Highlights: You & Yours — why do people give?

This is a few of the notable quotes from the You and Yours Programme on Radio 4 broadcast on 13th December 2016, focussing on charitable giving. If you’ve got the time, then do listen to the original to get the full context of the comments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084thhq

Premise: a new report promoted by a digital fundraising platform suggests donations are up 20% online with the overall market worth £10 Billion per year. Despite that there’s increasing reticence to engage with face to face fundraisers and the charity industry is facing criticism for some of its working practices.

These were some of the responses to the journalist’s question of “what do you feel about so called chuggers — or charity muggers?” in Formby on the streets of Merseyside:

“I feel quite uncomfortable”

“I don’t know who they are or where they’re from. So i’d rather just choose my own charity”

“I have crossed a road before to avoid them.”

“I don’t mind as long as they’re not in your face. “

“It’s difficult if you’re being harrassed in the street when you’re in a rush. I’m a bit gullable and always end up paying!”

“Personally I tend not to give to anybody on the street I prefer to give money to charities that I am confident where it’s going to end up where it’s supposed to end up”

“I think the worst thing is when people feel pressurised to give to something they wouldn’t do otherwise. Some people feel really intimidated.”

“I don’t like it. I don’t think you go out shopping to be approached by anybody. These guys are doing it, they’re being paid to do it (…) and we find it extremely annoying. I think there must be better ways of raising money.”

“I won’t give to charity. I will shop in charity shops and I will give to homeless people on the streets but I don’t trust that giving to charity won’t go to the salary of Directors.” A 20 year old donor.

And here are some other quotes from members of the public that caught the eye throughout the programme:

“I always make sure i’m giving directly to the charity so that I know all i’m giving goes directly to the charity. I appreciate they have their own operating costs but at least more is getting to the final aim of my giving that way.”

“I was completely put off donating after txting a charity and then being hassled and bombarded by calls from them. I had to call and get my details removed and i’m pretty sure my donation would have all been used up in the amount of calls and txts I received back from them.”

“I like to give to local charities where I can see the good that can be done or charities in which I feel like I have a stake.”

“If a Chief Exec earns over £100,000 a year then I won’t donate”

“They were chosen for family reasons and good TV or Radio appeals. I get annoyed when these charities also hound me in the post”

“We need to get away from that corporate thinking, people should not be taking money out of charity, it is not a business.”

Ben was a guest who used to work as a street charity fundraiser for one of the main agencies. He wanted to speak up in defence on the job. His perspective was that ‘chugger’ was an easy term to use but he didn’t sound offended by it at all — even suggesting that some of his team wore it as a badge of honour. Ben said he was speaking to 300 to 400 people a day, being rejected politely by the vast majority. Rarely did he find people were really offended by him approaching them, but he made it clear that he took a fairly subtle, low key approach to engaging with people. He was looking for a genuine human connection with someone.

The commentators were asking whether he tried to use guilt as a tool for eliciting donations and Ben denied ever doing so as he didn’t think that was doing the job right.

His view was that long term attrition rate was the primary KPI he worked to and that people were much less likely to still be donating if they’d be guilted into it. He focussed on inspiring people to so that they could understand the positive contribution they were making to society and be bought into doing so for the long run.

Christina from Huddersfield spoke about her experiences with dealing with street fundraisers and charities in general. From her perspective there is too much focus on the larger charities and she wanted more money flowing to local groups. Part of her reason for this perspective is that Christina was a Director of a small charity, that was struggling to raise funds, despite the support of the Small Charities Coalition. Evidently there are benefits to this situation, as she spoke about — being flexible, innovative and being close to the cause, but the difficulties in raising funds persist.

Having spoken to numerous communities, Christina encouraged people to avoid thinking of charities in one single group. She said that the local, small organisations needed their funds even more than big charities who she proposes are becoming harder and harder for people to relate to.

Craig in Chester was deeply put off by ‘the hassle factor’. Having donated by txt to one of the emergency Nepal appeals, he felt he was hassled by the charity for weeks and weeks afterwards. In the end, he was abusive to the organisation to get them to stop contacting him. This has led Craig to stop giving via text or phone altogether, preferring to donate to a dog’s charity online that doesn’t hassle him once a gift has been received.

Ian MacQuillin of Rogare called in and defended the place of street fundraisers, explaining that if charities don’t ask people to give, then organisations simply wouldn’t get the donations that they currently do. Ian also likened the charity practices to those that companies employee to try and get people to sign up their products and suggested that if it was ok for them, then it should be ok for charities.

Jo Barnett from Virgin Money Giving, who has commissioned the research that much of this programme was based on, suggested that for her personally brand and knowing the cause was important whilst also being put off by any aggressive sales tactics. The Poppy Appeal was cited by both her and the presenter as an easy to engage with campaign that they gave to.

The same is true online as anywhere else — telling stories and explaining why they are supporting the cause is crucial. Combined with that the difficulty of the activity is a big factor — with women being much more likely to support someone doing something especially difficult.

“I always make sure i’m giving directly to the charity. Having worked in the field for a short while, I’m actually aware of how much of the donation goes to fund the work of the agency or company handling the fundraising on behalf of the charity. So I always make sure i’m giving directly to the charity so that I know all i’m giving goes directly to the charity. I appreciate they have their own operating costs but at least more is getting to the final aim of my giving that way.

I was on telephone fundraising and it [the agency commission] was roughly equivalent to a year’s worth of the direct debits. We were told that the logic was most people forget they have a direct debit in place so continue beyond that point so then the charity is getting some benefit from the fundraising.

Most people obviously when they agreed to give weren’t aware that so much was going to a private company before their donations reached the final destination.”

