Angry calls from public push charity fundraiser to quit

Craig Allan, 19 January 2010, 11:15

The article does not say what the offending images were. Regardless, of what they were, I'm sure the intent was genuine and this simply dconfirms what I have claimed for a while; that Britain has become a nation of self effacing moaners.

Were I in Mr Hulse's position, recieving an irate call from uninformed complainant, then I would feel the need to point out that these charities are trying to raise funds that save ro change peoples lives and I we should be supporting thme in their aims, not making staff in an already under resourced, predominantly voluntary sector quit their jobs.

These selfish idiots make me so angry!

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 19 January 2010, 11:17

The article does not say what the offending images were. Regardless, of what they were, I'm sure the intent was genuine and this simply confirms what I have claimed for a while; that Britain has become a nation of self-effacing moaners.

Were I in Mr Hulse's position, recieving an irate call from an uninformed complainant, then I would feel the need to point out that these charities are trying to raise funds that save or change peoples lives and that we should be supporting them in their aims, not making staff in an already under resourced, predominantly voluntary sector, quit their jobs.

These selfish idiots make me so angry!

[Report this post]

Roy Thompson, 19 January 2010, 13:37

Craig, So you think it helps to raise funds by upsetting your target audience?

Don't you think that for every one person who telephoned to the charity in question to complain there must have been many, many more who just threw the mailing in the bin?

You seem to be saying that Charities never get it wrong and that it just a case of bullying the public into giving over their hard earned cash.

I wonder sometimes about people like you who seem to think that Charities have a right to funds from the public just because they 'are doing good work'.

So much for building a relationship with your funders then.

[Report this post]

ALISON CORDINGLEY, 19 January 2010, 13:47

To pass judgement on all of the sector,then quit the sector, on the basis of irate phone calls is i guess overreacting, unless this article is not presenting the full facts, Does the fundraiser expect that the amount of direct mailshot would be any less in the private sector? and yes it is inevitable that some charities e.g those supporting unpopular causes, will "upset" some people, but they`re stil entitled to call thenselves charities, you cant please everybody all of the time.

[Report this post]

Tim Craig, 19 January 2010, 14:11

There is a way to get yourself removed from the Mailing List put offending mail back into postbox marked returned to sender. My company Veridata processes returned and undelivered mail if it is one of our customers we open, sort, scan the relevant details give them back to the customer who can then suppress/cleanse their database. This should ensure that the individual is not mailked by that company at the address captured.

It has to said that until the introduction of PAS2020 and new EU Directives on Landfill there has been a reluctance on the part of many companies to do much if anything about returned mail. 80% of the carbon footprint is in the end of life solution and we recycle all waste paper locally.

Tim Craig

www.veri-data.co.uk

[Report this post]

Jon Dytor, 19 January 2010, 15:26

I cant agree with Craig Allen on this - how can one person resigning automatically equal that Britain is a nation of self-effacing moaners? That seems a bit of a stretch to me.

As for the article in question, Charities really do need to listen to the feedback from their supporter base. If your supporters start to turn on your methods of fundraising, then maybe you need to try new methods.

I think the key thing to remember is to contact your supporters on their term, not yours. Be it direct mail, email, or maybe even social media. Once you can reach people on their terms, they will be more likely to listen to your story, and then hopefully, support you.

[Report this post]

Tim , 19 January 2010, 16:20

Well said, Roy Thompson! There are too many people who think they can play the 'we're doing good work' card to make absolutely any moral problem go away.

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 20 January 2010, 11:32

Thanks Roy! Between you and Tim, you have confirmed exactly what I was trying to point out i.e. that "leave us alone and don't upset me" attitude. Well I'm sorry children, but welcome to the real world. People are suffering and you don't want the people who can reduce that suffering to ask for your help in case a few realistic pictures upset you. Grow up for goodness sake and ask how you would feel if it was someone you knew that needed that help. And, I would suggest people like you are NOT the "target audience", no, that would be people who do care.

[Report this post]

Tim , 20 January 2010, 12:35

Craig, you do realise that you are speaking to a beneficiary of these charities? As somebody who is disabled twice over, I am already in the 'real world' of suffering and I am fed up with charities behaving badly on my behalf, believing that their "holy" status gives them carte blanche to get money aggressively.

I also recommend that you google the following fallacies:

Argumentum ad hominem.

Appeal to emotion.

[Report this post]

Roy Thompson, 20 January 2010, 12:47

Oh dear Craig. If these people who you are targetting care so much why are they complaining?

Strange as it may seem people like you do not have the monopoly on caring.

