Red Cross Blogs

The problem with Chugging is that there are just too many. Every day outside Liverpool Street Station there are usually two different charities competing. Most chuggers are fine but some can come across too needy to meet targets.

Having said that, there are paintball companies that have adopted the chugger approach…..they really are the bottom feeders!!

If I see a charity using chuggers I add them to a blacklist of charities I will never give to, I find the practice totally unethical. As far as I am concerned any charity which uses them is actually a profit making business and should be stripped of charity status and liquidated.

If he's the sole breadwinner for a family of four, he's making a pretty substantial living. Of course, he's also making it harder for people like me, who in addition to my full time job, donate and raise money for the Red Cross where no on pays me. I'm increasingly met with “they use chuggers – I won't give to them.” For whatever reason (and in my experience the chuggers are aggressive, often misleading, and often clueless – they're not that dedicated to any thing other than a paycheque, just like the rest of us) that people don't like them, they're also cutting back on other donations, more so now that people increasingly view chuggers as dishonest.

Start with telling us how much chuggers COST the Red Cross, both straightforward in paying a for profit company to be out there doing this, and in terms of lost donations, because only then can people decide whether or not it is actually worth it to have them.

I am facing the facts. The facts are that Mark is earning enough to support a family of four, and boasting about it here while trying to defend what chuggers do. And increasingly, what chuggers do, is make it difficult for anyone involved with their charity to obtain donations. If people who used to give money to the Red Cross at my solicitation won't do it because the Red Cross uses chuggers (with good reason – they're expensive and wasteful, not to mention obnoxious), then the chuggers aren't getting the results they need to either.

But you're right. After my fundraiser, which I will now stop raising funds for immediately since Mark is (wait, isn't) going to do the fundraising for that, I won't do any more while the Red Cross uses chuggers. I have just stopped my monthly salary donation to them as a direct result of Marc and your posts, and I will not do any fundraising in the future until they stop using chuggers.

And if Mark donates, I bet he doesn't donate his whole salary. I'm also willing to bet that I donate an awful lot more than Mark does. And I raise roughly five times what I donate, for a fundraiser (since I start with a large base donation, the ratio is less than the final total would appear), so that's gone, and my monthly donation is gone.

Thanks Mark! You and your mate have made me see the light!

We understand why you are concerned regarding the costs associated with street fundraising, and know that it might seem unusual for a charity to pay for fundraising services but unfortunately all fundraising activity has overheads and street fundraising is no different.

The British Red Cross have both full time staff and volunteers, without whom we would not be able to continue to deliver the lifesaving work we are known for. However, as an organisation we also have a responsibility to raise as much income as we can to enable us to deliver our commitments to our beneficiaries, and as with most large charities, in order for us to be able to do this we do have to employ professional fundraising agencies to conduct some of our campaigns on our behalf.

Face to face fundraising is actually one of the most cost-effective ways to recruit new direct debit donors to the British Red Cross, as it carries a lower financial risk than other, more traditional yet less effective methods of fundraising.

The British Red Cross has contracts with a number professional fundraising agencies, that are paid on a ‘per sign up’ basis, from a carefully planned and pre-designated fundraising budget. We also have in place a number of guarantees to ensure we do not pay for any sign up unless certain criteria are met, which is one of the measures that we have put in place that makes street fundraising so cost effective.

Our agencies do not receive any percentage of the donations that are made as a result of the direct debits they sign up – 100% of all donations made go directly to the British Red Cross and for every £1 we invest in our fundraising activity we raise almost £4, approximately £1 of which will be reinvested again, with the remainder, which will be more than was originally given, going directly to help our beneficiaries.

We do understand your concerns regarding the money that we spend on our fundraising activity but we use professional fundraising organisations to knock on doors and ask people on the street to support us because, quite simply, we are not currently able to raise the income this brings us in any other way.

In 2010 more than 250,000 people will have pledged to give more than £27.5 million in the next year alone, because they became a British Red Cross supporter via one of our face-to-face fundraising campaigns. In addition to this our fundraisers will have more than 3 million conversations with members of the public over the course of the year – conversations that we are not charged for – which serve to raise awareness of our vital work and are often a key factor in people giving to us in the future.

I do hope that this information has gone some way to allaying you concerns regarding this matter but please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions, or if we can be of any further assistance.

This is an interesting subject.

If people were to listen to a “chugger”'s sales pitch, and were convinced and about to sign up for monthly donations, but then found out how much the “chugger” was being paid, what would they do?

I think most people would probably change their minds and donate in a more direct way, which they would expect to be cheaper. I think the extent of this would probably depend on whether they were getting paid on a commission or paid by the hour.

Interested to know anyone else's thoughts on this.

I know that charities can raise a lot of money out of “chuggers”, but it still makes me a little uneasy because I can only imagine that its success is based on being misleading – if people knew that they were getting paid (especially being paid on commission), then they would look for other ways to sign up.

