Wasn’t there a Celeb getting into trouble, and even Jail(?), because of that… 
1 Like
I don’t know because I don’t know understand to what you are referring. I note the wink so I’m sorry to say I’m clueless–but don’t tell anyone! 
The only thing that comes to mind is bitcoin.
That said, by investing in the future of the organization I mean that significant donors want their gifts to act as a catalyst for continued growth and realization of the organization’s mission over time. Significant donors are not motivated to give to meet funding gaps, though they may do so once in a crisis. They want their gifts to yield solid results overtime.
You’re probably right but I wonder what the turnover of householders is in actuality. Although homes can obviously be on the market (with visible placards from estate agents). In between scoffing Christmas leftovers and commenting here my current task is to merge the historical canvassing data from my local political party with the latest issue of the electoral roll. For the particular local council ward I am working on it appears that 50 people moved out during the last year out of some 5,000 electors; that’s 0.01% of the population. Overall that means it is a pretty stable situation and would not warrant having to re-request the non-delivery of spam if that’s their excuse. (I can’t find data on the rate of change of occupancy; probably there but not obviously DuckDuckGo-able.)
Since they were sold off I couldn’t care less about them and especally not their “shareholders”. When they were a public service I did care but no longer. Can’t remember the last time I posted a letter — pre-lockdown certainly and may be years before that. I’ve sent FAXes more recently than post.
All that said do not get me started in chuggers!
I don’t know, how you come to bitcoins, but maybe you have a lookout for “Felicity Huffman” and “Lori Laughlin” just to name two examples.
As this kind of “donations” are a running gag at a couple of US-Sitcoms, TV-Shows, Films and other sources, it might be, that there is at least a little bit of a truth behind that…?!
Email is fine, just don’t send 3 emails in one day! One a week or one a month is enough. I just don’t understand the thinking where someone says this person was willing to give in the past, let’s now spam them so they hit unsubscribe and never see another email from us again!
1 Like
I had to look up the names as they were not front of mind but after looking them up, I recalled the admission scandal. I now understand your point. 
For the record, we are studious about ensuring that we operate with complete integrity. In fact, there is a biblical principle that is a constant theme through the senior team, including our advancement office. If you will permit me, here is the passage that we take very seriously to heart:
Show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors (James 2:1–9).
In short, we do not permit the offer of donations, or the threat to withdraw them, affect our decisions. In fact, we had a parent who once threatened to “withhold his donations if we did not make the ‘right’ decisions regarding our COVID protocols.” I told him to keep his money.
3 Likes
That is a really good guide to non-profit fundraising for a physical entity.
How do you think that might or might not apply when the services and relationships are purely virtual and the messaging/transactions are almost all driven by automation software?
Good analysis. Pretty much matches my criteria for donations. Being clear about the mission is very important. As example I will not donate to religious organizations with one exception, Habitat for Humanity. Their mission is clear and one I agree with. It’s also one where I can see results personally. Drove by one house I helped build a few years later and it was lovely with flowers planted all around and lovingly kept up.
1 Like
I have no problem with email campaigns. As I posted earlier it’s the constant physical mail that I hate.
With a few exceptions I am a year end giver. So for nine months of the year I just ignore fundraising emails. Those that land in my Inbox too often earn a filter until October, and those that I never plan to support get a filter, an unsubscribe and if necessary, a block. Problem solved.
They get my support and I don’t get a mailbox full of junk and a shredder clogged with mailing labels.
1 Like
Difficult. I don’t have a good answer as I’m not a professional fundraiser.
But obviously email fundraising campaigns can be effective, otherwise organizations would not conduct them. A prime example are political campaigns that raise millions through small donations. Those giving believe in the “mission” and the donors may ‘like” the politician—thus a relationship of sorts. Also, organizations like the Red Cross, United Way, World Vision, and more have been around long enough to have good reputations for serving (thus impacting lives positively), making it easier for people to give to them. I should add, and perhaps I’m too suspicious, that I never give by clicking on anything in an email. If I’m inclined to give, I’ll go directly to the website. I’m always concerned that an email solicitation could be spoofing a legitimate site.
1 Like
I understand and completely agree with others’ disdain for too-frequent, overbearing and annoying emails. But fighting that is a lost cause, in my view. It’s here to stay until the email system is changed in a way that will probably be more complex and less friendly to those of us who just want to communicate without the overbearing sales pressure and without the outright scams.
Similarly, our telephone system has changed - not in a good way - due to the sales hucksters and scammers. At least in the U.S., most of us do not bother with answering our (landline) phones any more. And we don’t answer our mobile phones if the call is not from a known contact. This is unfortunate, because sometimes we need to answer those one-off calls from others - contractors or service providers who use their personal mobile phones instead of company phones.
The last bastion is the text message system. Many of us are starting to receive ad-related, political and scam text messages! It appears that there is no refuge from this. Where does it end?
1 Like
A year or two ago I researched the charities I was donating to, settled on the ones I wanted to support and set up a quarterly schedule for giving. I set aside an amount for the unexpected, like Ukraine or a local tragedy but other than that. I feel free to trash whatever else comes my way and don’t waste my energy getting annoyed. Giving bits and pieces here and there to every good cause is not effective or even possible.
My favorite unsolicited request, from a charity I have never donated to, included pens, a calendar, mailing labels, two reusable bags (quite nice, actually) and two pairs of holiday themed socks. My neighbor got the same package. Any group that is mailing those things to random people certainly does not need my money.
