Alot of chuggers are just kids working the job for the summer who don't really care, some of us though really care about the charities, abide by the PRFA guidelines and work our asses off whilst staying polite to people despite alot of negativity from people. I've had people who i haven't even approached saying things like 'you don't deserve to live' etc.
I also have worked for a few charities and companies and have never ever had pay proportional to donations. Just a flat rate of hourly pay.
@curiouscas the problem in chugging is far worse than that. I have seen many bad chuggers all year round and the reason why people are so 'negative' about them is the fault of the chugging industry, noone elses. They have made a bad name for themselves noone else has and it all boils down to greed. Charities should never have allowed for private companies to profit from charity as this is the cause of the problem.
@curiouscas I would like to point out that the PFRA are a trade association and not the 'regulator' that they claim to be. Trade associations look after their members and try to influence public policy to suit their members (chugger agencies etc). I am currently speaking to my MP about this and why councils are doing a deal with a trade association as they are not a publicly elected body.
Most agencies that I know of use a PRP setup and pay bonus'.
Furthermore, what I find more concerning is the lack of condemnation of the research findings from the chuggers that have posted here. The research was conducted scientifically and factually from a site (now defunct) that supports charities and good practice. To me, as they have failed to even remotely condemn it, they support this behaviour.
Do these chuggers not care about the good name of charity? No, is the answer, they are only in it for themselves
Good on you Adam!!! Chuggers are a menace and a public nuisance and should be banned. About time that the sometimes illegal and unethical side of fundraising raises it's ugly head.
I see all the chuggers have posted here to complain. They don't like criticism and tend to shout it down en mass.
For every £1 spent by charities on 3rd-party fundraising, a return of £3-£4 is achieved - this represents a fantastic return on charities' investments, and importantly is money which charities would otherwise not receive. There is clearly no case for getting rid of street fundraising, even though we all find it annoying from time to time.
Intelligent Giving? You're asking to boycott a method of fundraising that generates millions for charities every year? Should't he change the name of his company?
Adam - why dont you go and ask the family of someone whoes life was saved from cancer by funding provided by F2F fundraising and see what they say?
You are a moron and I hope you reap the reward from the evil you soe.
How do you think charities would get that money that is so desperately needed? You could have been born in the developing world and have no way out and be dependent on their work, work made possible by fund raisers. Think about that before you criticize it again.
Think not just of the money they raise, but the inspiration they give to the uninspired.
I worked on the street for 3 years and it inspired me enough to have dedicated the rest of my life to helping others, animals and the planet.
One conversation could create the next generation of people who have made the world a better place on a large scale; People like: Nelson Mandela, Paul Watson, Tony Juniper or Martin Luther King.
"Its better to live for something than die for nothing"
I can only come to the conclusion that the purpose of the report and the publicity you have courted was in fact an attempt to drive traffic to your website. So Intelligent giving could raise funds through its very own click to donate button
Finally, fundraisers perform a job that most people would not do, that they are paid should not even be up for discussion. I suggest you go out for 8hrs in the cold and rain, allow yourself to be abused by the Intelligently informed public and sun readers and see if your opinion changes.
o tell people not to support street fundraising is irresponsible. Instead you should inform them as to how and where they can report bad practices and the standard codes of conduct they can expect as part of their giving experience. This would give charities the opportunity to weed out the few poor fundraisers and work towards better standards across the sector.
Charities would not use this method to raise money if it was not proven to work. Where the majority of traditional fundraising channels such as addressed mail and inserts are in decline, face to face fundraising is attracting a younger more actively engaged supporter who would not otherwise consider supporting a voluntary organisation.
I would like to make the following points that your report failed to acknowledge.
Mugger as defined by the dictionary is a person who mugs, one who assaults a person in order to rob him or her. I am yet to see a street fundraiser do this, therefore the title chugger is factually incorrect.
Adam Rothwell, you are without doubt the most disgusting human being I have ever bothered to watch on youtube. I hope you wake up with famine on your conscience and blood on your hands.
It amazes me how you hope to deny millions of those on the verge of death from the funds they need because it's "a bit rude" to ask people for money. You fascist-gastro-prig. Get a real job please.
not all charities use agencies for face-to-face fundraising.... :-)
ozzyb83 7 months ago
Alot of chuggers are just kids working the job for the summer who don't really care, some of us though really care about the charities, abide by the PRFA guidelines and work our asses off whilst staying polite to people despite alot of negativity from people. I've had people who i haven't even approached saying things like 'you don't deserve to live' etc.
