To think the guardian should be happy at £5 a month and not pester me to increase it

[brexitstolemyfuture]

I like their work so was happy to pay a fiver a month, however now they keep asking for more. It's the same with all charities you give then they just want more. If I wanted to give £15 I would. It makes me feel they are ungrateful.

[MsVestibule]

I agree! I read the Guardian online sometimes but don't pay for it. I guess they see you as an easy target. Are they phoning or emailing you? At least you can ignore an email.

[GhostsToMonsoon]

Sounds fine to me. I don't think they should pester you. I should probably start paying for the Guardian as they guilt-trip me with their yellow signs every time I browse their website.

[Marmalade85]

All charities have the same strategy. As soon as you donate and they have your details they call you to increase the amount. Seems the Guardian has adopted the same strategy.

[alonsypot]

If all charities relied on people just giving a tiny amount they'd have closed down - of course they're going to ask everyone if they can give more. But usually if you tell them not to ask you again they have to legally comply - I wonder if it's the same with the Guardian?

[ShatnersWig]

While cheques are still available to be used, I won't sign up for any charity or donate by text or anything like that. There are a couple of charities I support and will send a cheque each year with no contact details enclosed. They just cash the cheque. If it's a local charity, I'll go in with cash.

[MorrisZapp]

I donated to medicin sans frontiers about ten years ago. I get email and actual letters from them even now, despite unsubscribing and refusing to tick the 'further updates' box.

[MorrisZapp]

Although I must add that I also subscribe to a podcast and they are always grateful, never looking to upsell me, and they post me gifts from Florida!

[brexitstolemyfuture]

It's via email, I'll hunt to find the don't bother me again but honestly i feel like halving it.

Charities would exist from small amounts from lots of people. I never up my donations when anyone asks.

[brexitstolemyfuture]

It's via email, I'll hunt to find the don't bother me again but honestly i feel like halving it.

Charities would exist from small amounts from lots of people. I never up my donations when anyone asks.

[Cocklodger]

Re charities,
The tactic must lose donations too. I'll happily give in cash or whatever but I won't subscribe anymore to a set amount every month as they'd always ask for more which used to really annoy me so I won't donate in that way out of principle, I now end up giving a lot less to the charities...

[alonsypot]

I used to work for one. They rely on repeat donors mostly as new donors give tiny amounts and vanish.

Charities ask for increases, most ignore the ask, a core group don't. Over time that core group are more likely to give bigger donations and leave legacies too - they're often the ones making things work consistently, despite the occasional amazing "crowdfunding" effect like the ice bucket challenge. It's probably the same for the Guardian.

When you're utterly passionate about a cause you often don't mind being asked, even if you can't give more. (Some people do undoubtedly but many don't, or don't mind enough to stop their existing donation.)

When you aren't that zealous about the cause, or you can't afford it, or just really don't like the idea of being asked for more - well, the charity just doesn't know that without asking you. The bigger more organised ones will have databases and people to write stuff in them to avoid asking you again once you've told them not to.

It's a broad numbers game and having seen the immense good that charities do with their funding, I still "get" it. It's rather unBritish though! Some charities may be worse than others of course, I can't speak for all of them or their practices, and perhaps some of them do pester too much.

But legally they should leave you alone Morris; chances are they might have three or four records for you - or you've unsubscribed from one appeal and they're still talking about others, and don't know you're annoyed by it.

You could email them again clearly with the details you want removed, and say you want no further contact from them at all ever, or you'll pursue it further with the charity commissioner?

sorry for the long post

[BarbaraofSeville]

It does Cocklodger I have stopped giving to several charities that seem to use most of the money to send me unwanted junk mail and letters asking for more money.

It usually goes like this:

I decide to donate to a charity and set up the direct debit, carefully tick/untick all the necessary boxes and ask for no marketing/updates ever.

Load of crap arrives from charity. I email them or whatever asking them not to do this as I do not want any information from them and if I am ever interested in their cause, I will look on their website.

More crap like raffle tickets or cheap shitey pens arrives from charity, along with request to increase monthly donation.

