Should charities use chuggers?

tubster

Fundraising is such a little understood thing I think it is great that this is being debated. I am a journalist that did some research into this a while ago and you will find that charities and chugging companies are VERY cagey about how much it costs, for obvious reasons, so I wasn't surprised that white noise wasn't specific. One chugging company told me how open and honest they were, so I asked them straight how much they got per head and they told me £50. So there we have it. It is true that most people will not cancel their direct debit for couple of years, so MOST donors will still make the charity £200 or so on top (but certainly not all - if you cancel in the first few months they might even make a loss).

The important question is also whether people would give anything at all if they were not asked directly. Younger people in particular seem to respond well to direct asks on the street or on the phone (although it drives me absolutely nuts and I seriously think charities might be putting people off in the long term by doing too much chugging - the important question is what happens to all the people who don't give money, how has their attitude to the charity been affected in the long term? 500,000 donations (and I bet this figure includes donations to different charities from the same people, because I doubt donor details are cross checked) is NOT a majority in a country with 50m plus people - the massive majority don't give this way and the 'facts' demonstrate that aversion to this method is in the majority, not the minority.

So the money saving way to give money to a charity would be to listen to the chugger, decide if you want to give and then go home and sign up with the charity DIRECTLY (phone or web) via direct debit with gift aid, or even better payroll giving, for the same cash - - and save the charity the £50 fee to the company. But the key question is when you get home, will you actually do it? Frankly I doubt many people would.

One solution is to decide right now that your giving will be planned, rather than impulse directed. Work out what percentage of your income you want to give (say, one per cent) and set up your giving in the most profitable way (for the charity) - payroll give that amount tax effectively every month info here -

http://www.cafonline.org/Default.aspx?page=7026

Or open up a charity giving account - you just have to decide how much to pay in every month, and the Charities Aid Foundation will sort out the tax efficient bit for free (I have no connection with this charity) - then decide which registered charities you want to give to, which is completely up to you and can include local hospitals, scouts or whatever you can set up monthly donations and give one off donations in appeals as well (you get a cheque book)

http://www.cafonline.org/Default.aspx?page=7025

After that if any chugger or junk mailshot asks you for money, you can at least tell yourself - and them if you like - that you have already given substancially that month, tax efficiently which benefits the charity, and for free :T



Tubster

Fifer

White_Noise wrote:

Suggesting that fraud is possible is like suggesting that British Gas won't fraudulently use your details when you pay your gas bill using direct debit.

I wouldn't dream of signing up to a Gas contract on the street either. If I share my bank details with any company, it certainly wouldn't be done this way.

White_Noise wrote:

Scowl or curse or blank and you run the risk of getting the same response as you would if you did the same to a "regular" member of the public.

The huge difference here (and my experience has been that very rarely do they give up after a polite 'no thankyou') is that 'regular members of the public' don't accost me in the street for money or bank details. It's a totally invalid comparison.

White_Noise wrote:

But, over 500,000 people (typically 30 somethings) chose to sign up to donate to charity in this method last year which clearly demonstrates that aversion to this method is in the minority.

500,000 out of a population of 60 million sounds like the minority to me. 500,000 is probably a big overestimate in any case, with many of the 500,000 being double counts as people who sign up in this way may inclined to do so for more than one charity and I'd be interested to know how many sign up but then cancel at the earliest opportunity.

PFRA

Firstly an apology for a somewhat lengthy entry but I've tried to address as many of the concerns people have expressed on this site as possible

The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association is the regulatory body for charities that use face-to-face fundraising (which some people refer to as chugging).

We require members to ensure that professional fundraisers maintain a code of conduct which specifically includes not harassing members of the public, always being polite and courteous and representing the charity appropriately, honestly and with integrity. We ensure that fundraisers stick to this code by using mystery shopping and encouraging members of the public who experience poor standards of fundraising to report it to ourselves and the charity concerned. In our experience the vast majority of our members’ staff are scrupulous in their conduct and will happily accept a decision not to stop and talk to them or just as they are delighted to tell you more about the charity they represent and sign you up if you decide that it’s a cause you’d like to support.

We also work with our members, local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the areas used by fundraisers are not visited too frequently, by any more than one charity at a time or by too many fundraisers. We do this to try and make sure that people don’t feel overwhelmed.

Please visit our website https://www.pfra.org.uk to see the code of practice our members abide by and to let us know of incidences where fundraisers are not meeting these standards.

