As a professional fundraiser who has run a street canvass (fund raising) office for an organization that does not outsource it's canvass operation, I can certainly answer some of the questions offer and explanation.

Our organization pay it's staff a fair wage and offers the full range of benefits including free health care. The job is not an easy one and the normal dat for a canvasser will be approaching 100-500 people to have 30-40 conversations and sign up 1-8 new members. The members recruited by our organization on the street give monthly making them the most coveted of all donors in fund raising.

The individuals that are out there raising money for any organization are more important than most people working for said nonprofit. The reason for this is simple. They are the public face of the organization. Let's look at some numbers, if there are for instance 300 canvassers working for the organization that would be about 120,000 people approached by the organization daily of which 12,000 would have in depth conversations and 120 would decide to join. Broken down over the course of the year over 31 million people would have an interaction with that organization (roughly 10% of the population of the US), over 3 million would have had an in depth conversation about the issue and organization (roughtly 1% of the US population) and it would balance out to roughly 100,000 new members having been recruited for the organization. If each of these members gave say $10 a month, that would equal 1 million dollars a month in income, this is assuming none cancel (which is not the case), however after running the program for several years, you can see that you'd rapidly surpass 1 million dollars in monthly income and rapidly build a base of members while getting the message out to millions and providing an organization with a massive public presence.

To put it simply these folks are much more than fundraisers, they are movement building machines and in terms of nonprofit fund raising, canvassing is more effective and more cost effective than direct mail programs. The individuals who work for canvass operations are deeply rooted in impacting social change and their job is HARD. They face opposition, unkind people, apathy and rejection all day long and then throw themselves at it again. Movements are built upon the shoulders of canvassers and in organizations that have in house canvass operations, you can bet that a lot of the senior managers, campaigners and the like "cut their teeth" in activism by canvassing on the street or by knocking on doors.

These folks are hard core and I applaud them for having the courage, drive and passion to do what they do. How often do you hear people complaining and doing nothing? These folks are doing what so many lazy individuals can not or will not. They are throwing themselves head first into solving the problem.

Gandhi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

Oh, come on. You're taking your experience with a small slice of people who canvass or gather signatures, or whatever and assuming that's what they all are doing. There's a reason that I go from September through April and see maybe one person doing this kind of thing, and can't go from May through August without tripping over seven every time I go out for groceries: It's easy to hire otherwise unqualified college students for the summer (usually recruited from a "Jobs to save the environment!" flyer). On top of that, back when I would stop and talk to these people, each time I refused politely to give my credit card information to someone on the street, I got a puzzled look as though there was really no good reason for me to send in a check when I got home instead.

But really, your whole thesis is built on the idea that activists are the cream of society and something we should all aspire to. Their job is hard? Telemarketers have it worse in just about every conceivable way, and they don't get to go home and be sanctimonious to whomever will listen. I don't understand when hurt feelings became an occupational hazard, but I'm a little sick of hearing about how canvassers (or waiters, or valets, or whatever) have a difficult job because people ignore them or are rude.

If this is what someone wants to do, then fine. But don't get up here and act like because you spend your day actively pushing your political beliefs and I sit in an office that I'm somehow lazy or have an easy job. You get satisfaction from working toward what you think is right and I don't, but you don't see me on a thread discussing actuaries complaining about that.

...the assholes that harass us on the street. And "activism" the way you describe it isn't a worthy goal, it's a rich kid's hobby. Most of them wise up in time.

The Boy and I give extremely generously to the charities of our choice every year. We do it once, we get the tax benefit and we are not interested in being accosted by strangers while we're going about the business of making the money that we give to charity.

Don't pretend that you or the people who work for you are somehow "better" than those of us who earn the money you're trying to take from us. You aren't. At best you're a nuisance.

I very clearly said that they do what other people won't or CAN NOT. It was my intent to state that not everyone is in a position to leave there job to do this. They in effect do the job for those individuals who support the work and can not get involved in the same way as a canvasser.

You should be applauded for giving what you can to charity each year. You clearly care about the issues you support. My hat is off to you.

Canvassing has it's place in fundraising and in movement building. No one should try to discredit that fact. Those who do not have time to stop and talk are often busy and still concerned with the issue at hand. This is something that any good canvass operation stresses to it's staff, so if you do not have time or are preoccupied with something else, it's completely understandable. i would however, encourage you when you have a moment to hear the person canvassing out.

