I used to look at the logo for the World Wide Fund For Nature and think, awww, it’s a panda, how cute. Not any more. Now I look at it and I see the bear wearing the mask of a burglar. ‘How could I be so heartless?’ I hear you cry, ”What can have happened for you to fall out of love with the panda?’. The answer, dear reader, is street fund raisers, better known as chuggers.
Yesterday, Villiers Street near Charing Cross was alive with orange vested WWF chuggers. I steeled myself as I headed down the street, trying to look busy, pretending to be on the phone, playing all the tricks in the hope of avoiding contact. But no, today I was up against the Bionic Chugger and he took me on. Three times he tried to engage me, the first two I replied, ‘no thank you’ and on the third I blurted out, ‘Chuggers, arrgrrgghhhhhhh!’
I walked on, free from further chugging, when all of a sudden a lady approached me purposefully and for a second I thought, ‘uh oh, I shouldn’t have dissed the chugger – this person’s probably a life member of WWF and I’m about to get my smackdown‘ – did you see what I did there 😉 But I needn’t have worried, the lady spoke kindly with me, shared my frustration and then we parted company, laughing about our shared experience.
But the truth is, it ain’t funny. I see chugging as damaging to a brand. It’s intrusive and to me at least, it feels unwelcome. But I’m left thinking it must work for these organisations or they wouldn’t do it – would they? So today my search is for people sympathetic to and supportive of the humble chugger. Is that you? Please let me know.
I agree chugging is a total nuisance & can dominate small high streets. One local councillor at Test Valley Borough Council is campaigning to change the law to prevent it, as apparently they don’t need a licence to sign people up to direct debts in the same way that people who rattle a collection tin need to be licenced. When chuggers first appeared I was sympathetic but charities over use has worn this out as a way to engage the public. Only the gullible & weak get picked off now – not a very moral activity!
Here’s a link to the Romsey Advertiser’s article
http://www.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/news/9789965.Council_to_debate_curb_on_nuisance____chuggers___/?ref=rss
The people signed up when I worked for the Red Cross were inspired that there was an organisation who spent their time being completely impartial in who they care for. There are bad fundraisers, but there are honest ones too. Fact is though, them, like myself, quit because people give us so much grief. Yet we give 20% of our earnings to a government that wages wars. You people are crazy.
Chuggers #grrr bah don’t talk to me. I’m the sort of plonker that smiles to everyone in the street, and doesn’t mind talking to rambling folks, but show me a chugger and my dark side comes out. I become expert at looking at clouds and turning up the volume of my ipod. My aim is that they will NEVER catch my eye.
I keep thinking about their selection and training – what is done to turn cool young people into these sinister smiling predators.
On the one hand, I resent the intrusion, the invasion of my space / thoughts / staring at clouds etc, the assumed right that they have to stop and engage me in their script. Predation is a great way of describing it actually
On the other hand, they are at least getting off their arses and trying to earn a living rather than getting a B-All in Jeremy Kyle and Wotsits eating. They are probably (or maybe) getting their fund-raising stripes to kick off a career in the charity sector and they are doing an absolutely thankless job which gets a small chink of sympathy from me – mainly because we all seem to hate this type of approach to “chug” us.
Summary – hate chugging, can’t take it out on the chugger. Do I ever stop for them? Do I heck.
Great feedback thanks folks.
Nigel – good point about smaller high streets and thank you for the article.
od_optimist – great points about training and eye contact avoidance 🙂
Chris – interesting point about people actually doing stuff, I can’t help but think there could be something more interesting and useful for them and us to be doing to keep the Jeremy Kyle free zone going. Wotsits, mmmm, I like Wotsits.
I have to say this blog and the comment below has made my day! Chuggers and wotsits and smackdown – who would’ve thought they could be interlinked! I agree with all of you, I suddeny become blind and deaf when I see someone heading in my direction and if they overcome these two obstacles I then pretend I don’t understand them as from a different country!
Chuggers have a job to do and yes they must be succesful hence the continuous notion of drumming in support but maybe we should have nominated chugger days – a bit like a chugger fayre dedicated to supporting chuggers and the trials and tribulations they face everyday. Also offering support groups to those affected by chuggering encounters and providing opportunites to chug freely and safely – wotsits offered at entry point ;D!
Chugger ahoy in controlled zones!!
Thank you Emma – extremely helpful suggestions, a chugger fayre indeed 🙂
Every time 10 seconds of your day is taken up saying no to a charity fundraiser on the street, that person (unless they’re new or about to lose their job) has got an average of 2 people to give an average of £8 a month to the charity. That means that if they’re there every day for a week- you’ll have been inconvenienced for less than a minute and, taking into account a 20% attrition average and a one year average length that people give for, and even the 15% admin percentage the Red Cross(the charity I worked for) spends from their donations – £1,305 has gone to a charity.
