Franck Demoiseau: Givematcher is a world-first concept that I started only about three months ago. I stumbled upon a really simple way for donors, companies and charities to help each other using a new concept – open matched giving.

Givematcher is a website that allows the donor to select a charity that they want to donate to and it will then propose a list of participating socially-minded companies that will match the donation.

So, let's say you wanted to donate to a charity like Guide Dogs Australia or to a campaign like the Heart Foundation's Big Heart Appeal, you would want as much money to go to that cause you care about. So you would go to Givematcher.com.au and enter that charity and the donation amount and you would be presented with a list of participating socially-minded companies to match your donation.

You would select one of these companies – and these companies are doing this because they care about the community and they care about this particular charity as well, hence why they are willing to match your donation.

Your action of choosing one of these companies would then trigger it to make a donation to this very charity that you're supporting. So by donating in this way on Givematcher you are ensuring that the charity ends up with more than just your donation.

MS: It ends up with double your donation?

FD: Depending on the percentage match of the company. They can choose to match at 100 per cent, in which case the charity would end up with double, minus a very small admin fee which we can talk about later on, or they could match it at 200 per cent, in which case it would be more than double, or they can match it at less than 100 per cent.

We leave that up to the company. So yes, the charity would, on average, end up with virtually double the money.

MS: Absolutely fundamental to this is the matching. Can you talk about how that component works, please Franck?

FD: Companies allocate a budget to Givematcher. They do this because they are very happy to have the peace of mind that this is the best way for their budget to be used – because that budget will in turn be used to match donations from the public so the company gets the leverage from that, too.

They specify exactly which charities they are supporting and to what extent. They specify the budget amount and the matching percentage. When Givematcher has these matching preferences and budgets, it then is able to propose matching companies whenever a donor is selecting a charity, using a clever matching algorithm that knows how to match up the donors with companies.

MS: You talk about a win-win-win situation: for the companies, for the donors and for the charities and organisations that are receiving funds. So it is about the matching, and we will come back to that. But it is also very much about using online. Can you explain why that is so fundamental to this, and what benefits that might bring?

FD: Even if we disregard the matching, online is a much better way for charities to fund-raise and for the Australian public and for companies to support charities. Look at some of the ways charities today are using to fund-raise: they are using face-to-face, people in the street, or they are calling people at home, or they are using direct mail.

They are very expensive ways of fund-raising, where the cost overheads can be as much as 30 per cent to 50 per cent. And that worries a lot of Australian donors who want to ensure that as much of their donations as possible ends up with the cause itself. So by donating online, the Australian public is assured that more money is going to the cause itself. And we are effectively challenging some of the old habits in fund-raising and going to much more simple, more automated ways of fund-raising at a much lower cost.

MS: And that lower cost in the case of Givematcher is 7.5 per cent of the donation?

FD: Correct.

MS: How did you arrive at that figure?

FD: We realised that we need to have a sustainable model. We need to be confident that Givematcher will be able to continue and go on to make a really big difference. We looked at what some of the other online donation portals were charging.

If you look at the average, it is around about that figure. Of course, we also have the matching component where there is no admin cost, so if you look at the overall funds that are going to the charity – i.e. donation and matching donation – effectively this figure is halved to 3.75 per cent.

MS: How are you going with engaging with the three different groups; the donors, organisations and companies and philanthropists that match?

FD: There is an order to this. We needed to be visible to the charities first. And of course, there is a change in thinking required, so we had to really spend some significant effort getting in front of charities. That has taken a few months, and I am happy to say that right now we have well over 100 registered charities and that is growing very rapidly.

The charities have responded extremely well because they can see that this is a fantastic way for them to get new donors, and also to use the matching component to drive more donations. The companies are also responding very well, and of course we needed to get enough charities on board to have a portfolio of charities to take to the companies for them to see that this is working and to have some charities to choose from.

