Chugging Charities? Name and Shame!

Sleepy

Since so many of us are against Chugging, I think it's time we named and shamed the charities using this tactic of extortion against the general public. We can then use this thread as a guide of charities that no longer deserve our support.

For my part, I'll name Concern. I'd always considered them to be quite a good charity until they started this crap.

whiskeyman

Named and shamed? No longer deserve our support?? Oh give over....
It's not extortion... you're not forced at gun-point to hand over the money.
You are free to walk by them - If they forcefully approach you (say by grabbing you) you can then lodge a complaint to the gardaí as this is illegal.
Besides, there's obviously lots of chuggers about as they must be increasing revenues for charities - surely thats a good thing.

Maybe its time we named and shamed big corporations and Governments that require such charities to exist in the first place to help the sick / needy.

You'll probably want to name and shame countries where tourists come from as there's lots of them here standing about.. taking photos.. and whatnot..

StupidLikeAFox

Is it really that hard to wlk by someone and ignore them? It can be annoying but if you feel so strongly that you're willing to go on a crusade i think thats a little extreme

xzanti

Id have to agree to an extent with the op... I do find it annoying specially when there are a crowd of them (Outside Central Bank Westmorland St. is a hotspot for them) and they see you say no to one person and they still jump out at you.. I do give to charities when I have some extra cash on me but I refuse to give out my bank account details... If it was a case that they were maybe spread a bit more thinly around town I might have a bit more patience with them but like I said its embarressing enough when you say no to one person (wheather its because you are just plain broke like I usually am or if you just dont want to give it) without the next one waiting to pounce.. Although it seems to be big business these days so obviously they must be successful in making money from someone... Also I used to think that they did it voluntarily but apparently they make a good wage out of it... which begs the question of how much of your contribution actually gets to the poor and how much goes on administrative fees???

Draupnir

"No thanks, Im not interested"

I find that works quite well.

Lump

If you think Chuggars are bad.... Take a walk down oxford Street any day of the week. Hundreds of people handing out flyers for cheap calls to India and what not. Do I LOOK LIKE A FÚCKING INDIAN!?

John

Sleepy

My point is that if we the public place boycott those charities that are using the chugging companies and give instead to those charities that don't, we'll help get rid of the practice.

At best this industry (let's call a spade a spade, those running these activities are profit making companies) is a mild annoyance that leeches funds from those it claims to help and at worst it's downright harrasment that's potentially putting people off donating to charity at all.

I'm not suggesting that people stop donating to charity, in fact I'd encourage anyone to give what they can to reputable charities. I'd just like to see the money donated actually reach those it's supposed to be helping instead of buying whoever owns the chugging company a new Lexus. Where's the harm in that?

robinph

Lump wrote:

If you think Chuggars are bad.... Take a walk down oxford Street any day of the week. Hundreds of people handing out flyers for cheap calls to India and what not. Do I LOOK LIKE A FÚCKING INDIAN!?

John

But at least they are not after your bank details whilst your walking down the street though are they? And I doubt that they try and make you feel guilty for not making more phone calls to India, well mabye they will do that actually, but there are unlikley to be any pictures of children dying due to lack of phone calls in their leaflets.

Drag00n79

Lump wrote:

Do I LOOK LIKE A FÚCKING INDIAN!?

Well...

whiskeyman

Charities will always need to spend a certain % on admin and marketing.
If not chuggers, they'd spend that allocation on direct (junk) mail, or TV / radio advertising.
Chuggers must work well as its "interactive" - once a person is interested, they usually sign up with the chugger taking the details and can supply more info. With direct mail, the person would still have to reply back and the chance would decrease.

My point being, charities will always want to contact you one way or another... Chuggers just has a bad name at the moment. They seem to be of the "love to hate" variety.
Believe me, if charities thought they were a danger to their operation, they'd pull them off the streets straight away.
Mind you, I hate junk mail more than chuggers...

