AIBU to think charity shops are there to make money, not provide cheap stuff?

[TinfoilHattie]

Cards on the table - I'm a volunteer at a charity shop. One of the large ones which has branches nationwide.

We have one regular "customer" who is nicknamed the Smiling Assassin by the volunteers because she comes in a lot (3 or 4 times a week), smiles and says hello to everyone, then spends the next 5 minutes bitching about the prices. She rarely buys anything. She is of the opinion that our shop is there to provide her with cheap stuff. Cheap as in 50p for practically everything. She is horrified when volunteers explain that we're trying to raise as much as we can for the charity, and the best way of doing that is by pricing realistically - not giving away Jaeger suits or "mother of the bride" type outfits for £1.

She was particularly horrified and commented loudly on a bracelet we have in the cabinet priced at £170 - it's antique, 18 ct gold, emerald and sapphire, and has been valued by a jeweller. We would be daft pricing it at £19.99, even if it is the most expensive item in the shop by a long way

So anyway, what do you think charity shops are there for - raising money or providing cheap things?

(Disclaimer before everyone starts about their local charity shop which prices bobbled Primark tops at £29.99 - mistakes happen, stuff slips through the net. Even if the manager has a "price to sell" policy, she/he isn't going to check each and every item and some items will be priced too high or too low by well-meaning volunteers.).

I think it is possible for the charity to do both.

Merchant as a matter of interest, how much have you spent in charity shops in the last year?

Sometimes it is definitely possible for the charity to do both - but if they have the chance to make more money by charging high (e.g. a generally deprived area of town with a small population of affluent hipsters prepared to pay silly "vintage" prices) then it is the charity's duty to maximise income for its objects by any legal means that aren't so questionable as to damage its brand (that last bit is the wriggle room of course).

Well in that case all I can say is that it was somebody very trigger-happy on the report button, because I wasn't offensive.

You are still being a patronising and haughty so-and-so, as of course you know, but let's leave it at that. I'll hide the thread now so I'll never know if that is what passes for a personal attack on mn these days.

senua that's totally irrelevant- everyone's situation is different. I have spent some money (not a lot) on charity shops this year. I've donated bags and bags of stuff. Is that ok??

zoe am I still being patronising? Guess it's just a personal failing of mine. I'll work on it.

One of our towns charity shop sells all items of clothing for a pound, I always donate, I like the thought that someone struggling would be able to buy one of DS warm expensive winter coats. I've seen my donations in there, yes it possibly does attract eBay sellers but it also provides a valuable service for the community. I think there should be clothing banks in operation or a support type scheme where you'd be linked to someone with similar aged children and be able to pass on the good stuff that your child has outgrown.When I had Ds, I had lots of brand new baby girl clothes still in the packets, I asked my midwife if she knew anyone who was struggling and could make use of them, she just suggested they went to the charity shop, my health visitor didn't want to know neither.

zoe if you had written, 'I'm finding your comments really patronising - please treat me with a little more respect,' then I'm sure your post would have stood.

And before you accuse me, I didn't report it. In fact, if someone had directed it at me, I'd have happily let it stand because you pretty much lost the argument right then and there.

But it was definitely a personal attack. If you've been on Mumsnet for 8 years then you must surely know the difference?

I have spent some money (not a lot) on charity shops this year.

Now who has a hierarchy of respect for shops?
It seems a bit hypocritical to pontificate so lengthily when you don't actually use them that much yourself.

SweetCharity has it - places are struggling for saleable stock in many areas, certainly where I live. The charity is obliged to make the most it can from what it receives, and it doesn't matter if 10 people say £4 is too expensive for a Primark shirt if the shop is still sure one person will buy that shirt within a week, and it doesn't matter if pricing it cheaper would make it vanish within a day if the alternative is an empty space on a rail - which we have here as people so often sell anything decent themselves.

I used to sell a lot on Ebay during maternity leave and quickly realised that a bidding war starting at 99p was all very well but often stopped around £1.50. Starting at £5 might mean only one bid but a heck of a lot more money for me. It's the same principle.

Personally I hate colour-coordinated shops and want to find my size, see if there's anything I like, and either try it on or bugger off.

