Charities sending unsolicited trinkets following donations

JGB1955

I've stopped giving to charities - I can't stand the waste in administrative costs.  I'll still give to my friends/relations who are actually 'doing' something (i.e. sponsored) but that's to help my friend/relation meet their target, rather than support the actual charity.  I'm not brave enough to suggest that they're wasting (a lot of) their time and effort.  My daughter recently completed a 'challenge' for which she had to raise £2,500.  The extra costs (air fares, hotels, specialist equipment, childcare costs etc etc) probably outweighed that.  It's not sustainable.  It's not something I'm happy to subscribe to.

Martin_the_Unjust

RogerBareford 

I'm sure charities will have found that by sending out these letters and trinkets it results in an overall increase in donations from people even after the cost of the postage etc. So even though you don't want them it must work on a good amount of people.

I hear what you are saying but it just feels wrong to me and I’ve learned through bitter experience that if something feels wrong then I want nothing to do with it.

theoretica

If you go onto the charity commission website - OSCR for Scottish charities - you can find the accounts submitted by charities.  These are often on the charity website too.  So you can check what the charity is actually spending money on and if you are happy with that.  I don't check before putting a few pounds in a collection box, but do before making more significant contributions of money or my time.

RogerBareford

Martin_the_Unjust said:

RogerBareford 

I'm sure charities will have found that by sending out these letters and trinkets it results in an overall increase in donations from people even after the cost of the postage etc. So even though you don't want them it must work on a good amount of people.

I hear what you are saying but it just feels wrong to me and I’ve learned through bitter experience that if something feels wrong then I want nothing to do with it.

I do agree with that, i personally don't like any charity (or any company for that matter) directly contacting me asking for money. It immedietly puts me off but mass marketing and targeted appeals seem to appeal to a lot of people and make them want to donate so unfortunetly they will continue doing it.

JGB1955 said:

I've stopped giving to charities - I can't stand the waste in administrative costs.  I'll still give to my friends/relations who are actually 'doing' something (i.e. sponsored) but that's to help my friend/relation meet their target, rather than support the actual charity.  I'm not brave enough to suggest that they're wasting (a lot of) their time and effort.  My daughter recently completed a 'challenge' for which she had to raise £2,500.  The extra costs (air fares, hotels, specialist equipment, childcare costs etc etc) probably outweighed that.  It's not sustainable.  It's not something I'm happy to subscribe to.

But if a large company is getting £20 million a year with £1 million admin costs but a small one is getting £100,000 a year with no admin costs then you could say the larger charity is more effective unless you can get 200 of the small charities to raise funds for the same cause.

I personally like the smaller charities myself but the larger one's must appeal to a lot of peple as they get massive amounts in donations.

Undervalued

theoretica said:

If you go onto the charity commission website - OSCR for Scottish charities - you can find the accounts submitted by charities.  These are often on the charity website too.  So you can check what the charity is actually spending money on and if you are happy with that.  I don't check before putting a few pounds in a collection box, but do before making more significant contributions of money or my time.

Indeed.

Plus, unlike looking up a limited company on Companies House, a charity's published accounts have to be fully detailed.

Even then they are not always easy to interpret without a great deal more information. The charity's annual report, whilst worth reading, tends to be a largely self congratulatory document. So it is not easy to get the full story.

lincroft1710

RogerBareford said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

RogerBareford 

I'm sure charities will have found that by sending out these letters and trinkets it results in an overall increase in donations from people even after the cost of the postage etc. So even though you don't want them it must work on a good amount of people.

I hear what you are saying but it just feels wrong to me and I’ve learned through bitter experience that if something feels wrong then I want nothing to do with it.

JGB1955 said:

I've stopped giving to charities - I can't stand the waste in administrative costs.  I'll still give to my friends/relations who are actually 'doing' something (i.e. sponsored) but that's to help my friend/relation meet their target, rather than support the actual charity.  I'm not brave enough to suggest that they're wasting (a lot of) their time and effort.  My daughter recently completed a 'challenge' for which she had to raise £2,500.  The extra costs (air fares, hotels, specialist equipment, childcare costs etc etc) probably outweighed that.  It's not sustainable.  It's not something I'm happy to subscribe to.

But if a large company is getting £20 million a year with £1 million admin costs but a small one is getting £100,000 a year with no admin costs then you could say the larger charity is more effective unless you can get 200 of the small charities to raise funds for the same cause.

.

You could argue the opposite. The large charity only has 95% of its donations to use for charitable purposes whereas the small charity has 100%.

IvanOpinion

I got sick of my donations being wasted on trinkets many years ago.  Worse for me was when you donate the increase in emotional blackmail letters and communiques.  For that reason I stopped all direct debits to charities and now only donate when I can donate anonymously.  I also give a bit of time to a couple of charities (which they are grateful for).

GaleSF63

I started a small regular donation to the Dogs Trust about 10 years ago (sponsor a dog). I get sent raffle tickets every so often but until one phone call this year during lockdown, I have never been asked for an increased or one-off donation.
As I do occasionally want to make an extra donation I fill in the raffle tickets, as there's always a slim chance, but basically I know that it is just a donation because I never win raffles. 

RogerBareford

lincroft1710 said:

RogerBareford said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

RogerBareford 

I'm sure charities will have found that by sending out these letters and trinkets it results in an overall increase in donations from people even after the cost of the postage etc. So even though you don't want them it must work on a good amount of people.

I hear what you are saying but it just feels wrong to me and I’ve learned through bitter experience that if something feels wrong then I want nothing to do with it.

JGB1955 said:

I've stopped giving to charities - I can't stand the waste in administrative costs.  I'll still give to my friends/relations who are actually 'doing' something (i.e. sponsored) but that's to help my friend/relation meet their target, rather than support the actual charity.  I'm not brave enough to suggest that they're wasting (a lot of) their time and effort.  My daughter recently completed a 'challenge' for which she had to raise £2,500.  The extra costs (air fares, hotels, specialist equipment, childcare costs etc etc) probably outweighed that.  It's not sustainable.  It's not something I'm happy to subscribe to.

But if a large company is getting £20 million a year with £1 million admin costs but a small one is getting £100,000 a year with no admin costs then you could say the larger charity is more effective unless you can get 200 of the small charities to raise funds for the same cause.

.

You could argue the opposite. The large charity only has 95% of its donations to use for charitable purposes whereas the small charity has 100%.

Yes i agree; it all depends on how you measure a charity's effectiveness.

Carrot007

RogerBareford said:

But if a large company is getting £20 million a year with £1 million admin costs but a small one is getting £100,000 a year with no admin costs then you could say the larger charity is more effective unless you can get 200 of the small charities to raise funds for the same cause.

Many large charities use less that 1% of donations for the actual cause. Of course you can look this up. I think it should be required in bold font in large latters on any beggin letter.

If they are a begging charity they are probably not worthh donating to, there are many better options and depending on what it is maybe something local.