Maybe I'm overly cynical – maybe people would think along the lines “yes, I would like to donate money to that charity, but I know you're doing a lot of good in raising awareness for the charity, so I'll donate some money to you personally as well, (and in fact I'm also aware that if I cancel my donation after up to a year in some cases, I'll be donating ALL the money to you and none to the charity)”

I would never say that people should always be outright rude to “chuggers” or sales people in general, but having someone approach you with a grin on their face but with the aim of trying to manipulate you into doing something that will make them money is not something that everyone is going to be happy about, so I can't really feel too strongly if people are somewhat rude to them.

I imagine that the fact that it is being done for a charity will make the matter worse in some cases. If the salesperson gets even a little pushy then it's going to seem like someone getting paid to tell you to be more charitable. Again, I wouldn't be too surprised or bothered if people don't react well to this.

From the way that direct marketing operates in general (profit-making companies will usually market their poorest deals via direct marketing), I don't find it surprising that a lot of people have quite a dim view of the practice, and react to it with suspicion and sometimes hostility, even when it is being done for charity.

Finally, there clearly is an ugly side to chugging with people seeing it simply as a sales job and learning how to manipulate and mislead people if necessary to get them to do what they want. I'm aware that this is one of the reasons why the practice is so effective at raising money for charities. However, from the way that I have heard a few “chuggers” talking about what they do and the people that they are signing up to the charities (the blogger writes that “we're not there to judge”, but I can say that I have heard that some do so behind the backs of those who aren't interested in talking to them), I don't think that it is a way that I would ever consider donating money to charity, and would urge other charitable people to avoid doing so.

So to all “chuggers”, don't be angry if members of the public avoid you or are rude to you if you approach them – it doesn't necessarily mean that they're uncharitable – it could well mean that you look like an effective and well-paid salesperson, and they want to avoid making any contact with you in case they get taken for a ride.

Not wanting to be all negative, I'm also wondering if charities could somehow make positive use of the outrage that some of the public seem to feel about chugging. Maybe an “avoid the chuggers” site that offers links where people can donate directly to various charities.

To add to my earlier reply, this is actually an attitude that I have heard from chuggers themselves several times, and to me it just sounds like they're saying “Why don't these rich men in suits give more money to me – I mean give money to charity.”

They honestly don't seem to grasp that just because someone doesn't want to listen to their sales pitch it doesn't mean they're uncharitable – there are simply better ways to give to charity! Certain groups of people are more likely to find those ways, in the same way that they are more likely to find better deals on any other service. Please don't let the chugging issue affect your views of a specific group of people.

Some of the things I have heard chuggers say has been downright insulting. To be fair, they said these things well away from where they were working and in no way as part of their job, and I would by no means say that all “chuggers” hold these opinions.

All the same, it was hearing these things that finally turned me off the idea of “chugging” altogether.

Sales people (the kind who do the hard-selling, at least) aren't exactly known for having much respect for the people that they sell to, and the things I've heard from chuggers has made me feel as though this is just as true of sales people in the charitable sector.

Hi. Not clear in article, Mark. Are you employed by the Red Cross or a profit orientated professional fund raising company?. Thanks

This afternoon I had a Red Cross ‘chugger’ come after me whilst I was checking my texts and ‘point out’ that I had a new iphone. I’m sorry Red Cross, but this is completely unacceptable. I do not have to justify having personal belongings to anyone, least of all a stranger who is following me down the street. I have tried to complain to you today but I cannot get through on your complaints line. Please tell your ’street warriors’ that if someone says ‘no thanks’ that they should just leave it at that, and not then follow them down the road, trying to make them feel guilty for owning a phone. I walk down that part of the road every day and have to put up with these people from a variety of different charities harrassing me and not taking no for an answer regularly. Don’t therefore get upset when the public gets upset with you – we’ve said no, so leave us alone! I regularly fundraise for charities and I NEVER bully anyone into it or ask them to justify the fact that they have a phone or a tv or a car, so why won’t they sponsor me? Unacceptable.

Hi Mark I saw you yesterday at the Clapham office I was coming to be interviewed for a job as a charity fund raiser. I am reading these post an others on line and I am not sure that I am doing the right thing. Any advise for me?

If charities relied on people giving without fundraising no charities owuld exist. Charitie shave touched all our lives… from campaigning on our behalf to inventing the vaccine for polio.

I find some of the comments posted on here quite astonishing, especially as some of them appear to have been written by people with intelligence? For all of those who were donating and have ceased donating because the red cross use professional fundraisers seem to have completely lost or forgotten the whole concept. Donating regularly, fundraising independently and volunteering are all invaluable ways in which we can ensure that charities essentially have the funds to carry out the essential work which they do. No charity would invest in fundraising if it wasn’t one of the most efficient means to an end. In reality it would be a wonderful world if we all got home from work and set about the internet looking for the perfect charity in which we chose to donate directly to, however sadly this is not a reality, we all lead hectic and busy lifestyles (for those of you that do do this, well done, YOU are amazing!)

