Do charities realise the damage street fund raisers do to their brands?

Felt the same way after I got suckered into supporting Cancer Council, then spotted chugger sans tabard, having a cigarette around the corner. I cancelled ( to cut the chugger out) via telephone and resigned via online.

Couldn’t agree more with this article. The best use of a mobile phone these days is the ability to make or receive phantom phone calls in an instant as you walk across Martin Place or down George Street. Works every time, largely due to the fact the chugger’s brightly coloured T-shirt makes him/her easy to spot.

I’m glad I’m not the only person who succumbed to Amnesty’s street teams. Signed up about ten years ago, and happily let them deduct a small monthly amount on direct debit for years…

until about 3 years ago, they started cold-calling me. Every second month. Trying to guilt me into upping the amount I’m giving them.

Call after call. I say no, they thank me for my ongoing support, then they try it on again. By about the 6thth call, I finally cracked the shits and told them that I would have been very happy to continue to give to them every month until the day I died, but now… cancel the direct debit please.

I guess some idiot at Amnesty figured that you get a greater ROI by convincing existing clients to stump up more, rather than trying to recruit new ones, but does ANYONE like to be hassled like this?

I’ve long dealt with this saying I’m under 21 or a student.

I’m 29 this year, so I have a feeling they’re onto me.

Nice article. I think this type of marketing is amongst the most intrusive there is.

Even worse are the “companies” who run raffles and competitions on the street “in support” of a charity. The money raised actually goes to the company who is running the comp. They then choose what percentage to give to the charity (usually around 30%). The naive passer-by is then left thinking they spent $100 on raffle tickets going to support poverty in Africa, when they actually gave $70 to the profitable organisation running the comp, and a mere $30 to the charity itself. All because of the reputable brands these dodgy companies are hiding behind.

How these practises are even remotely legal baffles me.

I was almost physically assaulted by a pair of street fundraisers representing Greenpeace, in front of the Broadway Shopping Centre in Sydney back in 2005. I indicated I wasn’t interested in what they were selling by walking pass them without stopping or saying anything. The two males then ran up in front of me, and blocked by path and refused to let me through unless I heard their message. I brushed passed them telling them it was a public thoroughfare. They then tried to put their arms out to stop me and started yelling abuse calling me “a killer”, “a dog’, etc Looking back at that incident its ironic the group they represented are called Greenpeace.

I find the relationship between charities-public and causes a bit disturbing anyway. I never understand why some one has to run around the country to raise money for xxx cause? Wouldn’t it be enough just to say ‘I am raising money for cancer council – dig in!’ Why do I have to entertain possible donors, or give the impression that ‘here I am worthy to be a channel for your funds to a reasonable cause, coz I am sweating blood for your 5 dollar change.’
Same for the use of street chaps. I agree with everything you say and I really like to report them to council when they block the path of my pregnant wife and when they try to shake my hands with their dirty hands. I bet it was once a method of choice, but as in every other ‘industry’ in Australia innovation,improvisation doesn’t come early enough. Same mob running the same business of fundraising over the last 2 decades and their vision is limited to the text books.
Also another aspect is wonder how many those donate to charity or ask the forgiveness of their god is actually live by their ‘compassion’ ? Charity donation is just a way of outsourcing guilt, ‘Yeah, I don’t want filthy boat people here but I donate ‘generously’ to Oxfam so they can keep them there!’ The more Australians feel not right about whats going on in the world, but would not want to get uncomfortable to help solve it – the more money there will be to ease that deep feeling they will soon forget, and of course more aggressive sales tactics to get bigger deal of the cake by charities coz theirs is the worthiest of the all causes

Do you recall this from the movie Flying High? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo Jews for Jesus indeed.

Yup couldnt agree more………and as for some charities if you have a minute their annual reports make interesting reading……..financials indeed….

Could you actually imagine hiring some FOB backpacker to promote you brand? I am so over them I just tell them to fuck off.. am sick of being polite.

Good article…totally agree.

Maybe a good excuse is you say you work for that charity…that may freak them out.

Clearly it must be working though, as the practice has been carried on for years, with no sign of slowing. Charities keep signing up.

Does any smart marketer out there want to design a public awareness anti-chugging campaign, that encourages people to donate directly to organisations, rather than these parasite organisations, borrowing the brand equity of the charity they represent and eroding the cents per dollar that actually make their way to the people or causes who need it?

That’s something I’d donate to.

Cash raising on street corners does very little to actually raise revenue. It is at best revenue neutral. It’s objective is to increase brand awareness. Most of the charities have now been taken over by the big end of town and are largely used to flush cash in and out.

Charities are huge business but the pointy end of the stick is all but lip-service. They will be discovering a cure for cancer for as long as it is profitable to keep doing it.

Note the most recently elected Government went out of its way to protect their mates in the big end of town in the most recent elections. I’d like to see a full audit and disclosure and with that you would see up to 80% of these scam ops shut down for good.

This is the equivalent of someone saying ‘I don’t like ad breaks on television’ and marketers then turning around and saying ‘well, we best not put ads on television, because the people don’t like them’.

Instead, you have a reasonably educated audience on the topic of marketing (though, obviously still not as educated on the topic of fundraising) saying ‘we don’t like chuggers, therefore they shouldn’t be’.

Yet, chuggers continue to be the dominate form of charity revenue for the same reason for-profit marketers continue to to run TVCs: the long-term return on investment means it’s a no-brainer.

World Vision, as one example, generates over $200 million in regular giving per annum in Australia. I’m sure it’s about as sensible for its head of fundraising to pull its chuggers as any of you turning around to your clients and saying ‘let’s not use any of those techniques which continue to deliver a return for our brand’.

Easy fix, local council ban this type of sales/collection.

The gold coast did it years ago with “time share” people.

Great article, Tim. Gone are the days when I enjoyed donating to charity. Now such a relentless and ever-growing army of chuggers and… phuggers? (phone muggers, and yes it does sound similar to what I’d like to say) get in our faces and ears that we can’t help but feel invaded and abused. There are so many worthy causes to choose from, and helping out gives such a buzz, but in my household we’re so put off by the barrage of guilt trips, and the revelations of skimming that we actually donate less than we used to. I’m guessing we’re not alone.

