'Chuggers'

I've been doing a lot of research on face-to-face fundraisers lately as I wanted to look down all the avenues that charities take to get supporters and donors on board. People stopping me on the street is something I have always been confronted with, coming from a big city like Birmingham. I am the kind of person that spots the fundraisers in advance and crosses the road, or walks very fast past them stating I am in a rush. It made me feel bad when I did this, but now I have read in to the topic, I am going to have no problem waking straight past them. I was shocked at what I discovered.

Newsnight carried out extensive research in to what the public have labelled 'chuggers' or 'charity muggers'. These fundraisers are employed by charities from external firms, so there isn't a direct link between the individual trying to sign you up and the cause they are promoting.

The fees charities pay out to these firms often 'wipe out the amount an average person gives each year.

An example of this can be seen in the British Heart foundation Interview on Newsnight (2010), and back up online articles, where it explains £136 is given to the fundraiser for every signature they manage to get. On average, a donor gives £90 a month in donations. This means that if the donor signed up on the street, unless they are giving money for more than 18 months, their money isn't even reaching the charity because they are paying the external firms fees with which they signed up. This is all very well if you can guarantee you have just got a life-long supporter and keen donator on board. There isn't any way of making sure these individuals stay with the charity for the years to follow.

Reporter Gavin Elser asked Betty McBride, the director of policy for the British Heart Foundation, "...But do they say that they will receive an average of £136 to sign somebody up who in the first year may only pay you £90. That's where people are not being naive, they expect you to have overheads, but also expect you to put as much as possible in to the charity..."

McBride came back with an answer that in my opinion wasn't satisfying enough and didn't make me accept external firms anymore than I already did. She said that their website has information displayed about paying professional fundraisers for face-to-face activities. In their annual review, they also have a section about what percentage of the charities costs go on fundraising. McBride claims that 'about 70% recruited by telemarketing are still with the charity 5 years later'.

Surely you need to know in the first place that external companies are being used in order to know to look on the website? If you are unaware of this, then you have no idea that your donation isn't going directly to the cause you are 'supporting'. I unfortunately fell in to this trap and looking back now, I wish I had been given more information and I feel anger towards the charity as well as the fundraiser, for not informing me where me money was going. When you give your signature to support a charitable organisation, that's where you expect your money to go. You don't think about asking questions! The trust is there. Well it shouldn't be and where possible now, I aim to stop as many people using face-to-face fundraisers as possible. I was stopped in the street by 'Care International', who I had been reading about for some time. I signed up there and then thinking it would save me the hassle of doing it any other way and I also thought I was doing something good by speaking directly to a member of the charity who knew everything about it. I couldn't have been more wrong. The initial signature sign-up was followed by a phone call. I have been a regular donator now for many years. I had no idea all those years ago, that the first 18 months of donations were in fact not even seeing any of the charities projects, and going straight in to the pocket of the company that signed me up. If I had known all of the background information beforehand, I would have gone straight to 'Care International's' website and signed up directly, avoiding the unnecessary middle-man. 

  Care International face-to-face external fundraisers

According to a survey I came across on street collectors, two-thirds of people will cross the road to avoid being pestered.

Intelligent Giving published findings which shocked and disgusted me when I came across them:

- Fundraisers earn about £8.50/hr. 

- 20% of the 50 'chuggers' studied had no ID. 

- 25% of the 50 didn't even know who they worked for.

These are the people you giving money to and the people who are allowing you to think you're helping an amazing cause. 

They are an "inefficient way of giving and they give charities a bad name and they harass people and put them out - and we think that's behaviour charities shouldn't be indulging in." - Intelligent Giving.

There many people who back-up this method and state that face-to-face fundraising using external firms is a good idea and it has a great benefit to the income being received for the charitable organisation. Mark Aldridge, chief executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association confesses that fundraisers can sometimes be 'over enthusiastic' and pushy, but they are well trained and committed. This may be the case, but is that really something you want to pay for? You want them to be genuinely happy that you are supporting a cause/issue, not happy because you are lining their pockets. In my eyes, I only see them as being enthusiastic and 'in your face' because if they don't get a certain amount of signatures in one day, they don't get paid, or as much money as they could. So, not for your benefit, but for their profitable benefit.

Oxfam pulled out of using this strategy because they feared it would damage their relationship with its supporters. Many other charitable organisations have followed suit. But Great Ormond Street Hospital stand by the technique stating that it "proves to be an effective channel at recruiting younger committed givers to the charity." Is this because the younger generation are more naive to what happens in the background and donate because they want to 'do a good deed'? Or because they are easier to pressure in to donating when confronted on the street? These are questions I asked myself instantly. I know that I feel really bad if I say no to people and this may be the case in a lot of younger people, especially females.

This method of fundraising wouldn't be as popular of beneficial if the donors were informed before they signed anything, that the fundraiser is being paid £x amount of money and that their donations won't see the charity causes unless they are a long-term donor. Many individuals would go direct to the charity instead. Or maybe not bother donating at all? This is another problem you could be faced with.

When it comes to my campaign and promoting my cause, all the fundraisers I use (if this is an avenue I go down), will be able to gain job perks but will work for me directly and not for huge profits like £136 per donor!! They will also have to support the cause and know as much about it as possible. The presence people see on the street won't be running up to you and trying to get you to part with your money. I will have my fundraisers/promotors handing out leaflets with information about my cause, ways to support if they wish to do so, and events that can be attended. This is a much better way to go about gaining supporters in my view because if I was approached in this way, I am more likely to take notice and find out more in my own time. I would even attend some of the events to see what they are about. Then I can make up my mind. But by then, I have done the charity a favour by talking about them, inviting people with me to the events and possibly donated already.