This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost Australia, which closed in 2021.

Charity Shouldn't Start By Being Guilted Into A Donation

The other day a person on the street asked me if I cared about children with HIV. They asked it just like that, as I have typed it. “Do you care about children with HIV?” the man asked as I was briskly walking past, on my way to somewhere. How was I supposed to answer that?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Penny Stephens via Fairfax

The other day a person on the street asked me if I cared about children with HIV.

They asked it just like that, as I have typed it. "Do you care about children with HIV?" the man asked as I was briskly walking past, on my way to somewhere.

How was I supposed to answer that? Well, I know how the gentleman would have liked me to answer it. "Yes, of course I do," would have opened up a dialogue about the topic, segueing into a discussion about the charity he was chugging for.

'Chuggers' (a combination of 'charity' and 'muggers') are commonplace in Australian capital cities. Fundraisers (uni students, foreign visitors, do-gooders) lurk on busy streets and systematically stalk the public in an attempt to appeal to a passerby's good nature in the form of charity donations or subscriptions.

That part I have no problem with. Charities are wonderful, necessary, commendable organisations. I love charities and I give to charities often. I also appreciate that charities need to raise funds by a variety of means and that at times means face-to-face interactions with the public.

My issue is with the language used around the topic in a bid to lure would-be philanthropists. Chuggers use open-ended questions, which, when phrased correctly are intended to engage the person they're speaking with and encourage full, meaningful answers (and are supposed to be less leading than closed-ended questions).

But in this context, I feel this type of language is extremely leading. In Sydney's Martin Place just a few days ago I was shouted at: "Do you care about animals?"

My answer was a short, sharp "No" because I didn't have time to say: "Yes, I do care about animals. That's why I don't eat them. Do you eat them? I also have two rescue pets and donate a decent sum monthly to my chosen charities. I am on my way to an important meeting right now so can't talk but as a whole I think charities such as the one you represent are wonderful and I applaud their good work."

And can you guess their response? "Well that's not very nice", to which I replied "nor is your approach".

Perhaps more constructive, open-ended questions would have fewer people crossing the street to avoid such situations. Perhaps a little professionalism would do the charity these people represent some justice. Maybe some statistics and facts around the cases they're spruiking could ignite a meaningful interaction and coax a coin from a pocket or two.

Because right now the attention-grabbing one-liners that chuggers are employing are the street equivalent of tacky clickbait, and I'm not biting.

Close
This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost Australia. Certain site features have been disabled. If you have questions or concerns, please check our FAQ or contact support@huffpost.com.