DanR

Chuggers are not that bad. If you don't want to talk to them just say you're in a hurry.

What has annoyed me redcently though is Gorta knocking on my door and giving me a five minute guilt trip. In my opinion that is an invasion of privacy.

And just incase you think I'm mean I do contribute annually to Goal - good charity!

whiskeyman

DanR wrote:

What has annoyed me redcently though is Gorta knocking on my door and giving me a five minute guilt trip. In my opinion that is an invasion of privacy.

good point....
I doubt anyone would prefer door-to-door than to chuggers.

Executive Steve

chugging happens because it is cheaper for the charity. full stop. compared to the enormous costs / low returns on television advertising, the environmental costs associated with flyering door to door, chugging WORKS.

the only problem is that there is only so much chuggin you can do before an area gets saturated, and at that point you'er wasting your time, greenpeace started the whole chugging concep , and they discontinued it in london about a year and a half ago...

fact of the matter is, the average length of time that a person who has signed up stays signed up for is two and a half years. - chuggers can't "force" you to sign on the dotted line, they don't [well, WE didnt] get any mysterious hard sell training, most of them are just young post-college / travelling the world folk who enjoy what they do... be nice to them.

there's a voluntary code of practice that they are bound under, if you think you are being hassled or intimidated, or if they use offensive language etc you have the right to report them to their team leader. they WILL be sacked on the spot.

Sleepy

I can't believe that so many of you are happy to see such people making money off the backs of the needy. It's disgusting tbh. I'd always thought that RTE, BBC etc gave the airtime for charity commercials for free/heavily discounted rates (as in enough to cover their costs and nothing above that).

Anyone else like to name charities using these companies?

So far Gorta and Concern are on my "never donating to again" list.

Lump

There's no ads on the BBC.... So no, they dont.

John

whiskeyman

Sleepy wrote:

I can't believe that so many of you are happy to see such people making money off the backs of the needy. It's disgusting tbh. I'd always thought that RTE, BBC etc gave the airtime for charity commercials for free/heavily discounted rates (as in enough to cover their costs and nothing above that).

Anyone else like to name charities using these companies?

So far Gorta and Concern are on my "never donating to again" list.

You're totally missing the point here.
Charities dont give all their money (revenue) direct to their cause.
Charities are non-profit organisations, but that doesnt mean they dont incur overheads and operating costs like any business.

Marketing and Admin, that "chuggers" fall under, is one such cost, and chugging has proved highly effective as a means to increase revenue (and thus increase profit which in turn means greater benefit to their "needy" cause).
I think you have to realise that Chugging Agencies are employed by the charities for they (the charaties) can higher revenue to then distribute to their cause.
Perhaps you want a charity to be set up to fund such "chugging" activity?
The costs have to be covered somewhere along the line.

Face it - Many people (direct or indirectly) are employed by charities and earn a good wage doing so. It's not all volunteering, but that aspect helps.
Just open the jobs section on Thurs or Fridays paper and you'll see the odd post in a charity commanding a nice paypacket. They want the best people too you know.

I have a friend working full time for the Red Cross abroad. Do you find it "disgusting" that they pay her wage?

Gorta and Concern and two of the most well respected charities in the Island, and abroad. I nearly find it offensive you bad mouth them as they have so many people working tiredlessly for their cause.... paid or not.

grimloch

Don't see why the people get paid an awful lot more than me. Surely the money is better spent elsewhere.

Unless they have to pay well to get people to do the job.....

whiskeyman

grimloch wrote:

Don't see why the people get paid an awful lot more than me. Surely the money is better spent elsewhere.

Unless they have to pay well to get people to do the job.....

I mentioned already, if it wasnt cost effective for the charities to be doing this, do you think they'd still be doing it??
It shouldnt degrade the charities name in anyway - it proves they are willing to try every method to capture and increase their revenue.
At the end of the day, that means more money for their needy causes.

