[Gaz]

I get hacked off with chuggers at the best of times - working for years just off of Princes St. meant most lunchtimes would get at least 4 or 5 stops, often from the same person in both directions. But today takes the cake - assuming the cake is made of fag ash and dog turds.

For starters, the opening line:
"Will this be the man who cares?"

Right. First off, thanks for implying if I don't stop and talk to you (and bear in mind you have no idea at all who I am or what I'm doing) I don't care. Let's just kick it all off with a guilt trip/preloaded snide remark should I not stop, shall we?

Secondly, when I reply "well I do care, but I don't sign up for things in the street, sorry", I'd suggest not replying "there's no need to be cocky". Mainly because I'm actually not being cocky (what with caring and signing up to monthly charity donations not being inextricably linked), I'm being fairly polite given your crappy opening gambit.

And then, just as a finale, don't tut as I walk off.

I appreciate that charities make money this way, but there needs to be some serious regulation. The collectors should never be allowed to work on a commission basis (as some do), and *any* tactic that tries to guilt trip people into signing up should be banned. And also, they shouldn't be allowed to employ utter helmets like the bloke I dealt with today.

[Rachel Parkin]

They pretty much all work on a commission-only basis which is why they can so horribly pushy. 'But surely not', some of you are thinking. 'Surely they must be covered by minimum wage legislation or something?'

Well, no. You see the companies exploit a legal loophole and employ the chuggers on a self-employed basis, to get round those little inconveniences like, you know, having to pay them a decent wage. And on top of that they are expected to pay for their own travel expenses up front then claim it back afterwards. Not easy when you've been paid sod all to start with.

I hate the idea of chugging with a passion. Someone I know did it for a few months and it was horrible. As much as I hate the idea of chuggers, I don't take it out on them personally because it's a godawful job that they're probably going to do for less than a week before they come to their senses and realise that they are being royally shafted.

If you want to take it up with anyone, take it up with the companies who employ them.

[Gaz]

Normally I would, but in this case it was very much the man and not the charity. He was just an absolute arse.

[Siobhán]

My brother was chugger. He danced and looked happy so people approached HIM.

I have however had chuggers make me cry by laying the guilt on thick. Those people would be arses in any sales job (and it is sales)

Also the way chuggers are paid is atrocious and needs review. A better payment system would be the best way.

(side note: they should all, by law say they work on commission as I recall (many do, the really arsey ones tend not to), if not report them to their supervisor/the company please)

[Golden Judas]

One of my best mates is a Chugger(and has been for 8years!).His company pays an hourly rate which is above minimum wage and they get a bonus for the sign ups.So he teaches his teams to be polite-hell he sacked people for being overly aggressive in their approaches.Like most things in life you cannae tar everyone wi the same brush.

[Joinee Varwell]

I despise chugging too. Sadly I am rarely polite to them and will say "no" firmly or say something silly like "sorry, I don't speak English".

I'm honestly surprised companies (and yes, that's what they're behaving like) do this - is it really profitable and does anyone here want to admit to ever signing up to a chugger's pitch? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing why - not to have a go, just to understand why people are happy to listen to them.

[Mr Phil]

I normally stop and chat about their charity, but make it clear I'm probably not going to sign up. Some of them push their luck a bit. Most of them are alright. I usually throw in a plug for Hoja.

[spannz15]

i go with im under 21 i cant sign up for anything, seen as most of them are 21 and over some are even 25 plus. works and for now its actually true

[Thorners (a.k.a. Claire)]

I'm try to alway be polite to chuggers (even when they are rude/creepy/intimidating, all of which I've encountered at various times) as I appreciate that they are just people trying to do a job. I do, however, have a policy of trying to not support charities who use chuggers, as I believe there are better ways of raising awareness and find the whole setup disquieting. There are so many charities who would like my money, I choose to divert my funds (paltry as they are) into ones that don't use this particular method.