Well said. Makes me glad I am not the only one with these feelings.
As a result Its making me immensely dislike all the charities that participate in this method of money grabbing.
I donate money to charities that I feel strongly about, and I do that in my own time. But I do and will not when i get accosted in the street by these chuggers whom love to get into my personal space….

Earphones w no music on helps for a smooth traverse of Martin Pl.

My charity cynicism was incited by two events, 1) the involuntary removal of my earphones while I was pacing on a busy street toward a train station 2) A charity that I actually saw value in expending my donations on sending me twice-weekly guilt laced newsletters, the cost for which would have negated a significant proportion of my donation.

I totally agree with this article, having just taken a slalom course to my local post office, mid phantom phone call, to avoid the chugger.

I remember scouring job pages as a backpacker and the chugging company boasting ‘great social nights & a ping pong table’ alongside good commission as draw cards. Call me naive / deluded, but you want to think the tabard wearer is slightly motivated by the cause on the tabard, even if that cause does change daily.

Anyone else keen to know more about the financial returns on chugging – I’m certain the charities must get a far better return from online marketing & TV campaigns. Time for Mumbrella to dig deeper?

I totally agree! Well written with respect to charities and the causes they represent.

Some of these people (kids) get so aggressive / intrusive that it puts me off wanting to engage with the charity. Also, I don’t being told to sign up to something as I would like to think I’d do so to causes I care about. And if I care enough to donate to the cause, I’d know about it already.

Having said that, I do land up donating to World Vision regularly around Christmas time as they have a stand in the mall I visit. And sometimes, am made aware of other charities when I see the chuggers around. So there is some level of brand awareness being created. Compared to shelling out advertising $$’s, hiring backpackers could be a more cost effective way to spread the message I guess (no matter how the message is perceived).

Well said Greg. Who cares what consumers tell you that they want, how they actually vote with their dollars is the relevant factor.

I work for a charity (one that doesn’t use face-to-face fundraising) and I know that this is the most predictable investment that a charity can make to increase its income.

Unprompted donations simply do not happen often enough to even budge the bottom line. You have to ASK or you don’t get. The majority of most charities fundraising revenue is the result of direct marketing – phone, mail or face-to-face. As for sending the volunteer bucket shakers out there, there are one or two religious charities who may have that kind of support.

Charities need regular income. If you really hate face-to-face. Get online, go to your favourite charity’s website and commit to a regular donation. A far greater proportion will go to the charity than if you sign up on the street and you will have an answer for all those backpackers trying to shake you down!

I was walking through Blacktown a little while ago when one of the Protect the Animals or Save the Furry’s or Wildlife Forever guys jumped in front of me and started with, “excuse me, but do you like animals?”

Without breaking stride I replied, “yes, they’re delicious”.

Not sure what he said as I walked on by, it was drowned out by the laughter of everyone else around us.

Registered fundraising companies by law can charge up to 50% of funds raised as their cost before any money goes to the charity. The charity then has its own admin costs – average 20% – to throw on top so the true value of the donation is probably less than 40c in the dollar at best.

Anyone signing up to these street hawkers is usually naive and big hearted – otherwise known as the perfect target.

So glad to read this. After a hideous experience at Taylor Square with Cancer Council street merchants I took to their Facebook page, sadly no response. So bad for their brand image. I especially dislike the tactic of putting their hand out to shake your hand……..i was completely stalked but this merchant of annoyance, he followed me from one traffic light post to the other. Really they need to go, we are more than happy to give to them but not through the street stalkers.

I completely agree. If another tween calls me ‘love’ or ‘darling’ as I walk past I swear I will go mad. I’m 33 and trust me, I look it. Unless your at least ten years older than me, don’t even go there.

I no longer associate Greenpeace, Amnesty International or Save the Children with charities trying to do good. I think of not being able to walk through the city without being harassed. One Amnesty girl even reached out and tried to grab my necklace while saying ‘oh that’s beautiful’.

The black eye I wanted to give her wouldn’t have looked anywhere near as beautiful.

I was left speechless when I passed a children’s charity and was called out to with “don’t you care about children with cancer”. I was horrified. By not making a donation to her specifically on that particular day can mean many things but this accusation could be last on any given list.

Some of them are very good, but there are too many who visibly stalk their prey and pounce on them even when it’s clear from the start they have no interest in signing up right now.

Charities aren’t stupid though. They know they earn more donations this way, even accounting for the wages and agency fees. The damage to the brand though, is something they should start calculating too.

Cancer Council VICTORIA certainly have a ‘No tin-rattling or unsolicited approaching people’ policy (I used to work there, paid) which I imagine is the same in NSW…

Perhaps it was a scam.
Perhaps it was a 3rd party event (A local Relay for Life or something like that)
Or perhaps Cancer Council NSW don’t have that policy (in which case I agree, they should)

Might be worth asking them before unleashing, though.

Just sayin’

Just realised the cancer council ‘chugger’ (great term) was in QLD, and I checked… and yes, CCQLD have “face-to-face” fundraisers.

They try to justify it on their website. The untold brand damage will be considerable, though.

Ugh. Poor decision.

Try Kiva. A great way to get micro finance to people who need it. You choose who to help. And the donation to Kiva admin is optional.

This was the very reason I terminated my Oxfam monthly contributions after decades of consistent giving, since I’d gotten my first ad agency job after leaving school. So I wrote to the MD telling him why. The more direct feedback we give to the charity leadership, them more they’ll get the message.
I moved my monthly contributions to an organisation that does not work this way. It’s finance director told me in conversation about this that his peers are conscious of the risk to their brands, but aren’t winning yet.
I expect part of the problem is also KPIs around sign-ups rather than continuation of giving.
If I’m truly forced to speak to the collector, I tell them that I focus all my giving on a particular agency as that reduces admin costs and maximises the amount that flows to the needy. It’s a hard argument to counter.

