Had a visit from the 'RSPB' last night... (1 Viewer)

[paulwfromtheden]

...knock on the door at about 19:00. Two blokes from the 'RSPB' asking me to fill in a direct debit for the 'Save the Albatross' campaign. I explained that I was a member and that I already do a lot of volunteering for the RSPB. If I wanted to contribute I would do so directly to the RSPB.
I have no doubt that these guys were genuinely collecting for the RSPB, the only thing is that even though they had RSPB Tee-Shirts etc they work for an agency, they are not RSPB volunteers. They admitted as much.
Now I know that the BHF use agencies to collect money, and I am sure that it is a cost effective way of the RSPB to raise money, but the commission rates they work on are such that if you fill out a direct debit, the agency cops the first SIX MONTHS payments, NOT the charity concerned.
So if you want to contribute, do it directly to the RSPB, not via knocks on the door, or being stopped on the street.

 

[joannec]

I agree with you Paul, this way of getting money for charities is wrong and immoral in my opinion. Often people who can't afford it are targetted, I'm thinking of students. I'm sure no right thinking charity would want people to incur debts because of their tactics. I have also read that many people ( can't remember the percentage but it was over half) who sign these monthly direct debits cancel them within a few months. So is it really cost effective? I believe that some charities that have tried this method have now abandoned it because it is unpopular with the public. I didn't know that the first six months money went to the agency; this makes it even worse.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

I agree this way of raising money is wrong and if someone knocked at my door with such a request it would rile me no end. I'm a staunch supporter of the RSPB, but this has lowered their esteem in my eyes.

 

[Marmot]

I for one would be sending an email or letter to the RSPB first of all to check that these 2 were genuine and secondly for using this door to door method. Gone are the days of cold calling, all it has become is a pain in the rear for most people.

I would be telling them that after this I would be thinking of cancelling my subscription to them (it might make them think twice before using this method) and you should get an apology out of them as well.

Maybe these 2 callers time would be better spent if they had actually volunteered their time or volunteered at the nearest RSPB reserve.

 

[James Eaton]

I agree with you Paul, this way of getting money for charities is wrong and immoral in my opinion. Often people who can't afford it are targetted, I'm thinking of students. I'm sure no right thinking charity would want people to incur debts because of their tactics. I have also read that many people ( can't remember the percentage but it was over half) who sign these monthly direct debits cancel them within a few months. So is it really cost effective? I believe that some charities that have tried this method have now abandoned it because it is unpopular with the public. I didn't know that the first six months money went to the agency; this makes it even worse.

I once did similar canvassing work in my youth for a high profile wildlife organisation. It struck me at the time of being wrong for the trust to operate in such a way. However, no perticular group is targetted (ie students, the elderly etc) you just work your way through the towns and villages in your given sector.
The company I worked for took a large precentage in the first year of a persons subscription but after this it all went to the charity.

Personally I do not think it is wrong (though perhaps the charity could organise this themselves?), charites subcontract all kinds of work to agencies, not just the RSPB. One thing I found was that people who were already members of the charity were highly supportive of the scheme and the people who usually signed up (in my case) knew little about the charity or what they were about, meaning that upto (say) 80% of the people would never have signed up otherwise. Raising awareness and signing up people who wouldn't otherwise can't be bad thing in my book.

 

[pianoman]

Yes, I'm afraid it's part of the reality of modern life - commercial agencies do most of the fundraising for charities and advertising agencies come up with the glossy adverts. It seems to be pretty much universal, and hard to dispute because the reality is that the charities make more money that way.

 

[PYRTLE]

I have been an RSPB Life Fellow for many years now and am somewhat surprised at these events; it is morally wrong, for a variety of reasons covered in the replies.

At the very least a form of objection should be considered to your local RSPB office if you were uncomfortable with the situation or the methods.

 

[MKinHK]

Not sure I understand why its immoral to raise funds in this way.

Irritating yes, but why immoral? I know its terribly embarrassing for Brits to say "No, thanks!" but its a very quick way to end a conversation that makes you feel guilty!

I work for one NGO and am on the board of two others. It is a painful truth that there is a cost in time and resources to raising funds. If an agency can do it better and more cost-effectively than regular staff or volunteers, then what's the problem? I assume RSPB would not be using an agency if it did not deliver value for money.

The reality is that if the agency does not do it then RSPB staff would have to do it. In many NGOs the staff spend so much time working on funding initiatives or being nice to donors that they spend much less time doing the jobs they're meant to do.

