Skip to main content

How low can you go?

I support a number of charities, but like many people I have been appalled by the way that some of these organisations have not realised that in encouraging people to do the decent thing and help others, they also need to treat their donors decently, rather than considering them idiots to be manipulated and squeezed out of every last drop of cash. It's a very unpleasant case of 'the end justifies the means' - and as usual, this is a motto that doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

The reason I bring this up is I've just come across the most cynical and unpleasant attempt to manipulate I've ever seen. I thought certain charities that send unrequested gifts like pens and mats in the hope of guilt tripping the recipient into paying were bad. But this is a new low.

Along with an apparent handwritten Post-it note - always a sign of dubious marketing - the letter from this charity, World Villages for Children had attached to it 12p. Twelve pence as cash. Actual money. They sent potential donors money. Why would they possibly do this? The letter from the charity explains that the author, Sister Michaela - the director of the charity, is sending me this 12p because she is desperate. What she wants me to do is send the 12p back to her, along with a cheque for at least £10 to help starving children in Guatemala. (If I do, apparently she will send me a bag containing six little 'worry dolls'.)

This is not a reason for sending 12p to me. There is only one possible reason - it is a marketing ploy. We all get junk mail that goes straight in the bin. But it is very hard to throw cash away. Especially cash that has been given to you by a charity. And for that matter, it feels evil just to put it in your pocket. Not to respond makes you feel guilty. It is top class manipulation.

Unfortunately, I don't like being manipulated. It's why I wouldn't watch the likes of the The X Factor or Britain's Got Talent, with their endless audience manipulation tricks. And it's why I'm not going to do what's intended of me here. I won't be sending that 12p back to them - I will be putting it in the collecting box of a charity that I support, such as the British Heart Foundation or The Children's Society.

I don't like to be repetitive, but I can't think of another adjective than cynical that so well describes this type of marketing.

*UPDATE* - Thanks to David Buick for pointing out that this approach has been going on for at least 10 years from this discussion.

Please note, if you comment, do not make any remarks suggesting that this charity's mailing is illegal or attempting to do anything illegal, as such comments would have to be removed as they would make this blog post liable to a takedown order, a mechanism often employed by those using this kind of marketing (see this post for details). The charity's methods are legal. But they are not acceptable.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
123 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more