To think those high pressure charity street fundraisers should be banned

[startrekk]

This isn't really something I have given much thought to until recently. I always just avoid all contact and walk past the charity fundraisers quickly, ensuring I don't get caught listening to their hard sell.

However recently in the small village where I live there have been a team of around 5 and they are stood apart from each other pretty much blocking the main high street meaning you have to actually ask them to get out of the way as they have taken to hovering in front of you as you get close. I've had them pretend I have dropped something in order to get my attention and comment on my outfit or shopping bags as I've gone past.

I feel sorry for the small independent coffee shop that is located in the spot they have chosen to stand, as everyone avoids this path like the plague now and goes along the path further down.

I know it raises money for charity but I don't feel that is a good enough reason for these high pressure sales tactics to be allowed. There's nothing wrong with standing with a bucket and hoping people give change, but this is just ridiculous! I'd love to know where they learn their 'techniques' for selling.

AIBU? Anyone else who can't stand charity street fundraisers (charity muggers)?

My ex Boyfriend worked on knocking on doors for certain charities when we were 19.

Its a weird Multi level business (prymid scheme) type thing as he also had the 'opportunity' to stand on the high street.

Basically the patter went could you donate 19p a day for deaf children/neglected animals/cancer research - after spending 30 minutes signing people up they realise that they have to donate for a minimum of a year works out as £££ - less than half of the money goes to the charity while the seller gets around £30(?) And £50 goes to the 'company'. Those dancing around the streets don't get an hourly pay as they're sold that it's a business opportunity that once they get good at it they can also train the next lots of street dancers. Its all very culty with him meeting at 8am for a high intensity dancing motivation meeting that they're all going to be millionaires and get lots of sales - he worked 14 hour days 6 days a week and only got £92 but he had to pay for petrol to get to different neighbourhoods. He was totally brainwashed that he was going to get his own company and those who failed weren't dedicated enough.

@ladybee28

Thanks for your very wise, considered input - it's very much appreciated.

You say the magazine is a 'loaded product', but then you end that sentence not by describing how the product of the magazine is loaded (which I don't think it is – it covers a broad range of topics and the headlines are pretty much never to do with homelessness), but the fact that it's sold to you on the street by the seller through eye contact and a smile (when done as per the Big Issue Code of Conduct, at least).... hence my point in my original post about how being approached by people who have something to sell is what gets people's backs up, not actually the detail of what they're selling / offering.

My guess is that if Big Issue vendors were selling loaves of bread – neutral, legal products as per your post – people would still get annoyed about them. It's not the mag that irritates, it's the fact that we have to interact with someone and decline. Or be rude, as many PPs have said is their approach.

Sorry for any confusion – when I described it as ‘loaded’, I was referring to the existence and sales method of the magazine itself. I agree with you that the content is varied and relatively balanced (probably a bit left-leaning, as you’d expect) and is by no means about homelessness (except the occasional article, as one of a range of topics).

However, and others may heartily disagree with me here, I just think, content-wise, it’s harmless but a completely non-stand-out magazine (and quite thin for the price) with usually bland, generic content similar to what you could read in countless other cheaper magazines or the free supplements that drop out of a weekend paper, which you glance through but would never dream of buying separately.

My point is that the content of the magazine itself would not be sufficient to convince many people to buy it if it were just sitting on the shelf in a shop rather than being actively sold by somebody you know is in a vulnerable position who is calling to you and making sad puppy eyes at you.

I completely agree with you that if somebody in the street were selling anything by approaching passers-by, rather than having a well-signed stall (ideally with prices clearly shown) and waiting for people to approach them, folk would also be irritated by this. People have no great objection to passive market stalls or, of course, shops (although they still don’t want the pressure to buy now/get a store card/be aggressively upsold/take out extended warranties on a £5 toaster etc – they want to ask for help only if they need it, receive help and then still be free to buy only what they want or decide not to and leave).

However, saying “No thanks” to somebody calling out to you trying to sell you bread, double glazing, a commercial newspaper, whatever, as a normal business venture, brings with it the implicit “I don’t want/need/use it, I can’t afford it or think it’s worth the price and/or there are better alternatives out there”. Basically, you are saying “I am not interested in your business's PRODUCT.”

Saying “No thanks” to a Big Issue vendor carries the clear implication in many people’s thinking that it appears (to the vendor and/or other friends with you or passers-by) that you are saying “I am not interested in YOU or YOUR NEED.” Maybe people feel guilty that they don’t have change, can’t spare the money, don’t want the magazine and/or don’t want to patronise the seller by buying it out of pity or aren't convinced that the seller is genuinely vulnerable and not running it as a calculated business plan.

