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!!!

I agree that charities need to have admin and fundraise.

I don't however think they need to send me useless tat in order to do so. I spend my working week (and beyond!) trying to convince people and companies to reduce waste and this kind of unsolicited exercise just completely contradicts that. I'm afraid this kind of marketing makes me refuse to donate to that charity on principle and it's not really something I forget quickly either.

The pens are rubbish but the coasters are nice. I don't send them any money though.

I'm still waiting for someone on any charity-themed thread to PM me to say "Dido, I am fascinated to hear that you work for a charity. Tell me more, I think I might like to make a donation"!

Me too, Dido, me too.

And yes, there is evidence to suggest that lower-income areas will donate more to charitable initiatives than higher-income ones. That's why (ironically) Children in Need and Comic Relief etc tend to raise more money in economically straightened times too. It's easier for people with less to sympathise with those in need for some reason, apparently.

It's not millionaires donating, mostly (and when they do, they tend to restrict the things they'll allow the charities to spend the money on, ie things like the "Joe F Bloggs Memorial Fund for Talented Kitties to get into Further Education" meaning the pennies that they get which don't come with such restriction become more important, NOT less.

But, you know, judge away. I genuinely hope you none of you ever need the help of a charity you wouldn't give your money to, because in the UK these days, charities are more needed than ever before. That's what the Big Society has done for us.

So explain to me please then why it is thought better to spend, say for example £10,000 on a mailshot sending out useless crap that just serves to annoy a large percentage of its recipients rather than spend £7,000 on a well thought out ad/magazine/flyer campaign that annoys very few people.

I donate to a few charities, none of which feel the need to bombard me yearly with items that clog up landfill. There are only 2 charities of which I refuse to donate to, one being The Red Cross because of the OTT crap they keep sending me and the other being the RSPCA for reasons not really pertinent to this thread. I personally can't see me ever needing the help of either.

Taxation benefits 10k on a mailshot will cost 10k. 7k on an advert will actually cost 8.4k, and they'll never be able to prove how effective the advert is. All charities have to be able to prove that their fundraising is effective, and know precisely how much funds were raised for every spent. With a mailshot, you'll know very easily how many responses you get as a direct result of the post going it, at no extra cost (count the replies!), and you'll know quite quickly, and efficiently.

To check how efective an advert in a magazine is, you'd have to commission a research team, which would cost, say, 1,000. Plus VAT, which would be a total cost of 1.4k and would take longer in time. So your "cheap" ad costs actually just 200 less than your "expensive" mail shot.

For a difference of just 2%, once you add the incidentals in, what would you do?

Charities have to spend a certain amount on publicity, raising awareness, mailshots etc. If no-one has ever heard of them who's going to donate?

I have no idea why my pound sign isn't working, I'm sorry about that.

The whole thing pisses me off, especially the crap plastic pens that I don't want to use yet feel too guilty about throwing away, due to the whole non-biodegradable aspect. At least with the (usually poor quality) cards and address labels, I can just chuck them in with the recycling.

With very few exceptions, I now only donate anonymously as I don't want to encourage them to send me tat, keep on phoning me, sell my details to others to send me tat, keep on phoning me, etc, etc, etc.

Medical research anyone - ever taken any medicinal drugs or used the services of a medical professional?

So much of that world is funded by charities...

I do. And I support medical research charities. Anonymously. I'll read a mail shot that explains what they are doing, the breakthroughs they have made, what they still hope to achieve and how much money they need in order to do so. That works on me. Yet another sodding plastic pen without a lid, or some address labels with pictures of kittens on them, does not.

Arse, thank you for explaining that.

I still won't change my stance on this, I don't believe it's an effective way to garner support and many big charities (NSPCC included) don't believe it's a good way to fundraise either.

Interestingly thisarticle from 2008 seems to suggest that The Institute of Fundraising has changed its code of practice to stop charities sending items such as umbrellas, slippers, aprons and Christmas cards when they are used to "generate a donation primarily because of financial guilt or to cause embarrassment". which may explain why the steady stream of crap has dwindled to just the Red Cross in my area.

Well it least it gives a few poor Chinese peasants a job making all the rubbish gifts for the charities to hand out, so it's not all bad news .

cardamomginger (Not having a go at all - I'm pleased you support the area of the world I work in) but how do you get mailshots if you support anonymously? Unless they are generic Postman delivered ones. Which smaller charities can't afford to do.

I am genuinely interested in how you find information on your chosen charities.

Because I have been on their lists in the past and/or someone else has sold them my details. I made the decision a few years ago to support anonymously after I made the disastrous mistake of responding to a telephone call from a marketing company working on behalf of Save the Children. I'd just come out of hospital, was feeling vulnerable, and like an idiot agreed to donate a monthly amount. From that point onwards I got call after call after call from, I believe, the same marketing company on behalf of other charities. Couldn't get them to delete my details or stop phoning me. In the end I telephoned Save the Children and told them that if they didn't get the marketing people to stop harassing me, I would cancel my direct debit. The calls continued, so I cancelled and told Save the Children what I had done and why. That money now goes to a different charity.

As for how I research charities, everyone has their own particular area of interest - children, cancer, environment, education - it's pretty easy to find out what's going on in terms current campaigns. So many people do sponsored events that this is also a way both to make donations and to find out information about charities and their activities.

If these sorts of mailshots are part of fund-raising campaigns, then charities that use them need to understand and accept that there will be some people who are turned off by them, possibly permanently. If I have £10 I want to donate to something cancer-related and (e.g.) Marie Curie does the whole 'pen and address label thing' when (e.g.) Macmillan does not, Macmillan (e.g.) is getting my tenner and Marie Curie (e.g.) just has to suck it up. I will make no apologies for that.

Thank you for your explanation.
I didn't ask for any apologies!

I know you didn't! It was just a statement to the world in general .