That’s the equivalent of 522 potentially life saving inoculations from cholera for children in Haiti.
And you’ve had someone ask you for a minute 5 times over one week.
I’m not trying to get you to sign up, I just think you could spend your time in a wiser fashion than complaining so much and calling good people ‘muggers’
Thank you for coming by and sharing your perspective, You’ve added something very interesting here. And I appreciate that you and others quit because of the grief you get. As much as I don’t appreciate being pestered, and that is precisely how it feels to be on the receiving end, How does the person who is temporarily trying to engage/distract, call it what you will – feel?
I’ve no data to back this up but for sure I feel much less inclined to support a charity that chooses to adopt this fund raising tactic, I’d be surprised if others don’t too.
And I’m left thinking – if that gets fed back to the charities themselves, can’t a better way be devised? Thanks again for your contribution I really appreciate it.
Thanks for your reply Doug. I implore you to go and talk to a fundraiser next time you see one and have a chat with an open heart about how they feel. They are essentially lovely people – they have to be to do the job! Just remember – how ever much you tell them you won’t be signing up – if they’re good they still will – because that’s what the charity is paying them to do.
And yes there are people who get annoyed enough to stop giving to a charity because of them. I met people regularly who cancelled their direct debit because they had calls asking them to increase their giving, and because the charity sent too much stuff to their home aswell. Personally, for me, if I see an advert with a dying child trying to guilt trip me in to giving – the charity loses points in my mind.
But if we all got our way – how would the charities get their money?
Do you think the charity would do this if they didn’t think it was worth it?
Plus: Do you realise how lucky we are in this society? We’re the sixth largest economy in the World. Out of 190 odd countries. I think something like a billion people don’t have access to clean water. HALF the world lives on less than $2 a day, while we buy Macdonalds, have iPhones, pay £10 to watch movies, smoke cigarettes, get drunk…
And this is a blog AGAINST fundraisers who raise money to balance these causes.
And the main argument is that they don’t like being pestered.
I think that’s a great idea, OK I will engage in that conversation and see what happens, thanks for the suggestion. And I appreciate your point about how lucky we are in the UK and other similar places, my wife and I were talking about this just the other day and I certainly consider myself hugely fortunate.
I think this blog is more about the method than the people, although I freely admit that after being tapped three times in rapid succession I was pretty peeved. Maybe I just should have walked on. But then we wouldn’t be having such an interesting natter now eh?
Well it is an interesting natter yes, but those people who annoy you every day get flack from people ALL day every day and they just have to be thick skinned about it. But, if you engage with any fundraiser on any level other than the best of spirits, you will see they are human and it does get to them. There are people who use our taxes to wage wars that kill innocent people that don’t get half the crap they do.
As I was saying to the person below. This method is necessary in this kind of society. The world should be fairer, and some people need to get in our faces in order to remind us of that.
My best advice to deal with fundraisers is to have a laugh. If you get a banana out and say ‘Sorry, I’ve got a call’ or in your best Etonian accent say ‘Terribly sorry but I’m afraid I don’t speak a word of English’ and walk on and make them smile – you’ve helped them have a good day and got away with it.
Or, just say ‘no thanks’. Thousands of people every day do that and go on with their day. Much easier than campaigning to get them banned or whatever.
I understand what Row is saying about the statistical conversion; clearly the excellent charm offensive training pays off as they will catch a small percentage of people at the right moment and they’re converting some into donations. Enough to get a return on their investment. Yay. My mild irritation is worth it. I see that argument.
However, for most of the people, like me, who started off enjoying the dialogue with these friendly folks when this phenomenon first emerged, the experience alters somewhat when you don’t want to part with your direct debit details in the street even if you commit to becoming a donor. I once offered £10 as a one off, and they were unable to take the money, they only wanted my direct debit commitment. How many one off donations are offered and declined? How many conversions are lost because the potential donee may want to reflect on their emotional, financial and political priorities before they commit? How many friends of a charity are lost because when I walk past a charity raising funds this way, I have a little frown to myself. There are plenty of smaller charities that could do with my time, money and advocacy.
In my view, it’s no different from the cold call to my home in the evening asking who I am without introducing themselves. I can no longer be polite enough to spend time talking to people who protest that they are not sales people. I let them know that calling me at my home, during family time, is not welcome and they can put their sales proposals in writing. They never do.