I was approcahed in Geelong by a charity, when i replied, “I am committed to a Madagascar charity already” (true story by the way) she replied “isnt that a kids movie?”, I walked on, then she yelled out “if you want to help Australian kids you know who to call right?”.,

They are just as annoying as “how to vote card” people on election day. They really grind my gears.

Totally agree with donating with organisations directly – best way to do it!!

Maybe you deserve to be chugged every now and then.

Someone looking you in the eye and asking you directly to help someone less fortunate than yourself?

Go on – put your headphones on; pretend to talk on the phone; zig-zag across the street; turn the boats back, leave the problem to someone else – it seems to be the Australian way these days.

An agency I worked at shared a floor with the fundraising Dept for a “charity” and we had shared bathroom facilities so I used to hear quite a bit of chatter from their employees. Essentially, it was a huge phone room and this charity would cold call people to sell raffle tickets which were $100 each. I believe the amount that actually went to the “charity” was around 25% with the rest going to the company and in commissions.
It infuriated and sickened me to hear the employees chortling about getting “oldies and country people” to call. Apparently they were easiest to bludgeon into purchasing the tickets. The callers had tactics to keep these groups on the phone until they succumbed and bought tickets.
I have never, nor will I ever, give this “charity” one cent

Tim, thanks for the tip about the packages. Hadn’t tried that one yet. Sunglasses work pretty well, too.

It’s a bit of stretch, but I’m curious if you (or anyone else) have any insights from retailers who have these chuggers planted at the store/centre’s entrance. Personally, there is one centre I avoid completely because of it and another where I cut through the parking garage rather than be accosted.

“I just wanted to talk to you!” shrieked the Amnesty t-shirted bloke after I evaded his handshake lunge – aimed right at my chest – and fled. I’m still not sure if he intended to extort money or sexually assault me. Either isn’t really a great look for the charity.

Really annoying
I make a point of asking what percentage actually goes to the charity
None of them know.
Outside town hall house and in pyrmont really painful walking past.
The whole concept is bad for brands

So spot on
Aggressive disgraceful behaviour
In many cases backpackers with poor English
I

Spare a thought for the poor (generally young) people who accept these jobs- they get , paid lousy rates, put under enormous pressure to meet quotas ( sign people up) and most of them only last a few weeks as they get the sack if they don’t sign up enough people every day…. the employment conditions are terrible, these young people get ripped off, and of course, all of this poor attitude to their ‘fund raisers’ also damages the organisations brands as much as the hassling of people in the streets….

Just looking at the annual reports if the charities mentioned. Amazing but since they started this technique they have grown net income – most at least doubled, some even more. What is branding if not the key ingredient for success with consumers – in this case donors – buying your product? And this is consistent growth not just one off. Since they introduced this age old technique they have been able to do more net good. Seems good to me.

hey Al, I think you are missing the point, nothing to do with boat people or being Australian, their approcah is wrong/rude/unsuccessful and they need to change it, if you have ever had a sales/account management role, you would understand:)

We (the media, marketing and advertising community) have the power to influence change and behaviour, no other industry is as well equipped to do this as we are and no other industry has an organisation like UN LTD that wields enormous power to affect change through this collective.

One of UN LTD’s core values is to harness this talent to help undo the consequences of youth disadvantage in our country. Through a corporate mentoring program called UN LTD MENTOR we align the skills with carefully selected NFP beneficiaries to tackle their business and marketing challenges. In fact, one our criteria in selecting our beneficiaries is the potential and scope to help develop sustainable business solutions, thereby reducing the dependency for tin rattling and corporate door bashing.

Several of UN LTD’s beneficiaries have already achieved enormous success in recent years and we have a shopping list of other organisations that are desperate for the expertise and skills that we, as a collective, can offer.

Would love to tell you more about UN LTD and how you can join the movement.
http://www.unltd.org.au

Peter Singer wrote a great book about the ethics of giving called The Life You Can Save. Here is a short story, summarizing his book, but relevant to these street fundraisers.

“As his mobile phone disappeared into his pocket a huge smile crept across Mark’s face. He had to hold himself back from punching the air and whooping with delight. Just nine months ago, things hadn’t looked so rosy.

His business had grown really well until then – especially with one, blue chip client. But ten months ago a new marketing director had turned up in that client and within a month had swept in a new agency.

He knew it had been a mistake to rely on just one client for half his business, but how could he have turned them down? He had struggled over the past nine months – cut his salary to the bone even though his wife Marcia was expecting a baby.

Now little Toby had entered their lives, money was very very tight and the board insisted on redundancies – unless he won this new client he’d been wooing.

The call was confirming the contract. Business was back to booming – but a condition from the new client was that he had to personally oversee the account; without him there was no deal.

He was pleased. He had saved the company, and secured a future for his new child. Then he noticed people dodging a street fundraiser – one of those earnest young people banging on about saving the world. This one was representing Oxfam. Well, representing Oxfam today Mark thought – tomorrow it will be Amnesty or Greenpeace.

Earnest World Saver caught Mark’s eye. Before Mark could escape he was caught, dazzled into inaction.

“Hello sir, how are you today?!” began Earnest. “I’m good but…” began Mark, looking for an escape route.

“That’s great! I hope you can spare me a few moments on this fair day. I am working for Oxfam to help alleviate poverty and literally save kids lives around the world. You see, in Africa right now, countless kids are suffering from easily curable diseases. A million of them will die this year from diarrhea alone. For just $35 a month – a little over a dollar a day – you can directly help save lives…”

Earnest clearly believed in what he was saying; he probably passionately believes in human rights and tying himself to nuclear subs as well thought Mark. But Mark had more on his mind right now.

“Thanks, I’m sorry – I don’t have time right now” he said, making a beeline for a pedestrian crossing where a young mother watched, relived at not being Earnest’s victim. Her child, maybe five years old and dressed in a cliche pretty red dress, looked fascinated by something in the road gutter.

The young mum caught his eye and they both knowingly smiled as he quickly sloped off towards the crossing, willing the lights to change.

