Is this the end for chuggers?

[rosiehope]

Did anyone see the piece in the Guardian about Intelligent Giving's call for the public to boycott chuggers?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...lligent-giving

It's a worry. There's no doubt that chuggers bring in money, in the short term at least, but there does seem to be something of a reputational risk if they're really annoying people that much.It's a tough one.

[Ross McCulloch]

That's a really interesting article and the views of the public seem to be fairly clear on the comments section.

One person refers to them as "appalling vultures".

My personal favourite is: "I just hate the fact going down Birmingham New Street is a live action version of Frogger."

According to the article, in 2006 a quarter of Shelter's income came from street fundraisers and 75% of Greenpeace's new members were recruited this way between 2000 and 2003. So clearly chuggers are having a huge impact.

I have a feeling that many people will be turned off by charities using these methods, which may dilute the impact of their campaigns. This is especially worrying given Shelter's excellent, often quite radical, homelessness campaigns.

What does everyone else think?

[Phillamina]

I hope it's the end for them!

I told a really persistent one to 'bugger off' in a good-humoured sort of way (honestly!) once on the High Street and he called me an *&$%%-ing vegetable. I won't mention the children's charity but they're well known for chugging.

We were also pounced on in a supermarket last week by someone raising money for the Dogs Trust. That was really disappointing as I do try to help them anyway and I can't believe they've resorted to waving pictures of neglected dogs under people's noses as they shop.

I think charities who do send people out like this are not doing themselves any favours. I agree fundraising does sometimes need drastic measures but chugging has been tried many times and confirmed as being downright annoying.

Maybe the chugger will get money from quite a few people that they harass, but usually it's because those people want them to go away and leave them alone - leaving the passer-by with a bad impression of that charity and unlikely to donate to them in the future.

For sustainable fundraising I think different tactics are needed!

[matt.chatterley]

I often wonder if chugging does more harm than good. A friend was ambushed a little while ago by a very, very high profile overseas aid charity - and essentially badgered into agreeing to a regular donation she could not afford.

This sort of coercement is really on the dark side of things - and even though the girl in question gives what she can to charity (normally volunteer work), I'm fairly sure - even though this has all been straightened out, she will never donate to this particular one again.

That said - this is an example of one particularly bad, and I hope, rogue chugger - don't want to tar everybody with the same brush!

[Ross McCulloch]

I've highlighted this article, and our wee debate on TSF, on my Sunday Mail blog.

Be interesting to see what opinions are on this one.

[Innocent]

I agree that the pressure Chuggers often use is way beyond acceptable, and does a great injustice to any of the good work that the charities concerned may be doing. I think the law needs to be tightened up on such methods.
The charity industry (for want of a better word)is far more cut throat than commercial business and I would like to see a tightening of the ethical code used. Much in the same was as the 10 day cooling off period credit applications allow. Also advertising using emotional blackmail indicators could do with curbing especially as commercial marketing (although uses other powerful methods) rarely makes us buy a product out of guilt.
I would find it highly amusing to see a huge supermarket chain making us feel guilty for not buying from them, because their workers may not be able to pay their bills if they get laid off, for example.

There should also be more transparency about how much of our donation actually goes to the needy, and how much falls into the administrative coffers of the charities owners!!!

[Stallfinder]

I actually don't mind if they're not too pushy and will often send my kids over to drop some money in. I much prefer that to all the requests for donations that come in the post to be honest. I've also had calls at home which I really don't like. I hadn't realised they were called chuggers until I saw the news story.
Gail.

[Organic Baby Clothes]

I've worked for a few high profile charities (though not in fundraising) and it seems to me that "chugging" is one of those fundraising projects which once one charity did it as many as could would too, so not to be left behind - and it does work.

I do sympathise with the charities who are constantly having to increase donations to keep going but chugging is base on interruption and I think most peeps prefer donating to charities they have developed a relationship with.

I really don't like chugging at all and avoid the chuggers as much as I can.

[rosiehope]

I should declare an interest. I used to be a chugger, back in the day when they were new, but I was rubbish, so I got sacked.

I suppose I just didn't have the persistence that they need. It is really hard work being ignored and having people be horrible to you all day, so I always try to be nice to them- but never actually sign up to anything.

What is interesting is the data harvesting that Oxfam and Cancer research have done, where you sign up on the street to support their campaigns, then develop a relationship with them through email. Eventually, lots of people end up donating or volunteering. Seems like a good twist on the idea.

[Ross McCulloch]

Milly Ahmed of GIFT has described the Intelligent Giving research as a "complete farce" and said that "what they have done shows a complete misunderstanding of what fundraisers do".

I agree that it does seem their research may have been slightly flawed but I'm not sure it takes away from the fact that these charities may be doing themselves reputational damage long term.