# Why do so few people want to talk about F2F fundraising? - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/ - Published: 2009-11-11T13:49:55+00:00 - Author: Ian MacQuillin The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association is based in what could be described as the ‘Fire Brigade District’ of London. The London Fire Brigade HQ is in the street that runs parallel to us, there’s a huge training centre, spread over two large complexes, in the street beyond that and, of course, there’s an actual fire station just round the corner.   All of which I think is kind of appropriate considering the amount of firefighting I’ve been doing since I started at the PFRA in June. ## Advertisement   I knew when I took on the role of head of communications that it was going to be, shall we say, ‘challenging’. Someone somewhere always has something to say – usually quite vociferously – about ‘chuggers’ (hence the firefighting). So I was quite prepared for plenty of robust debate and dialogue.   What came as a bit of a surprise though was that very few people actually want to talk about chuggers at all. Don’t get me wrong, plenty of people have opinions about street fundraising. And those same people are quite happy to express those opinions, often in extremely strong terms. But try to talk to them about it; try to engage them on why they feel like this, why they hold the opinions they do, and they just don’t want to know.   There’s one guy who must have set up a Google alert for ‘chugger’ because every time a street fundraising story appears online, he’s there cutting and pasting the same block of text – riddled with inaccuracies – into the comments box.   So I left a couple of comments for him asking him to contact me. Each time I was rebuffed in an ‘I don’t need to talk to you because I know what I’m talking about thanks very much’ kind of way.   Then there was the author and blogger I tried to engage about his anti-chugging views. He would only agree to meet me provided our meeting was recorded and posted on his website. I declined because I wanted to have an honest and open discussion with him about fundraising, and not have to put on a PR face to talk through him to visitors to his website. His response was to tweet to his 20,000+ followers that I was a “loser”, send me an email with the salutation ‘c*ckface’ (not even “hi c* ckface” – I was so offended), and send an email to my ceo, Mick Aldridge, accusing me of trying to bribe him (I hadn’t, I hasten to add).   There have been individual councillors, bloggers and members of the public (rarely journalists, however, I’ve been pleased to discover) who seem to think that they have an inviolable right not to have their views about street fundraisers disputed or questioned. They get very offended if we don’t accept as gospel every argument they throw at us and can get very aggressive if we question these arguments.   I think a lot of opposition to chuggers and chugging is based on some misconceptions about fundraising in general. Some people object that they are paid, but most fundraisers are paid, so if it’s OK to pay a direct marketer, why is it wrong to pay a street fundraiser? Of course it isn’t. Some complain that the cost of their recruitment isn’t recouped until they’ve been giving for a year. But all fundraising recruitment methods have a similar cost, so why single out F2F in particular?   Now, I am completely earnest and genuine about meeting any opponents of F2F fundraising in person.   I’ve found that when I can talk to people about F2F and go into some depth about how it works and why charities do it, a lot of those misconceptions fade away and, while their opposition to chugging doesn’t dissolve completely (and I wouldn’t expect it to), it often lessens and becomes more measured.   As usual, jaw-jaw is better than war-war and if I could, I’d site down opposite all 49 million adults in the UK and talk to them about street fundraising if it would improve the overall level of understanding.   Of course, for me to engage with the opponents of F2F, they need to be prepared to engage with me. Yet the people shouting the loudest about ‘chuggers’ are those who seem least interested in any kind of discussion.   It’s going to be a long journey. Hopefully though, I won’t get another email calling me ‘c*ckface’.   * **[His name rings a bell](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/his-name-rings-bell/)**( 11 November 2009) * **[Crowdsourcing our way to the future of fundraising](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/18/crowdsourcing-our-way-future-fundraising/)**( 18 November 2009) * **[15 UK organisations competing for 2009 Non Profit Website of the Year](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/23/15-uk-organisations-competing-2009-non-profit-website-year/)**( 23 November 2009) ## Comments ### By: Curryking - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3808 - Published: 2009-11-22T18:36:33+00:00 Its not just the harrassment factor and the intrusiveness that gets me, its also because they’re not very secure when it comes to your personal data. How do I know this? Long story but this evening I found a chugger clipboard with about half a dozen personal details from people have have signed up including bank details. I still have it with me now and yes I will be contacting the Data Commissioner and every media outlet in the land 😀 Complain to your local council licencing department if you want them banned as next year they’ll have powers to stop this behaviour. If you don’t complain to them then nothing will get done. ### By: adriansalmon - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3809 - Published: 2009-11-23T10:23:00+00:00 You’ll see this on the Delicious links on the main page: [Julian Knight: In the name of charity, get rid of chuggers – The Independent](http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/julian-knight-in-the-name-of-charity-get-rid-of-chuggers-1825228.html) It just goes on and on – people who want charities to somehow magically generate their income out of thin air. Funnily enough, the page itself generates an unwanted pop-up ad for – life insurance! how’s about the pot calling the kettle black! A Adrian Salmon Annual Fund Manager University of Leeds ### By: admin - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3810 - Published: 2009-11-23T10:49:34+00:00 That is a serious error, and you’re right to report it. But if you