Earnest was casting about for his next victim now Mark had escaped. Suddenly, Mark saw something dart out of the gutter – a rat perhaps. It shot across the road, daring the traffic and startled Mark.

Then things slowed down – it was like a movie; he saw the red dress move after the rat, and the red mass of a bus coming in from the nearside. Without thinking he was moving – instinct kicked in and he leapt across the front of the mum, dragging the kid backwards and towards the gutter. The change in direction, the speed – everything was working against him as he saw the terrified face of the child falling into the gutter ahead of him.

He felt the bus – the wind, the noise and he knew it was over. Marcia and Toby – what about them? He heard the screeching – the tyres and the mother screaming. Then he felt an arm grab him, pulling him up. The bus had come to a rest – the shocked faces of passengers staring out.

Young mum embraced Little Red Dress as he realised it was Earnest helping him up. Earnest had tears in his eyes. “Mate, you’re a hero.”

—-

Their job as fundraisers is to make people care enough about children (or equivalent cause) a long away away, as much as people care for someone close. Basically, people WANT to give, but they (statistically speaking) don’t, unless asked.

Yes, this asking is expensive. It needs time, and to get anywhere near the scale of problems charities address charities have to pay people to ask. It usually more cost effective to pay a company to help many charities than do it in house. Just think about it – it makes sense: the charity is an expert at spending the money, the company is an expert at recruiting and training staff, finding venues and firing any staff who behave inappropriately (and this they do fast and effectively).

Whilst the initial costs may be high, these monthly donors stay giving for years. There is no free way to generate sustainable revenue for a charity.

And surely, a charity can save more lives with 60% of $10m over five years than 90% of $1m in that time.

My point is simply that we are wealthy – extraordinarily so as a nation. And we seem to be increasingly less generous these days: poverty, suffering – these are things that by and large happen elsewhere, whether it’s another continent, an outer suburb, an offshore processing centre. And because it’s invisible we do nothing.
I get that chugging may be annoying. It may not even work from a fundraising point of view. But being chugged – approached directly and asked to help – as wealthy people we deserve to be confronted like this once in a while, if only so we examine our own consciences.

For 2 weeks I worked for a company that recruited chuggers. The fees the charity paid were around 18 months worth of subscription payments.
So donate to charity – they need it – but don’t sign up on the street.
If no-one signed up on the street, they would stop doing it!

I have long been an advocate of the chuggers doing more damage than good. I found myself so annoyed by one guy that followed me for three blocks trying to get me to sign up to some charity that I (in quite a crazy manner) lectured him on the failings of the chugger system and the brand damage his actions caused. Of course, I know this fell on not only deaf ears, but entirely the wrong ears. As a marketer, I would be ashamed to use such a tactic.

Agree completely Tim. I’ve supported Save The Children for years and get regular reports on how “my child” is doing so I feel good about that but not the strange disconnect I see with chuggers. So yes, go online to support a cause. But if you’re on the street, here’s an alternative – go and buy The Big Issue from the closest vendor: a) they don’t hassle you b) you can see directly who you’re helping and are supporting them in their own effort to improve their lot and c) there is no enforced ongoing commitment.

when I walk past the world vision backpackers and they ask if they can talk to me I always say sure can I give you a picture of my 2 kids and you can find us a sponsor? cos that’s who my responsibilities are to.maybe I can go and get a box of condoms for you to send to the poor bastards in Africa. I give twice a year to rspca because I trust them.

Hi Zorbie
you say “The fees the charity paid were around 18 months worth of subscription payments.” please substantiate such a claim. I know of no agencies that charge that much – no charity would ‘buy’ at that cost. What was the agency please?

Interesting that most of the mainstream/well known charities don’t engage in these practices. I wonder what the strike rate is on average for “chugger” type donation seeking.

For anyone who has signed up via “chuggers” – how “safe” do you feel with providing your details if you sign up on the street?

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could pick and choose the campaigns that we run based on what we “like” – I would have so much fun creating a new puppy dog and horsey friend commercial every month if I could, but the reality for all of us is if the business case doesn’t support it, it doesn’t happen … and often vice versa.

I believe there are some VERY questionable lead-generation tactics that take place in the For Profit sector that are far more “annoying” or “intrusive” than what has been described here, and nobody bats an eyelid – so why such passionately emotional reactions to a model that has been proven to work time and time again?

I much prefer comedian Sean Locks term for them.. he doesn’t call them ‘Chuggers’ he calls them ‘Chunts’. The more commercial version of this practice is door knocking which is even more of an invasion of your private space.. at least with telemarketers you can just hang up

Oh Dee … I weep for your soul.
and if your sole “responsibilities” are to your own kids, I really hope that you are able to supply them with some alternative role models so that they don’t grow up with your attitude.

I think these fundraisers are doing a great job! Sure there might be a couple that are bad employees (just like in any other business), but they are rejected every day and it is the most effective way for charities and organisations to not only raise funds but raise awareness. There are so many charities I didn’t know exist and because I can speak to these fundraisers, my knowledge is greater! Don’t forget that these charities rely on the general public as so few receive anything from this so called “government!” I like the fact that there are people out there EVERY day raising awareness for these organisations and NGOs. Good work to all that can do the job! I bet it’s a tough one!

As a fundraiser who works for a charity conducting Face to Face fundraising, I can guarantee that it works. In terms of ROI, it’s a recruitment/acquisition model that would be the envy of most of the commercial sector. In terms of volume it performs better than any other fundraising methodology by a very long way.

Its a public form of fundraising and when you do anything public then it incites criticism. Some people don’t like it. It also evolves a human beings and therefore will be susceptible to human error. Sometimes fundraisers do the wrong thing, but I and my colleague at other charities make sure that any complaints are dealt with appropriately, we understand the reputational risk that we’re running with these programs. When we hear of an individual who takes actions that may damage our brand we take serious action.

Complaints do come through. It’s very difficult to quantitatively compare methodologies, but if you counted every conversation that our fundraisers had as equivalent to a letter we sent out to our existing supporters, we would probably have more complaints from the letters.

In terms of sustainability this has run in parts of the world for decades and still continues to grow.

