Which fundraising techniques really annoy the public?

Which fundraising techniques really annoy the public?

The press has focused a lot of criticism recently on charity fundraising. But just how annoying do the general public find their interactions with fundraising? Our latest interactive graphic allows you to explore different methods of fundraising and how annoyed different groups of the general public are by each. 

Simply select a demographic from the drop-down menu below to see how annoyance varies for each group. For example, we can see that in general and unsurprisingly donors are less likely to be annoyed by all types of fundraising than non-donors. This is particularly true for face to face, DM and email. Equally, while those in the AB social grade are generally less likely to be annoyed by fundraising, they are much more likely to be annoyed by text/SMS fundraising.

Charities should be aware of how off-putting their target audiences find fundraising by different methods. By listening to donors and tailoring communications to suit the audience, charities can safeguard the long term goodwill of the public and their supporters.

Have a play with the data and please let us know in the comments if you spot anything interesting or unusual!

"Which of the following best sum up your feelings towards each of the following types of charity fundraising?" I find it very annoying



Submitted by Trevor Hickman (not verified) on 18 Aug 2015


The most effective fundraising techniques are also the most annoying. And that's the dichotomy for fundraisers. Seemingly annoy the general public or waste money fundraising ineffectively.

I've lost count of the Board Members who have knocked back (for example) telemarketing campaigns as it 'damages the brand' but don't mind someone aligning the same brand with a dubious product or service.

My feeling is that people are 'annoyed' by telemarketing and face-to-face encounters as they have to find an immediate reason to say 'no' whereas with direct mail/online appeals are easy to ignore. Conversely the less intrusive methods recruit fewer donors but have (for regular giving) better retention rates because the initial choice was more considered. Someone needs to do a life-time-value model of 'annoyance level' versus income versus retention! Over to you!

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.