To me this is simply an issue of division of labour and making best use of resources.
Personally I' much rather ecologists got on with ecology, educators with education and so on - and leave it to others to do the hard slog of raising funds.

 

[pianoman]

It's a tricky point - On the one hand there isn't necessarily anything wrong with using savvy business institutions and marketing principles to raise more money and ultimately benefit the "target" (in this case albatrosses) more.

However it's a relatively short step from this to the "compassionate capitalism" idea, also justifiable sometimes, and thence to "Animals/Homeless people/African farmers must pay their way" idea, which to me is a step too far.

Also, the money is given in good faith by the donor and, administration costs notwithstanding, they don't want an undue portion of it going to shareholders, sales managers etc.

 

[MKinHK]

One more point

I think you would be entirely justified in asking RSPB to provide more info if you are not comfortable with this practice - it is, after all, a membership-based organisation, and the views of members should be given consideration. Certainly a subject for an AGM question if one is coming soon. If not, just write to the current CEO and ask for an explanation - there may be other members who have done the same and a full answer may appear on their website or in a members magazine.

There other ways of doing this - including a straight percentage split, or a fixed fee either to be collected from funds raised, or as an up front cost paid by the NGO to the agency.

But the bottom line is that raising funds costs money and it may simply be the most effective way to get the money inot the organisation is to pay experts to do it. If they do it well, then everyone benefits.

 

[colonelboris]

The thread title makes it sound like a pair of heavies came round:
'Big Johnny says if you even look at that albatross again, you're a dead man.'

I saw a girl harass a guy for over fifteen minutes a few weeks ago, encouraging him to go into debt to pay a subscription for a charity 'I joined up with this charity when I was at uni, and I had loads of debt. Guy like you should be able to do that.'
'Joined up' my bottom, you agency moose, you probably hadn't even heard of that charity until you turned up for work that morning...

 

[streatham]

Immoral - purlease - we're not talking about torture chambers or death squads were discussing a couple of gap year students or unemployed actors (if I remember correctly the type of kids who do this work) turning up on your doorstep!!!!!!!!

Well covered Mark, as you say it really isn't that hard to say no - just tell them you are a member and feel like you contribute enough already if that makes you feel better about it! Working for any number of NGO's I would imagine that people would be equally annoyed if the NGO hired full time staff members to do this kind of fundraising. If they go about it using full time staff and do it themselves it just means that more of your funds would go on 'administration costs' -another thing high on the list of complaints from donors.

Luke

Not sure I understand why its immoral to raise funds in this way.

Irritating yes, but why immoral? I know its terribly embarrassing for Brits to say "No, thanks!" but its a very quick way to end a conversation that makes you feel guilty!

I work for one NGO and am on the board of two others. It is a painful truth that there is a cost in time and resources to raising funds. If an agency can do it better and more cost-effectively than regular staff or volunteers, then what's the problem? I assume RSPB would not be using an agency if it did not deliver value for money.

The reality is that if the agency does not do it then RSPB staff would have to do it. In many NGOs the staff spend so much time working on funding initiatives or being nice to donors that they spend much less time doing the jobs they're meant to do.

To me this is simply an issue of division of labour and making best use of resources.
Personally I' much rather ecologists got on with ecology, educators with education and so on - and leave it to others to do the hard slog of raising funds.

 

[symphony]

I think strategies such as this stink. These middle men companies have people approach you in the street (or at home now which is even worse in my opinion) and I used to assume they were very enthusiastic volunteer donation collecters. I later read some of these companies take about 40 percent of the donations as commission. Since then I abruptly tell them I give directly to charity.
I am stopped several times in a week in my home town. Some cannot take 'no' for an answer and are as persistent as the criminal gangs selling 'student' magazines that have nothing to do with students. Others act like your long lost friend and grin at you pretentiously-those ones make make me run like hell, scary like the Hare Krishna bunch!
Before realising they were employed by mercenary companies to hack off the profits to charities I would let them stop me and chat. Not one of them ever said they were paid or that a huge slice of the cake would go to private capital. But then they would'nt would they? They'd rather profit from legal deceit.
RSPB please don't let me down by employing these strategies.
Rant over, for now ;-)

 

[CBB]

I think that if the RSPB were to use this method too much then they could well do more harm than good to their good reputation. Cold calling wins very few friends these days.

 

[Allen S. Moore]

I think that if the RSPB were to use this method too much then they could well do more harm than good to their good reputation. Cold calling wins very few friends these days.