Perhaps you should consult charities and enquiry about their fundraising / admin costs. If you think they're too high, let them know how to reduce them while keeping their revenue up.... I'm sure they'll want to hear from you if you can.

Sleepy

whiskeyman wrote:

You're totally missing the point here.
Charities dont give all their money (revenue) direct to their cause.
Charities are non-profit organisations, but that doesnt mean they dont incur overheads and operating costs like any business.

Marketing and Admin, that "chuggers" fall under, is one such cost, and chugging has proved highly effective as a means to increase revenue (and thus increase profit which in turn means greater benefit to their "needy" cause).
I think you have to realise that Chugging Agencies are employed by the charities for they (the charaties) can higher revenue to then distribute to their cause.
Perhaps you want a charity to be set up to fund such "chugging" activity?
The costs have to be covered somewhere along the line.

If companies are profitting from the activity on top of paying their staff, then it's taking money from the people that the donations are supposed to be helping. As already mentioned, the wages for chugging are quite a bit above the norm for part-time promotional work. If they *have* to do this kind of thing it'd be far better to see it done on a volunteer basis, organised by the charities themselves and not by some conscience-less prick creaming a nice percentage off the top.

Face it - Many people (direct or indirectly) are employed by charities and earn a good wage doing so. It's not all volunteering, but that aspect helps.
Just open the jobs section on Thurs or Fridays paper and you'll see the odd post in a charity commanding a nice paypacket. They want the best people too you know.

I have a friend working full time for the Red Cross abroad. Do you find it "disgusting" that they pay her wage?

Different situation and you know it. One person is actively helping the needy, the other is hassling the general public.

Gorta and Concern and two of the most well respected charities in the Island, and abroad. I nearly find it offensive you bad mouth them as they have so many people working tiredlessly for their cause.... paid or not.

They won't be respected much longer if they continue to use these tactics tbh.

sexykitten

personally i think Hanley Centre are the worst - they fall under this category, yea?

grimloch

sexykitten wrote:

personally i think Hanley Centre are the worst - they fall under this category, yea?

Yep, plus their workers are on a commission basis and are thus encouraged to harass and a fairly piddly fraction of their collectionings go to the needy I'm led to believe.

cuckoo

I have perfected my 'thanks, not interested, gotta run' vibe when faced with chuggers, and have blanked them out of my life.

It's the actual bucket swinging charity collections when people are being paid to collect the money that really annoy me - we all understand that chuggers are paid, but when i see a bucket i used to assume that they were volunteers. Now i don't give cash to a collection unless i'm certain it's a volunteer holding that bucket - i think paid collectors will do worse PR for charities than the chuggers.

I'm a big fan of stuff like Daffodil Day, there's a nice sense of community when i see people wearing the daffodils that day and all the collectors are volunteers donating their time to the very worthwhile cause.

lostexpectation

just noticed this http://www.face2facefundraising.ie/

must be the chugger company in ireland name and shame any other comps that do this

another one http://www.giftjobs.com/job.asp

sorry job searching and coming across them

Stephen

urgh, reading their website just pisses me off.

chuggers wrote:

ncorporated in the autumn of 2003, our business is public fundraising by personal solicitation on high streets throughout Ireland, offering solutions that can be tailored to corporate, public and residential environments. Although a new company, Face2Face Fundraising Ireland is the latest addition to The Dialog Group, an established and renowned global organisation, operating in various fields across the charitable sector.

Face2Face Fundraising Ireland is well-known for the professional and warm manner of its management and fundraisers, and is proud of the passion of its people. We work in close partnership with our charity and NPO partners, ensuring they have trust in the campaigns Face2Face Fundraising Ireland implements on their behalf. We really want to make a difference when recruiting and developing committed donors.

Sleepy

Anyone know how to do a DDOS.

nlgbbbblth

whiskeyman wrote:

I have a friend working full time for the Red Cross abroad. Do you find it "disgusting" that they pay her wage?

