Surely part of the point is that the tin-shakers are not allowed to approach people and ask them to give. This can be quite a sore point if you are trying to oversee a gaggle of enthusiastic volunteers who think you are just being a spoil-sport when you tell them they must not shake tins or pester people.

I doubt whether anyone would object to the direct debit collectors if they simply had stalls with information which people could look browse or not as they chose.

Street fundraising is one method of gaining support. Rather more active than standing at the side of the street with a collection tin, but similar in that it asks passers-by for support.

Compare street fundraising with other methods of raising support though. Direct mail? Not enviromentally at all and I suspect many people regard the letters as junk mail.
How about TV ads? Can't recall how many years its been since I last donated because of a TV ad. Then again, I don't watch much TV. :)
Quite expensive too, unless the news services give you some free advertising by featuring you in the news.
Telephone fundraising? Cold calling perhaps - not cheap and can annoy people.

Considering the number of people I'd expect the street fundraisers to approach in a year, doesn't seem like many complaints.
I have no intention of using them, but don't have a problem being approached by them or just waving them off if I'm in a hurry.

Martin

Blimey Adam, you've certainly got a talent for hyperbole! From "while your researchers do the hard work in the background" to "beaten my hard-working colleagues" and "locked up in the broom-cupboard". These sound like the quality headlines from a red top. Either that or a guilt inducing DM pack.

On to the street fundraising. In the broadest possible way, with no evidence to back it up, you think that street fundraising is the most annoying form of fundraising because it annoys you. Well, the fact that hundreds of charities have found millions of new supporters giving regular, mostly gift aided donations and continue to find new supporters to fund their work should appear on your objective radar. But no, if you don't like it then thats it, it must be bad. It is clear to me now that you are not the thought police but the centre of the universe.

I personally don't like cash collections. People donating don't know what their money is going to be spent on, there is the possibility for theft and fraud and you can't gift aid the donation. But, I also know that for many small charities, the opportunity to collect cash in public and on private sites can make up a large proportion of their unrestricted income and a good opportunity to recruit volunteers. I still end up giving money but I ask questions about the charity and how the fundraising is going.

I think you see fundraising in too black and white a sense. I don't think there wiill be a form of fundraising that is universally liked and even if it was done to a high standard, obeying all of the rules and regulations someone like you is going to be annoyed by it.

Catman

Well you could, but then you've changed the story.  So it's a bit pointless.  The thing is, it comes to the writing.  I've just read a ase study we've produced, and it's awful.  Actually, it's not awful it just doesn't inspire.  For that matter, it doesn't induce guilt, or any of the 'negative' triggers people talk about.  It simply does nothing ut state the facts, but the first time I heard the story it inspired me to give.

 Now writing inspirational case studies is not always easy - I've just seen one turned into a dull essay, but it is what we should be aiming for.  And if that jerks some tears on the way, then that's fine.  Some of the stories I could tell you (and would, given the chance), are tragixc, but that's why the charity is here.  To remedy that.  To fix this problem, and by giving us your money YOU are changing the lives, bringing joy (and sometimes comedy) from tragedy.

That's what we aim to do.  Of course what inspires one guilts another.

I think rspcacambridge's point is also worth addressing here. I agree that charities don't want to identify individuals, but the 'composite case-studies' I've read suggest strongly that they're designed to be tear-jerkers. What's more, a charity could change the names and/or circumstances of a real case-study, if they wanted to hide the identities of those involved.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Catman asks some good questions. First, he asks whether am I the thought police; and second, he wants to know whether I have beaten my hard-working colleagues into submission, so I can hog the limelight on this blog.

These questions are difficult to answer. Frankly, I don't think I'm the thought police, but it's possible that I'm an undercover agent, and am lying to you. We'll never know. As for my colleagues, I would say two things. First, I haven't locked them in the cupboard, or anything dramatic like that - and I've got photo evidence to prove it. But second, I have taken over writing this blog full-time. We thought it would be more interesting like that. I explain why we chose to do this here.

Catman also comes back to the street fundraisers/chuggers issue. He suggests that my mind is already made up. It is. I think that stopping people in the street to ask them for money is flat-out rude. I genuinely don't see how it could be construed as anything else. Although, of course, I am open to persuasion.

I also take on board Catman's points about bogus clothes collections and the difficulty of assessing complaints against charities. Dealing with complaints and the FRSB first, I agree that measuring this sort of thing is near impossible, especially if the body doing the measuring is as un-transparent as the FRSB. However, I do think it's fair to say that - in the broadest way possible - street fundraisers attract more ire, represented by complaints to charities and the FRSB, than other forms of fundraising. But I wouldn't want to get any more specific than that.

As regards bogus collections, I think I may well have missed something by not mentioning such collections as viewed as potentially 'dubious'. However, I'd like to know more about whether people regard criminals who pretend to be charities as being the same thing as charities who annoy people with collections. In other words, do people blame charities when collections go wrong? I don't know, but my suspicion is that they don't.

Finally, though, I completely agree both with Ginsters and Stephen Cook when they say that, in order to get over the problems fundraisers face - insofar as many of them turn off potential donors - charities need to be more transparent. Couldn't have put it better myself.

My brainwave controller seems to be working...

PC Adam, Thought Police

Half the problem is that the public have a very dated/romanticised view of the charity sector as a whole. Frankly they'd much prefer that they were never asked for money at all (because they'd all freely donate anyway, right?!) and certainly not in ways that are also used by the dirty world of business.

But I don't think it's all 'their' fault, as a sector we really don't help ourselves. Any complaints, however unreasonable, precipitate profuse apologies and endless handwringing. We need to stop this now. If we're to change public perceptions for the better it's a matter of education rather than doffing the cap, tugging the forelock and re-presenting the begging bowl.

Stephen Cook's excellent editorial in this week's Third Sector hits the nail on the head.  

Don't shoot the messenger

Hey Adam,

Just wondering how clothing collectons didn't make it onto your list after the extensive debate we have seen on this site?

Terms like "dubious" will often strike a note with people who are surveyed, its nice to see that you are equally up to using subjective terms like "anti-social" and "annoying". I was going to do some sums about interactions on the street. through the letter box and on the phone compared with the number of complaints registered with the FRSB, but then not all charities are members and there is not enough agreement/guidance as to what a complaint is, but frankly can't be arsed as you appear to have made up your mind  as to what forms of fundraising you feel are socially acceptable.

Also, I have noticed that since you have become the big cheese at IG you seem to be the only person writing blogs. Have you taken on the role of IG thought police while your researchers do the hard work in the background?

Catman

I'm not sure the motivation here is necessarily to pour on the agony, so much as wanting to avoid making it possible to identify individuals. Maybe the answer is to include a disclaimer that some details have been altered to protect innocent third parties?