Jonathan from London talked about the need for the cause or the person doing the fundraising to be inspiring in order for him to give. If they were, then it wouldn’t matter as much which channel he was being asked to give through.

He seemed less surprised by the figures quoted by previous callers for the cost of signing up a donor — “I’m not sure £60 is that much really. Everything costs money and people have salaries to be paid, rent or mortgages to pay and I guess they have to earn their money somehow. I would have thought the people doing this probably learn some quite good skills and it gets them off the streets in a funny kind of way. I don’t think I have a problem with it. If they’re learning about the charities and they’re inspiring people I think £60 is an alright amount of money isn’t it?”

Richard a legacy fundraising consultant spoke about how an more people than ever are leaving donations in their wills. His advice to charities is to not ask for donations at all. He felt that organisations needed to give people the choice to give in whatever way suited them and the freedom not to give if they decided they couldn’t. Richard said that he had met 300 donors (from roughly 27,000 he’d allegedly spoken to) who had taken gifts to charities out of their wills because they felt they were being hassled.

“When you’re asking about gifts in wills, it’s incredibly sensible to do it in a way that gives people a choice.” He suggested that most donors think about their giving and they think that a gift in their will is something which doesn’t cost them anything right now so is a good way to contribute.

Peter Maple, a lecturer in charity management at London South Bank University, with 20 years experience in charitable fundraising:

“Street canvassing is part of the fundraising mix. Any form of fundraising costs money. It’s an investment in the future, it’s year’s income and we have to invest. Street canvassing is simply part of that investment.

Really importantly what the Virgin report doesn’t cover with the 60% who they say would never contemplate it [giving to charity through face to face / street canvassing] is that 70% of the UK population do give regularly to charity. Probably most of those are not people who are then going to make an extra standing order or Direct Debit on the street. They’re already giving, they know which charities they want to support. It’s the 30%, it’s younger people who haven’t yet started giving who are the ones who do say, ‘that’s a really good idea, that’s something I’ve been meaning to do for ages, now I can go home and not feel guilty about all the direct mail ignoring.’”

Katie from London — “I was completely put off donating after txting a charity and then being hassled and bombarded by calls from them. I had to call and get my details removed and i’m pretty sure my donation would have all been used up in the amount of calls and txts I received back from them.”

Peter was open about there being some poor examples of ‘transactional fundraising’ where charities start by asking for a low gift amount and then constantly going back to people to ask for more and more. “It’s crap fundraising and it doesn’t work long term”.

In order to be successful on a more ongoing basis, Peter was clear that you have to tell the story, developing a relationship that will lasts throughout a donor’s life and even beyond when it comes to gifts in peoples’ wills. He disagreed with Richard’s earlier assertion that you didn’t need to ask people to add charities into their legacies. His perspective was, “it’s a cardinal sin in fundraising not to ask. It’s the worst thing in the world not to ask because fundraisers don’t just have a right to ask for money, they’ve got a duty. We’re trying to change the world, we’re trying to make it a better place. On the other hand, everybody has a right to say no thank you.”

Helen called in and discussed the amount of leaflets she was receiving both to her home and inserted into newspapers. Her view was that this was a waste of their money. She also referenced the give away Christmas cards that many organisations use which she felt cost too much and shouldn’t be sent as they don’t do anything to invite people to give.

Peter agreed that there might be overkill around Christmas, with charities keen to recruit new donors using tactics such as newspaper inserts. He raised the fact that many people do give to unsolicited mail, which is why so many organisations use it. Finally he suggested that there could be work to be done in removing people who are already giving from organisation’s databases.

“I like to give to local charities where I can see the good that can be done or charities in which I feel like I have a stake. I’m a member of a crochet group and every year we adopt a different charity and the local thing is it has to be local. We usually raise about £1200 a year.” Urget from Hull.

Claudia Hammond a psychologist joined the programme to talk about peoples’ motivations for giving to charity.

She proposed, that in research, impact stories can sometime make people feel overwhelmed. It all depends on how much they feel they can identify with the subject of the story. If it’s unlikely that a potential donor will connect with the individual’s story then a charity is better talking about the general work that they do. Appealing to more abstract concepts like justice or fairness can work well in this situation.

Claudia also suggested that the effectiveness of celebrities for charity was directly linked to how much a person liked those individual personalities.

As Peter had earlier suggested, Claudia agreed that each of these tactics can be effective at different times and with different people. The difficulty is that it won’t work for a number of other people and will make them feel uncomfortable.

Activities are always going to draw criticism from those that they don’t resonate with, but charities have to find new donors from somewhere. Otherwise they won’t be able to plan future work and impact. In order to do that, it’s better if people can commit to their giving, even if it’s a small amount.

Phyllis was annoyed by the various free gifts charities send to her. The perception was that her money was being spent on these items rather than ‘the people who need it’. She was also frustrated by the cost of the postage to actually get them to her. Phyllis rejected the idea that she was being guilted into giving more through these gifts.

The upcoming Fundraising Preference Service was raised towards the end of the programme. The feeling was that it would be difficult for the platform to be any more effective that the Telephone or Mail Preference Service to which the charities already subscribe.

Finally CEO salaries were brought up with the caller finding it impossible to justify paying people more than the Prime Minister when so many individuals are contributing to the charity for free. The counter to this argument that was discussed was that the largest charities are complex organisations that need skilled people to run them. In order to get those people, you need to pay a market rate for them. It was suggested that recently retired or redundant CEOs could be approached to give something back, working on a volunteer basis at the head of a charity.

“We need to get away from that corporate thinking, people should not be taking money out of charity, it is not a business.”

“Volunteers are the lifeblood of charities but there aren’t enough and we need to pay people to do a proper job” — Peter Maple.