I email their head of fundraising or equivalent asking nicely that I want to give them money to help their cause only and don't want any information from them and will not be increasing my donation and if they send me anything else, I will stop my direct debit without warning.

More crap arrives from charity and I cancel the direct debit. RSPCA, Oxfam, World Vision and others have lost a fiver a month off me after the above.

MacMillan have managed to stick to the agreement. I've donated to them for years and never had anything from them. Cats Protection are sailing close to the wind as I get a couple of postcards a year from them, but at least they don't ask for more money or sent a lot of junk.

[GhostsToMonsoon]

I've just had a letter this morning from a charity I have a direct debit to asking for more money. A few years ago, I made a one-off donation of £20 to another charity, and they must have spent most of that on sending me stuff after that until I emailed them to ask them to stop.

[scaryteacher]

I think a subscription to the DT is about that, or slightly more.

[Christmastree43]

I have a direct debt with blue cross and they asked at Christmas for an extra one off donation, which I did send - £20 - as it was Christmas.

Immediately after though and still before Christmas they sent more requests for more cash which really put me off and made me feel like they saw me as a bit of a mug and an easy target

I also hate the address labels, note cards, note pads etc cheap horrible tat that they send to try and guilt trip you

[Code42]

scary Telegraph online is £2 per week - worth it for Ambrose Evans-Pritchard alone

The Guardian are different, as they aren't commercially viable and are paid for by a trust rather than through sales. They've put their print price up by 20p recently, and there's been talk of them moving back to Manchester. They lost masses trying to go global, and were making massive losses before that too. I suppose it depends how much OP agrees with their stance (user name is a bit of a clue though ) whether she's prepared to support them at a commercially - comparable rate.

[violetgrey]

I stop donating to charities that use this tactic, I hate guilt tripping. I donate what I can afford anyway so if I donate a small amount it's because that's all I can afford.
@MorrisZapp you could email MSF to remove you from the mailing list. I donate to them from time to time and always tick the box that I don't want to receive any mail. After they sent me letters and some brochures a few times, I emailed them and asked to be removed from their mailing list. They were very apologetic and I haven't received anything from them since.

[TheMythOfFingerprints]

I always wonder how much the crap they send you costs.

I don't want pens/coasters/cards etc.

[Chocolateisa7adayfood]

But the Guardian isn't a charity! They should either charge (like the Times) or keep it free (like the Mail). Or limit the no. Of pages you can view, then charge (like the Telegraph). It's very odd that they keep begging for "supporters" as thiugh they were a charity.

[Chocolateisa7adayfood]

... As THOUGH they were a charity.

[FanDabbyFloozy]

I get this with the org that runs Wikipedia. I give when they launch their appeals but then get pestered for the duration of the campaign.

I presume very few people donate, hence the need to keep reminding people for weeks.

My real bug bear is the chugger on the street. I am surprised that reputable charities like Save the Children, Oxfam and Great Ormond Street allow such rude people to collect for them.
Recent Chugger: please give generously to the Sudan appeal
Me: I have done so online last week
Chugger: Yeah right..

[violetgrey]

Yes are right Chocolateisa7adayfood. They could adopt the New York Times model of allowing to read 10 articles per month and if you want more, you need to subscribe.

[stopfuckingshoutingatme]

at least Daily Mail online are free

[alonsypot]

Not sure what it's like these days - but actually surprisingly cheap to do mail packs.

We didn't do it in ours but we looked into it. You could buy stuff in bulk, cheap stuff anyway which is cheaper still as you're a charity; mailing house sorted out postage discounts and so on.

(It's not free obviously but costs less than you'd think and finds enough contacts who can eventually donate ten times more than the cost of the mailing.)

[scaryteacher]

Code42 I cancelled my DT subscription when they removed the ability to comment under the articles and change the layout.

I might reconsider if you can now get the crosswords without having to pay extra. It costs me €5 to get a DT, so it might be worth it. I'll go back to the paper copy when back in UK again.

Dh used to bring them home from the office, but someone had already done the crossword, it's the best paper for cleaning out litter trays though!