it is helpful to understand the fundamental exchanges of data and assets  50 . The flow in  FIG. 2A  remains consistent throughout the various embodiments of the invention. 
     The process begins by the donor  10  supplying a description of the asset  55 . The description  55  must be detailed enough for a liquidator  30  to provide a committed bid amount  74 . The description  55  comprises a manually typed description  56 ; an index  57  such as a serial number  57  or scanned barcode  57 ; a drop down list  58 ; a voice file  59 ; or any combination of these asset description  55  methods. 
     Donor  10 , as used herein, comprises any individual, business, organization, entity, computer system and/or the like attempting to donate assets  50  to another individual, charity  20 , political campaign, business, organization, entity, or computer system. Charity  20 , as used herein, comprises any individual, non-profit, for-profit, business, organization, political campaign, lobbyist, entity, computer system and/or the like. 
     The liquidator  30  must then convert the asset description  55  into a bid amount  74  and transmit the bid  70  to the donor system  110 . The bid  70  amount is presented to the donor  10  as an impact statement  65 . The donor  10  must then accept the bid  76  by approving the impact statement  65 . When the liquidator  30  receives the accepted bid  76 , the liquidator  30  then provides shipping instructions which comprises a shipping label  80 . The shipping label  80  comprises a transaction identification, asset  50  to be shipped, the name and address of the shipper, name and destination for the asset  50  to be shipped, payment consideration for the shipping costs, and information about the impact  65  of the asset donation  50 . 
     Liquidator  30 , as used herein, comprises any individuals, businesses, entities, organizations, financial institutions, computer systems, or any such combination, capable of providing an online bid  70  and transferring funds  90 . 
     The donor  10  would then have the final responsibility of conveying the asset  50  to the destination selected by the liquidator  30 . 
     At any time after the bid is accepted  76  the liquidator  30  would provide funds  90  comprising some portion of the bid amount  74  to the charity  20 . 
     
       FIG. 2B-2C 
     
       FIG. 2B  is a flow chart diagramming the charity  20  acting as the facilitator of the relationship between the donor  10  and the liquidator  30 . The charity system  120  receives the asset description  55  from the donor  10  and relays to the liquidator  30  to enable the liquidator system  130  to generate a bid  70 , including a bid amount  74 . The bid amount  74  is displayed to the donor  10  as an impact statement  65 . The donor  10  then accepts the bid  76  by approving the impact statement  65  which is then transmitted to the liquidator  30  by the charity system  120 . The liquidator  30  transmits the shipping information comprising a shipping label  80  to the charity system  120 . The charity  20  may then electronically display the shipping label  80  in the donor  10  browser, email, or mail with additional shipping materials. 
     The donor&#39;s  10  final responsibility in the transaction is sending the asset  50  to the destination designated by the liquidator  30  on the shipping label  80 . Anytime after the liquidator  30  receives the bid acceptance  76 , the liquidator  30  would forward all or a portion of the bid amount  74 , as funds  90 , to the charity  20 . 
     Finally, turning to  FIG. 2C  demonstrating the use of the invention when a third-party  140  manages the communications, facilitates asset  50  exchange and fund  90  transfer between the donor  10 , charity  20  and liquidator  30 . In contrast to  FIG. 2B , the third-party manager  140  acts a representative for the charity  20  and may give the appearance to the user  10  that the donor  10  is interacting with the charity  20  directly. The third-party manager  140  may also appear to the donor  10  as representing a group of charities  20  and displaying the impact from multiple charities in the impact statement  65 . 
     The donor  10  electronically supplies an asset description  55  to the third-party  140  system which is electronically relayed to the liquidator  30 . The liquidator  30  matches the asset description  55  and generates a bid  70  which comprises a bid amount  74 . The third-party  140  system then compares the bid amount  74  to the impact metric  60  and generates an impact statement  65  to display to the donor  10 . The donor  10  accepts the impact statement  65  which generates a bid acceptance  76  to the liquidator  30  via the third-party manager  140 . 
     The liquidator  30  may then communicate to the third-party  140  system shipping information to facilitate the third-party manager  140  to generate a shipping label  80  for the donor  10 . The donor  10  ships the asset  50  to the location designated by the liquidator  30 . The charity&#39;s  20  role is to receive the funds  90  from the liquidator  30 . 
     Benefits, other advantages, and solutions to problems have been described herein with regard to specific embodiments. However, the advantages, associated benefits, specific solutions to problems, and any element(s) that may cause any benefit, advantage, or solution to occur or become more pronounced are not to be construed as critical, required, or essential features or elements of any or all the claims of the invention. As used herein, the terms “comprises”, “comprising”, or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus composed of a list of elements that may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus. 
     Advantages  
     From the description above, a number of advantages become evident for the “Bid-Based Charitable Impact Statement.” The present invention provides all new benefits for participating parties including donors, charities and liquidators:
         a) allows donors to have an real-time representation of the impact of their asset donation;   b) allows donors to donate assets without first determining the asset value;   c) allows liquidators to electronically bid on donated assets;   d) allows liquidators to set bids by a single item description;   e) allows developers to use barcodes to prepare an impact statement;   f) allows charities to accept asset donations;   g) allows charities to provide a precise impact promise for asset donations;   h) allows charities to use multiple liquidator bids for a single asset to determine the highest bid price;   i) allows charities to process asset donations without handling the asset.