So we are only just starting now with the companies. The response has been good. Right now we already have more than 10 companies on board, and of course we're looking to get many, many more. Companies that are socially minded can just join Givematcher in 10 minutes online.

MS: Can you please name some of the companies that have joined and are setting the pace here?

FD: We have got a company called CBB, which provides management consulting, HR, marketing, finance and salary packaging services to not-for-profit organisations. And they are actually a global matcher – CBB is matching donations to all DGR (deductible gift recipients) endorsed charities, which is a really fantastic way of supporting the charitable sector. So they are effectively letting the donors choose who their (the company's) money goes to.

We have got a human resources and payroll company called Polyglot. We have got an online company selling medical products, called MediWise. There is a body corporate company called Strata Data. We have an accounting firm called Logicca. They are some of the names.

MS: How are you going to engage with companies? Do you literally have to go and knock on the door, or are the charities doing it a bit themselves, too?

FD: That is a very good question. Initially, we have used our own network to go and talk to some of these companies. The charities themselves are connected to some companies, and if you think about it, this is a great way for them to build more engagement with the companies, because the companies are getting more value for their donations.

So this is a way of strengthening the relationship with the companies. It is also a great way for the charities to be able to have matching donations to then attract more donations.

So the charities are also in the process of contacting companies. Another great benefit is that when companies are joining Givematcher, some companies are interested in this new possibility of matching the donations of their customers or their potential customers, as well as their staff. They like to offer that option to them.

MS: So this is something, just to jump in there for a moment, that can leverage existing workplace-giving programs, of which there are many?

FD: Yes. If you look at workplace giving in Australia, it is really the big end of town that has set up workplace giving programs because it can be a little bit administrative and it requires integration to the payroll system. So this makes workplace giving much, much simpler by really reducing the administration effort and not requiring payroll integration. Companies can set this up in 10 minutes or so.

So we are certainly looking to really provide workplace giving to the entire marketplace, including small and medium enterprises. But what we're looking to do is much more than that, because we don't rely on the employee/employer relationship. Our concept of online open matched giving goes well beyond staff being matched by their company, and it is this distinguishing factor which makes Givematcher unique in the world right now. It can be any donor matched by the company.

So one of the interesting phenomena this brings is that contrary to standard workplace giving where when somebody leaves the company their donations disappear, we have open matched giving and so that doesn't happen, as the donor can go to their dashboard and select another matcher. For the first time, regular matched donations – which are a fantastic way for people to support charities – become donor-centric and follow the donor, as opposed to being company-centric.

MS: The idea of enlightened self-interest is fundamental to the sort of things that are going on in philanthropy, social enterprise, community change and grassroots organisations. Many companies understand the enlightened self-interest element of supporting not-for-profits and charities – insofar as there are no prosperous high streets without healthy backstreets. And so companies are already engaging in the community in different ways, and that is buttressing their brands and is helping them recruit and retain staff. Why would they change that? Are you suggesting that they stop doing that and start doing this, or that they add this to what they do?

FD: I am suggesting both. Clearly the idea is that supporting the community in this way is a better way. Why is it a better way? Because companies know that this budget is leading to a maximum social impact; it is used to then match donations from the public, which doubles their impact.

It allows companies to do that in a modest, discrete way, which many companies care about. So the overall amount of the contribution is not visible. How they communicate this is entirely up to them. It also allows them to leverage their social impact, much more so than some of the other ways in which they are actually doing it today.

Companies know that by supporting the community in this way they are helping charities find new donors and they are also giving their matching donations to charities for them to be able to drive more donations.

MS: Indeed, one of the core elements of the raison d'être of Givematcher is to increase the overall pool going to charity.

FD: Absolutely.

MS: And this is something that has been on your mind for quite some time, partly because of what happened around the time of the global financial crisis.

FD: Yes, absolutely it has.

MS: So let's have a look at the genesis of this. You had a lucrative, coveted position as the chief operating officer of BNP Paribas. That was a big job. Can you talk to me please about moving from that to this? Why? How? And what the actual human story of it is?