When we’ve conducted focus groups to gain more information about how people feel about us, face to face occasionally comes up as a negative comment, but its impact is really very minor.

I started my fundraising career as a “chugger” on the street. Over the course of four years I was sworn at daily, spat on, told to get “a real job” by people more times than I can remember and once was attacked by a man with an umbrella. I know of fundraisers who have been sexually assaulted, had dogs set on them and threatened with knives while working.

When I told my family what I was doing for a living I had to sit through about an hour on anecdotes about how awful “chuggers” were, how annoying they were and how little they cared about the cause. After this I asked them how many charities they’d signed up to in through chuggers and across 4 sisters they averaged 2.5 per person.

Face to Face is an easy target. It’s disruptive, it’s requires members of the public to say to themselves that they don’t want to give any more money to charity and that makes them feel bad so they complain about it. Even worse they have to show the world that they don’t want to give any more and that makes them embarrassed and REALLY want to whinge and moan about it. The issue is that we do this because it works, because it makes the world a better place. Literally millions of live have been saved because of the work face to face fundraisers have done and for me that’s worth you being uncomfortable for a couple of minutes.

Basically most of the above comments are from uneducated people who have no understanding of fundraising or how charities work. I feel so sorry for you that your day was ‘interrupted’ or you felt ‘annoyed’ for 5 minutes. Quite often I hear people like you complain about chuggers only to learn that you don’t donate a cent to any charity. At the end of the day, if charities don’t ask people don’t give!! I like this true story that someone once told me, it’s a few years old but still a good one:

A friend recently complained to me about Tiger Woods. He said ‘Isn’t it interesting that we were happy to pay Tiger Woods $3M to come out and play golf, but no one ever gave a dollar to Fred Hollows when he was around (Australian ophthalmologist)’. I was well beaten in this argument when I took the line of economic benefit to all Victorians, generation of jobs etc….. It wasn’t until I got home that I realised that we do give care about Fred Hollows, in fact in 2008 Australian individuals alone gave $13,896,263 to The Fred Hollows Foundation.

Now it’s true to say that no one cared about Fred Hollows in the 70’s & 80’s but it was only because no one asked. When people ask, we learn that people do care, with the money Fred Hollows received in 2008 there were able to do the following:

• Saved sight: 176,472 eye operations and treatments – up from 143,759 in 2007 • Provided eye care for 1,309,564 people • Trained 5,217 eye health workers • Supplied $1,559,818 worth of essential medical equipment • Completed substantial upgrade or construction of 29 eye health centres

Lets not forget that every form of fundraising costs money, TV advertising and events in particular. If people were more generous then charities would not need to ask so stop the whinging and donate! I donate to 2 charities and have no issue with face to face fundraising because IT WORKS.

CK Cash….
“Interesting that most of the mainstream/well known charities don’t engage in these practices”
Red Cross, MSF, Greenpeace, Cancer Council, Oxfam, World Vision, Heart Foundation… to name a few fantastic brands (all except Greenpeace are top ten fundraising charities) who do face to face to raise money to make the world a better place for the many people who are not as fortunate as me and you, and our kids.

Dee, I feel sorry for your children too! Did you know that being kind to others makes people happier than eating chocolate, according to new Australian research. When asked to rate seven different actions that gave them a sense of fulfilment or happiness, 36% of Australians ranked ‘an act of kindness to benefit another’ as their first choice. I imagine that you would not fall into this category! What if your child needed life saving treatment from another adult and they said to you that they only care about their own children?

I walk the streets, and I know exactly where you’re coming from, but you are aware of how marketing works, as are most people, and it’s up to you to see the bigger, more important picture here, rather than one individual.

I work for an independent charity who relies 100% on the public to fund our work. We must employ people to fundraise for us like this, we cannot rely, and plan on the trickle of money that occasional volunteers may bring in. Since we implemented this kind of fundraising back in the 90s we have grown to the point of high effectiveness we have now. Back then, our staff couldn’t rely on stable an income, and therefore do the most effective job possible.

This job is REALLY REALLY hard. I know, I’ve down it. You have a high turn-over of staff, and all kinds of people coming through the door. Yes, sometimes you are risking the reputation of the organisation, but if we don’t take that risk, we will cease to be. Most of our fundraisers get fantastic feedback from the public, some of them are the annoying ones you’re talking about, and we can never avoid that. We can train people, but we can’t control them, and these incidents will occur. You must also remember that the people out there are approaching lots of people everyday, 90% of their approaches might be fantastic, but some will fail, sometimes they will be become desperate.

I’ll finish by saying, there are very few people who would do this job if they didn’t have a real passion for the cause, yes they get paid, but so does a job as a dishwasher, and it’s one hell of a lot easier.

Sounds like a great topic for the upcoming series of The Checkout.

I think Greg makes the most sense. I don’t like TV ads or magazines ads or radio ads, which is why I don’t buy or use any of this media. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Get over yourselves.

Furthermore, articles like yours Tim pop up a few times a year and they are always the same…negative and poorly researched. I think the media are the one’s doing harm to charities, not the street fundraisers. I often wonder when the day will come that someone will actually have the ability to write an article that is fair and correct. The WHO recently announced that Cancer is now the leading killer in Australia…I bet if you were diagnosed with cancer and received support services or treatment that was funded by face to face fundraising you wouldn’t knock it back would you???

I think you are missing the point Cath, this article is about their approach and mantra, not the cause, the cause is good, the chuggers (mostly) are not. Nothing to do with cancer,research, media or accuracy.

What a tedious and pointless article.

“But I can’t help but wonder whether the price of fundraising for organisations is becoming too high for the brand damage it inflicts.”

Well, how about trying to find out how much charities make this way, because isn’t it just possible that, actually, the gain does outweigh any potential brand damage? Isn’t it possible that the charities who do this constantly consider the pros and cons, have access to more information than you do, and make a cold, hard decision based on that?

Maybe do a little more research before sounding off, eh?