Yes

you happy now?
:rolleyes:

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote:

Since so many of us are against Chugging, I think it's time we named and shamed the charities using this tactic of extortion against the general public. We can then use this thread as a guide of charities that no longer deserve our support.

For my part, I'll name Concern. I'd always considered them to be quite a good charity until they started this crap.

Hey! I wonder did you hear about this new word that made the Oxford dictionary!

Sleepy wrote:

Anyone know how to do a DDOS.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Blush_01

Sleepy, you're living in a dream world. Chugging is a bloody tough job, and there's no way that a charity would get the number of people they need, to offer to go out and stand on the streets, providing enough cover foreven one eight hour shift each day, five to six days a week. It's actually ridiculous that you propose that they attempt to do so. Within weeks the charity's overall revenue would be down and the real victims - not the public on the streets, but the victims of poverty, hunger, diseases and disorders, lack of accommodation, basic human rights and so on (not to trivialise it, but I could go on for quite a while, and feel that it'd be unnecessary to do so again), those helped by the charity's funds - would suffer even more in the long run. Chugging is a necessary evil. Love chuggers or hate them, they do a job that nobody would be able to get people to do for nothing. You might get someone who could donate an hour or two a week - but they wouldn't have enough background information or be involved enough in the charity to know how to deal with questions that arose. You also wouldn't be able to get people to keep volunteering for long. One very hot or very wet day and you can kiss your volunteer and potential donors goodbye.

If TV ads worked, they'd be everywhere. As would billboards, etc. And there are charities out there who employ the face-to-face fundraisers themselves, inhouse. Gift and Face-2-Face are two of the agencies out there, but inhouse chugging undercuts the costs of agencies and allows charities to focus on the quality of information given, not on getting people to sign up. If you make someone believe in your cause as much as you do, or even inspire them to help a little, then you've done a good thing. If they sign up to help out financially, it's an amazing bonus - there are targets to be met, the charity needs to make money to continue their work. But the most important part of the job for me personally was raising awareness - and if I did my job properly, my information was enough to make those who could afford it help us out. If they couldn't, then that was ok. I wished them a good day, and they moved on. If I hadn't sincerely meant it, I would have found a way around it. I had a little boy run up to me one day and try to give me 50c. He looked heartbroken when I told him I couldn't take it. That made me feel really guilty.

Chuggers aren't heartless machines out on the streets to make a fortune out of people. They're people who want to help to make a difference and do their job to the best of their ability. The wages I received put extra pressure on me to do my best to spread awareness and help the cause - and it's a high pressure job as is. Agency workers can be completely motivated by the cause too - but they have higher targets than we did. Maybe that's a good thing, but I can't see how.

The Hanly Centre is different. Their method of fundraising is via scratch cards, from what I've personally experienced. I've never been asked to stop with a view to signing a standing order by anyone from the Hanly Centre. They deal in cash. Chuggers deal with paper.

Anyone can do a job. Not anyone can do a job well. Wages not only give you a degree of culpability in the necessitation of money generation but also give you an incentive to do your damndest to help, as if the cause wasn't enough.

Before I finish, I want to make one final point. The example given of a charity in the Chuggers topic where the entire charity and the investments made on the charity's behalf paid for it's running costs because of the backing of one man was a one-in-over-six-billion chance. If that kind of thing happened regularly, people wouldn't need to go out onto the street to ask people to open their eyes to what's happening in the world. They could spend that time doing more hands-on, practical work with the charity. But life isn't ideal and you work with what you've got. Even donation on websites incurrs administration costs, as does every other type of donation.

All I ask is that you be realistic about the world that we live in. Idealism is lovely, but it doesn't get people anywhere productive - especially not in charities when they have people relying more heavily on them than you could imagine.

Sleepy

Blush_01 wrote:

Sleepy, you're living in a dream world.