Concerning charity fundraisers who approach you, as we've already mentioned, people find this an unwelcome intrusion and maybe even a violation of their personal space. The very well-researched reasons and responses that you outline may, in part, lead to a vicious circle or, at least, ever-diminishing returns:

1. A polite fundraiser approaches people and asks if they’d like to donate. Many people treat the question as rhetorical and ignore them or say “No thanks” and they smile and reply “No problem – have a good day.” Not that much is raised.
2. Less polite fundraisers, particularly those on commission, decide to try a bit of high-pressure salesmanship to make people feel awkward about saying No (maybe following the response with “Aw, that’s a real shame you don’t care about children with cancer.”) This is still a new thing that passers-by aren’t expecting and they get caught off-guard and end up giving (albeit not happily). Much more is raised and other fundraisers notice this.
3. The ante is upped and ever higher and higher-pressure becomes the norm. Any polite fundraisers get very little look-in. Some fundraisers on commission don’t care how terrible they make people feel or upset them, as long as they get the sign-up and the bank details. Much more is raised (at least in sign-up commission).
4. People get wise to it, see any kind of charity collector, treat them as an enemy – a predator - go on the defensive and assume they’re about to be the most aggressive fundraiser in the world who will simply refuse to take No for an answer, so they react accordingly, even before the collector says a word, which is very unpleasant for the more polite collectors who were only ever planning on extending a brief invitation to give and instantly accept a No with pleasant grace.
5. More and more people avoid the fundraisers, leaving the less scrupulous/desperate ones with little apparent choice but to actively seek out the more vulnerable-looking people and go in all-guns-blazing.
6. Everybody then hates almost ALL charity collectors, except for maybe the doddery little old ladies or the Scouts rattling a tin in the high street.
7. A relatively-few unscrupulous people have poisoned the well, so many decent collectors give up and the remaining ones persist with the dog-eat-dog status quo – or at least this is the assumption that people will now make when catching a glimpse of ANY charity collector (between the age of 16-65, at least). They know that they’re despised anyway, so they don’t bother trying to be gentle with people who look at all savvy or determined.
8. People consciously stop going to areas where they know the fundraisers will be. Much less is raised.
9. Charity bosses and third-party agencies furiously analyse the results and desperately wonder why sign-ups and donations have gone down so much.

I thought hard & did research before picking which good causes to set up standing orders for - a few local ones and Fair Play for Women - so I have no guilt in speeding past chuggers with a blank face or a quick No thanks.

^^THIS

Especially now, in the age of the internet, any company or individual can set up a website with pages and pages of information that I as a buyer/donor might want to know before I make my decision. They are also free to give an email address, Facebook/Twitter/Insta hande, phone number, physical address or whatever which I can then use to contact them should I want more information.

The idea that it's reasonable to expect people to choose a charitable cause or supplier of goods or services based on who presents them with one of thousands of options and/or badgers them the most is outrageous.

It's no different at all from when I go to the supermarket. There are thousands of products to choose from (and some which are passively promoted in more prominent positions, which is fine with me). I look at the available choices (which, of course, also include opting for none or trying a different shop), I decide what I want to buy, I put it in my trolley, I take it to the till and I pay for it and take it home.

If Morrisons suddenly changed their format and put a big long desk six feet inside the door, expecting people to stand there whilst assistants methodically brought one of every available product in the store to each of which they were required to say an instant Yes or No - they'd go the way of Woolworths, Toys R Us, HoF & HMV before the week was through.

@HelenaDove "Are you actually saying i should have gone and bought formula for the BI seller that asked for it or given that male BI seller £30 to pay his rent.

If i did these things every time someone asked how do you suggest i pay my own bills."

No, that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

I have no time for them. I do not give money to, nor sign up for anything or anyone that stops me in the street, knocks on my door or cold calls me.
I just say no thankyou and keep walking. If they call after me I ignore them or repeat no thankyou.

I wouldnt give to any charity that had the funds to employ chuggers anyway. Its always the big masive fucking charities with CEOs that are on 150K that employ chuggers. They can fuck off. Theyre a business

These cretins see basic politeness and common courtesy as weakness, so I have given up on that approach.

Now, I just completely blank them, and I couldn’t give a flying fuck if they think I’m stuck up, arrogant or rude.

I don't know which fundraising companies people have had contact with before or when but none of the ones I know today work on commission. They all get an hourly wage, normally £10-£12 per hour, plus travel expenses. Some might give bonus if they are doing well, but the pyramid scheme thing that Iaintdonenothing describes if nothing I've heard in the last 5 years that I've known folk working in the industry.

I used to work with adults with learning disabilities and the amount that used to get talked into handing over their bank details by these chuggers was disgusting

Realising that my own DS has learning difficulties and didn't understand direct debits, a local chugger for a major charity somehow persuaded him to go to an ATM and withdraw actual cash "for the charity"

Luckily the staff know DS and also know that he's always supported by carers when visiting the bank, and when one of them approached the chugger he hared off into the distance

When contacted about this, the charity insisted it was purely a matter for the agency and the agency denied it had happened at all

CosmicCanary we had that guy in Hull, I think it turned out his 'charity' book was a fraud and he got chased out for being aggressive.