I feel Cath (and some others) seem to have missed the main point of this exercise. That is the almost “assault” like vigour some of these chuggers employ. I do donate to a couple of charities but only direct as I am aware of the immense fees paid through street/phone donations. I have several times been “assaulted” by chuggers demanding to engage me in “discussion” about their particular product. Have had the ones who move to stand right in front of you and bloke your path. I now make it obvious I am not stopping and continue walking my straight path directly into them if they choose to move into my path. I am a male of large stature so that works for me but I do feel sorry for people of a smaller frame who cant escape. I did come to the assistance of a small female who was being pestered by a chugger who was unable/reluctant to let this woman pass. I advised him in no uncertain terms that the person was JUST NOT INTERESTED in a rather loud voice. it had the desired effect as several people now were interested to tho loud commotion. We are already legislated beyond belief but something has to be done to educate the “Stakeholders” about the behaviour of people working under their name

Charities would not participate in this activity if it wasn’t successful. This form of acquisition doesn’t attarct everyone, but it is a long term effective way to secure needed support. Yes fundraising costs! But what is for free these days? Charities that invest in face to face fundraising do so based on careful startegic planning and modelling. It is one of many effective strategies within the fundraising mix and chosen based on it’s long term return on investment.

Great comments Tom, Steve and Greg – you show a far greater understanding about the reasons why charities use face-to-face – because it works. Yes, there is a cost involved (like any form of advertising or marketing) but it’s the most cost-effective way to secure long-term support, which is essential for charities.

It’s a shame that all these marketing ‘experts’ reading this blog can’t show a little more understanding and instead write comments fuelled by their personal hatred of the medium. It’s like DRTV or direct mail in the advertising world – no one likes it, it’s not at all glamorous, but it’s proven time and time again to work.

If you don’t like the fundraisers, then just walk past them or politely say no. Just stop hating on the charities who invest in this medium to help secure their long-term future and sustainability. Charities rarely get people making an unprompted donation for NO reason – sadly, we live in a society where fundraising asks are the only way to make money, and charities do have to invest in marketing to generate more money.

So please just let charities do their jobs and try to use those marketing brains of yours to have a little more understanding about the way the way consumers actually operate.

Thanks Rachael. Spot on!
Some interesting info: From a study of the consumer behavior (donations) of 70 NZ&Aus major fundraising charities by a marketing agency (the agency doesn’t provide face to face).
In total, the 70 charities found 230,000 people happy to become monthly donors. However what is fascinating is the split – 200,000 of these new donors were signed up by face to face and 30,000 through online, direct mail, phone, DRTV and others. With average tenure in excess of four years, and costs averaging around one year’s worth of contributions that is an ROI of 4;1 on customer acquisition (and about the same as the ROI from mail, online etc)
For the non fundraising marketers reading this – just imagine your proposal to your commercial boss or client “We will get you an ROI of 4:1 directly from acquisition activities.

@Mediaman

Totally agree. The problem here is that the charities are after a quick buck and do not want to outlay much in terms of cost. So they employ backpackers who need to pay their hostel rent and who couldn’t really give a stuff about the charity = short term gains.

Short term never helps your brand. They need to get smarter, adapt better to the digital climate and go after the long term funds.

For every dollar they claim hastily, they will lose a far higher percentage over time that by acquiring their dollars smoothly and solidly by building relationships with their donors…

Really hard because on one hand no one likes to be stopped and during their day. But on the other hand if all charities had to rely on was people just giving without asking then I wonder how much less would be raised. Maybe we need to consider the society we live in when this has become so effective. Lazy giving, easy monthly money for most poeple without any commitment. I try and give some of my time as well as my money. Being a volunteer I can see how the charities I support uses my money and really needs it, to help. How many times have you reached out and offered your charity more than you monthly donation?

Mediaman – face to face is not a quick buck. It gets charities long term donors. 200,000 of 230,000 new regular givers in 2012 were signed up by face to face across just 70 charities. It IS the largest source of ‘ongoing relationships’ that major charities have.

If you have chance, flick through the other comments above – a few from fundraisers, a few from people with interesting facts but not from people criticizing with any facts.

Another interesting fact – the average age of ‘non face to face’ donors in Australia is about 65-75. Face to face average age is around 40. Face to face is possibly one of the best things for a giving society – it is the first (and still only) method of fundraising to get strategically significant volumes of young (under 65) donors giving. Maybe it is growing a much more generous society!?
(Data is from an independent study of donor transactions of 70 charities in Aus and NZ).

Grono, Do you want the bank details for UN LTD to include in your will so you know that you will be doing an amazing job of helping us to undo Youth Disadvantage?

It would be interesting to know what engagement and training techniques the 3rd part agencies use to train their staff in how to get people to stop and talk to them/sign up – reading some of the comments above and experiencing some of the rude tactics some of the staff use should be a sign of how they are trained? – irrespective of the number of signup’s claimed above (200k) could they get – what is the cancellation rate on average for a charity that use these companies/practices?

Does anyone know what rate is paid for the chuggers on average (p/signup or whatever measure they are paid by)?

It requires the “bunch of pests on the street asking me for money” to fund the “campaigner imprisoned by a repressive regime”.

It provides a good ROI and thus, NGO’s still use it.

And without the funds – there is brand.

And without the funds – there is NO brand.

@Greg
4 Feb 14
1:01 pm

Brilliant response.

It is interesting to see some of the comments in this post.

Having worked for years with the charity sector, face to face works. And as annoying as chuggers are, they do provide the biggest means of revenue.

The reason most of the people on here are so against this, is that none of you can stand the thought that in an era where people have control of the media they consume, they are now turning off the ads on TV, not clicking on your links (have you seen the appalling click through rates??!) and turning the pages on your advertising.

Even in PR, which is where I do the majority of our work, we are not focusing on media relations anymore because you put in a lot of budget and time for a big hit that is over in a matter of hours, or sometimes minutes before people have moved on to the next big thing.

What we are focusing on is relationships and direct interaction with the target audience and with stakeholders. Activities where we can reach them either directly or through trusted advisors. This gives a better return for investment.