Nope, in a dream world we'd have no need for charities

Chugging is a bloody tough job

Damn glad to hear it.

sanctimonious twaddle about what a great person you are for making money by hassling people and putting their financial security at risk

Well aren't you fan-bloody-tastic :rolleyes:

Anyone can do a job. Not anyone can do a job well. Wages not only give you a degree of culpability in the necessitation of money generation but also give you an incentive to do your damndest to help, as if the cause wasn't enough.

So it's better that you were paid than if you were to have volunteered?

Is there a doctor in the house? I believe Blush01 has either injested hallucinogens or has an extremely high fever because she's clearly delusional.

Before I finish, I want to make one final point. The example given of a charity in the Chuggers topic where the entire charity and the investments made on the charity's behalf paid for it's running costs because of the backing of one man was a one-in-over-six-billion chance. If that kind of thing happened regularly, people wouldn't need to go out onto the street to ask people to open their eyes to what's happening in the world. They could spend that time doing more hands-on, practical work with the charity. But life isn't ideal and you work with what you've got. Even donation on websites incurrs administration costs, as does every other type of donation.

All I ask is that you be realistic about the world that we live in. Idealism is lovely, but it doesn't get people anywhere productive - especially not in charities when they have people relying more heavily on them than you could imagine.

You still haven't explained why it's okay for companies to profit from charity work. Nor have you explained why it's okay to encourage people to part with their financial details on the street.

And I'll give you one final question: do you honestly believe all that crap you just posted, or is it your way of dealing with your conscience for having prostituted yourself in that manner?

Sleepy

ronoc wrote:

Hey! I wonder did you hear about this new word that made the Oxford dictionary!

I'm sorry, was there a point in that sentence somewhere?

djmarkus

grimloch wrote:

Yep, plus their workers are on a commission basis and are thus encouraged to harass and a fairly piddly fraction of their collectionings go to the needy I'm led to believe.

Well would you stand on the street for hours on end and not expect to get paid?

Robbo

I've been approached by Hanley Centre guilt-sellers in the pub, twice. Isn't that a bit rum?

Blush_01

That seems to be a new trend - charities selling scratch cards in pubs, or looking for donations.

Look, Sleepy, I wouldn't have posted that "crap" as you so charmingly term it if I didn't believe in it. I don't have a guilty conscience. I have no need to feel guilty. I also don't need to manufacture a ridiculous quote in order to make myself feel superior to you. I'm simply telling you how I see things, or how thigs are as I know it.

In order to answer your questions - I don't necessarily believe it's ok for companies to profit from charity work. Hence the reason I was an inhouse fundraiser - employed directly by the charity, not by an agency on the charity's behalf. I do, however, know that if charities could make the same amount of money as they make from chugging elsewhere, without the overheads involved in employing chuggers or an agency, then they would - they don't spend that money just for the hell of it. And as was posted in the other topic, Fruitful went bankrupt just last year - that was a huge profit to make, wouldn't you think?

As for the financial details thing - I've done it. I didn't ask anyone to do something I hadn't done myself in the past. Your details are non-transactionary. The forms have to go through the banks and are subject to rigerous examination. Donors signatures are required, not just their bank details, because otherwise the charities can't receive the money the donors have signed up to donate. If the banks think that the forms may have been tampered with in the slightest manner then they'll reject the forms. If the writing isn't clear enough, if the signature seems to deviate even slightly from the usual, then the form can be rejected. If there's a mistake that isn't initialled by the donor, the form is a reject. If you gave me your details, all I could do was put money into your account, unless you had a stiupulation on your account allowing me to make withdrawals, which is what the forms do. They transfer the sum from the donor's bank account into the charity's. No one charity fundraiser has access to your account. Your details are everywhere - even on atm slips, which people just toss. If you could use them to mishandle someone's account, then people would queue up on a daily basis to grab receipts from ATMs across the country in order to access other people's accounts.

I know we'll never agree, but I've answered your questions to the best of my ability.