I am mostly commenting here to say it would be good if OP could pre-face their comment by explaining which country they’re in. I work in the charity sector in the UK, and as has already been pointed out in this thread, the charity sector in the UK is tightly regulated by both the government (via the Charity Commission, which covers legal compliance), the Fundraising Regulator (which covers voluntary industry-wide compliance) and GDPR (EU-wide directive which covers data protection, marketing and solicitation). This complaint is clearly American but it’s not fair to tarnish the entire global sector with the same brush (and I have to say as a Brit working in the sector I despair of the lack of regulation in the U.S.).
None of that helps with Wikipedia though, since that is an American company. I also read a fascinating “exposé” about how Wikipedia mostly has far more money than it usually needs and we can mostly ignore those stupid banners anyway. Most their work is delivered by volunteers!
1 Like
I too plan my thithes and offers but I still get annoyed. Most recently when WikiPedia sent out a begging email asking for regular donations a day after my monthly donatation went through! Their internal systems can’t cope with the slightest change apparently. Almost enough aggrevation to cancel my financial support!
Except that some of the examples given here — like the pens, calendar, bags mentioned earlier by @DaybyDay — happen in the UK too. Red Cross being the ones who blanket spam that stuff. Regulations makes the tar brush smaller here but the same things happen.
This is another bit where I think the U.S. really needs to do more to regulate marketers. I am quite appalled when I see those Buzzfeed “20 spammers who got their comeuppance” type posts (although they are always funny!). Your government and telephone providers should be cracking down on this! I can’t tell you the last time I got a spam call or spam text, it’s been a couple of months at least.
There is obviously a distinction between legal and illegal marketers. UK/EU law for example regulates the actions of legal marketing, e.g. you can opt your phone number out of any sales calls nationwide. However obviously illegal marketers aren’t going to comply with that law any more than the other laws they’re breaking. But a good phone company is on that too, tracking and shutting down illegal activity (and I’d like to think working with the police to catch them, although I don’t know). E.g. I’m on O2 with my mobile (in the UK), who have a dedicated spam number you can report spam to (it’s dead easy, just text the number the spam came from) and they take it from there (plus obviously on iPhone you can also block the number).
I can’t remember the UK rules for telephone marketing, but email in the UK/EU is opt in. I.e. you cannot assume consent. Someone has to tick a box saying they want emails, and they must be able to opt out at any time (i.e. no hiding the unsubscribe link). Some companies play fast and loose with a clause regarding “legitimate interest” (i.e. if you have bought something from a company, they argue that it is fair use for them to then email you a follow up email about your purchase or similar items regardless of your consent), but the neither the UK or EU governments mess about with fines - they’re freely given and it’s in any reputable company’s interest to try and avoid them as they can be whoppers.
It’s one reason why I’ve been quite amused by the Twitter debacle of the last few months. Whilst Musk is merrily riding roughshod over Californian and U.S. law, he seems to have forgotten he’s also subject to EU law and the EU doesn’t mess about with its fines. Apple got hit with a $15 billion fine a few years ago (different law, but the principle is the same - break our laws and we will fine you!) and Google and Facebook both got multi-million fines last year for breaching data privacy regulations.
1 Like
Ha, don’t talk to me about the British Red Cross. They drive me crackers!! To be fair they’re the only registered national British charity I can think of off the top of my head that repeatedly colour right up against the line, most aren’t so bad. I actually stopped donating to them because of this (I don’t boycott their work, I just donate to one of their partners instead). There are regulations around the types of gifts that can be given to donors. Calendars are usually fine, as are their stupid pens (although I personally think pens should be banned since it’s wasteful plastic).
Our government and telecos should be cracking down on this too! The Telephone Preference Service is an absolute joke. Supposedly there to prevent cold calls but telephone scammers and spammers ignore it most of the time wilfully they set up a range of numbers and call them regardless of a TPS listing in the hope that someone will answer. The telecos can’t be arsed to block off-shore call centres from spoofing UK phone numbers. Ofcom is equally useless at preventing these frauds.
I’m in the United States.
I agree, up to a point … but be careful what you ask for. Things are quite a bit more complicated than most imagine. And the Law of Unintended Consequences looms large.
Security as we know it today was never built in to our telephone system early on. Caller ID was patented in 1971 and first introduced to landline phones in 1987. There was little or no security, and subsequent technological advances made it a trivial matter to spoof the Caller ID system and to initiate nefarious robocalls with impunity. Related to this, the telephone companies really had no good way to identify and block “illegal” or malicious callers, especially overseas callers.
The US government actually has undertaken (edited-spelling) efforts, along with the telcos, to combat malicious robocaller problem. As expected for the heavy hand of government, these measures are expensive, late in coming, and have negative consequences. It’s almost as if the entire telephone system would have to be re-invented. In some respects, it has.
Do some research on “Stir/Shaken”. Here is one source: https://getvoip.com/blog/stir-shaken/
One of my favorite Youtube channels, Crosstalk Solutions, provides a fascinating example of the effect Stir/Shaken has on small SIP providers (small PBX providers for businesses). These small SIP providers have largely been forced out of businesses due to the cost/complexity of complying with the Stir/Shaken provisions. Here is a link to a great explanation of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycGPHG_ANrE&t=1253s
I love the title of the above Crosstalk Solutions video, " STIR/SHAKEN and the Death of the Small VoIP Carrier"
Enjoy!