So keep going chuggers – because realistically none of the people reading this comment are going to head to a charity website and donate any other way.

CK Cash – in response to your question you might find this interesting.

A few years ago I spoke to a chugger who mentioned that the company he worked for received between $80 to $100 for every person they signed up. That is far above what the person would have signed up for.

However, the charities own research had shown that people signing up through ‘chuggers’ on average donated for about two years – which gives quite a big return on investment for the charity.

Having previously worked in fundraising for a charity which never engages street collectors, I can categorically say that if they can afford to pay these people to ‘mug’ you on the street, they do not need your money.

Instead, save your money for those charities which truly need your help and can’t afford to pay these people.

I find a ‘talk to the hand’ gesture works best to avert these people mid-approach!

You can ‘categorically say that if they can afford to pay these people… they do not need your money’?

How can you categorically say that?

Annalisa, sorry but just because you have worked in fundraising for a charity, does not mean that you know the ins and outs of every charity. If you really think that some of these charities don’t need money then you really need to open your eyes.

The best way to help those less fortunate is with your time not your wallet. Volunteering with youth off the streets, or going overseas for two weeks to help out in orphanages in Cambodia are far more beneficial for those that need it.

I wonder how much the CEO’s of these “charities” receive…

Why should charity CEOs be paid less than their commercial equivalents? Is it because we value people who make money (commercial) more than we value people who do good (charity)?
Dan Pallotta did an excellent ted presentation about this, plus cost of fundraising and raising capital. Worth watching before posting comments having a pop at punishing charity CEOs or fundraisers. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_p.....wrong.html

Tim: Charities know that this is not popular. Sadly, they also know that people do not typically go looking for a cause to support financially. What are they supposed to do?

I have to deal with this little vultures EVERY SINGLE DAY in Bondi Junction on my way to the office.

I’m a volunteer with Rotary Club of Randwick. Most of Rotary’s funds are donated by Rotary members or generated via social enterprises such as a market or a fundraising party or sale of inexpensive items. Rotary members give their time/money because they form friendships with each other and they learn over time through meeting regularly, hearing guest speakers and networking online with Rotary clubs across the world about the causes and projects that are available to them to support.

Once a year, our club hands out information about our Police Awards at a local shopping centre. We are not asking for money, just encouraging people to nominate a police officer who has helped them. Because of the fear that we will harass them for money, probably about half the people walk on by. It’s a real shame.

They were at Kogarah station yesterday.
I find these simple words work every time: “Do not speak to me. If you do speak to me I will report you to the police for assault.”

Good Article about how fundraising costs vs donations – these are examples, I’m sure with the raft of charities in the Australian marketplace this varies.

http://www.theage.com.au/natio.....2zqyw.html

Adam post 66. Are you a “chugger”? Or perhaps the son of a “chugger”…you sound very angry.

Peter Comment #89. Have you ever thought your simple words work every time, not because the person feels threatened by your words, but they are standing there in wonderment at how much of a tool you are.

We should be asking them what they need the money for? Most big charities now are businesses and employ people. Paying someone $40,000 per year requires lots of donations.

Building a $40 Million dollar HQ to house your staff (Greenpeace some years back) shows me that the money raised is not being wisely spent. I started a charity that was all volunteer and it was effective because all funds went to help children. Our annual income would have only managed to pay for two full-time employees at western wages. hence the use of volunteers. The money was better spent on kids.

Give your money to grass roots organisations that are volunteer based or try the salvation army. they do a good job and don’t waste cash. World Vision have a budget of around a BILLION dollars, a lot of which goes to wages and other BS. They still do some good of course but they could do much better.

Does the end justify the means?!! In this case a resounding YES.

“The end” is more money to beneficiaries of the charitys’ funding and programs.

There is no room in the competitive charity market (nor the commercial sector) for being too precious about brand protection. In the end all that matters for a charity or business is “Does this activity/promotion/campaign add $$ to my bottom line?”.

Retailers are learning this, car manufacturers are learning this..the tide has changed.

This is not a social experiment or research paper this is business – real life business!

Businesses or charities spending $$$ on marketing programs that boost brand profile is the biggest waste of $$$ out there. Brand focussed bullcrap went out with Pony Tails on men who drive convertible Porche’s. Its time to face the hard truths that whether we like it or not we are a world economy with world issues and charities are fighting to fill the gaps left behind (and if what the majority of charity people on here giving comment is right) then this makes $$$. Screw this notion of brand protection.

Good on the charities for taking a ROI approach to marketing. As a business owner I am constantly approached by marketing agencies wanting to pitch their business. If they came with a CPA model like the charities are reporting these chugging agencies are offering – I would jump at the chance!

The only people being offended it seems are the ones lacking enough self esteem to say no. Just because you cant say no doesnt mean the person asking the question is wrong!

Sean T, just because it is effective doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way. The ends do not justify the means. I guess you work in the fundraising area, and I guess you make a lot of money from charities?

I’m also calling bullshit on your assertion that it ‘possibly’ leads to a more giving society. That’s false attribution, I hope you don’t use that logic in your work. So is my guess right, do you make a lot of money from fundraising? Just thinking that if you want your position to be taken seriously, best to declare any vested interests.

Mr Burrowes, I’m sure you feel like you’re doing a worthwhile job managing the content of this wonderful website. But you may want to do some research before you label something inefficient or counterproductive, otherwise you may be damaging people (and charities) without reasonable ground other than your own discomfort. I’m sure that can’t be your intention.

The underlying feeling that a lot of people have in dealing with fundraisers, like Mr. Burrowes is one of guilt. It’s in our nature to help others, but by turning down someone asking for help we feel bad and take it out on the person that caused that feeling. Rather than taking it out on the person doing their job, try to show some respect next time and it may help you deal with this feeling. Let’s call for a hug-a-chugger day… even if you don’t intend to support the charity. You’ll make their day and probably feel a lot better yourself.

