By the way, I don’t think it is at all “politically incorrect” to bemoan barrage of unsolicited emails we get, whether it is a request for charity or otherwise. A conversation on the openness (if that’s a word) of email communication is certainly worth having. But on the charity issue specifically I just don’t get the points made on this thread. I don’t think there’s any obligation for fundraisers to have to work harder for their money - I think it perfectly sensible that they take advantage of the internet like the rest of us and raise as much dough as possible. So be it if they fill up our inboxes. I’d prefer if we concentrate on real spammers or other people who take 6 emails to get one point and invariably end an email thread with “ok”, then send another with some stupid emoticon, and then other with “LOL”. Let’s let the fundraisers keep doing what they’re doing and ban the ones who are truly filling up the ether with electronic rubbish.

For example we get them ringing our house and asking for donations. Once my mum decided she may as well, so she donated some money to the charity thinking they’d stop ringing after getting what they wanted. Instead they put our name down on a ‘regular’ call list and just began ringing even more.

I agree that the Web can be an effective and efficient tool for charities to raise money but the question is how people raising money use it. To me, blasting out hundreds of emails to everyone you know isn’t personal fund-raising given there’s little effort involved to solicit donations.

Mark

I hit the comment button to make the same statement.

I actually give to Sick Kids monthly but get hit up by the crew all the time.

Even if I say “I already give to Sick Kids” to the chipper kid in the light blue t-shirt on the way to lunch, the same kid kid will ask me again ten minutes later