Easy Fundraising survey sparks spat with PFRA 2

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 7 Jun 2011

The Public Fundraising Regulatory Association has accused online shopping portal easyfundraising.org.uk of taking a “cheap shot at face-to-face” in order to promote its own service.

Yesterday Easy Fundraising issued a press release highlighting the results of an online survey it carried out on peoples’ attitudes to face-to-face.

It claimed that 60 per cent of the 1,000-plus respondents said chuggers actually put them off supporting the charity they represented, and more than two in five had stopped supporting a charity because of concerns over its aggressive fundraising methods.

The release was picked up by the Mirror, who published a short story headlined High street charity ‘chuggers’ put people off donating.

PFRA chief executive Mick Aldridge pointed out that Easy Fundraising’s research was not carried out by a professional research agency amongst a representative sample of the population, but was a SurveyMonkey survey filled in by self-selecting members of the public.

He also said the questions were “loaded with inherent bias that were almost certain to elicit these results”.

“We are disappointed that once again, one type of fundraising has attempted to promote itself by taking a cheap shot at face-to-face,” he said. “This is despite the fact it is one of the most successful methods of donor recruitment ever which, for the last ten years, has delivered an average 600,000-plus new donors and contributes around £120m to charity annually.”

Gary Thompson, managing director of Easy Fundraising, responded: “We can understand why the PFRA is annoyed that bad practice has again been highlighted, but this is an issue that clearly generates incredibly strong feeling among the public.

"If the PFRA has a genuine problem with our research methodology – which questioned over 1,000 members of the public – we would be delighted to carry out another survey in six months time, in partnership with the PFRA, to see if it finds people have changed their minds."

Who's Who: Mick Aldridge

Place a comment

Adrian Sargeant
Professor of Fundraising
Bristol Business School
7 Jun 2011

Any survey that begins with the headline 'Chuggers - A Fundraising Faux Pas?' is going to be biased from the outset. It is doomed to attract individuals who will disaproportionately share that perspective. The only way to measure genuine public perceptions of the technique is to construct a representative sample and pose meaningful questions of them that don't lead respondents to answer in a particular way. Asking someone whether 'charity mugging' has ever put them off supporting a charity is rather akin to asking 'have you stopped beating your wife?' Who is likely to say no? This so-called survey adds nothing to the public debate about the quality of fundraising in the UK

[Reply]

Terry Hayward
Director
Everyday Hero
7 Jun 2011

I think Mick Aldridge is quite right to say what he has. As a service provider to charities and other not-for-profits we should be focussed on growing giving in general and not promoting one method at the expense of another. The general public like choice in how they give and whether it's online, by text, through payroll or face-to-face and each, when done properly, is legitimate and has it's own merits.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.