Charities (OT)

I am so pissed off with charities such as "Shelter", RSPCA" sending attractive student types asking me to sign up with a direct debit for their cause. It really is having a negative affect on my view of their charities.

Reply to
DerbyBorn
Loading thread data ...

Yes and running services Like Age Concern and costing the clients over the odds. This is a charity saving money internally while acting as a commercial enterprise on the other.

Something is not quite right in the charity sector just now. I am a trustee of a small one and money does come in, so I'm a little sceptical of the ways some attempt to get money, makes me wonder if there are gross inefficiencies in the organisations. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

I am so pissed off with charities such as "Shelter", RSPCA" sending attractive student types asking me to sign up with a direct debit for their cause. It really is having a negative affect on my view of their charities.

Put up a sign at the front then... No Hawkers, Poncers or Students... Fuck off I have no money !

Usually works

Reply to
Nthkentman

On the other hand, said students are usually so desperate for the sign-up bonus they'll do almost *anything* to get you to sign. Should be easy to get an hour's lawn-mowing out of them first.

You can then cancel the direct debit before the first payment.

Owain

Reply to
spuorgelgoog

That and the chief executives' pay.

And it's often the case that the entire first year's payments (for anyone daft enough to sign up for a direct debit) goes as commission to the shysters who supply the chuggers.

Reply to
mike

For a moment, I thought this was the start of a comment from Adam...

Reply to
Bob Eager

They aren't employed by the charities. They're employed by third party fundraising companies. One day they'll be doing Shelter, the next the RSPCA, the day after the MS Society or Cancer Research or whoeverthehellelse.

And the reason those charities do it is that it works - even after the third parties have taken their (fairly hefty) cut, it gets money in that they couldn't otherwise get. That money goes to their work.

If you want to knock the chuggers on the head, give money directly. Don't like that particular charity? Give to somebody else. But don't make the charity sector as a whole work so bloody hard just to keep the lights on.

As for salaries for direct employees - they're low compared to what those people could be earning in the real world. Yes, even chief execs. They take that hit because they want to do some good. If charities didn't employ people, and relied on volunteers, nothing would ever get done to any professional standard, and the lights'd be off before the week was out.

Reply to
Adrian

They get as far as "your neighbours have signed up", at which point I say "that's good" as the door is swinging closed.

The two charities I regularly support are paid by standing order.

Reply to
Andrew Gabriel

I have been equally p*ssed off by their marketing techniques. Not long ago my sister died, in accordance with her wishes I made a donation to a specific charity, I sent a cheque. I was then inundated with begging letters both from that charity and others. I was so annoyed I wrote to them and told them how I felt and to take me off their lists, that it was doubtful that I would ever donate to them or the other charities concerned again. Give them their due they sent a letter of apologies and the mail begging stopped, from all the charities, so they must be in cohorts. Now last year we sent a note in our Christmas cards to say that we were sending out no more but would be making an equivalent of the cost donation to a charity. So I am left wondering how best to do this without getting begging letters as I would like them to be able to claim the tax back!

Reply to
Broadback

The "just £3 a month" thing annoys me. If you sign up for that, you will be pestered by phone calls asking if you could increase it to £5, then £10, then £15.....

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

And such companies only have to give small proportion of what they raise to the charity. The bonus fee per scalp chugged is so high that the charity actually loses money if you cancel within the first year.

I think I need convincing of that. RSPCA spent the best part of a million pounds legal fees persuing some poor woman over a dodgy will not far from me. She won first time around after a long battle, they took it to appeal and in the end and they lost big time.

formatting link

formatting link

I will never give them another penny.

It is sort of inevitable in the charity sector that people volunteer to do things that need doing and wouldn't otherwise get done. This government seeks to exploit unpaid willing dogooders to babysit libraries and take on work that would otherwise have been paid for.

Not all amateurs are bad at what they do. There are a lot of small charities doing perfectly good work locally. The big boys have got so big now that they have pretty much become industrial fundraising machines that spend vast amounts of money on lawyers and chuggers.

If you give money in a will to certain charities they will pass your details on to various other organisations unless you explicitly forbid it. I wonder if contract law can be used to demand the money back in the event that they do leak your details to other groups like this.

Be careful to tick (or not tick) the box to prevent them from passing your details on to other third parties that want to chug you!

The ICO is worse than useless at enforcing data protection. YMMV

Reply to
Martin Brown

On Wednesday 28 August 2013 22:04 DerbyBorn wrote in uk.d-i-y:

It's basically "flirty fishing" - a technique used by cults.

Go figure...

Reply to
Tim Watts

The last time a charity that I support phoned me asking for more money, I politely explained to the pleasant sounding lady that I was already giving as much as I could afford, and if they called again, I would cancel my subscription to them.

I also found out that the charity had spent in excess of twenty grand setting up the phone calls.

I've heard nothing since.

Reply to
John Williamson

Yes, all to ring you for a fiver.

Does it matter how much they spend, so long as the end result gets more in?

Is it better if they spend £500 and £1k, or if they spend £20k and raise £50k?

Reply to
Adrian

Christ, no. Of course they're not. But they DO need professional management, and there are a lot of other roles which volunteers CAN't be relied on for.

Nobody said otherwise. Equally there are a lot of small charities whose funding would do a lot more good if they just stopped, thought, and put the time and effort into more co-ordinated directions.

Would a small local charity be able to do the work of Medecins Sans Frontiers or Macmillan?

Doesn't that apply to ALL such forms, no matter who from?

Reply to
Adrian

For lawnmowing substitute any activity an attractive student type could perform

Reply to
The Other Mike

Except that the logical extension of that argument is that it is better for the charity to spend £100,000 and raise £120,000 than it is for it to spend £1,000 and only raise £20,000 because what ends up as cash for the charity to spend on good causes is greater. £20,000 as against £19,000.

However the other £99,000 has still been raised from supporters even though it has been paid out as costs and so it is money that is no longer available for donation to other charities.

Reply to
Andrew May

However, there are plenty of retired professionals who can provide the needed expertise.

Reply to
charles

As this particular charity wants/ needs to raise millions, I'm not fussed. I had actually told them not to ring me on my membership form, many years ago, hence my comments to the caller.

Reply to
John Williamson

In article , charles scribeth thus

Indeed that is the case, but sometimes when you hear how much some of the professional exec's are paid it does make you wonder .. sometimes..

Ah!, finding them.. we thought that we'd get a string of them to help out at our local community radio station. Eldest one there is 62 and not retired but still grafting. Bulk of them are 20 something's..

The retired ones around where I live are out whooping it up spending the kids inheritance as quickly as they can!...

Reply to
tony sayer

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.