Personally I hate colour-coordinated shops and want to find my size, see if there's anything I like, and either try it on or bugger off.

I'm totally with you on that.

I always thought charity shops had a double function - to raise funds and offer items at prices that people who don't have much money can afford. So I find it surprising when I see boutique type charity shops because I wonder who the intended customer is. None of the people I know who live in the affluent areas with the fancy charity shops ever buy secondhand but that's just my experience. I guess a lot of folk with more money would shop there because of ethics.

A family member who happens to be an economist calculated once that in a London high street charity shop of every £1 income only 1p goes to the actual charity. The rest goes on maintaining the charity shop.

I love charity shops, even more when the whole street is nothing but, and I do charity shopping as a leisure activity. However, my favourite ones are those that sell everything for £1, or even 99p. I think charity shops exist to provide cheap stuff in exchange for visibility on the high street; and they also provide meaningful occupation/work experience for those who can not work for various reasons. They also serve the purpose of recycling.

senua er what? My own personal use of charity shops has literally no relevance to any of this! We're discussing the purpose and principle of them. You have no idea what I consider a little or a lot. You're really scraping the barrel here!

My old neighbours had a £300,000 house and privately educated children paid for by the income of a charity shop area manager

Anyway, I think we've established what the actual aims of charity shops are. Any other functions are a bonus.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?
There's a lot of interesting debate and opinion on here, and only you who seems to think that something is "fact" just because you said it. Lots of other opinions have been voiced.

Personally I hate colour-coordinated shops and want to find my size, see if there's anything I like, and either try it on or bugger off

Absolutely, 100% agree with this.

I think that the idea is, well for me anyway, I get a bit of a bargain and a charity benefits. So yes, I don't expect every for 50p, but do get a bit annoyed when I seen 2nd Primark stuff at a similar price to what it cost brand new.

A family member who happens to be an economist calculated once that in a London high street charity shop of every £1 income only 1p goes to the actual charity. The rest goes on maintaining the charity shop.

Blimey, he/she must have had a lot of time on their hands. They should have done some volunteering in a charity shop.

My own personal use of charity shops has literally no relevance to any of this!

Do as I say, not as I do.

We're discussing the purpose and principle of them.

Are we? I thought you were still stuck on page 1 and customer behaviour. Do you always change tack when the discussion doesn't go your way.

No BackForGood - if you read through you'll see that some posters (not me, in fact) have explained clearly, and with close, explicit reference to the legal definition and status of a charity, what those aims are obliged to be.

In this world, some things are facts, you know.

senua I'm referring to the actual purpose of the thread, as stated by OP.

Could you possibly explain what you mean by my 'changing tack'? The discussion has been, explicitly and implicitly, all the way through, about the purpose of charity shops. It has not been about my own shopping habits.

Can you explain where I've deviated from this? Thanks very much.

zoemacguire if you ever come back to this thread, just to let you know if I ever saw you IRL I'd buy you a pint

completely agree with everything you and senua 'have written.

Thanks Rain

I think it's fair enough to have preferences about shops, even to believe that certain shops 'should' do things a certain way (even if your reasons are a little 'because that's what I want').

But when you learn that shops run by charitable organisations are governed by very strict rules which determine their pricing policy etc, it seems a bit... odd to persist in this view that the shops have 'dual aims'. That's simply wrong, as others have explained. The shops may have a dual effect but that's obviously not the same thing.

Many MNetters don't, it seems, believe in facts, only opinions!

I realise I've rubbbed some posters up the wrong way - but, do you know what, people spouting bollocks rub me up the wrong way.

Charity shops have a single primary purpose. It suits some people to pretend it's otherwise because that then seems to justify their snotty judgements about the 'greedy' prices. But they're wrong.

There's a lot of interesting debate and opinion on here, and only you who seems to think that something is "fact" just because you said it. Lots of other opinions have been voiced.

But opinions don't affect the validity of facts.

The fact is that charity shops are NOT there to provide affordable goods. You can have an opinion about that fact, but the fact remains.

Those who think they are meant to provide affordable goods are mistaken.

But carry on, senua - I'm sure you'll come up with a valid point somewhere along the line. I'm out.