// you’re reading...


charity telesales

WSA adsense code -->

My phone just rang, Scope, the cerebral palsy charity that I got suckered into donating to wanted to know if I would increase my donation. Even though my plan is stop donating to them, I ended up increasing it anyway. I did this, not because it was great sales tactics by the women I was speaking to, but because she was paid to call me, and I felt that I needed to cover her costs.

At least they are a worthwhile charity, right?

Similar Posts:

If you like what you're reading, why not leave a comment below, subscribe to my feed, or check out some of my best posts.


10 comments for “charity telesales”

  1. Yeah, don’t donate over the phone from now on…if possible. It’s much better to donate by check or online. Some charity telemarketers take up to 90% of the amount you donate. Others aren’t for legitimate charities at all and take your money (and possibly your credit card number).

    Trent Stamp of Charity Navigator has written about it at his blog: http://www.trentstampstake.org/

    Or charitynavigator.org (which shows how much different charities spend for advertising and such. It only works for bigger ones, though, because they don’t have time to do every one.)

    Posted by Mrs. Micah | November 3, 2007, 2:14 am
  2. Low administrative costs is a major factor in deciding which charity I’m going to give to. I just hate wasting my money on more fund-raising. Next time, just tell yourself it’s better to give your money to a more efficient organization (you can also make yourself feel better about not wasting Scope’s resources by telling them to take you off their mailing and call lists).

    Posted by Chief Family Officer | November 3, 2007, 3:47 am
  3. No good deed goes unpunished. You donate to a charity and they punish you by nagging you in perpetuity for more money. They also do you the favor of selling your name as part of their mailing lists to other entities. It’s all for a good cause.

    This is the primary reason that I try not to contribute to these organized charities. A few monthes ago I did contribute to the ACLU. Now I keep getting newsletters and mailings from them (even though I asked not to). A couple of years ago, right after the big Tsunami we donated several hundred dollars to the Red Cross - junk mail and requests for more money have been coming since then. It’s gotten to the point that I think they are spending more money on asking me for money than I actually gave them to begin with…

    Posted by shadox | November 3, 2007, 5:38 am
  4. I actually don’t mind them calling people up. I’d just prefer it if they said “would you like to increase your donation?” straight off. They I could say “yes” or “no” as appropriate.

    I should probably opt out more in general. If I never see another loan shark piece of junk mail, it will be too soon.

    Posted by plonkee | November 3, 2007, 9:00 am
  5. I’m so glad it’s not just me! I always am fully intent on saying no when “my” charities phone up to ask for more money but somehow the no turns into a yes…

    Posted by Miss Millionairess | November 4, 2007, 11:14 am
  6. After the tsunami in Southeast Asia, I made a donation to UNICEF (among other charities working there), and they’ve been very aggressive with telemarketing and direct mail to my home ever after. I resented the intrusions and had just decided to never give them another penny when I got a call from one of their telemarketers, who was so professional and intelligent that I caved in and agreed to a small monthly donation to my credit card. However, my credit card has never been charged so I appear to have escaped!

    Posted by brad | November 4, 2007, 2:10 pm
  7. As an ex-charity worker, I can categorically state that there are some charities who make better use of your money than others. If efficient giving is something that matters to you, I suggest looking at annual reports - when you see the working reserve levels it gives you a better idea of how much they need your money.

    Some charities do better because they have a more “marketable product”. Guide Dogs for the Blind are legendary in the industry because no-one can resist those cute lickle retriever pups. NSPCC has tv adverts with incredibly photogenic child actors portraying children in trouble. Experience says that the ones who need your money the most are probably the ones who have the least “marketable” end-clients. Changing Faces does some astonishingly wonderful work, but because it’s all about people with appalling facial scarring and/or deformities, they find it very hard to raise money.

    So, on the whole, if you were going to get suckered by a charity, Scope is a pretty good one :-)

    Posted by Annie | November 22, 2007, 8:20 pm
  8. Yeah. I’m not against Scope at all, I think CP is an important issue, I just want to start with the stuff that really matters to me and go one cause at a time.

    Posted by plonkee | November 23, 2007, 12:09 am

Post a comment

Proud member of the