We're all people as you stated in your response and canvassers deserve what you ask in return, basic human respect.

Last year, I experienced a solicitor in Portland OR for the first time. I, like many, resent the implication of guilt that because I'm not interested in giving to THIS cause right THIS moment, I'm selfish and without compassion.

It's as simple as the following:
A) You are not privy to my financial situation, so don't assume I have $22 a month to decide to give on the spot (this was the amount for Children International).
B) You do not know the charities that I already choose to donate to.
C) I refuse to give my credit card and other personal information to someone on the street.
D) Just because your glossy binder tells me that you represent a reputable organization that handles its money fairly well doesn't mean I believe it. I need to do my own research, thank you.

After I did go home and do my research, I found out that as far as charities go, CI is a pretty solid sounding one. 3 stars out of 4 on Charity Navigator and I would assume that their contract with Dialogue Direct is factored into their fund raising expense, which overall does not seem unreasonable. But now I have a bad taste in my mouth for having been made to feel inhumane for protecting my hard earned money by doing research first, and for having to take time to assess any additional charitable giving I may be able to do.

I have written both organizations to suggest they figure out a way to give credit to a solicitor when you sign up online. This may enable those solicitors to not have to resort to certain tactics and the "hard sell" if they can simply inform, provide some sort of identification number, and let the chips fall as they may.

Pmoriarty:

Let's look at some numbers, if there are for instance 300 canvassers working for the organization that would be about 120,000 people approached by the organization daily of which 12,000 would have in depth conversations and 120 would decide to join. Broken down over the course of the year over 31 million people would have an interaction with that organization (roughly 10% of the population of the US), over 3 million would have had an in depth conversation about the issue and organization (roughtly 1% of the US population) and it would balance out to roughly 100,000 new members having been recruited for the organization. If each of these members gave say $10 a month, that would equal 1 million dollars a month in income, this is assuming none cancel (which is not the case), however after running the program for several years, you can see that you'd rapidly surpass 1 million dollars in monthly income and rapidly build a base of members while getting the message out to millions and providing an organization with a massive public presence.

So, here is my problem with it. According to your numbers (which, by the way I find quite optimistic, just on the surface of things) this canvassing will gross about 12 million dollars a year. If it costs $20,000 a year to employ one of these canvassers, then immediately, hlaf your take is down the drain. Given the legal, administrative and other business expenses involved in an operation of this size, I'd guess that at best, 30% of the money given will actually get to the charity. This alone makes it little more than a scam.

But perhaps you're more concerned with the publicity given to all 31 million people contacted regarding your oh so worthy cause.

Trust me, most of the publicity you get is bad. As proud as you are of these people, mostly what they do is piss people off, reflecting badly on your cause, whatever it might be.

For profit fundraising is a business like any other, and an annoying one at that. Please don't act as if these people on the street, or the people who hire them, are in any way superior to those who prefer to live their convictions as individuals, rather than taking it to the streets.

Icekeeg,

You are a rarity in that you went home and took the time to do the necessary research and follow through. In general, chuggers are taught the techniques and approaches that have been proven to be the most effective at getting people to contribute. People will take a brochure with the best of intentions and lose it or put it off forever and so the organizations will push as hard as they possibly can to lock in the contribution.

Note that I actually have very little respect for Dialogue Direct. From what I know of them, they have almost no training for their staff, and that sink or swim mentality probably contributes to the extra aggressiveness of their chuggers.

we give to charity. However, the ONLY time in the last 5 years at least I gave to someone on the street was a week ago when I was in Los Angeles, and there were these Lindon LaRouche guys outside a market, and they had these pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache, and Obama photoshopped in to some old picture standing next to Hitler with a bunch of adoring Nazis around them.

I thought that was so hilarious (it doesn't take much to amuse me) that I gave them 5 bucks to walk off with a couple of them. my main goal is to place them in the breakroom at my work, but I know our militant lefties will deface them immediately, and I haven't figured out how to keep them "safe" for a few days so that everyone gets to see them before their downfall.

Bondsman:

we give to charity. However, the ONLY time in the last 5 years at least I gave to someone on the street was a week ago when I was in Los Angeles, and there were these Lindon LaRouche guys outside a market, and they had these pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache, and Obama photoshopped in to some old picture standing next to Hitler with a bunch of adoring Nazis around them.

