I'm glad Adam raised this issue because it has been vexing me for a while.

There is something about face-to-face fundraising that just feels wrong.

I'm a strong supporter of charities (mainly animal and environmental with a couple of human charities also) and I have about 10 direct debits set up to my chosen charities. I also have a Charities Aid account. I know that sounds like a brag or a defence, but I think it's important that I explain my support of charities, before I give my criticism of face-to-face fundraising.

I feel that charities are damaging their reputation/brand by using these face-to-face fundraisers. I have no objection to the old-style person shaking a tin or a bucket for charity. It's the new-style targeted salesperson approach that really switches me off.

It's a high-pressure commercial tactic: if the person stopping you on the street to ask for your money was selling rather than raising money for charity, I think most of us would find it objectionable.

It's the whole approach that is wrong, regardless of whether it's being done for a good cause (although presumably a fair portion of the funds raised go to pay the agency and the fundraisers?)

When I walk down Princes Street in Edinburgh on any given day, there will always be gangs of over-confident fundraisers who almost always form a gauntlet over a relatively small area so that there is no chance of anyone getting past them without them having the opportunity to engage them. Even if you try to signal that you're not interested, by walking to one side or looking away from them, you are almost always accosted. It feels like they've been trained in how best to trap people!

I don't get the sense that the fundraisers really care about the causes they are raising money for. They rattle off a spiel about the charity, but they act like hired guns rather than passionate believers. That switches me off.

I'm sorry to use such strong language, but I really feel this is what is happening and that it's wrong.

I know that charities must be frustrated that they have difficulty getting their message across, and therefore they struggle to raise money, without these tactics. But charities stand for ideals and values. If they descend to cheap commercial ploys then they will cheapen their name and, in the longer run, that will lose them a lot more money than they gain.

Charities need to use the internet.
But I can't see them getting much money (you know, the stuff you have to use to pay your internet fees and transaction charges before using for any other purpose) just from sitting back and waiting for people to find them and donate.

Any form, any form at all, of interacting with people is subject to annoying someone.
Face to face is one method. A usable method, rather cheaper than many other methods and can be targetted better than most.

If the demographic to be targetted is white women with blonde hair and a young child with them, thats who can be asked with face to face.
It also gives human interaction.

Its not everyone's favourite. Simply asking for money is always going to annoy someone.
But its cost effective, it works, by any published complaints it has a low complaint rate.
What seems to annoy some people is too many fundraisers encountered in a small area on a regular basis.
Thats perhaps for councils to sort out with the organisations concerned.

Not a call for boycott where people may or may not be bothered to look at a website, read it and decide.

Martin

In a climate where raising vital funds for a range of issues, including those poorly supported by the government like social services (child protection, mental health, disability) is getting progressively harder I am dismayed by your un informed, biased and seemingly intentionally headline grabbing report on street fundraising.

I would like to make the following points that your report failed to acknowledge.

• ‘Mugger’ as defined by the dictionary is ‘a person who mugs, esp. one who assaults a person in order to rob him or her.’ I am yet to see a street fundraiser do this, therefore the title ‘chugger’ is factually incorrect.

• Charities would not use this method to raise money if it was not proven to work. Where the majority of traditional fundraising channels such as addressed mail and inserts are in decline, face to face fundraising is attracting a younger more actively engaged supporter who would not otherwise consider supporting a voluntary organisation.

• To tell people not to support street fundraising is irresponsible. Instead you should inform them as to how and where they can report bad practices and the standard codes of conduct they can expect as part of their giving experience. This would give charities the opportunity to weed out the few poor fundraisers and work towards better standards across the sector.

• Finally, fundraisers perform a job that most people would not do, that they are paid should not even be up for discussion. I suggest you go out for 8hrs in the cold and rain, allow yourself to be abused by the ‘Intelligently’ informed public and sun readers and see if your opinion changes.

I can only come to the conclusion that the purpose of the report and the publicity you have courted was in fact an attempt to drive traffic to your website. So Intelligent giving could raise funds through its very own click to donate button.

If charities don't use street fundraisers, how do they ensure that a wide range of people find out about their work, and ask for money in support? It may be unpalatable, but it is rare for people to suddenly decide to give some money to charity. They have to be asked (and yes, being asked nicely should be the only way...)

Bill Hilton has talked rather dramatically about street fundraisers contributing to the downfall of society, and indeed other people have spoken about their need to be able to venture onto the street but at the same time not interact with anyone.

However, this thrust that charities must use the web helps to achieve that. Yes, charities should use the web, but it shouldn't be their only way of interacting with people, which is what you seem to be suggesting. A society that sits in its bedroom the whole day looking at the internet is far sicker than one where a person on the street is spoken to for a few seconds.

For clarification, I've never used Direct Debit for any purpose - too much room for error. Of course I can't stop fraudulent use when I use my card to pay over the phone with Utilities' automated helplines though.

Charity Chris: When I said we wanted to make Mick's job more difficult, I meant that we wouldn't have achieved anything if the PFRA was able to carry on working as it always has done after we published our survey. I'm certainly not out to make Mick's life miserable.

Second, I think individual donors should give online in preference to giving to chuggers. But, if chuggers are going to be on the street for the indefinite future - which they probably are - then I'd prefer it if they behaved well and were properly regulated. In other words, we haven't changed our position on a boycott at all.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Bear in mind that what you said wasn't: 'we think that there is a need for charities to ensure that fundraisers are better trained and abide by their code', but instead was 'don't give to street fundraisers'.

The kind of snickering at having angered people is immature and frankly pretty pathetic. It's easy to set out to make someone's job difficult, to deliberately try to damage them and their profession, and also to set up deliberately provocative press coverage. It's much harder to try to repair the damage done and continue to convince the public to give, which is what charities now have to try and do.

"Also whose idea was it to have a system where you give your contact / bank details to a stranger in the street?! Baffling."

You're clearly easily baffled - it's Direct Debit - you probably pay your utilities that way. 500,000 people sign up to charity in the street and on the door this way every year with 0 instances of fraud.

Suddenly the Community Channel's anti-chugger game seems even more fun: http://www.communitychannel.org/chugger/

I see face to face fundraisers as a sort of live version of spam email crossed with something like Pacman. Someone recently described them as annoying pop-ups which I think pins it quite nicely.

Possibly there is a demographic which doesn't find them annoying but I am not in that demographic. Apparently they are very effective in raising money, but I don't know if this is because they would be good at fundraising in any situation, or if people are just a bit shy at saying no. It seems to be closer to coercion than charity from my (as limited as possible) interactions with them.

I've found most of them to be merely annoyingly persistent, rather than rude or breaking any laws. However I really don't like to see fundraisers putting an arm round someone and continuing down the road still trying to talk to them though.

Thanks for doing this survey - it will give me a bit of ammunition if one ever crosses (as in 'impedes') my path. I should add that I live in London and could do without the free newspaper sellers also. In my curmudgeonly way I just want to get from A to B without disturbance :-)

Also whose idea was it to have a system where you give your contact / bank details to a stranger in the street?! Baffling.