I've experienced the direct sell from Shelter too. Interestingly though, I was quite impressed, for two reasons. I'd had a direct debit with them for a few years. They phoned one evening and asked if I'd increase it. What I liked was that, in a matter of fact way, they got straight to the point. They didn't warble on for ten minutes while I was trying to cook dinner. Being faced with a direct question was a good way of getting a direct answer, I thought 'well it has been at the same level for a few years now, why not?' and increased it.
Later I rationalised my DDs and changed to payroll giving (where it comes off your pay before tax). Shelter was the only one of 5 charities to notice that my usual DD hadn't come through in the first month. They called, I told them I'd changed payment method, fine.
Then I left that job and, being unemployed for a while, did nothing to replace the lapsed payroll giving. Some of the charities (and some I'd culled earlier) continued to send me magazines and things for at least a year and gave no indication of having noticed that I was no longer paying them. That did not impress, I'd rather be asked, once, what had happened.
The only reason I've left a membership-based charity in the past is that their admin was so totally hopeless that it gave me the impression the whole place must be badly run - and I told them so. So I want efficiency without pushiness.
Sending piles of tat or writing repeatedly suggests poor choices too but, my worst offender for endless letters and texts is the blood donation service. I accept they must have analysed costs and benefits and know it is worth continuing to write.
Having worked for a few small to medium charities, not in fundraising or membership but often sitting close enough to overhear, a few thoughts:
- Banks are universally useless. They fail to pay DDs, pay them when they shouldn't and are incapable of sorting out mistakes. Sometimes the bank screws up and the charity has to contact the member to check whether they intended not to pay. Often the member thinks the charity can sort out this out with the bank when in fact only they can authorise or cancel a DD on their account.
- People's partners can complicate things. One person sets up a DD, the other one cancels it. The charity calls to ask if they meant to cancel, they hadn't, they think it's the charity's mistake.
- Some people will sign up for the most bizarrely high DD contributions when faced with a 'face to face recruiter' (type with stall in supermarket, garden centre etc), presumably because they aren't thinking through the consequences of a monthly payment. Some of these people may be a bit vulnerable but very enthusiastic. Some just want the free stuff in the membership pack and fully intend to cancel immediately. Either way, the higher the DD the more likely to lapse fast. Lower-rate, steady memberships are the ones you really want.
- If you're serious about chosing a charity, go direct, not through these recruiters, who do have to be paid, out of your first year payment. Though, to reach the less motivated, they are worth it.
- 'It's the recession, I don't have the money' is a pretty watertight reason to give for reducing or cancelling, as all but the most tactless charites will have to take that at face value even though they know that half the time it's not the reason.
- At smaller charities the people who call you and the receptionists are often volunteers. They have some training but it's not the same as using paid staff - for better or worse. We used to have trustees (the most dedicated people ever, who've given hours a week for years of their lives) coming in to help staff with occasional call campaigns. They were incredibly polite.
My best gentle brush-off lines are, to chuggers (started because it was true, realised it would be useful even if not) 'I already support you' smile, everyone happy. To anyone else, 'I already have a set of direct debits to my chosen charities, can't support everyone, best of luck'.
There, you said there weren't any essays, now there are!