I donate regularly, volunteer, rattle tins etc and do probono work. I’m totally for fundraising and getting involved. I’m all for young people getting an opportunity to fund raise, meet the public, do some selling and get some experience. This way is hugely alienating, and I speculate that for every donor gained this way, charities piss off a bunch of people that will walk past the next collecting tin/decline a raffle ticket purchase because they feel invaded. This can’t be quantified but it’s real.
Train these enthusiastic folks to advocate, fund raise, and learn how to deal with the public. Don’t train them to close that sale; they’d make more money selling plastic windows.
Hello Mr Optimist, nice to hear from you.
I think one thing you have to realise is that, as with every other profession in the world – there are those who are honourable in what they do, and those who aren’t. Inevitably people write blogs and articles about the ones who aren’t, and very little is in the papers about the ones who are. That’s just the unfortunate way our society is.
They are not allowed to take money in the street, and the details taken are only what you could find in a phonebook and your sort code and account number. If you lost your card and cancelled it, you would have the same sort code and account number on your new card. It’s not sensitive information.
Also, giving a one off donation is not committing. If we knew you’d be there every month and could come back and get it every month for a year it still wouldn’t be as cost effective because every one off payment costs a little to process (with DD it’s once) and we couldn’t claim the gift aid which is about £2.80 for every £10. These little things mount up. There are many people who want to pay off their guilt trip by giving a donation there and then. That’s not what this is about. This is about being inspired to committing to help the charity for the long term.
Many, many regular gifts are lost because people want to go away and think about it. Every day I would have people who say they’ll go away and think about it and come back and 1 in 20 actually do. I’ve had people juggling sequin encrusted iphones, a coffee and a cigarette telling me they don’t know if they can afford the price of one of those coffee’s a week or one pack of cigarettes a month. People don’t want to think outside of their comfortable box. And we’re all trained to hold tightly to our money no matter what. If we aren’t a little bit cheeky and upfront with people – the charities get less money.
The bottom line is that charities wouldn’t do it if it didn’t make a massive return for them.
And for every one person who is annoyed, there are one or two people who are inspired enough to give and hundreds who give it little thought.
But it’s only the people who are annoyed who spend their time writing about it.
I was sent this article by @MsTick68 via Twitter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12525580
It’s well worth a read in the context of this discussion. Here’s an extract which talks about the ££ bottom line and the pissed off factor.
“This contradiction is framed by two key observations. The first is that street fundraising is, for many charities, demonstrably effective.
According to the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association (PFRA), the method brings in up to 600,000 new regular donations each year and donors recruited face-to-face are worth £120m annually to good causes. It also estimates that up to 18% of those who make direct debit or standing order payments do so having been recruited in the street or on the doorstep.
The second is that the public, whenever asked, tend to express an aversion to the tactic. A 2009 survey suggested that two-thirds of people would cross the street to avoid them.”
So this does indeed support your point about the £s Row, and it would seem also to support od_optimist’s point about the pissed off factor, which appears much larger than the fund raising industry would want folk to believe.
We’re British. We’re gonna be pissed off about something whatever happens.
But you know- British Joe public is pissed off. Bangladeshi Jane can save her family’s life by getting them to a purpose built shelter next time a cyclone hits.
Fair trade.
I feel quite excited to be a Mr in this conversation. Talks in slightly gruff voice.
I can see your argument, but it’s like so much of our world, that only what is easily quantifiable gets measured. So of course I know that for every me, or ten or twenty me’s, there’s someone who isn’t already donating regularly that will be engaged that commits to regular donating otherwise despite the unpopularity why would charities continue to use this as a method of fund raising. It gets certain bottom line results in.
I can see too that you’re totally commited to this method, and I respect your commitment. However, I think it will run its course as a method, and we’ll have a better idea of the impact on advocacy, street fundraising etc when we look back.
I wouldn’t say I was that committed. I quit! But I quit partly because people give us such a hard time. There are so many people doing such bad things in the World, and people take the time to have a go at us!?
My thoughts, having had many through doing the job, is that the method which allows so many to have so little and so few to have so much, and then for it to be ok for someone who earns £35,000 a year to complain about someone collecting money for people to get clean water – that method – capitalisation or whatever you want to call it – has to change.
People shouldn’t need to accosted in the street to help out their fellow humans. But right now if we want the money – they do need to be.
Hey Row – I’ve no idea how you found this blog, but I’m very pleased you did. Thanks for such thought provoking commentary.
My pleasure. Thanks for actually listening
You write compellingly; however, if someone like you quits, it’s just another example for me of this approach losing more than it gains.