Those of us who are a little more mature realise that in order to get people to part with their cash you have to engage with them. Not just shock them rigid and then say "Give us your money!! "

Your kind of arrogance spells out exactly everything that is wrong with the charity sector today. You know nothing at all about me yet you assume I care nothing about the suffering that exists in the world.

You assume that I do not already donate large sums of money to worthy charities in order to alleviate some of that suffering.

Or that maybe I am already involved in other ways assisting others and relieving their pain.

Perhaps when you learn a little humility you could come down from that high horse and spend some time in the real world.

Roy

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 20 January 2010, 12:57

Tim, how I could possibly have realised you private circumstances from a forum? And I won't patronise you with ineffectual drivel, but I do now understand that you too have a strong view on such matters. But I simply don't agree with the view that these organisations should stop telling people about what's happening out there, through the use of images that upset a few people. It is not that they are misrepresenting you or acting badly on your behalf, it is simply that they are desperately trying to raise funds so that they can in turn use these funds to help others. I lost my father to cancer many years ago and am currently losing a close family friend through MS and there is absolutely nothing I wouldn't do to support any organisation that might have offered help to either. We have all been touched by tragedy in our lives, which is why I find it hard to listen to people complaining about the use of graphic \(or otherwise) images to draw attention to a cause. I like many others can't afford to donate as much as I would like to the charities of my choice, but I do not sit and watch epics fundraisers such as Live Aid, contribute five quid and then think I've done my bit and can then criticise any other organisation who dares ask for support. Britain is a country of moaners!

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 20 January 2010, 14:09

Roy, why is it that my initial response has now got you defending yourself with statements like "You assume that I do not already donate large sums of money to worthy charities in order to alleviate some of that suffering. Or that maybe I am already involved in other ways assisting others and relieving their pain." Did my comments make you feel guilty Roy? Were you one of the people who complained? Is that what you're doing now?

It's nothing to do with how much you or I donate. Now, I did not set out to elicit these emotions, or to make myself the target of your attacks, but it's good to see that something makes you think about this topic, which is far bigger and deeper than an individual leaving a job in the sector.

And I don't believe any of my comments are about arrogance or monopolies or even about rousing your vitriolic temper. Nor are they intended to make you feel the need to defend yourself to such a degree. No, they are simply my opinion on the state of the UK today when a few photographs create such a flood of complaints.

You say the "people who you are targeting" assuming that I am in some way involved with a charity or representing one? I'm not. Likewise I don't have a "monopoly on caring" as you suggest, but I do care nevertheless. And then you have the audacity to suggest that I should "learn a little humility". Let me ask you Roy, who's being arrogant now?

And this makes my point even stronger; you are defending your right to complain, which is your prerogative. I am simply remarking on how the Brits have become an entire nation of Mary Whitehouse's and are not prepared to let others do what they have to do to get the job done. If it upsets you or if you don't like it, don't subscribe to it.

And before you find some other topics to attack me on let me give you some background so you at least have something accurate to work with: I am middle-aged and able bodied. I am an amateur naturalist, so an animal lover, of everything from trees, plants and insects to reptiles, mammals and primates. I am not a believer in religion, so no help there. I am an observer and believer in people and in my lifetime I have seen more of the dreadful things that people can do to each other than most will ever even imagine, so I'm no goody two shoes either.

I simply point out that sometimes there are more important things to ponder than what comes through our letter box. Even you must understand that.

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 20 January 2010, 14:37

Oh, and before I leave this altogether. To all those of you who decry the methods used by the charities to raise funds.... have any of you watched the news recently..... there's a little occurrence happening in Haiti? And every single image we see, not through our letter box, but on our TV screens, is vile, heart-rending and never-ending! And yet the main fundraiser for this disaster, The Disasters Emergency Committee \(DEC) raised £25m in a few days thanks to the generosity of the majority of UK citizens. Proving that the vast majority are prepared to get on with it and support causes, whatever they may be. If the people who complained about these images were the majority, then the DEC would be penniless.

[Report this post]

Roy Thompson, 20 January 2010, 16:51

Oh Craig

I am not trying to defend myself I am merely pointing out your arrogance in assuming that:

" I would suggest people like you are NOT the "target audience", no, that would be people who do care".

How do you know whether I care or not?

You even had to 'apologise' to Tim as you made all sorts of assumptions about him.

Just for your information I have never compained about any image produced by a charity and would never do so. Once again you make unfounded assumptions from your ivory tower.

The trouble with people like you is that you only see what you want to see.

My point was \(and remains) that in order to get money out of the public you need to engage with them. You seem to think that all you have to do is to show tham a few shocking photographs and they will all fall over each other to give you that money. How naieve.