Whilst I am a fundraiser myself – I do a lot of strategy planning, data analysis, training, donor care etc I don’t do face to face but I do analyse it. Hence all my facts I have posted.
But what of the charities? In case you missed it, Adam from Amnesty wrote a piece here on Mumbrella. https://staging.mumbrella.com.au/charities-need-street-fundraisers-205584

NZVoice #97, at the top it states he’s arguing a case. Tim then goes on to stress that it is his opinion and is based on how he realised this made him feel. you can’t blame the man for having an opinion, and frankly, he’s just voicing what many of us feel anyway. Calling for a ‘hug-a-chugger’ day in response just undermines any argument you were trying to make.

Notice how they street fundraisers are always sitting in coffee shops. Wonder how much is ever handed in and how much has ever helped the people. About time half these charities were stopped.

Brilliant piece Tim!
And long, long overdue.
I have to do the ‘chugger run’ (or perhaps I should now call it the ‘chunt run’?) through ‘Marketing Place’ aka Martin Place daily, morning, noon and night.
I get hassled as soon as I come out of the train station, when I go to buy my lunch and when I leave the office to go home.
The ‘chuggers’ try every means possible – matey salutations; plaintive pleas; guilt-laden pitches; and righteous calls to action.
Brochures are thrust into hands, arms are grabbed, and paths blocked to engage the ‘mark’.
Frankly, it’s exhausting avoiding these people just to buy a sandwich – or even simply enjoy the fresh air and sunshine.
Why should I even have to say ‘no thanks’?
Greedy Sydney City Council has Martin Place booked out almost year-round to money-grubbing charities. Why not FOI the $$$ they make from these panhandlers? I’m sure we’d all be surprised (or not).
Being harassed every working day only breeds resentment among the same group of people – local workers.
As a consequence I have no interest in supporting ANY charity.
Charities need to find a new way to do business – one that isn’t simply propping up costly admin functions and well-paid CEOs.
After all, we all have a right to walk down the street without being accosted.
And for those championing this form of fundraising – come and spend a week in Martin Place and see how long you feel that way.
Me, I’m suffering from charity fatigue!

SPOT ON! I can’t believe charities still want to be involved in this.

They can’t be that ignorant about how chuggers engage/force themselves on us!

Thanks for the additional tips in how to avoid them by the way!

Tim is spot on when he talks about chuggers damaging the brand and goodwill that so many of these charities have built up over the years. So much so that I’m now at the point where I donate to very few charities. In the rare event I DO donate, I always do it online and tick the box to opt out of marketing.

A (very) old trick that I successfully use when accosted by a chugger that wants to sign me up for a direct debit is to offer them $5 for their charity. When they say “no, I can’t accept your cash donation” (or words to that effect), I just tell them that my money obviously isn’t good enough for them and then walk off in a huff.

For sure. Nice article. One point missed though; these groups are “fund raising”. So they go to the streets and ask people who are not wealthy for money. Interestingly they say the nice ones are usually the most poor and they also give the most while the richer ones are rude and give virtually nothing (nice virtues there).

Anyway, want money? Why ask those on the street. We have many people making over $50,000 NET PER WEEK in Australia. If the Charities had any business sense they would approach those people and their organisations directly. Oh but they won’t pay people say. Simple solution: make a website page listing those who refused and shame them for the greedy people they are and then promote that site.

I earn a very modest income and don’t have much to spare. If I have any spare change, I’ll give it to beggars who ask me for it. I make a direct donation to the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre at Christmas time and tell my family that’s their Christmas present. I feel no guilt whatsoever about refusing to donate to charities who spend a lot of money on expensive marketing and hassling people in the street. Go to protests, educate yourself and your friends about the causes of poverty and vote for the parties who actually want to do something about it.

Working in Pyrmont – and crossing the Bridge everyday to get to the city – almost every day I get confronted by these people… wearing different “shirt” each day. Yesterday I had one deliberately step in front of me holding out their hand… Seriously got my blood boiling – I noted never to donate to that charity again… I volunteer, give cash, to a variety of charities – I dont need this constant “in your face” every day… really is starting to look like “Flying High”…

Great article Tim! I completely agree.

It’s even worse when they attempt to shake hands to greet you on the street so they ca hold on to you while they make their pitch.

So true. The Sydney CBD is swarming with chuggers now who aggressively get in your face and follow you down the street. They clearly don’t care about the cause or the brand. If they didn’t have a clipboard and a branded t-shirt, what they would be doing would be called harrassment……….

Great article. I totally agree and I can’t stand these people either. When one of them from Cancer Council first came up to me asking to give ‘just over a dollar day’, I told them that I am in the Rotary International – one of the world’s leading charity organisations which already costs me money, time and effort and that I’m not keen on doing anymore charity. Then she looked at the bottle of coke zero I was having and goes “Oh come on, if you can afford to have these then you should help us too”. Oh the effort I had to put in not to go off at her. It’s pretty clear that these people don’t have a shred of care or interest in the charity itself, they’re just after their own benefits – most probably a commission.

I realise this is a dated post but we recently opened an office close to Sydney city and the number of street fundraisers harassing people as you walk down almost any street is overwhelming. If I was to donate to everyone of them, I’d have no money left for anything else. I understand there is huge need. But it really doesn’t do these charitable causes any good. That said, they probably would not be doing it day after day if they were not signing up lots of donors. Wonder if there could be a better way?

It’s getting out of control – Brisbane has these people on nearly every street corner. It’s harrasment – so much so- I won’t give to these charities anymore

Bit late to the party but you’ve absolutely nailed it and I hope the right people read this. I had a similar experience with Peter Mac, a cancer charity in one of those shopping centre setups. I emailed my concerns, they seemed not really bothered. Irony was, a friend had just lost her sister to cancer, I’d only just heard, and they were very insistent I could only setup a direct deposit not a one off $10. I am a low income earner, so is much of the area and I suggested they press some of their well paid doctors instead of ambushing people just going about their day. I had to walk away.

It seems like harassing people on the street for funds is a very bad strategy for raising money, but it must be working otherwise the non profits would not be doing it. It may just be that we need to educate the general public to not give people money on the street in order to change these “big” non profits tactics. Plus all we need to say is “I will give online” or even just say NO! Great post.