New rules for chuggers – less hassle for us?

As a Fundraising Director for Scope, the disability charity, and having been in the same role at two other major national charities, I can say that charities use face-to-face because – contrary to popular opinion – many people respond positively to it, particularly people in their twenties who have traditionally supported charities less.

Literally hundreds of thousands of new people sign up to charities in this way each year.

Generally over time charities would expect a return of around £2.50 for every £1 invested in face-to-face fundraising.

Banning face-to-face fundraising would significantly dent how much money would go to the cause. If we were not doing it, we could not replace this lost income – consequently we would be able to have less of an impact and would solve fewer issues.

Of course we understand that some people find face-to-face intrusive. I find that, when I am not interested, a simple ‘I’m not interested’ does the trick.

And yes, you are right; charities need to be better at explaining where your money goes – something we completely agree upon. At Scope we work hard to be as transparent as possible.

As an academic teaching fundraising to practitioners at LSBU and, Like Alan Gosschalk, previously a fundraising director at major charities I completely agree that charities find face to face fundraising very cost effective at reaching younger audiences. For me it is a simple question of choice. If you’ve chosen which charities you want to support (or not support) it is easy to say no thank you, with a smile, to street canvassors. Anyone who pursues you agressively is a crap fundraising and needs to be reported. They won’t last long because that sort of behaviour simply doesn’t work.

It’s good to hear some views from the charities themselves. Having worked as a ‘chugger’ in the past, I made some similar comments on our previous discussion on this subject. It was often the smaller, less well-known charities that needed this kind of fundraising and exposure the most.

On the topic of giving out information, I think the main reason they don’t is cost. Dan – you complain about what proportion of your money actually goes directly towards doing good. Well, imagine if chuggers were armed with booklets etc – every person who stops would feign interest to get a leaflet as a way to get away – and probably never look at it/chuck it away. The cost – both on the charity’s pocket and on the environment – would be enormous. That’s why they wait until you actually support them before sending literature – as a donor you’ll be more interested in really reading it.

Fair point, but it would be useful if they at least had some information you could look through. Afterall, they do want you to take out a direct debit off the back of a chat. I just wouldn’t want to give away £10 a month without seeing where it goes first. My bigger gripe is with those who make sarcastic comments and pursue me down the road. I understand that news rules will be introduced to stop this, and it can’t come soon enough.

Fundraising companies are for profit companies, paying their top brass 6 figure salaries. A luxurious life style paid for by charitable donations.
On top of that you have the running costs of these large charities. They quite rightly argue they don’t run on thin air, but their CEO’s also have a luxurious life style with salaries of £130k plus and some earning more than the prime minster. Where do you draw the line?

The public do not want their donations to fund corporate-style salaries. The fund raisers know this and so do the charities, hence the lack of transparency.

These are the reasons I decided to support a small local accountable charity directly, I have total confidence that my donation is being well spent!

Hang on, is nobody going to point out the risk of fraud? I’m never, ever going to give out my bank details to someone in the street, end of!

I also had to complain about a chugger recently who thought it was okay to walk up behind me and tap me on the arm. Startled me and was completely out of order.

I’ve read enough about chuggers now, so I will not be donating to any street collectors in future. They will be treated like doorstep sales, unsolicited mail and unsolicited phone calls and politely rejected.

I will decide which charities I give to in future. Thanks to Martyn and Dan for setting up these Which? Conversations which have made me aware of how some charities operate.

It would be great if the Charities Commission could grade charities according to how they operate, but I realise that this could waste a lot of money.

I find it a bit embarrassing when some (but not all) chuggers jump out at folk and block their path or stop them on their journey. I prefer to choose who I donate to, and I do it by means other than giving out my bank account details and sort code used to sign up a direct debit in the street. The problem is, I feel like I have to justify this everytime to chuggers. I don’t want them to make a stereotypical assumption just because I chose not to donate to their charity, that I was against all charities.

Anne highlights fraud. A few years ago, although not a chugger, I was stopped in town by an energy salesperson. In the end, she had written down some of my details on a form. She had made it out to be some kind of market survey. Eventually, she asked me to sign the bottom line on the form. I read the statement and it said that I was changing my energy to another energy supplier. I wouldn’t sign it and explained she had not explained what the purpose of the form was form. I asked her to scrap it. She agreed and she said nothing will happen without a signature. About a week or so later, I received a letter from that energy company thanking me for changing over. It caused some worries and time to sort it out.

So Anne is right to highlight their is a risk of fraud in the streets. But I assume that if some donation was set up without your knowledge, or under false pretences, you’d be covered and not liable to pay. But it would cause hassle. When people are out of their “comfort zone” (say away their own home or territory), they are more vulnerable and more likely to give out some free information. It’s probably relatively safer to donate by direct debit when you have literature and a form to complete yourself, in your own time, in your own comfort zone, free from distraction, and when you can make a decision as to whether you want to support this cause.

i would never give my bank details to any chugger,they have to be paid a comission,so pay direct to charity,they should be banned,