FD: I have been in the corporate world for around about 19 years now. And you are right, I had a very good position that was challenging me intellectually. It is a great company to work for. What was lacking for me, was purpose.

Also, I have got a lot more skills that I can apply to make a difference in this world, and I am somebody who certainly would like to make a difference. I had realised a number of years back – it was in 2008 when I was on a plane going from Mumbai to Singapore – that I had not done anything with my ideas. I had a lot of good ideas and I had done nothing with them.

When I walked off the plane I made a promise to myself that I would start to write down my ideas and I would not let them go to waste, and I even started to write a book on that, and that is a work in progress.

Of course it took me a number of years to gather my thoughts and to really think about what is the best process to do something with those ideas. And one day when I was back in Sydney – at that stage I had been in this COO role for a couple of years…

MS: Just to clarify, this had been back in 2008?

FD: It was 2008 when I took that flight, and I was based out of Singapore. I was the regional head of IT infrastructure and production for BNP Paribas, servicing 14 countries.

Then I became chief operating officer of Australia and New Zealand and I thought to myself now it is time for me to make a decision. Do I stay on this corporate path and really just do this? Not that it is necessarily an easy path and it is intellectually challenging, but it is not as purposeful.

It was the safe option. It looks after my family and I have a mortgage and two young children, and so it is the reasonable path. Or do I take a risk and do what I am writing in my book and not be a hypocrite, and basically look at my ideas and work out which ones are a good fit with me and take one of those ideas and champion it – an idea that has tremendous purpose and can make a difference in the world. And I went for the latter.

MS: Why did you feel like a hypocrite?

FD: Because in my book I write that people need to champion their ideas. And I write that people need to become what I call idea agents; that is when they hear about a good idea and when they see a good concept they need to rally behind the concept and do what they can to help those people who are looking to make a difference.

I think that ideas define us. The ideas we support define the person we are. So can you imagine if I did not do that myself?

MS: A lot of people feel existential discomfort and similar things. And many people think about fundamental change, as you have done. What do you think the barriers to that decision might be for a lot of people? It took you quite a number of years, as you say, so what are the barriers that you encountered?

FD: You have to remember that I was myself, with my writings, coming up with a lot of new concepts as to what some of those barriers were. And you are right, a lot of us are faced with that and hopefully one day I can also help make it easier for others to do what I've done, and people can make a difference without making a drastic change like I am doing.

There are a lot of smaller but nonetheless very important things that people can do, like the concept of being an idea agent and helping other people. Many people have helped me with my own idea, and I consider them as idea agents and I thank them.

Some of the barriers? Fear is a key barrier. We tend to be fearful of things and we worry about change, and making a difference involves changing rules and our own mind gets in the way and we start to worry about things like mortgages and paying bills and keeping safe.

We tend to downplay our capabilities. Self-esteem is a massive barrier. So it is important to build self-esteem. Finding our purpose takes time. We need to do some soul-searching and look at what is important to us.

MS: And that is exactly where I was going – purpose. What does purpose mean to you?

FD: For me purpose means finding the one thing that we're here on this planet to do. For me, that means making a difference in this world.

MS: So if Givematcher works, that is something you would intend to continue with?

FD: Absolutely. It is a world first concept and I am hoping that this Australian invention can spread right around the world.

MS: What are you worried about in terms of getting from here to it spreading right around the world? What other challenges you have to overcome?

FD: The journey for Givematcher has only just started. The response has been fantastic. But we're right at the beginning of the journey. I am trying to do a really, really good thing here.

This simple idea can revolutionise the way charities fund themselves in Australia and allow them to fund themselves in a much more effective way and to get more funds at an extremely low cost.

To be successful I need the help of a great many people. I need people in charities to realise that they need to start to drive more donors towards better ways of fund-raising online. That is key. Online is the future.