Whilst I haven’t changed my own feelings towards it, I hear what you’re saying and it’s food for thought.
I think it’s probably important to distinguish between dislike for this method of getting people to donate and raising awareness, and commitment to the principles of working towards social and economic justice and fairness. The dislike does of one does not preclude commitment to the underlying principles you describe.
We’re probably likely to agree on more than we disagree. Yours Ms od_optimist
Well this is the thing. We’re all aware of what goes on and yes we all agree the world needs to change but in amongst all the media and living distractions – when should you do it and why? SO many of the people I signed up said they’d been thinking about doing it for ages. Yet it still took me stopping them to get round to it. The fact is that if people are left to their own devices there are so many distractions that will prevent them from doing it.
The thing we don’t agree on, is the point by which I decided to write here.
People who do this job are largely lovely people. They are not trained to be ‘sinister smiling predators’ as you wrote- they are nice people. Who raise money for those who need it. If you don’t like it, say ‘No thanks’ and walk on. Calling them ‘muggers’ and telling them to ‘chug off’ is a little unfair.
In my humble opinion.
@Row: “Or, just say ‘no thanks’” doesn’t work and you have to do it so many times. This is like the argument we had with email spammers who told us to “just hit delete”
“They are essentially lovely people ” … with an unfortunate habit of jumping in your path / following you down the street “Don’t walk away, don’t walk away…”
“I quit partly because people give us such a hard time.” I think there’s a lesson about democracy in there somewhere!
Hi Chugger Monitor. Why the name?
The PFRA give street fundraisers rules they should follow. It’s something like you can take two steps towards a person and two alongside them. It might be three. True, some bend this rule, but if it really upsets you you can walk up to the team leader and they will help you with the complaints procedure, or contact the charity directly who will happily deal with fundraisers that give them a bad name.
They shouldn’t jump in your path any less than a couple of metres away, again, flag up these guys if you’re upset about that but it is their job to get your attention and it gets money for charity. Do you get upset and complain about te torrents of advertising for things like MacDonalds and CocoCola who have more money than God and put it all towards products which are bad for children’s health AND get them to beg their parents for it? Perhaps your energies would be more productively spent with them.
I’m not sure what lesson I should be learning but I can’t speak to anyone who doesn’t want to talk to me. And so many people don’t really mind because of the bottom line.
“but if it really upsets you you can walk up to the team leader and they will help you with the complaints procedure,”
How many people having just had an unpleasant encounter with a chugger even know about team leaders still less will seek out further contact with the chugging team?
The PFRA complaints system is a joke anyway – see here: http://chuggermonitor.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/regulation.html
I wouldn’t do it through the PFRA, I’d do it through the charity. They’re who really care because it’s their reputation on the line. Fair enough one complaint won’t do much but it will do more than blogging about it
“Many, many regular gifts are lost because people want to go away and think about it. ”
Fundraising 101: It’s not about what the charity wants, it’s about what the donor wants. That is a resectful model.
I found out the other day that between November and May when I was working I signed up 178 people, raising £16,888 in the first year. Including gift aid the total would come to around £20k.
Every one of those people knew about the Red Cross before I met them. Every one of them knew it was a good cause. But not one of them was signed up or went out with the intention of signing up to give to the Red Cross regularly. And all of them have the choice to quit at any time- even before the first payment.
Our default position is ‘don’t give money’ it does take some persuasion, but no-one does it who doesn’t want to.
Did all 178 keep up payments for the full year?
The average chugger approaches 180 people to get one sign up so that’s over 300,000 people. How about if just 1% decided never to give to Red Cross again. How much might those 3000 people have given if treated respectfully?
One year donation is the average. Some will cancel even before first payment, some will give for life, so it’s gonna be a little while before I know an exact figure.
People who walked past me who already gave to the Red Cross would announce very proudly that they did so and would wish me well. Look on twitter where there’s some guy who collects all the negative tweets about fundraisers. He finds one or two a day and across the UK there are hundreds, maybe thousands of fundraisers on the streets. If each of them approaches a couple of hundred people a day and one or two tweet about it, I doubt 1% cancel.
The fact is that you people who call us names and blog about us are the ones who’s consciences are clearly threatened by us reminding you how selfish you are. Everyone knows we’re selfish and if it really gets to you you’ve gotta either sign up or adamantly oppose the people that remind you of it. Lots of people get annoyed but the vast vast majority have the brains to realise that being asked for a minute isn’t such a big deal and the charity is clever enough to do it only if it’s worth it.
And I love how you assume not only that 1% cancel, but that I treated them disrespectfully. Like I would have got 178 signups by disrespecting people