Short of actual physical assault there is little more obnoxious when idling along a public thoroughfare than being chugged. Now the assailants have further automated their pseudo-worthy diabolical guilt assaults with smart phones to more efficiently process your banking details, if not instantly shackle you into a direct debit agreement.
Twice during my walk into work this week I have seen chuggers sans clipboards and kitted out with innocuous blackberry-esque handsets. Some outcomes of the pervasion of ICTs are less welcome than others. I wonder if the use of a mobile technology as the data collection mechanism has any effect on attitudes towards giving? Is it off-putting or does having a relatively expensive technology (rather than a clipboard & pen) somewhat authenticate or render greater authority for the chugger? I have no answer, but it’d be interesting to find out (and whether it is a decision calculated on more than efficiency). Either way, such activities are ethically questionable and perhaps antithetical to the admirable aims of charitable organisations.
I particularly liked this comment (from the article in the telegraph)
“If you’re a chugger and you like the job, rest assured, the rest of us bloody hate you.” worst thing about this phenomena is that they think they have the right to make you feel guilty for not donating; in this case chuggers in the UK are far worse/explicit than they are in Sweden. I often pretend I don’t speak English – which, it turns out, is rather efficient.