In defence of ‘chuggers’

I GET it, street charity collectors are annoying and occasionally invasive, but here’s why we need them, writes Gary Nunn. And why a code of conduct might be the answer.

YES, so-called ‘chuggers’ can be annoying.

They’ve appeared outside my local Coles lately, turning each shopping trip into a game of British bulldog as I dodge their chirpy techniques to seduce me into donating.

But you know what’s more annoying? Not having a cure for cancer. Preventable blindness going untreated. Kids suffering unnecessarily. Indonesians unable to rebuild their lives after a tsunami.

I’d take a few chirpy backpackers asking “how’s your day going” and even a $5 monthly donation to help resolve any one of those social problems. And once I’ve done that, three polite words will suffice. “No thank you.”

Recent stories have reported these “pesky fundraisers” treat older Australians as “walking ATMs.”

And the fact Australians even call them “chuggers” at all makes our disdain clear.

Let’s start with that exaggerated, melodramatic portmanteau (blending ‘charity’ and ‘mugger’.)

To be mugged is to have money stolen from you, often violently, and expressly against your will. Get over yourselves, Australia. These are professional people doing street fundraising. They may be slightly irritating, that I concede, but they’re not violent or nasty. If you think they are, you need to harden up and realise your first world problems are nothing compared with the devastating problems they’re trying to solve through their work.

Red Cross charity collectors outside Melbourne’s Flinders Street Station. Picture: Mike Keating.

Have some respect for these professionals if you want it in return: banish the insult ‘chugger’ from your lexicon and call them what they are: face-to-face street fundraisers.

Walking through a market with stallholders hustling you to buy their goods can be annoying, but you don’t accuse them of ‘mugging’ — and they keep all their profits for themselves.

These are honest people doing difficult work. Yes, they get commission for people they sign up. But raising money costs money. This means overheads.

Charities spending money to make money has become a contentious issue in itself. It shouldn’t be.

Understandably, people want as much of their donation as possible going to those in need. But the debate around charity admin costs for expenses like the commission for street fundraisers is shortsighted. You have to speculate to accumulate. We accept this for businesses. Why not for charities?

A charity could give 97 per cent of your donation to the people in need, raising $200,000 to help a group of 50 people. Or it could give 80 per cent, raising $2 million to help 500 people. A higher admin fee often helps many more people. That’s more deaths prevented, more homes rebuilt, more misery avoided.

Watch Dan Pallotta’s TED talk to educate yourself in this area. “You want to make $50 million selling violent video games to kids? We’ll put you on the cover of Wired magazine” he says. “You want to make $500,000 trying to cure kids of malaria? You’re considered a parasite.”

And donations in action. Indonesian Red Cross workers carry the body of a tsunami victim in Palu, Indonesia on Monday. Picture: Tatan Syuflana/AP

Charity overheads means that non-profit staff are paid fairly and can recruit the best talent to raise more money, and that money is effectively stewarded to the people in need, and not liable to corruption. This is especially important for emergency aid sent overseas.

The Fundraising Institute of Australia has said that over $100 million is raised via street fundraising annually. Agencies make between 19-25 per cent over the life cycle of the donation, and many charities consider 80 per cent a decent return on investment.

I know this because I spent twelve years working for the non-profit sector, for major charities in both the UK and Australia. In every charity I worked for, street fundraisers were one of the highest, if not the highest fundraising stream, in terms of the return on investment.

If you worked as a charity fundraising manager and had a target to reach (with the ultimate benefit of helping the needy), you’d use them too, or you’d miss your goal and lose your job.

Calls for more transparency about how donated dollars are raised and spent are understandable. For this piece, I contacted UNICEF, Starlight Children’s Foundation, Plan Australia, CanTeen and World Vision. None could provide me with a quote defending street fundraisers before deadline. They all use them. If the non-profit sector wants the public to better understand and empathise with their fundraising methods, they’ll need to be braver and quicker to defend them.

A charity collectors appeals to a passer-by in Melbourne. Picture: Mark Stewart

Without that defence, many are turning to crowd-funding platforms like GoFundMe, where they have a direct relationship with the person receiving the money.

Street fundraisers have a PR image problem. Yes, they target older Australians who are likely to donate more, but that’s no different from employing a marketing agency to show older Aussies an ad online. It’s strategic.

It’s the perceived aggressive intrusion many object to. Saying no discretely needs to be easier.

Peter Hills Jones, chief executive of the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association told me: “Face-to-face fundraisers are trained to pick up on cues including body language. They may still approach someone who avoids eye contact, but must desist if that person then indicates they don’t wish to donate.”

I’d suggest strengthening these protocols so avoidance of eye contact means no, then a PR campaign so Australians know their rights when it comes to street fundraisers, and how to decline without feeling publicly shamed or preyed upon.

As the government cuts funding from women’s shelters and rape crisis centres, Australia’s non-profit sector has an essential role. By all means roll your eyes at a street fundraiser, but how many lives did you save at the end of your working day? Unless you’re a paramedic, I’ll bet it’s less than them.

@garynunn1