It is for this reason that street fundraisers facilitate such a large portion of the funds which are flexible and crucial to saving lives every day. I don’t disagree that some of the paid representatives (chuggers) are damaging and lack sufficient training; this needs to be tackled through better management of agencies and improved regulation of fundraising. There are also many excellent fundraisers who are professional, respectful and very knowledgeable at getting the job done well, I feel it wrong that a bad fundraiser should counter act the genuine fantastic work that many other individuals (chuggers) carry out every day? I’m sure for example we have all experienced a bad representative in many aspects of life whether at school or in a bank or in a hospital, however we would be hesitant to disregard every other professional in their equal position. Some of the comments appear far too generalised and condemning across the board!

The bottom line is that the world we live in isn’t perfect, far from it, we have already had the most challenging year through natural disasters such as the Japanese tsunami and earthquake through to alarming unrest and crisis in countries such as Egypt and Libya to only name a few. Not only can we not stop the force of mother nature or have any control in regard to government unrest; sadly it all boils down to one thing, suffering, usually of innocent citizens who have no means of helping themselves occurs frequently. It is for reasons such as these that charities have to be present and have to be able to respond not only quickly but efficiently, unfortunately this comes at a cost, a huge cost!! It is for this reason that I think we should all remember the point and might I add that next time in my lunch break when someone with probably one piercing too many asks me if I have spare minute (yes only 1) I might say yes, if i’m not too busy!!

What an uncharitable bunch of comments. It is always good to question uses of power by big organisations, as well as individual acts of bad practice. However, to attack students who are trying to earn money, and charities who are trying to make a difference in the face of overwhelming odds seems to be an act of misdirected aggression. There are so many alternative targets to attack – the ones that make the work of charities necessary in the first place would be a good start. 

We’ve had to delete a comment on this post. While we welcome criticism, we won’t tolerate personal attacks or name-calling. You can see our rules for comments at the bottom of this page.

You cannot fault someone for not wanting to help others when they’re busy trying to survive. To do so is at least naieve, and at worst, bullying.

hopefully this might get through to someone who cares. i have just had my front door kicked and obscene gestures made by someone who represents this charity. i am an elderly lady living alone who has just received some sad family news. i explained i could not listen to this young man at this time and closed my door only to be scared by his threatening response. i phoned my daughter in fear who said i should call the police. i have always supported local, national and international charities and have also worked as a volunteer for another more honourable charity but i am disgusted by the calibre of volunteers you employ .I  have read this site and have never heard of chuggers but ‘warrior’ certainly seem to describe.the young man who came to my door on this dark wet night. i will never contribute a penny to you again and will make sure all my friends and acquaiitances are fully aware of my experience tonight.

Chuggers are simply one of lowest form of human life, and make think of charities as nothing more than corporate entities that only have sentimental value as a product. DISGUSTING, and any organisation that uses them is even worse, and lost any moral highground for whatever cause they claim to support.

Hi, our fundraisers should not have visited your house more than once. Please could you email our Supporter Care Team with details so we can look into this. Email: supportercare@redcross.org.uk

I was a chugger for two weeks, but gave up after I realised having only signed up 2 donors I was earning more than the charity was making. 

I think the issue is that these companies need to be more rigorous in who they employ. Preferring quality sales types in low numbers getting good results rather than hiring anyone who comes in off the street and saturating neighbourhoods creating fatigue and resentment. If the job is for you and you’re successful, you can feel good about doing it.

Wow. Some of you really are low. So… I too am a high street warrior. I’ve worked as chef, a painter and decorator, and dabbled in a bit of law. This by far is the toughest job I’ve had. And the reason we are paid is because it is a JOB. Charities would not employ people if they were making a loss. Us “chuggers” are the reason charities still exist. I recently raised for red cross, and had one lady say “i don’t care” before I even asked if she would talk to me. I politely said, “not to worry have a nice day” but in my head I couldn’t help but think she would care if it came to that she needed red cross. And the truth is, I’m happy to talk to people all day about the red cross, without signing people up. Because by making people more knowledgeable means they can think on it, and donate in their own way should they wish.
For example, if your house burns down, are u aware that immediately after the fire brigade arrive, so do red cross. They provide u with a caravan, clothing, food, water, and support. So the next time someone “doesn’t care” its a good job others do.

 Jumping out in front of you, blocking your path, hassling you, and pressuring you are all forms of aggression. If people don’t want aggression, don’t act like that first

 Funny how that never happened when my house burned down. I have heard of them doing that though. But the points stand. I used to work for Dialogue Direct and we were paid on commission (paid extra for each sign-up we got), the only way to get people to donate was to pressure them, we knew very little about the charities we represented, and most people were in the job for the money.

 Strange how a “charity” that supposedly welcomes people getting in touch uses an 0844 number (expensive from payphones and a number of residential landlines)