Charities choose face-to-face not because they’ve been persuaded by pushy sales people who make unrealistic promises but because it works for them. Some charities report that over 60% of their voluntary income is from using face-to-face fundraising. Charities will only invest in a form of fundraising that is cost effective and increasingly they are directly employing teams of fundraisers instead of using an agency. Those that choose to use a professional fundraising organisation, do so because they benefit from the company’s economies of scale and expertise.

Independent research on face-to-face fundraising has shown that on average donors who sign up to make a regular donation to charity via a face-to-face fundraising will give for around five years and make an average gift of £5 per month. This means that charities gain about £350 for each donor they sign up, money which, because it’s regular, planned income can help them plan ahead, make savings elsewhere and implement longer term projects. Over 80 percent of these gifts are further enhanced by donors allowing charities to claim back the income tax that has been paid on it, simply by signing up to Gift Aid the amount, face-to-face fundraisers consistently achieve higher levels of Gift Aided donations because they can explain in person the value of the scheme.

A survey of the public found that people are less irritated or concerned about face-to-face fundraisers than many other forms of fundraising appeals including telephone calls and direct mail. https://www.nfpsynergy.co.uk conducted this research.

Face-to-face fundraising is particularly successful in helping charities to attract new donors that are younger than their traditional donor base, these people are important because they are more likely to develop their relationship with the charity by going on to volunteer, campaign, fundraise and leave a legacy that benefits the cause. This particular section of the community is also far less likely to respond to direct mail or media campaigns asking for their support.

Finally a note on giving fundraisers your bank details. In order to use your account number and sort code to deduct cash from your bank account charities and companies that use Direct Debits must be registered with BACS. BACS have the authority to make security checks on any organisation trying to set up a Direct Debit payment scheme in their favour, specifically to ensure that they can’t do so fraudulently, this is why Direct Debit donors are protected by the Direct Debit Guarantee Scheme. It is therefore completely safe to give your bank and contact details to a fundraiser as long as you check that the form you are signing names the charity you think you are signing up to. If you are asked for anything more sensitive, like your mother’s maiden name, passwords, credit card numbers or cash, then you have cause for concern. For more information about Direct Debits visit https://www.bacs.co.uk.

If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time.

Nik
PFRA

Murphy_The_Cat

wow, this must be a new record.

How many first time posters can a thread attract ?

& all extolling the virtues of chugging.

what an incredible coincidence

MTC

White_Noise_2

Fifer wrote:

I wouldn't dream of signing up to a Gas contract on the street either. If I share my bank details with any company, it certainly wouldn't be done this way.

Absolutely cool with that. Just know that it is safe so long as you have the Direct Debit Guarantee. That's why there have been no cases of fraud involving a face-to-face fundraiser.

Fifer wrote:

The huge difference here (and my experience has been that very rarely do they give up after a polite 'no thankyou') is that 'regular members of the public' don't accost me in the street for money or bank details. It's a totally invalid comparison.

Fair point. The fundraiser should (and you can remind them of this) disengage as soon as requested. If you are that annoyed when it happens - complain to the charity represented. Since they are the PFO's client, they will be able to make a sufficient ruckus about it and get something done.

Fifer wrote:

500,000 out of a population of 60 million sounds like the minority to me. 500,000 is probably a big overestimate in any case, with many of the 500,000 being double counts as people who sign up in this way may inclined to do so for more than one charity and I'd be interested to know how many sign up but then cancel at the earliest opportunity.

I see why your confused - that figure represents last year only. This type of fundraising has been going for about 8 years in Britain and can now be found in the USA, Australia and much of Europe. As regards majority/minority definition, I am basing this on affirmative action (those who sign up) and those who actively register a compaint. Do do otherwise would be, like, totally ridiculous. The others either do not mind it, already give in other ways, have yet to experience it, or dislike it but not enough to register a complaint.

White_Noise_2

tubster wrote:

One solution is to decide right now that your giving will be planned, rather than impulse directed. Work out what percentage of your income you want to give (say, one per cent) and set up your giving in the most profitable way (for the charity) - payroll give that amount tax effectively every month info here -

http://www.cafonline.org/Default.aspx?page=7026

Or open up a charity giving account - you just have to decide how much to pay in every month, and the Charities Aid Foundation will sort out the tax efficient bit for free (I have no connection with this charity) - then decide which registered charities you want to give to, which is completely up to you and can include local hospitals, scouts or whatever you can set up monthly donations and give one off donations in appeals as well (you get a cheque book)

http://www.cafonline.org/Default.aspx?page=7025

After that if any chugger or junk mailshot asks you for money, you can at least tell yourself - and them if you like - that you have already given substancially that month, tax efficiently which benefits the charity, and for free :T
Tubster

You make very good points. However, you carefully avoid observing that what f2f does is address the holes that other fundraising methods have found difficult to plug.

tubster wrote:

The massive majority don't give this way and the 'facts' demonstrate that aversion to this method is in the majority, not the minority.