I need people in companies of all sizes – it doesn't matter if they are the most junior person or if they are senior executives – to rally together and to push for their companies to become matchers. The amount that the companies provide in matching donations really doesn't matter, because it all adds up.

I need the public to start thinking ahead about the causes they care about and to start setting up some regular donations to these charities, regular matched donations.

MS: Say someone is a set-and-forget donor to charity X – they pay $30 a month out of their family budget to this charity. Would you suggest that this person can better support that charity by stopping doing what that charity has organised with them and then going through Givematcher and therefore hopefully the $30 becomes a $60?

FD: Absolutely. This is a way for them to ensure that more money is going to the charity.

MS: And so charities are not seeing you as somebody that might potentially dislodge funds. They support you because they can see that they are going to have a bigger pool.

FD: Yes, absolutely, they are. So that $30 may well become $60, or even more if the person chooses to increase the amount, because that person will realise that any extra amount they donate this way will lead to an organisation putting in the same amount when they are matched dollar for dollar.

MS: When we were talking earlier, you mentioned that during your corporate time you found that a lot of companies were struggling with the idea of engaging with the community, and that observation was part of the genesis of Givematcher. Can you talk a little bit about what you were observing in those companies, and how this fledgling venture might change that?

FD: Companies at the end of the day are thinking about maximising shareholder return. They need to think about strengthening their brand. A lot of companies have been struggling with how philanthropy achieves that, if at all, and whether that can be measured.

I was noticing that donations from companies to charities were trending down. So there was that effect, and then the GFC came in and a lot of companies started slashing budgets as this was unfortunately an easy thing to do. But companies absolutely have a responsibility towards the community.

Companies are deriving profits from that community, and need to give back to strengthen the community. I saw an opportunity to help the companies to better justify their philanthropic spend by giving them back some value for that philanthropic spend.

That was at the inception of the very concept of Givematcher, because matching donations of people that you may or may not have a relationship with, and with whom you would like to have a relationship with, is a really, really good way, and a humble way, for a company to support the community. It also lets the company showcase its social responsibility and provides great PR, marketing and loyalty benefits. It is a well-accepted fact that when companies match their staff's donations through workplace matched giving they receive good benefits in terms of staff engagement and retention. But companies have relationships with many more people than just their staff, and it is these other essential relationships that matched giving by companies had largely ignored. Givematcher changes this by allowing companies to match the donations of their customers, their potential customers, etc, as well as their staff. Most donors in Australia have never had the opportunity to have their donation matched. Imagine being the company that brings them this opportunity for the first time!

MS: So that is a manifold way for companies to review the enlightened self-interest element, in the sense that healthy backstreets are a requirement for prosperous high streets, and then there's retention and recruitment of good staff, and then there is the positive effect on the brand in the community.

FD: Yes, exactly. And I like to think also Michael that companies do this for good reasons, because they want to give back to the community and they want to maximise the social impact for the community.

MS: I think there is no doubt that a lot of people in companies want to see that happen. The final question, as we are out of time, to every guest in The Zone, Franck, is what is the hardest thing you have ever had to do, at least that you able to talk about here.

FD: That is a really difficult question, isn't it? I don't know. I think that to take an idea and decide to champion that idea is quite tough, because of some of the things we mentioned before: you need to get to the point where you are ready to even consider championing an idea, and that involves overcoming fears, breaking down rules and building self-esteem. Then you need to make sure that that idea has a good fit with the person that you are, because if it doesn't it is not going to get anywhere. But if there is a good fit with the idea, then you get purpose, you get inspiration, you get vision and you get confidence. And with this comes belief, in yourself, and in others.

So I guess the hardest thing that I've had to do was to get to that point of finding the right idea and being willing to take a risk and go in that direction of championing that idea.

MS: Well, I hope that it proves to be a great success for all involved, and I really wish you well with it and I hope our collaboration might help it. And congratulations on taking the risk.

FT: Thank you so much, Michael. It has been a terrific interview. Thank you.

MS: Thank you.