VENT On street charity workers

qetu1357

lincroft1710 wrote: »

8 people on £300 pw = over £10K per calendar month, approx £125K pa. Therefore approx 2,100 people giving £5 pcm are paying these chuggers.

All fine but professionals fundraising raises more net income for a charity than volunteers fundraising.

More net income means more people helped, more animals helped etc. etc.

Would we rather have no professional fundraisers but less people helped!?

jc808

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

£30-£40k won't even get you a mortgage on a 1 bed flat in London.

yes it will, quite easily

Reverbe

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

The charities would then have to rely on MD level people taking a HUGE slash in salary. People might do this if they're retired, or for a year on sabbatical perhaps, but not long term. £30-£40k won't even get you a mortgage on a 1 bed flat in London.

Rubbish. my flatmate has a mortgage .. where in London are you talking about? Mayfair

relic

I was leaving work yesterday and walked through our town center, had a bunch of RSPCA workers stood around and one decided to try it on with me.

Told me what a nice suit I had on, about my shopping and then whilst following me with no replies from myself said "i'm sure you have cash to spare every month to give the RSPCA", all this in a very loud, cocky manner. At this point I got fed up and told him how to act to actually "close" a sale, as it's obvious he was very poor at what he did.

I don't usually mind them, but it seems they have employed a new tactic of being incredibly cocky, bad mannered and I guess to some people rather intimidating.

lincroft1710

qetu1357 wrote: »

All fine but professionals fundraising raises more net income for a charity than volunteers fundraising.

More net income means more people helped, more animals helped etc. etc.

Would we rather have no professional fundraisers but less people helped!?

Actually I only used the wages of the chuggers, I forgot to include the cost the company charges the charity for the chugger, which I would imagine would be twice their wage, therefore 4,200 people approx need to pay £5 pcm for a year before the charity sees any money.

I would not use the word "professional" to describe chuggers, in fact their attitude and approach is very often unprofessional and can harm the reputation of the charity.

Can you actually "prove" (as opposed to assume) that more animals/people are helped.

qetu1357

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Actually I only used the wages of the chuggers, I forgot to include the cost the company charges the charity for the chugger, which I would imagine would be twice their wage, therefore 4,200 people approx need to pay £5 pcm for a year before the charity sees any money.

I would not use the word "professional" to describe chuggers, in fact their attitude and approach is very often unprofessional and can harm the reputation of the charity.

Can you actually "prove" (as opposed to assume) that more animals/people are helped.

You haven't included the Gift Aid that is normally accrued as well.

Normally the cost of recruiting a giver is recuperated over 6 to 9 months.

On average they stay with a charity for 3 years - this is where the "profit" or additional income comes from.

I can prove for the charities I know that the more income raised the more people etc they help.

If you choose to disbelieve me give Save the Children or Oxfam a ring and ask them what they could do with an extra £5, £10 or £30.

lincroft1710

qetu1357 wrote: »

You haven't included the Gift Aid that is normally accrued as well.

Can't calculate that as I don't know how many do Gift Aid, would probably alter figures by about 15%??

Normally the cost of recruiting a giver is recuperated over 6 to 9 months.

On average they stay with a charity for 3 years - this is where the "profit" or additional income comes from.

But if they donated directly instead of via chuggers, charity would get all the money rather than 75%

I can prove for the charities I know that the more income raised the more people etc they help.

If you choose to disbelieve me give Save the Children or Oxfam a ring and ask them what they could do with an extra £5, £10 or £30.

They would hardly say they had no use for it, now would they?.

I don't think anyone would argue that charities need to publicise their existence and need for donations. TV, magazines and newspapers are full of adverts for them. Personal letters and circulars plus collecting envelopes drop through the door. I've also had two charities doorstepping in the past year or so. But do we really need chuggers who often are obnoxious and overly persistent and are so universally hated they bring the charity they "represent" into disrepute and are probably now doing more harm than good for said charity.

qetu1357

I agree that the perception of some street fundraisers is they can be overly persistent and indeed obnoxious. I have to say I have never experienced it though. I suggest if any feels that a fundraiser has been rude they should tell the charity involved.

On your point "But if they donated directly instead of via chuggers, charity would get all the money rather than 75%" this is obviously true. However the majority of donations that charities get (in general) are because the charity has contacted the supporter, be it through street fundraising, advertising, direct mail or by telephone, rather than the supporter contacting the charity. Charities get more net income because they proactively fundraise.

Street fundraising is still proving a very effective way of raising income for a charity. Charities wouldn't do it if it didn't work but do monitor complaints and any negative effect.

And I have seen the effect first hand that charities do have on people's lives.

For charities like Oxfam and Save the Children for example it is literally the difference between life and death.

lincroft1710

qetu1357 wrote: »

On your point "But if they donated directly instead of via chuggers, charity would get all the money rather than 75%" this is obviously true. However the majority of donations that charities get (in general) are because the charity has contacted the supporter, be it through street fundraising, advertising, direct mail or by telephone, rather than the supporter contacting the charity. Charities get more net income because they proactively fundraise.

Street fundraising is still proving a very effective way of raising income for a charity. Charities wouldn't do it if it didn't work but do monitor complaints and any negative effect.

And I have seen the effect first hand that charities do have on people's lives.

For charities like Oxfam and Save the Children for example it is literally the difference between life and death.

As you rightly say, charities have to be pro active in order to survive. But does the money invested in chuggers give a better overall return than other forms of fundraising.

I haven't seen chuggers in our town centre for about 2 years, so whether they've been banned or are there on the days I don't go into town, I'm not sure. Still have Big Issue sellers.

qetu1357

lincroft1710 wrote: »

As you rightly say, charities have to be pro active in order to survive. But does the money invested in chuggers give a better overall return than other forms of fundraising.

I haven't seen chuggers in our town centre for about 2 years, so whether they've been banned or are there on the days I don't go into town, I'm not sure. Still have Big Issue sellers.

Different forms have different ROIs.

For example, legacies ROI is normally 20 to 1.

However, like any organisation you need to have a mix of income streams and regular givers is one.

And regular givers is broken down to street fundraising, direct mail, door to door, email and internet and telephone.