# Chugging, Irresponsible Research and Old-school Nepotism

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2008/12/04/chugging-irresponsible-research-and-oldschool-nepotism/
- Published: 2008-12-04T13:25:16+00:00
- Author: Kevin Baughen

**Wow!  A veritable whirlwind of accusation and counter-punching has blown up over
the last week or so following the publication of Intelligent Giving’s research on
face-to-face fundraising and the subsequent media coverage recommending that the
public should avoid all chuggers.  **

Whilst I don’t intend to add to the virtual column inches already devoted to the
mechanics of face-to-face fundraising and the [alleged irresponsibility](http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Channels/Fundraising/Article/866413/They-think-I-dont-know-Im-talking-about)
of Intelligent Giving, this story has raised a few issues of interest for me.

First, face-to-face activity is pretty much here to stay; the [PFRA](http://www.pfra.org.uk/key_messages.htm)
forecast that **nearly a quarter of a billion pounds will be raised this way** in
the coming few years and I’m sure most charities would like a share.  However, let’s
take a reality check.

## Advertisement

According to many of articles and comments I’ve seen, the practitioners are all 
squeaky clean and well-versed in the process and procedure governing their activities.
Wrong.  Like all walks of life, a few rotten apples can have the highest impact 
in terms of public perception.  Just the other day in Redhill, I felt compelled 
to step to the defence of a busy young mother who was desperately trying to steer
her shopping-laden pushchair around a street fundraiser.  He would not take no for
an answer and repeatedly blocked her path until I mentioned that his profession 
was actually regulated and threatened to take his ID to complain.  At this, he swore
at me (quite imaginatively, to be fair) and stalked off.  I’m sure this guy doesn’t
represent the majority but let’s retain some perspective – we’re human and it will
happen.

Secondly, the debate has very quickly descended into a [personal battle](http://www.intelligentgiving.com/watchdog/charity_muggers)
between the young, relatively inexperienced team at Intelligent Giving and the long-
time servants of ‘the sector’.  In principle, there is much truth in many aspects
from both sides of the argument but there does appear to be a tangible feeling of‘
we know best’ from the latter.

I have seen well-articulated arguments suggesting that it will be Intelligent Giving’s
fault if the entire face-to-face channel dies and charities collapse as a result.
A precedent of the 2003 [Christmas appeals in Scotland](http://www.intelligentgiving.com/watchdog/charity_muggers#comment-6639)
has been cited which involved experienced fundraisers saving the day (a la knights
in shining armour) after “irresponsible research and journalism” caused “everyone
to stop donating altogether”.  I’m no genius, but I don’t actually live my life 
by what the pages of tabloid newspapers purport to be earth-shattering news.  The
current debate has been picked up by [The Sun](http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kelvin_mackenzie/article1976397.ece)
and again, those experienced heads are leaping into the fray proclaiming that a 
lack of experience and understanding will lead to job losses and disaster for many.

Hang on just a minute.

I’m a genuine neutral in this whole discussion but if experienced charity people
believe that this one piece of media campaigning will spell disaster, then I humbly
suggest that we are probably missing some other important factors in our search 
for a scapegoat.  How about rising unemployment, global recession, increasing pressure
on personal disposable income and increased choice in where to donate it?  Surely,
our thinking and planning to cope with these factors should be absorbing our energies?(
that said, venting one’s spleen is sometimes very therapeutic!)

To meet these challenges will take the combined efforts of those with experience
as well as those with new ideas from other walks of life (as daft as they might 
sound).  Which segways nicely into my last observation based on this now very public
debate.

Practically every comment I’ve read regarding the Intelligent Giving research mentions
the age and lack of charity sector experience of the key players.  Over the last
15 years, I have worked with small businesses, major international corporations,
local and national charities and can honestly reflect that those within the charity
sector do place significant barriers to entry comparable to any seen in the commercial
world. 

I’ve also conducted a (limited) straw poll amongst some contacts in the recruitment
sector and they unanimously reported that it is hugely difficult to place all but
the most junior roles for charity clients because of the stipulation that candidates
must have pretty much done the same job previously!  This seems to be the reality,
regardless of how open-minded the recruitment brief is.