I also have worked for a few charities and companies and have never ever had pay proportional to donations. Just a flat rate of hourly pay.
curiouscas 1 year ago
@curiouscas the problem in chugging is far worse than that. I have seen many bad chuggers all year round and the reason why people are so 'negative' about them is the fault of the chugging industry, noone elses. They have made a bad name for themselves noone else has and it all boils down to greed. Charities should never have allowed for private companies to profit from charity as this is the cause of the problem.
Curryking32000 1 year ago
@curiouscas I would like to point out that the PFRA are a trade association and not the 'regulator' that they claim to be. Trade associations look after their members and try to influence public policy to suit their members (chugger agencies etc). I am currently speaking to my MP about this and why councils are doing a deal with a trade association as they are not a publicly elected body.
Most agencies that I know of use a PRP setup and pay bonus'.
Curryking32000 1 year ago
Furthermore, what I find more concerning is the lack of condemnation of the research findings from the chuggers that have posted here. The research was conducted scientifically and factually from a site (now defunct) that supports charities and good practice. To me, as they have failed to even remotely condemn it, they support this behaviour.
Do these chuggers not care about the good name of charity? No, is the answer, they are only in it for themselves
Curryking32000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Curryking32000 1 year ago
Comment removed
Curryking32000 1 year ago
Good on you Adam!!! Chuggers are a menace and a public nuisance and should be banned. About time that the sometimes illegal and unethical side of fundraising raises it's ugly head.
I see all the chuggers have posted here to complain. They don't like criticism and tend to shout it down en mass.
Curryking32000 1 year ago
For every £1 spent by charities on 3rd-party fundraising, a return of £3-£4 is achieved - this represents a fantastic return on charities' investments, and importantly is money which charities would otherwise not receive. There is clearly no case for getting rid of street fundraising, even though we all find it annoying from time to time.
AndreGDJ 1 year ago
Intelligent Giving? You're asking to boycott a method of fundraising that generates millions for charities every year? Should't he change the name of his company?
Adam - why dont you go and ask the family of someone whoes life was saved from cancer by funding provided by F2F fundraising and see what they say?
You are a moron and I hope you reap the reward from the evil you soe.
crocodile7426 2 years ago
How do you think charities would get that money that is so desperately needed? You could have been born in the developing world and have no way out and be dependent on their work, work made possible by fund raisers. Think about that before you criticize it again.
tilleykitten 3 years ago
Think not just of the money they raise, but the inspiration they give to the uninspired.
I worked on the street for 3 years and it inspired me enough to have dedicated the rest of my life to helping others, animals and the planet.
One conversation could create the next generation of people who have made the world a better place on a large scale; People like: Nelson Mandela, Paul Watson, Tony Juniper or Martin Luther King.
"Its better to live for something than die for nothing"
EcoChav
EcoChav 3 years ago
Adam Rothwell You're a idiot...
bullettoothbadger 3 years ago
I can only come to the conclusion that the purpose of the report and the publicity you have courted was in fact an attempt to drive traffic to your website. So Intelligent giving could raise funds through its very own click to donate button
Lozg89 3 years ago
Finally, fundraisers perform a job that most people would not do, that they are paid should not even be up for discussion. I suggest you go out for 8hrs in the cold and rain, allow yourself to be abused by the Intelligently informed public and sun readers and see if your opinion changes.
Lozg89 3 years ago
o tell people not to support street fundraising is irresponsible. Instead you should inform them as to how and where they can report bad practices and the standard codes of conduct they can expect as part of their giving experience. This would give charities the opportunity to weed out the few poor fundraisers and work towards better standards across the sector.
Lozg89 3 years ago
Charities would not use this method to raise money if it was not proven to work. Where the majority of traditional fundraising channels such as addressed mail and inserts are in decline, face to face fundraising is attracting a younger more actively engaged supporter who would not otherwise consider supporting a voluntary organisation.
Lozg89 3 years ago
I would like to make the following points that your report failed to acknowledge.
Mugger as defined by the dictionary is a person who mugs, one who assaults a person in order to rob him or her. I am yet to see a street fundraiser do this, therefore the title chugger is factually incorrect.
Lozg89 3 years ago
Adam Rothwell, you are without doubt the most disgusting human being I have ever bothered to watch on youtube. I hope you wake up with famine on your conscience and blood on your hands.
It amazes me how you hope to deny millions of those on the verge of death from the funds they need because it's "a bit rude" to ask people for money. You fascist-gastro-prig. Get a real job please.
olliemoney 3 years ago