Duckjob

To be honest, the street chuggers such as the likes of the ones on Grafton Street don't bother me to much. The trick is to determine their 'mode' when approaching. If they are in 'nab' mode, you hang back a little and wait for them to pounce on some other sucker, then accelerate past them while they're busy.

The ones that reeeeeeeallly piss me off are the ones that set up camp outside the door of the bank so you have to pass them in going about your daily business.

nedoo

One off I'd say but my sister gave over her details in Belfast to one street charity and for the following three weeks was stalked and got non stop calls from a wirdo. All her mates and herself found it almost funny and desided not to pass any notice. She ended up getting attacked. They caught the bastard, identified from her university CCTV and guess who he was?!!!!!!!
Now not painting them all with that brush, in my opinion they are doing good work however there are too many of them. They can be a pain in the ass but it is easy to say no thank you. Their intentions are good but please all, careful with you personal information. If you feel obliged to give them your info, get theirs( copy of id card etc). If they cant provide it dont provide yours.

The General

Sleepy wrote:

Since so many of us are against Chugging, I think it's time we named and shamed the charities using this tactic of extortion against the general public. We can then use this thread as a guide of charities that no longer deserve our support.

For my part, I'll name Concern. I'd always considered them to be quite a good charity until they started this crap.

haha your ****ty thread is back firing

Sleepy

Blush_01 wrote:

That seems to be a new trend - charities selling scratch cards in pubs, or looking for donations.

Nothing new in that, the ISPCC has done pub collections for decades...

In order to answer your questions - I don't necessarily believe it's ok for companies to profit from charity work. Hence the reason I was an inhouse fundraiser - employed directly by the charity, not by an agency on the charity's behalf. I do, however, know that if charities could make the same amount of money as they make from chugging elsewhere, without the overheads involved in employing chuggers or an agency, then they would - they don't spend that money just for the hell of it. And as was posted in the other topic, Fruitful went bankrupt just last year - that was a huge profit to make, wouldn't you think?

A little education on business for you: when a dodgy company goes bankrupt the owners are rarely out of pocket. They've often paid themselves huge salaries in the months running up to their declaration of bankruptcy of the limited liability company and the only ones who lose out are their creditors.

As for the financial details thing - I've done it. I didn't ask anyone to do something I hadn't done myself in the past. Your details are non-transactionary. The forms have to go through the banks and are subject to rigerous examination. Donors signatures are required, not just their bank details, because otherwise the charities can't receive the money the donors have signed up to donate. If the banks think that the forms may have been tampered with in the slightest manner then they'll reject the forms. If the writing isn't clear enough, if the signature seems to deviate even slightly from the usual, then the form can be rejected. If there's a mistake that isn't initialled by the donor, the form is a reject. If you gave me your details, all I could do was put money into your account, unless you had a stiupulation on your account allowing me to make withdrawals, which is what the forms do. They transfer the sum from the donor's bank account into the charity's. No one charity fundraiser has access to your account. Your details are everywhere - even on atm slips, which people just toss. If you could use them to mishandle someone's account, then people would queue up on a daily basis to grab receipts from ATMs across the country in order to access other people's accounts.

You don't know much about banks do you? I could sign a direct debit form on your account and it wouldn't be questioned. Your signature is on file with the bank but in many cases that signature could be from when you were 12 or 13 and that's making the massive assumption that the signature is even checked.

Your full bank details are not in your ATM slip. Neither are your personal details etc. The information provided to a chugger would be quite enough to walk into the bank and apply for a motor-loan as that poor muggee.

Sleepy

The General wrote:

haha your ****ty thread is back firing

How do you make that out Martin?

The General

Sleepy wrote:

How do you make that out Martin?

sorry i only read the first 2 replys, frederick

mike65

The Sunday Tribune is doing a piece on Chugging tomorrow.

Mike.

ShreddedHumans

Excellent.