[Hernaic Tom]

I worked as a "Membership recruiter" for the Wildlife Trusts in Devon and Cornwall for six months last year, and was told emphatically that I wasn't a chugger, as, for one thing, we had to set up a permanent base at each venue and talk to people from that base. Also, it was more of a "soft sell" approach, with an unchangeableish opening line "Are you interested in Wildlife?", as it gave people the chance to say no (and tell the truth) or to say no (as an escape route) or to say yes and stop and listen while I spoke to them about their local nature reserves and eventually ask them the killer question "Would you like to sign up?".

Or, as 50% of them said "Well I married her/him, didn't I?" or, while gesturing to their children "I've got enough wildlife on my hands already thanks!"

It was the job of mine that had perhaps the greatest influence on my emotions in the shortest space of time. For instance, at the end of a morning's work having had no sign-ups and experienced a lot of rudeness, I felt pretty awful. If, later that day, people eventually started speaking to me and being friendly, even if they didn't sign up, I felt pretty happy by the end of the day.

So I like to try and stop and chat if I do have a few minutes to spare, and like you Phil, make it clear that I don't want to sign up, but give them encouragement or wish them luck for the rest of the day. I know it brightened my day when people did the same to me.

Unless I don't actually have the time to spare, in which case I'll feign fear of imminent death by meteorite and start my sprint...

[joinee wolfman]

my original work background was within the not-for-profit sector and one of my employers experimented with this method of fundraising. we used one of the bigger agencies (a "for profit" business) and we paid a fee per new supporter recruited ONCE the first payment came out. their fundraisers were paid nothing but an hourly rate. i understand many street fundraiser companies don't pay commission but productive employees earn a higher hourly rate.

once the new direct debit form came in, we did whatever we could to retain the supporter including personalised welcome calls, first payment thank and other gimmicks - but the attrition rate within a year was 80%. it was mildly successful in the short term but the second planned street campaign was pulled by senior management because we didn't make enough money from it.

like gaz, they seem to approach me regularly. i wear earphones, keep my head down and try to look rushed when i think they're going to pounce but i still get someone with a forced smile waving at me.

if you like what they say then approach the charity directly and support that way. the problem is that people don't bother.

[Silver Joinee Rachel]

I have no problems with chuggers at all. Yes you’ll get the few rogue ones who apply dirty tactics, but what profession doesn’t have a few rogue employees in?

Joinee Varwell, on 25 October 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

I'm honestly surprised companies (and yes, that's what they're behaving like) do this - is it really profitable and does anyone here want to admit to ever signing up to a chugger's pitch? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing why - not to have a go, just to understand why people are happy to listen to them.

I have signed up with a chugger before. I don’t think that’s really me “admit”ing it, which does rather have a negative connotations. That’s what I did, and I’m glad I did.

Whether the chugger gets paid an hourly wage or if they are commissioned based doesn’t bother me. Whether the business who employs the chugger gets money from my donation doesn’t bother me either. If I hadn’t have signed up, the charity would have no money at all from me. Now it has some. Hurray! If it wasn’t for the chugger and the “for profit” business, I wouldn’t have signed up and the charity would have no money. Booo! What’s wrong with them receiving a payment so they can further advertise and get more people to sign up who otherwise wouldn’t have?

Saying “no” to a chugger does not take much time out of your day. Paying a chugger £50 a day to advertise a charity is a lot cheaper and more cost effective than a charity paying tens of thousands of pounds to advertise during the break in corrie. Watching the tv advert would take up 30 seconds of your time, “Can I just take up a fe…” “No” takes up 10 seconds.

[Platinum Joinee West]

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 02 November 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

“Can I just take up a fe…” “No” takes up 10 seconds.

And if that's how the conversation ended, I'd be happy. I have never encountered one who takes your first no for an answer.

[Silver Joinee Rachel]

The inconvenience is a few seconds out of your day, chuggers raise huge amounts of money for charity, and are a lot more cost effective than TV adverts and other less direct forms of fundraising. If you're that bothered about part of your donation going to for-profit companies then complain to ofcom next time you see an advert on TV for a charity.

