After my lengthy inquiry last year into the success (or lack thereof) that local restaurants experienced from Groupon and LivingSocial deals, I remain partially skeptical of the advertising method.
As I essentially said then, the sites clearly work for some businesses but not for others, often times depending on how they're structured.
That argument aside, I came across a Groupon deal this morning, here, in which it's clear that everyone involved wins.
It's an $11 donation to Not Alone toward mental-health counseling and support services for veterans.
From the campaign details:
Veterans can take part in all of the services offered through the program, including online group therapy, in-person counseling sessions, and the eClinic for 24/7 emergencies.
For every 100 donors, 10 veterans will be served. At the time of this posting, some 640 deals have been purchased.
"The Fine Print" section of the deal does say that 100 percent of donations go directly to Not Alone, so it appears that Groupon isn't taking its typical cut as the matchmaker.
Lebotzke has now added a little "Tweets are my own views" comment in an effort…
Should such material be removed from a government office? Certainly. However, the question not answered…
'BirdManBlue's' post is directly on point and I appreciate the insight.