I thought that was so hilarious (it doesn't take much to amuse me) that I gave them 5 bucks to walk off with a couple of them. my main goal is to place them in the breakroom at my work, but I know our militant lefties will deface them immediately, and I haven't figured out how to keep them "safe" for a few days so that everyone gets to see them before their downfall.

If it's any consolation I'd be equally put off if I walked into my job and saw a picture of George W. with a Hitler mustache surrounded by Nazis. Not because I can't laugh at that sort of thing (I can), just because I'm a fan of propriety in the office. Just sayin'.

jonthom11702:

Bondsman:

we give to charity. However, the ONLY time in the last 5 years at least I gave to someone on the street was a week ago when I was in Los Angeles, and there were these Lindon LaRouche guys outside a market, and they had these pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache, and Obama photoshopped in to some old picture standing next to Hitler with a bunch of adoring Nazis around them.

I thought that was so hilarious (it doesn't take much to amuse me) that I gave them 5 bucks to walk off with a couple of them. my main goal is to place them in the breakroom at my work, but I know our militant lefties will deface them immediately, and I haven't figured out how to keep them "safe" for a few days so that everyone gets to see them before their downfall.

If it's any consolation I'd be equally put off if I walked into my job and saw a picture of George W. with a Hitler mustache surrounded by Nazis. Not because I can't laugh at that sort of thing (I can), just because I'm a fan of propriety in the office. Just sayin'.

No, no, I hear you. OTOH, I put up with "Bush the monkey" pictures, and turn about is fair play. If I thought someone would take it as *harassment*, I wouldn't do it.

Let's look at some numbers, if there are for instance 300 canvassers working for the organization that would be about 120,000 people approached by the organization daily of which 12,000 would have in depth conversations and 120 would decide to join. Broken down over the course of the year over 31 million people would have an interaction with that organization (roughly 10% of the population of the US), over 3 million would have had an in depth conversation about the issue and organization (roughtly 1% of the US population) and it would balance out to roughly 100,000 new members having been recruited for the organization. If each of these members gave say $10 a month, that would equal 1 million dollars a month in income, this is assuming none cancel (which is not the case), however after running the program for several years, you can see that you'd rapidly surpass 1 million dollars in monthly income and rapidly build a base of members while getting the message out to millions and providing an organization with a massive public presence. This same logic is used in email spam scams; that one only needs a small percentage of "hits" to make the operation profitable. Its also the same MO of certain religious groups that knock on your door weekends trying to convert your to their way of thinking. i have time none of them. And, as I touch on the subject of religion, let's just call environmentalism what it has evolved into; a religion. The same mental process of true belief and devotion are taking place here.

The bottom line, PM, is that they ARE getting paid, as opposed to being starry-eyed volunteers. So a good way to handle those nuisances is by asking them straigh out.."Are you getting paid for this? Because I"M not."

MomboMan:

Its also the same MO of certain religious groups that knock on your door weekends trying to convert your to their way of thinking.

But those religious groups (at least not Jehovah's Witnesses, about whom you are likely referring)aren't engaged in raising money. They are trying to raise consciousness of the beliefs they hold. If the environmental or other political fund raisers weren't asking for donations, then they wouldn't be so irritating.

I'd like to also point out that at least the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have the decency to not stand *three feet away from each other*, competing for your attention. Last Monday I counted six chuggers in a single block of sidewalk; 2 Greenpeacers, 2 Children's Fund, 2 Amnesty International.

Pmoriarty, you make it sound like your canvassers spread out across the neighborhood like Easter Bunnies, spreading happiness and goodwill in their wake. Do you ever take into account people like me and 90% of the other commenters here, who get so annoyed by relentless shilling that just the sight of your logo makes us shudder and go "Ugh, THOSE jerks"?

oakenguy:

Last Monday I counted six chuggers in a single block of sidewalk; 2 Greenpeacers, 2 Children's Fund, 2 Amnesty International.

Good lord, where do you live? I want to know so that I won't go there. Here in Houston, we don't have as much of a problem with these chuggers. I only see one on occasion. Perhaps this is because Texas is about as red state as it gets, but I think it might have something to do with the local cultural view of this sort of thing. Begging is begging, whether you're asking for beer money or trying to raise money for the environment.