To think that The Red Cross should not waste their money sending out pens AND two coasters AND two greetings cards AND a bookmark!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LottieJenkins]

I got one. My Mum had one when she went to get the post at her old house and the lady I work for had one with her post when I let myself in yesterday!!! I cant believe they can justify spending that much money!!!

[daisychain01]

I do use the cards - I like the latest ones - and don't mind who knows they are free!

What it has on the back is the Red Cross Logo so it keeps spreading the word!

yy to the fact it is a psychological fact that those 'little gifts' arriving in the post make people feel obliged to give back. Hey, so what, well done RC for taking the initiative.

I don't give back by post, but I do drop money into Red Cross tins, RNLI and Sally Army as and when I can.

[Wurstwitch]

Sure, it's cheaper to send you stuff than send you nothing.

Does anyone other than me not appreciate the irony in this? It's total catch-22. Hilarious. What on earth kind of ridiculous rule obsessed tax-led economy in a bag do we live in, where it is cheaper to mail out mass-produced shite to clog up landfills and destroy resource, for the sole reason of raising charitable funds?

Complete nonsense. The tragic fact is, it must be true.

Don't think I have no sympathy for charities - I volunteer on the board of two, spend my weekends grant-writing and fund-raising, and hold down a ft job whilst fretting about how to raise money for x,y, and z not for profits.

The entire situation that means charities are forced to send out shite is completely flawed. Given that green peace is in the same boat, you would assume they have found other ways to raise funds? This is lazy marketing, and ethically suspect.

[NorbertDentressangle]

I think that when you sign up to regularly donate to a charity via Direct Debit there should be a box to tick to say that you don't want any publications, 'gifts', magazines etc through the post.

DP donates to a charity via DD and gets sent their magazine each quarter - he doesn't want it, has no interest in reading it so it goes straight in the recycling. The fact they keep sending it is actually making him reconsider his donation.

Surely if donators could opt out of such things then it would save the charity money??

[motherinferior]

He may have no interest in knowing about the charity he supports, but a lot of people do. Speaking as a journalist who writes for quite a few charity publications...

[TamerB]

I wrote and told them that I choose my charities and if they send any more I shall just keep them. They keep sending them- I use them. They were warned.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

I don't mind, I like a free pen.

[NorbertDentressangle]

motherinferior , that's why it should be an 'opt out' box to tick, so the people who want the publications would still get them. Alternatively a box could be ticked so the publication could be sent via email.


DP feels the money spent on the printing and postage would be better going to the charity. He can look on the website for any news or info if he wants to.

(we're not trying to put you out of work . Just out of interest, can I be nosy....do you write for charities that mean something to you/that you personally support or do you write for any that come forward and ask for you to write an article? I'm just thinking about how, as an ex-volunteer, I gave my time to a charity that I felt did some amazing work locally rather than just any charity that was looking for volunteers)

[motherinferior]

It's slightly different for me, because I'm a professional journalist so frankly I work for organisations that commission and pay me. It's nice if I support them, though. They get a good deal out of it, in any case.

[NorbertDentressangle]

ah right, yes that makes sense if it's your profession!

[GrendelsMum]

I also work for a charity, but luckily not one that needs to fundraise!

It helps that I genuinely do believe in the work the charity does, but at the same time we try to remain reasonably dispassionate about it, as I don't think getting het up and ranting goes down particularly well. If I needed to leave my current post for some reason, I'd be quite happy to work for the vast majority of charities.

[2rebecca]

It annoys me to, I support many of the aims of the red cross but wish they'd stop wasting their money by sending me crap. I've managed to get them to stop hassling me with phone calls but wish that when I agreed to do their direct debit i could have opted out of all the associated rubbish. Makes you want to just stick money in a tin anonymously.

[Viviennemary]

It must work but or they wouldn't do it. But I still think it's wrong. Any stuff I get like this goes straight in the bin. I still feel guilty though. I like the Red Cross as a charity but I just so disapprove of this kind of thing.

[BlackDaisies]

Wouldn't stop me donating if I saw a collection box but I had similar thoughts chucking mine away this afternoon. Interesting to read why they do it though.

[ladytyndale]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Red Cross, not since we had a doorstep chugger come round. After she'd convinced my DH he should set up a direct debit, she wouldn't let him donate £5 a month as their "minimum donation is £8 a month ( I think) and most people round it up to £10..." I'd arrived home by then so I took the bad person role and said in that case we wouldn't be able to donate at all, so she left with a sad face my 2yr old would be proud of. I've since been told the red cross are a very wealthy charity, and have problems spending the money they have.

[invicta]

I got my pen, note lets and coaster today! I won't donate- they sent the stuff unsolicited so I n't feel any obligation in sending them any money.

[ArsePaste]

There is no charity on the planet that doesn't spend money on administration. From the electricity to have an office (even if run from someone's home), or the payment for having a website, or a phone bill, or anything at all, charities have to pay incidental costs even if they are entirely staffed by volunteers - charities do NOT get things for free! The argument that you won't donate to a charity that spends donations on administration, or fundraising, is both based on a fallacy, and is incredibly naive.

The laws around running charities are incredibly complex, stricter even than on a "normal business", and it's heartbreaking when you hear people comparing a couple of hundred (or even thousand for that matter) to bankers salaries and the like.

Chuggers, are a different story, however, and I won't ever donate to a charity through one even though the means justify the ends for some charities.

[BackforGood]

YANBU. Everyone I Knnow who has had these has been cross abojt the waste of money, and it puts people off donating to them, IME

[Hotmad]

Have you ever had one that has sent a penny?? Can't remember what charity it was now but they sent a penny saying this was all it would take to do .......(fill in the gaps)
I always wonder how many pennies they actually sent out and who had that brilliant idea to waste actual money like that! :(

[DidoTheDodo]

Listen to the great sense arsepaste says before you consider the Penny Campaign or any others.
No charity runs on fresh air.

[HandN]

I've just got this through my door today too.... I'm contemplating sending it all back and telling them why!!!

[LokiDokey]

Obviously charities spend money on administration, I don't think anyone on this thread believes they don't. What the majority on here feel (IMO) is that there are better ways of targeting possible donators than sending out crap (and they are incredibly crap) coasters to thousands of houses.

As I said above, I live in a relatively poor area with high unemployment. Had some of that admin department actually bothered to research the area they were mass mail shotting they would have realised that the chances of getting donations from this area were minimal. Far better would have been to target the area 2 miles south where most of the houses are privately owned and unemployment is low. They didn't get the mail shots.

I'd much rather see a good, well thought out advertising campaign in a magazine or on a poster or even get a leaflet through the door. All of those would make me consider a donation. Sending me crap to try and guilt me into donating isn't going to work. Many charities have stopped doing just that for that reason.

[CarefullyAirbrushedPotato]

YANBU, this drives me mad too
who uses coasters anyway?

[2rebecca]

Me, I hate ring marked wood and housework. Our coffee tables are oak

[WipsGlitter]

My FiL is plagued with charity letters, the amount of crap he gets - pens, teddies, notelets, post-its - drives me mad and all ends up in the BIN!! What a waste.

[ifyourehoppyandyouknowit]

As I said above, I live in a relatively poor area with high unemployment. Had some of that admin department actually bothered to research the area they were mass mail shotting they would have realised that the chances of getting donations from this area were minimal. Far better would have been to target the area 2 miles south where most of the houses are privately owned and unemployment is low. They didn't get the mail shots.

Some research seems to suggest that people who are struggling themselves financially tend to donate more (time and money) to various causes.