CharityVillage® Research: Survey-based fundraising attacked

Resources & Library

Path: Main Street : Resources & Library : Research Articles : Feature Article

Survey-based fundraising attacked
October 2, 1996; Canadian FundRaiser
FRUGGING, or Fund Raising Under the Guise of market research, is about to become the latest concern of thoughtful Canadian fundraisers. In an article by Myron Rusk in the October issue of its newsletter, Imprints , the Professional Marketing Research Society (PMRS) examines the practice, and finds it severely lacking.
The PMRS is far from alone in its concerns. While it is difficult for some charities employing this practice to believe that you cannot use one form both to raise funds and to learn the views of prospects and donors, fundraiser John Bouza of John Bouza & Associates notes, "One form cannot do both jobs. This is a bad use of survey techniques and bad fund raising. Their organizations clearly don't respect their donors."
As Myron Rusk points out, we all receive numerous appeals from worthy and deserving charities and causes. Our names are on their prospect lists as likely to be sympathetic to their mission. It is logical that they may wish to learn our views for planning purposes. It is also logical to request those views and make an appeal in the same form letter - Isn't it?
And, adds Rusk, perhaps their survey questions can have only one answer if you don't wish dangerous people to be able to buy guns easily, or corporations to get tax breaks instead of paying "for our much needed social programs", or employment agencies to be allowed to refer "whites only" for jobs. The momentum of agreeing from one obvious question to the next, leads the respondent/prospect to the final question, which, of course, is to ask which level of contribution will be made to the cause.
Not as bad as "sugging", but ...
Fund raising under the guise of carrying out a survey, Rusk allows, is comparatively less serious than that of "sugging", the use of a survey lead-in to sell consumer goods. But nonetheless serious enough for PMRS to fight back.
A marketing research consultant based in Ottawa, and a long-standing member of the PMRS, Rusk offers as a case history the Coalition For Gun Control, whose appeals use the survey approach, including "loaded" questions, "not the sort that an anti-gun group should use!" He challenged the CGC's Wendy Cukier on the practice and reports her reply as being that if she really needed survey findings she would use Angus Reid. The pile of survey returns from the fund raising letter would be shown to Myron Thompson M.P. of the Reform party to impress him on the popular support her cause enjoys. "My argument about the credibility of a loaded survey," he says, "didn't impress her."
A more open approach...
Rusk also cites the Canadian Public Opinion Poll on Social Program Cuts conducted by the Campaign For Fairness, National Anti-Poverty Organization. They note the cuts to social programs, saying that "Your opinions are needed on whether the cuts to these programs should go ahead". A ten-day time limit for a reply is given with no reason for the deadline. We are told, says Rusk, that "the completed poll will be tabulated and delivered to the Prime Minister". And they do, he grants, receive over 30,000 replies and do inform the PMO. According to Executive Director Lynne Toupin, he says, the Campaign will look into doing a survey that it can afford and will take a more open approach to fund raising.
Recently, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association initiated a survey on civil liberties with a six-day time limit to reply, in a six-page "Dear Friend of Democracy" letter signed by June Callwood. The last question of six asks "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: `Citizens need a strong respected organization like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to protect our freedom of expression, privacy and other vital rights and freedoms'?". Those who agree, then endorse the statement "Yes, I believe the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is Canada's most prestigious, principled and effective voice for the protection of my civil liberties" and are immediately offered an opportunity to contribute an amount ranging from $35 to $1000 to "protect and enhance my threatened rights and freedoms". The quotes, Rusk stresses, are in large, bold face print.
Objective: To recruit new members
In a dialogue with Alan Borovoy, the CCLA's General Counsel, Rusk argued that the survey is clearly not a genuine survey, and the deadline is not explained. Their objective, apparently, was to recruit new members to correct the financial downturn they and other nonprofits are experiencing and to invite the views of those reached. "And, indeed," he adds, "they are getting returns with opinions. When I suggested that a genuine survey would be much more helpful in getting a representative range of opinion, I was told that they couldn't afford an academic survey."
Another delinquent, in Rusk's experience, is the United Nations Association in Canada, quoting their response as both shifting the responsibility to their hired fundraiser, and challenging the importance of his concern. The current Executive Director, Harry Qualmar, says Rusk, is actually tabulating the results, and dismisses the possibility that the responses may be tainted by the fact that those put off by the survey approach, or simply not believing it, wouldn't have replied.
These "delinquent worthy" causes, says Rusk, tell him that the survey approach is not viewed by their organizations as immoral or deceptive, since their cause is just. He characterizes their response as being essentially that "surely, since government funding is less, we must do what we can without any concern for the health nor integrity of the survey research industry nor the trust that is vital with the public."
PMRS rules are clear
Sarah Greenberg, chair of the PMRS Standards Committee, points out that the PMRS Rules of Conduct and Good Practice are very clear on this issue. The relevant passage reads: "The Responsibility of the Members to the Public: Since most marketing research depends on the cooperation of respondents, members should ensure a continuing climate of goodwill, responsibility and trust. Respondents should be left positively disposed to marketing research. Therefore, a meticulous standard of good manners should be maintained at all times. Marketing researchers have a direct responsibility to ensure that respondents are in no way embarrassed or hindered in other ways as result of any interview. The purpose of interviewing must be limited to the finding out of information or observation of reactions relevant to the research problem at hand."
"Interviewing must not be used as a disguise for selling or developing sales leads, nor for deliberately influencing the opinions of those interviewed. Client products must not be given to respondents to develop sales leads."
Joanne McNeish, editor of Imprints , suggests that it is not likely to be PMRS members who engage in this type of activity. Over the past year, she notes, Sarah Greenberg has received four complaints, and Rusk's research indicates that frugging is perhaps more prevalent than the number of complaints indicates. Calling for an information campaign on the subject, Rusk argues that charities using this technique are damaging their own causes.
Bait and snatch technique
Rob Brown, president of Toronto-based telemarketing organization Artsmarketing Inc., and membership chair of the National Society of Fund Raising Executives (Toronto Chapter), agrees. "Frugging," he says, "is just another form of the bait and snatch technique. It is 100% against our code of ethics and that of the Canadian Direct Marketing Association and the Canadian Telemarketing Association. At best, it is misleading and, at worst fraudulent." Brown believes that fundraisers get better results by being honest with donors. The purpose of any call or direct mail piece, he says, should be disclosed clearly, early in the call or written piece. Perhaps, the one gray area he sees is the need to prequalify donors by asking a few questions. "Let's say an opera company has various subscription packages. They may wish to determine the habits of the potential purchasers through two or three questions and then direct them to the right package."
All complaints to sugging, frugging or mugging (Marketing under the Guise), can be directed to Sarah Greenberg or David Stark of the Canadian Survey Research Council. David can be reached at (416) 620-0702 or fax at (416) 620-5392. Sarah can be reached at (416) 928-1562 or fax (416) 928-3480. For more information call Myron Rusk at 613-236-6264, or Joanne McNeish at 613-734-3655.