The chuggers are out in SE Asia. It's that time of year. Even in Malaysia - which I'm always a bit surprised about, because it is an officially Muslim country! (And tbh Christmas is not a big celebration in any SE Asian country, bar perhaps the Philippines). In fact the chugging phenomenon has just started in places like Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. And I'm not keen on chugging here, any more than I was in London!
The word chugger is an amalgam of 'charity' and 'mugger' (someone who violently robs you). They are the people in bright logo t-shirts, who appear in busy shopping areas usually before Christmas, accosting you to make money subscriptions to (usually large, famous) charities.
I might have mentioned before that even if we don't actively practice the religion, a lot of European countries still have some 'Christian values' at the core of society. I only really noticed this after moving to Asia; I just (inevitably) thought they were 'normal values' until then! Things like compassion and giving are quite key in the West. Which they are not, necessarily, in Asian countries. Many friends in Singapore, for example, simply could not comprehend why successful Western countries like Germany were considering offering alms to refugees. Why would you invite such problems, and costs, if you're a prosperous nation? Why would you not simply protect your own? Well, part of the initial European sentiment, in my opinion, comes from centuries of religious background. As well as centuries of politico-historical, good and bad stuff we have hoped to learn from. (Though obviously, the recent refugee crisis ended up being a lot more difficult - and a whole debate in its own right...)
But anyway, this cultural aspect of compassion + Christianity is why chuggers particularly target pre-Christmas in Western countries.
Hang on, though, giving to charities is good, right? Especially if it's in your culture. So why would these groups get the 'chugger' name, and what are they doing wrong? Well, quite a lot, as it turns out. Though this view probably depends on whether you are a big charity, or a member of the public.
My earliest memory of chuggers in the UK was in the 1990s. And back then they were seen (as they are currently in SE Asia) as quite a novelty, and surely a good thing. But as time has passed, chuggers have become more favoured with the charities, and less favoured with the public.
Chuggers are usually not volunteers who work for the charities they are pushing. Most come from organised agencies which specialise in hiring out teams of them (often college students), especially over the Christmas period. This third party aspect provides some useful business benefits (and, apparently, legal get-outs) for the charities. And to differentiate, if the person who is fundraising wants your bank details (and might not be happy for you to simply give a one-off donation or drop cash into their box) they are probably a chugger, rather than a regular 'street fundraiser'.
Stats say that around 80% of the UK public today loathe chuggers. This is for a number of reasons, including that many of the teams can employ aggressive, misleading, or pressuring tactics, be invasive, or try to make you feel guilty for not subscribing to the particular charity they're marketing. The 'good' ones are trained to spot the most likely types of pedestrian, target them, and use specific trigger phrases to 'make' them sign up (or 'make us feel' we should sign up). 'Make' is not a great aspect here. There are all sorts of clever and not-very-Christmassy tactics used to 'make' the public hand over their bank details for the subscription.
Most agency chugger teams work on a base + commissions/bonus basis. So for a start, the integrity, knowledge and passion of these people can come into question. Some marketers see this as an old-fashioned viewpoint, and flag up that chugger training practices have improved, and that bad press is the real reason for the public dislike of them. And it's true, the UK right-wing press, especially, is negative about chuggers. But either way, chugging is big business, and the chuggers' motivation might not be the cause they're pushing at you, but their own bonuses. This is also why one-off donations might be refused: the chuggers' KPIs are based on signing up bank details for long-term subscriptions.
I guess irritation, intimidation or politics aside, there is just something a bit off about the chugger as a person 'doing good'. Which at the same time is what they're trying to tell us we must be. Why should we be made to feel guilty for not supporting a charity, when the people pressuring us don't support it either? And are just making us feel bad for their own Christmas pocket-money? There's a big disconnect there, and I can't help thinking that if big scale is the only way to effectively fundraise today, surely a better model can be found?
The fast-growing number of chuggers has also been an issue. In early teens London*, at this time of year, there used to be teams on practically every street corner. Each one wanting to stop you and talk to you, and make you sign up to a different charity. Having to interact with one, polite, fundraising team each day on your commute can be charming - even if you don't agree with their cause. But eight or ten different teams of them? Shopkeepers have complained that as soon as chuggers set up outside their stores, they lose custom. Because people want to avoid the stress of being chugged, and will shop elsewhere.
Another key aspect is that (possibly because of the culture) many UK people already support and/or have donations subscriptions to charities. In fact the UK public are consistently in the top 12 in the World Giving Index. But these are not causes we've been chugged or coerced into supporting. They're ones we've chosen ourselves, because we particularly appreciate the work they do, or the values they stand for. They could be any kind of charity - individuals all have their own, personal reasons for support. And that's another reason why being endlessly accosted on the street is not appreciated. Some people are perfectly capable of choosing their own causes.
[Compassion Fatigue - ie so many causes simultaneously pushing at you, that you just switch off from all of them- is also a very real problem at this time of year in the UK.]
Chuggers can give charities a bad name. And in fact, several of the large UK charities will not use them. Though many others do. If we've had aggressive or irritating experiences with third-party chuggers, we trust that charity a little bit less - and for general marketing goals, trust is quite important! In fact some academic research from The Netherlands has shown that the majority of people
sign up for subscriptions, not because they agree with the charity's
work or ideals, but because it's the fastest way to shut down an
uncomfortable and exhausting human interaction: refusing under (repeated)
pressure. That in itself surely puts chugging into one of those most
unsavoury and unethical of marketing practices? It is deliberately making the public
into a kind of victim to achieve its goals. And that's not nice. Hence, perhaps, the widespread dislike
of chuggers.
Despite many UK press articles (even in some moderate / liberal press!) comments and opinion pieces, complaining about chuggers - even calls for bans in some regions - the practice has continued to grow. For one reason: direct and repeated pressure on pedestrians is hugely effective in getting money in to charities. Apparently the returns for using chugger agencies come in at about 3:1. Which is quite significant. It's nasty - but it works.
Some years ago I remember talking to a friend (who works for a large NGO) regarding their use of a particularly ditzy celebrity as ambassador. The celeb seemed to have minimal grasp on anything related to the cause, but just wanted to be 'seen' as fashionably charitable for PR purposes. My friend agreed with me entirely: it was bad. But, she said, this celebrity was so popular that her mere presence boosted donations hugely from certain demographics. And what the charity needed to carry out its work, was cash. When there are pressing, maybe life-and-death, situations at hand, it doesn't really matter how the money comes in. As long as it comes in.
There is also an argument (which I strongly suspect does not apply in Asia yet, but could in places like London) that not all chuggers are college students making holiday money. Some genuinely destitute people also find work with the chugging agencies, and it can prove an important lifeline for them to get back 'up on their feet' and into society. I don't know what the actual statistics for this are, but that could be one more positive and genuine angle.
Either way, if you don't enjoy being accosted on street corners, or every time you use the escalator in your mall, there are other ways of donating or subscribing to good causes! At any time of year. And when you can do your own online research and decision-making, in your own time. (And if supporting charities is just not your thing, that is OK too!)
* I've been in Asia for most Christmases since then, so can't comment on more recent years!
You can check out the latest World Giving Index here:
World Giving Index 2017