Platinum Joinee West, on 02 November 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

And if that's how the conversation ended, I'd be happy. I have never encountered one who takes your first no for an answer.

Most of the ones (not all, but most) I've met usually take the first no, and if they don't then it's 20 seconds out of your day rather than 10. An effective chugger will always have to be persistent to a degree, and they'll come home having earnt a reasonable day's pay and raised a lot of money for charity. One chugger being persistent after a first no could mean one more subscription for a charity. This persistence could therefore mean a charity like action aid will get a few quid that they wouldn't have otherwise. In other words, a chugger's persistence genuinely can SAVE LIVES. What's that compared to you having to say "sorry in a rush" and keep on walking. Actionaid actually use chugging quite a lot in their fundraising, and every £1 spent on fundraising raises £7 for the charity.

Chugging is effective and is right now improving lives all over the world.

I've never regretted an act of generosity in my life. I have regretted acts of meanness.

GJC
CTID

Just to note that was Phil writing the above, not rachel

[joinee wolfman]

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 02 November 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Most of the ones (not all, but most) I've met usually take the first no, and if they don't then it's 20 seconds out of your day rather than 10.

i have to disagree with you from a perspective of someone who has help train street fundraisers, shadowed them and mystery shopped them. 3 no's meant they had to let the pedestrian move on. they really will push somebody who is too polite to walk away. we used to get people sign up out of frustration and then cancel directly with the charity! trust me, people complain...

many large charities experimented with strong street and door to door fundraising campaigns with only reasonable results achieved back. i've noticed less and less of a presence now. and this comes from someone who had a specific interest in what was happening.

[Silver Joinee Rachel]

I've done door to door and been involved in setting up a branch of the same company in a new city. As someone who's worked in the industry as well I know how effective it can be. It's been going for years, if it wasn't effective companies wouldn't do it. There may have been a lull in recent years (I haven't regularly visited city centres in the last few years so wouldn't know) but surely that would be a reflection of the downturn in the economy (lots of people would regard charitable contributions as a bit of a luxury) rather than a rejection of the methodology.

Phil again!

[Gaz]

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 02 November 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Most of the ones (not all, but most) I've met usually take the first no, and if they don't then it's 20 seconds out of your day rather than 10. An effective chugger will always have to be persistent to a degree, and they'll come home having earnt a reasonable day's pay and raised a lot of money for charity. One chugger being persistent after a first no could mean one more subscription for a charity. This persistence could therefore mean a charity like action aid will get a few quid that they wouldn't have otherwise. In other words, a chugger's persistence genuinely can SAVE LIVES.

While a lot of chuggers are fine and do take no as an answer, I think justifying persistence (or to give it another name, harassment) with an "IT SAVES LIVES" guilt trip is as bad as chuggers themselves using guilt trip tactics. Especially as it's inevitably hypocritical. Got any change in your pocket, Phil? Any savings? That could save lives - give it away immediately. Sell anything you don't need too, and give away the profits. Only of course you won't do that, nor would I ever really expect you or anyone else to even though the money could indeed save lives. The point is, you can't condemn people for not doing something they have no requirement to do to fix a scenario that wasn't their doing, especially when you have no idea what else they do already or what their situation is. For every person who might sign up after three or four "no" replys are ignored and that person doing the "space invader" manoeuvre left and right across the pavement simply won't get out of your way, how many more have been wound up, pestered and hence made disgruntled with the charity and unlikely to support it in future and/or made to feel like crap for not being able to do anything when the chugger has absolutely no idea about their financial situation?

Example: on Princes Street once, shortly after I'd gone freelance and literally had no income, I was stopped by a chugger working for the NSPCC. I said I'd recently started my own business so had no money to spare on a monthly basis, and in reply I got "well some of these kids have no food or toys and have been mistreated since birth..." and it was then left hanging, with the clear implication that this scenario was entirely my fault, and mine to fix, regardless of what I'd said about having nothing spare. She was polite and I was polite but I would say that that is still unreasonable - charity should be about encouraging people to do good and be generous because they want to when they are able to, not purely about trying to make people feel so bad that they then overstretch themselves. But because many chuggers work on commission they go for the hard sell because it's more likely to make them money with no long-term view as to what they might be doing to the charity's image.