So how do we encourage people to gain the experience that seems to be a prerequisite
of being allowed an opinion if we don’t let them gain it?  I wrote a [blog](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/blog/2008/11/03/why-little-revolution-healthy-thing)
on this site several weeks ago which talked about encouraging a little revolution
in the way we think and I can’t think of a better reason to do so than to meet the
challenges above.

_**Kevin Baughen** is founder of [Bottom Line Ideas](http://www.bottomlineideas.com),
is a speaker for [Cancer Research UK](http://www.cancerresearchuk.org) and a long-
time advocate of blurring the lines between best practice across the charity and
commercial worlds._

## Comments

### By: jonathanwaddingham

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2008/12/04/chugging-irresponsible-research-and-oldschool-nepotism/#comment-3431
- Published: 2008-12-04T14:39:19+00:00

Thanks for your blog Kevin, it’s probably the most balanced and useful commentary
I’ve read on the whole episode.

Jonathan Waddingham

### By: kevin baughen

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2008/12/04/chugging-irresponsible-research-and-oldschool-nepotism/#comment-3432
- Published: 2008-12-10T09:24:05+00:00

Thanks for the feedback Jonathan – much appreciated. It did strike me as unfortunate
that as a sector, we seem to feel the need for such public spleen venting! I’m just
envious of anyine with this much energy to expend when we have some pretty significant
issues to deal with already; credit crunch anyone?

Kevin

Founder, Bottom Line Ideas 
 [http://www.bottomlineideas.com](http://www.bottomlineideas.com)
Speaker, Cancer Research UK

### By: michaeldunlop

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2008/12/04/chugging-irresponsible-research-and-oldschool-nepotism/#comment-3433
- Published: 2008-12-11T11:17:39+00:00

Hi Kevin

I have been following this shouting match too, and although like you said there 
are truths on both sides of the fence I feel that the research by IG appears to 
have been discredited purley on the ‘young, relatively inexperienced ‘ excuse. yes
they may be that but doesn’t mean they are wrong.

rather than take on board what was said and acting proactively, charities have reacted
and just attacked the research – maybe because deep down they know that the research
does have an element of truth

i have had personal experience, where when sitting down for some lunch i overheard
the ‘pep’ talk the chugger team leader was giving his team, which shocked me. he
berated his team for not getting higher ammounts of commitment from donators. he
openely said that they were getting loys of ‘low’ £15 donations, but said that it
wasn’t good enough and that the team must push for the higher ammounts and if need
be use guilt tactics to get them, one of his team walked off in disgust at which
point he ridiculed them followed with a boast of how he had been doing this for 
years and always got the ‘punter to pay out more’ – i actually wrote to the charity
he was representing to complain but they didn’t even acknowledge my letter never
mind respond to it.

if the teams are being pushed to achieve targets then of course they will come across
as pushy/agressive etc, funny as seeing i thought the idea was to gain support and
for people to give what they wanted to/could afford

at the end of the day, the face to face approach can be a very good way to get new
funds and donators, but unless we accept that like any staff, full and proper training
and active regulation is required, then just burying our heads and ignoring or denying
bad practice and just saying that there are rules that ‘should’ be followed, is 
going to drag down the images of charities.

rather than shout at IG work with them, and rather than deny everything, lets turn
a negative into a positive by admitting mistakes and acting to turn this around

### By: kevin baughen

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2008/12/04/chugging-irresponsible-research-and-oldschool-nepotism/#comment-3434
- Published: 2008-12-11T14:36:14+00:00

Hi Michael

I couldn’t agree with you more! All research, data, feedback or whatever, if it 
comes from the end audiences should be something we pay attention to. If it is dismissed
out of hand, how can any of us learn or improve?

I could also empathise with your story about the ‘chuggers pep talk’. I wonder how
many disaffected telesales or door ro door sales staff have chnaged their career
path???

Cheers
 Kevin

Founder, Bottom Line Ideas 
 [http://www.bottomlineideas.com](http://www.bottomlineideas.com)
Speaker, Cancer Research UK