Yes, they'll see their membership drop with these methods, no matter how much good they do for conservation.
Is there anyone out there from the RSPB who can explain the reported methods? Most people paying to charities want all their money to go to the cause, not to people on the way.
Allen

 

[Touty]

I think that if the RSPB were to use this method too much then they could well do more harm than good to their good reputation. Cold calling wins very few friends these days.

They call 'em 'chuggers'..... from a combination of 'charity' and 'muggers'. You sign the petition (or whatever) and even if you don't join on the spot they send heavies round to your address (which you foolishly gave) or you're inundated by junk mail for a period, thanking you for having signed and 'inviting you' to take your 'activism' further. It would seem that in many cases the charities would seem to think that the 'ends' (saving albatrosses or whatever) justify the means.

I resigned my RSPB membership (as did others) when Margaret Thatcher was invited to name a train 'The Avocet'.... with an RSPB beanfeast. The appointment fell during an election campaign (can't remember which.... probably '87). She was on the front page of all the broadsheets the following day The RSPB sent a grovelling letter saying that they couldn't cancel it blah! blah! blah!. They've had no money from me since.... nor will they (and I would have done the same had it been Neil Kinnock). I give mine to another charity doing bird conservation work.

 

[Strandman]

There's also big billboard adverts (at least around London) for the albatross campaign. I'm reasonably tolerant of some of the things about the RSPB that wind people up, but whether the ?£six figure spend on this represents funds well allocated I doubt.

 

[DKR]

Extinction is forever

I'm always bemused by people who take umbridge at one action that a charity takes and uses it as an excuse to withdraw their support. I've seen quite a few posts on BF over the years along the lines of 'The RSPB did [insert whatever here] so I resigned on the spot and they will never get any money from me as long as I live'. Surely it is more important to look at the bigger picture rather than focus in on one (often transient) aspect that you don't agree with.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the societies use of 'chuggers' but I am not an expert in fundraising and I'm sure the RSPB will be watching very closely how the public respond. As far as charities go the RSPB is right up there at the top of my list and I see no reason to change my view.

I'm sure if it helps save albatross species from extinction I don't think they'll mind either.

 

[Jos Stratford]

whether the ?£six figure spend on this represents funds well allocated I doubt.

Given the dire trouble albatrosses are in, largely due to an easily preventable cause, I'd say any campaign that manages to swing public opinion enough to perhaps make a difference is justifiable, even if it be six figures. Anyhow those two blokes have managed to raise the six figures!

 

[Touty]

I'm always bemused by people who take umbridge at one action that a charity takes and uses it as an excuse to withdraw their support. I've seen quite a few posts on BF over the years along the lines of 'The RSPB did [insert whatever here] so I resigned on the spot and they will never get any money from me as long as I live'. Surely it is more important to look at the bigger picture rather than focus in on one (often transient) aspect that you don't agree with.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the societies use of 'chuggers' but I am not an expert in fundraising and I'm sure the RSPB will be watching very closely how the public respond. As far as charities go the RSPB is right up there at the top of my list and I see no reason to change my view.

I'm sure if it helps save albatross species from extinction I don't think they'll mind either.

In answer to your point. There have to consequences for screw-ups. Thatcher naming the Avocet in an election campaign (with associated photo-op) breached (in my opinion - I couldn't test it legally) the Society's statute as regards political neutrality and squared the RSPB with the party in power... the Tories.

You don't have any idea how much MT and the RSPB 'love-in' offended me... perhaps a lot... perhaps a little. It's not important... the fact is that it did. Why should you care if or why I withdraw my support? It's MY support after all. I'll do with it what I want. If only naming trains were my only bugbear with the RSPB.

It's also my money.

I asked for a public retraction of the invitation in Birds magazine and I got (in Birds magazine) a justification of their behaviour. That didn't surprise me.... a retraction was as likely as an admission of error from Tony Blair to the TUC.

I didn't stop supporting UK bird conservation with my money... I merely changed where it went.

The RSPB are not the only UK wildlife charity.... and nor should they be.

There are plenty of UK wildlife charities without a million members who deserve that number (I'll name the BTO to start with - and no, I don't give them money any more either - 'cos I don't have enough (any more), who don't protect 'sexy' wildlife and who do a quiet, competent job without recourse to prime ministers, chuggers or environmentally-damaging junk mail or hoardings.

.... I'll get my coat.