Yes Haiti has shown us some terrible images and yes the public has responded. But how many of them will continue to give to the major charities on a regular basis. Week in. Week out? So what should we do? Keep showing these images over and over until the public bores of them and then make the next set of images even more graphic? and the next set.......

Incidentally - it is EVERYTHING to do with "how much you and I donate". And everyone else for that matter. Isn't that the point of the exercise?

[Report this post]

Roy Thompson, 20 January 2010, 16:55

Oh and I forgot to mention:

"If it upsets you or if you don't like it, don't subscribe to it."

If people do that doesn't that rather undermine the whole point of the fundraising?

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 21 January 2010, 12:21

Yes Roy, it appears that it's only when I make assumptions that it's arrogance. Yet you have made insulting, aggressive, assumptions in every post you have made, but you seem incapable of identifying the arrogance in yourself. I would never make the suggestion, as you would tell me it's arrogance, but perhaps I can ask the question of you, so why is it that you're the only one who has taken this so personally and responded so aggressively? Aggression does not make you a better at debating! And my point about the majority of people in the UK supporting the Haiti appeal demonstrates my point perfectly, that people are in fact not shocked by these images, but instead motivated to help if indeed they can. And yet you are still defending the indefensible, petty moaners who complained about these images. Don't you think that if these images all of a sudden stopped, these same people would just find something else to complain about! Of course they would, it's what they do! And for some obscure reason, you think they're right. And don't take that as me meaning they don't have that right, of course they do..... I just prefer not hearing about it and I don't believe I'm alone in that. With regards to your fabrication about me apologising to Tim, because of my "arrogance" I am not aware of ever having apologised, instead I responded with respect for someone who expressed himself openly and honestly without arrogance or aggression. But if that's the level you are prepared to stoop to, to get someone to speak to you and to perpetuate your forceful views, then I'm afraid I must leave you and your perfect self to it. I'm out!

[Report this post]

One Small Voice?, 21 January 2010, 13:53

Regarding Roy's comment:

"If it upsets you or if you don't like it, don't subscribe to it."

If people do that doesn't that rather undermine the whole point of the fundraising"

Yes, but I think you're being a little disengenuous Roy. I think, no, I'm sure, Craig's point is that meaningful public disapproval \(reflected in poor rates of return on marketing activities) will see decent charities reflecing on and ammending their practice. So why the need to impose more regulation than is applied to the commerial sector simply because some people feel that in order to be a charity you should avoid ever offending anybody.

What annoys me is the ceaseless handwringing and self-flagalation that seems to be the typical chairty response to every individual complaint, whether or not it's representative. Whilst understanding what our public want and responding to it, we also need to have confidence in who we are and what we stand for. The balance is wrong in my view, and it's not tipped in the direction that most people seem to think. My advice in three words... Grow a pair.

[Report this post]

Roy Thompson, 21 January 2010, 14:06

Dear Craig

Since you do not seem able to understand my points let me try and make it simple:

1. You say I have the right to complain - it is my perogative. Yet were I to do so you would accuse me of being a moaner.

2. So far in this forum no one has jumped to your defence. Indeed, apart from myself others have criticised your stance.

3. You seem incapable of grasping the simple premise that in order for a charity to obtain ongoing funding from committed supporters it needs to build a relationship with them. Ask any fundraiser. Alienating your supporters is not the way to achieve this.

4. A number of people complain about images that have upset them and suddenly we are a nation of moaners - really! Don't you think you have things a teensy bit of of context?

As for me being arrogant I would ask you to read my comments again carefully. Patronising maybe, but I rather think all the arrogance has been on your side.

[Report this post]

Craig Allan, 21 January 2010, 16:47

I am really annoyed with myself for doing this after bowing out, but you just haven't got a clue what you're talking about Roy have you. You are not interested in making a point you just want to be a nasty little pest. You are the incapable one sir... incapable of responding in a plausible manner and instead opting for bile. This is another choice you made on your own and got wrong. I really am finished this time and feel confident that other readers will now have identified you as the bully you are, intellectually bankrupt and not worthy of the time of decent thinking people.

[Report this post]

Roy Thompson, 21 January 2010, 20:16

Craig

Somehow I knew you would want the last word!

[Report this post]

Christopher Turner, 26 January 2010, 13:58

I saw Craig Allan's comment in the print edition of TS. It is that kind of "customer is wrong" attitude that persists in some fundraisers and that left unchanged will lead inevitably to statutory regulation.

 Dismissing an upset potential donor's concerns or anger as uninformed and in the wrong demonstrates a lack of understanding and empathy. So too does the IoF initiative "Right To Ask".

 Charities have got to look at themselves and their communications first and not seek to blame their own shortcomings on the 'uninformed' public. Those who do this well won't collect complaints.

[Report this post]