chuggers

[wolf63]

I detest chuggers - they are are getting paid to collect money for charity from people through intimidation.

This video is just affirming all my negative feelings towards them

http://www.telegraph....in-investigation.html

[Duncer]

Ridiculous - why take any steps after a person?

As for ideas for charities?

Well, how about the cancer charity that I have a direct debit for stops sending me mailshots when I am aready donating? This happens regularly and leaves me on the verge of stopping the DD.

How about the other charity I have a direct debit with stops doing likewise?

How about taking the money the chuggers get and using it for charity, after all, isn't charity work supposed to be a selfless act?

How about stopping the ludicrous fees that the CEOs of some charities get, including some of those you have mentioned. These charities survived for a long time before chuggers and I am sure they will continue to do so afterwards?

[Zeuhl]

The charities are a lot more analytical than you seem to imagine.

Paying the chugger agencies still leaves the charities with a net profit overall. How much depends on their donor retention rates. The fact that major charities continue to use these techniques demonstrates its ongoing profitability for them and the importance of its contribution to the causes.

In other words; generally speaking - over a 2 to 3 year period chuggers don't cost anything, they make money for the charity.

The hard truth is that Charities used to be a lot smaller, raise much less money and were able to do less.

They grew massively on the back of direct mail and direct response TV but as those media tired Chugging and Door to Door have partly filled the gap.

If those are outlawed you either need an alternative or a big shrinkage in what they can afford to do.

The charities also carefully measure the effect of ongoing mail communications with DD donors. All the tests show that few people are driven to cancel, whilst not communicating can cause attrition especially as other charities are competing for a limited pot.

[Zeuhl]

Re: 3 steps

the thinking is that when someone is walking past you, keeping pace for 3 steps is reasonable in order to ask a polite question and receive a (hopefully polite) reply.

Continuing for more than 3 steps could be considered harassment.

It's common sense if you think about it

[Canary42]

No problem - I just tell them to muck off.

[Duncer]

Zeuhl, points taken about the charities and their "monitoring". I do hope they are monitoring this though because I am on the verge of cancelling my DD. I see no intrinsic value in mailshots to someone who already contributes, especially those that contain cheap crappy pens and raffle tickets. I now return them without paying the postage, and ask them not to send any more, yet they still do. This, to my mind, is a waste of any money I gave them. I thought the title "Cancer Research" wa a clue as to what my money would be going on. I also still abhor the excessive fees paid to directors of charities.

As for the pursuing chuggers, (and chugger is an apt name given it's slang connotations), I am referring to people who have already spoken to you and then continue to walk after you. One step is too many in that case.

[Zeuhl]

duncer

take your point re: pursuit

my personal view is: they ask politely: i say no thanks: they stop

anything more is unacceptable

I understand your annoyance re; continued mail/raffle tickets especially if you've asked them to stop
It is a numbers game where 'overall' it's more profitable for the good cause to do rather than not do - but the more switched-on charities should be alert to donors likely to cancel. If you call to cancel, their 'Recovery Team' or whatever your charity might call it are pretty good at fixing things for donors they can save.