Another related bugbear of mine is that that persistence (when any DD isn't immediately cancelled because the person just signed up to get rid of them) will mainly work on the most easily swayed/emotionally attached to the cause who are probably the most generous already, so it's squeezing more money out of the same people, not finding new sources of revenue. When I did RAG charity street collections for years, it was always the ordinary people who gave the most, not the obviously well off, but I doubt many of those people would sign up with a chugger because of the huge difference between ongoing payments and dropping a few quid in on the day although they're the ones still being targeted. I genuinely think chugging builds resentment. I know quite a few people who don't talk/donate to ANY charity collectors in the street now because they think they're chuggers.

As I said, I have no problem with the concept, just the current execution. Guilt tripping should be totally off the menu, it should be law that they cannot work on a commission basis, and it should be one "no" and that's it. And ideally, they should be set up with collecting buckets to allow people to make a one-off cash donation on the spot if they wish to. And far from losing money, they might even make more money because people who usually avoid them from sheer irritation/chugger overload (because it's usually the same spots on the same streets with the same passing foot traffic) might be more willing to listen or just drop in a quid or 2 if they're hassled less often.

[PJ Hannah B-R]

I am seriously baffled by people not being able to just put their hand up in a "imma stop you there" motion and saying "no thanks" with a smile and carrying on walking. HOW IS THAT HARD?

Stop #!$&ing whinging people.

[Golden Judas]

Was talking to my mate who's a long time Chugger last night and he was saying that his bosses were clamping down HARD on staff saying that they HAVE to get so many sign ups or they will be let go. So much so that a friend of mine who started with the same company on Monday was told by her team leader that she needs to get some signups soon cos they were letting folk go really quickly at the moment.She started on Monday-talk about bad management.I'm guessing that because of these pressures put on the chuggers that there is gonna be a lot more of the hard sell.She hadn't even been trained up or knew the legal issues surrounding the stopping of pedestrians(there's stuff I didn't know they couldn't do)

I'm guessing some of the companies are struggling-so we may soon see less of them on the streets. Which ain't necessarily a good thing.

[Gaz]

GJ Hannah B-R, on 03 November 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

I am seriously baffled by people not being able to just put their hand up in a "imma stop you there" motion and saying "no thanks" with a smile and carrying on walking. HOW IS THAT HARD?

Stop #!$&ing whinging people.

Y'see, this is precisely my point about chugging breeding resentment. I got hassled so often by chuggers when I lived in Edinburgh*, and by extension got more than my fair share of ones that wouldn't take no for an answer as a consequence, I admit I probably over-react now (with the caveat that the guy from the other day was a genuine arse regardless).

*I kept a running total once, and racked up 35 requests in one month. At least one a day every lunchtime, some at weekends and a few in the evenings on the way home too.

[joinee wolfman]

Silver Joinee Rachel, on 02 November 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

I've done door to door and been involved in setting up a branch of the same company in a new city. As someone who's worked in the industry as well I know how effective it can be. It's been going for years, if it wasn't effective companies wouldn't do it. There may have been a lull in recent years (I haven't regularly visited city centres in the last few years so wouldn't know) but surely that would be a reflection of the downturn in the economy (lots of people would regard charitable contributions as a bit of a luxury) rather than a rejection of the methodology.

Phil again!

as you can imagine, we extensively researched donating trends when the term "credit crunch" was first bouncing around and, subsequently, our regular giving wasn't affected by the recession. people continued to sign up and donate in the original numbers. what did fall was unprompted donations and money received from legacies. i.e. 10% of an estate reduced from a predicted amount because the house had declined in value.

high streets are less populated by fundraisers now because of restrictions imposed by the council. joe public complain about being targeted on the street so their ability to operate daily was reduced. also, people did sign up but attrition rates within a year were so high that charities began to finish this method because the long term benefits simply aren't there. it's lots of work for short term gain.