See my other post. This is simply not a logical way of looking at it.

Fifer

White_Noise wrote:

I see why your confused - that figure represents last year only. This type of fundraising has been going for about 8 years in Britain and can now be found in the USA, Australia and much of Europe. As regards majority/minority definition, I am basing this on affirmative action (those who sign up) and those who actively register a compaint. Do do otherwise would be, like, totally ridiculous. The others either do not mind it, already give in other ways, have yet to experience it, or dislike it but not enough to register a complaint.

I don't think I am confused though. I accept that the figure is only for one of the eight years the scheme has been running for (fair point) but we need to know the churn ratio to make sense of that figure. How many donor/years does that eight year period represent? Comparing sign-ups with complaints is not a valid comparison. I loathe chugging, but I've never complained and I suspect I'll be in the majority in that respect.

White_Noise_2

Fifer wrote:

I don't think I am confused though. I accept that the figure is only for one of the eight years the scheme has been running for (fair point) but we need to know the churn ratio to make sense of that figure. How many donor/years does that eight year period represent? Comparing sign-ups with complaints is not a valid comparison. I loathe chugging, but I've never complained and I suspect I'll be in the majority in that respect.

Whilst I'm not sure that verifiable data exists going that far back, the year preceeding saw appoximately 690,000 people sign up using face-to-face. If you follow the trend backwards that's an exceptional number of people.

You loathe it. That's absolutely fine. Don't stop for fundraisers. I don't stop for the hairdressing people or paintball sales people (who don't have street trading permits) and when asked, I don't get myself at all stressed over it. There really isn't an issue unless you create one. Your views don't detract from the necessity, legitimacy and effectiveness of f2f fundraising. What you suspect and what is scientifically measurable are two seperate and distinct entities with, as yet, little relation to one another.

There are frankly more things in this world to be upset/annoyed/angry about than charities trying to fund work that, ultimately, will benefit you or someone you love. 1 in four will develop cancer. I'm a smoker, you better believe I have a direct debit to Cancer Research. Mental health might be an issue for me too having spent time on this forum

If you volunteer your time, put your spare change in a tin (and let's face it, it was cluttering your pocket anyway), have a direct debit or 4, organise tea parties, sponsored shave your head, whatever, that's great isn't it? The way I look at it, is, if my actions benefit someone with no connection to me, then that really is the most amazing thing. We, in this society, are far too focused on ourselves. There is a notion of service to one's fellow man which is missing, and frankly, that way darkness lies.

Fundraisers do good work. You might not like it but it's here to stay.

Peace and love peeps.

Quasar

I cannot hope to quote all that I wish, so here it goes anyway:

Be as it may, there have been some assumptions made that those of us who "moan" (I call it discussion - this is DT is it, or please point me in the right direction and I'll make my exit quietly) are not very favourable to donating to charities. I object to this assumption. I happen to choose my own time and place to decide what and how to give, not to mention selecting my preferred charities.

Secondly, I don't care what justifications there may be, I will never ever give my bank details to anybody who stops me in the street. And I won't give them cash either. The reasons for this refusal are obvious to all but the most unaware passers by, and there must be very many by the look of things. Not that I doubt the integrity of the charities involved, but I have no guarantees as to the honesty or, at best, careful-ness of the young things who collect such data/cash.

Fifer

Please don't get me wrong. I respect many charities (there are many that I don't) and give to them. I wouldn't mind chuggers either if they would take a polite 'no' for an answer, but the vast majority don't in my experience. Fund raising isn't an issue for me, but the behaviour of chuggers is. When a gang of them take up residence across the centre of a pedestrianised shopping street on a Saturday and you have to run the gauntlet every time you wander up and down the precinct, it quickly becomes exceedingly wearing and irritating. Perhaps the issue here isn't 'should charities use chuggers' but 'should chuggers behave better'.?

White_Noise wrote:

What you suspect and what is scientifically measurable are two separate and distinct entities with, as yet, little relation to one another.

I'd love to go with what's scientifically measurable here, but I'm not aware that the appropriate data is in the public domain. However, you and Nik have a fantastic opportunity here. Share with us the churn figures, the donor/years data, the number of DD's cancelled in the first three months and the number of unique individuals signing up in a year and convince us. Fair?