want to fix the problem, can I suggest you contact the relevant regulatory body first, as well as the Information Commissioner’s Office? The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association is at [http://www.pfra.org.uk](http://www.pfra.org.uk) From the clipboard, you will probably have the name of the face-to-face company ( or charity – some charities carry out this fundraising using in-house teams rather than those provided by specialist agencies). You’ll have the location and date/time that the fundraising was being carried out. Contacting every media outlet in the land might give you satisfaction, and you have the right to do so of course, but on past performance they’ll probably extrapolate from one incident and imply that all face-to-face fundraisers share this approach to data protection. Just to be clear – you said that “they’re not very secure”. I think it would be more accurate, unless you can produce more chugger clipboards, to say from your experience that _one_ fundraiser was not very secure. ### By: ianmacquillin - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3811 - Published: 2009-11-23T23:10:23+00:00 Yes, he said with a long drawn out sigh, I’ve seen it. What I find a little strange is that professional street fundraisers have been in British towns and cities for more than a decade and some journalists are still reporting that they are not volunteers as if it’s some great exposé. ### By: admin - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3812 - Published: 2009-11-25T09:45:46+00:00 What did the fundraising agency and their charity client say? Any response from the Information Commissioner, or from the PFRA? ### By: Curryking - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3813 - Published: 2009-11-29T19:25:49+00:00 I have not contacted the fundraising agency or charity with regards to this but have received a reply from the PFRA and they seemed very concerned. They seemed to imply that I don’t contact the Data Commissioner directly which seem to suggest that they wish to censor this issue. In order for this to be dealt with impartially for the benefit of public interest and public protection particularly for current and potential donars I should send the forms to the necessary authorities that will deal with this issue directly. They should also contact the necessary media outlets in order for this issue to be made public. It is obviously a risk to provide personal data to chuggers and this needs to be made public. ### By: admin - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3814 - Published: 2009-11-29T21:10:16+00:00 Glad to hear the PFRA are in touch. I know they follow this site and forum. I’d be surprised if they were trying to censor this issue, not least given the fact that this forum and your announcement are public. You said ‘seemed to imply’: did they ask you not to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)? If so, did they give a reason? I wonder if they suggested that you let them deal with it first, given that they are the relevant regulatory body? The ICO wouldn’t have any jurisdiction to help the charity and fundraising agency involved improve their effectiveness. They would simply deal with the reported data loss. If your aim is to criticise this method of fundraising, then the ICO and other media outlets would be the way to go. If you wanted to ensure that this method of fundraising was as effective and well-managed as possible then I’d recommend dealing first with the PFRA. I ended an earlier comment pointing out that you had extrapolated from your one encounter with this serious data loss. You seem to be repeating that approach by claiming “it is obviously a risk to provide personal data to chuggers”. Unless you or others have a sheaf of these discarded donor sheets, then it remains accurate to say “it is obviously a risk to provide personal data to one chugger”, not necessarily to any or all of them. ### By: ianmacquillin - Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/11/11/why-do-so-few-people-want-talk-about-f2f-fundraising/#comment-3815 - Published: 2009-11-30T16:31:55+00:00 PFRA’s response to the complaint made to us by ‘Curryking’ (under what we assume to be his real name) is appended below. This was compiled after consulting the Information Commissioner’s Office and our solicitors Bates, Wells and Braithwaite. We also sent‘ Curryking’ a PDF file issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office giving guidance on data security breach management. A copy of this guidance can be found [here](http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/guidance_on_data_security_breach_management.pdf ). The PFRA is in no sense whatsoever trying to ‘censor’ this alleged data security breach. In any alleged data security breach such as this, the most urgent priority is to ensure the security of the data, which is what we are still endeavouring to do, and look forward to ‘Curryking’s’ cooperation on this matter. If ‘Curryking’ believes the most appropriate way to secure the data he says he has found is to return the forms – which are the property of the charity concerned, and have now been in his possession for more than a week – via the ICO, we urge him to do so at his earliest convenience. Ian MacQuillin Head of Communications PFRA Dear Mr XXXX, Many thanks for informing us of the possible security breach. PFRA takes very seriously incidents such as this and would be very grateful if you could inform us as to the name of the collecting organisation and/or charity that appears on the direct debit forms. Your first port of call should be those organisations as they may need to take immediate action. We suggest that you return the clipboard and forms to them as soon as possible. They will then be able to assess what action needs to be taken. We will also take the matter up and we attach guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office which we work to in the event of a data security breach. As urgent action may be required, we would be grateful if you could arrange for the documents to be sent or delivered to the collecting body or charity as soon as possible. We are also aware of the Information Commissioner’s guidance on notification of data security breaches. As soon as we have heard from you the names of the relevant organisation/s we will contact them to discuss whether notification is required. Best regards, Nick Henry Head of Standards PFRA