Was/is it fair?

natty_noo

I'm a big believer in giving to charity, and all are worthy, i know that, but i'm not sure how i feel about Crisis being the only charity of choice for the donated outage refunds. I think giffgaff could've distributed it differently (and fairer)

Hear me out. For the payback nominations, Crisis weren't eligible because they won and received donations in December '16. But somehow they'll still end up with more money than the top two charities that won this time around, and a whole £387k better off than the other three charities in the top five that lost out.

Here's what was said in the nominations thread;

"The following charities are not eligible for donations in this Payback period.

- Macmillan Cancer Support (received donations June 2018)

- Children with Cancer UK (received donations June 2018)

- British Heart Foundation (received donations December 2017)

- Save the Children (received donations December 2017)

- Cancer Research UK (received donations June 2017)

- Bluebell Children's Hospice (received donations June 2017)

- Crisis (received donations December 2016)

- Great Ormond Street Hospital (received donations December 2016)"

So would it have been better/fairer to split that £387k between the three charities that didn't get into the top two, plus Crisis? A four way split, nearly £100k each, surely that would've been a fairer/kinder way of doing it?

shabazmoqsud

@natty_noo it would made more sense to select the charity that came 3rd in list of nominations this year in terms of votes

And give the outage money to charity

natty_noo

@shabazmoqsud

I just think if they weren't going to budge on Crisis, (if we'd been told beforehand) then at least split it between the last three in the top five nominations, plus Crisis. £100k is a nice chunk of money, especially to the smaller charities.

kath72

Yeah I thought it should be spilt between the nominated charities too

natty_noo

Tbh @kath72 , that's exactly what i thought was going to happen. It would've been a nice thing to do anyway.

I'm not being negative about Crisis, but considering they weren't actually eligible for the payback funds, i think giving it to the ones that were eligible would've been the obvious thing to do. Adding Crisis would've been fine, as a four way split though.

And i know this is 'different money', but still.

b_richards

I'd have been so pleased if it was split between the charities that didn't win, not to say that i'm not happy for Crisis, because i am, but £100 thousand would've also come in very handy for any one of the three that missed out.

giffgaff20147

@natty_noo

It should have been split between this years charitys after all that is what members voted in this year ,

natty_noo

Agreed @giffgaff20147 , but we'll be told it's completely different money, which, of course, is true.

But as Crisis wasn't eligible for the payback donation because of being a previous winner, then i think it's a bit unfair on the charities that were eligible, but still lost out. Twice over.

k89bpa

Right? Fair? I don't know.

Certainly brilliant PR though, (unless it becomes known that giffgaff informed their customers of what was happening through press releases rather than actually talking to them which is a huge customer service fail).

mightymario

A cynic might think that a large donation to Crisis especially at Christmas will get giffgaff more publicity/headlines than splitting the pot between several charities and it also explains their rush to close the selection process.

moominpappa

Personally I simply think that's it's great that giffgaff decided to support any charity.

As a MVNO, giffgaff might have decided to do nothing at all about the outage, so at least someone will benefit from the reimbursement 🙂

natty_noo

Considering Adoption UK was eligible, AND one of the top five, if they'd given it to them to make up for the Halloween fiasco i would've accepted it a bit more @moominpappa

kim_x

I have managed to miss the stipulations regarding the eligible charities until now, so reading this thread does give a fresh perspective on it.

My biggest problem was that the charity was not announced before users were required to make their selection. As a result I made several posts advising those who felt similarly to take the credit and make a corresponding donation to a charity of their choice later. Further, it was not explicitly stated that the charity would not be one of those in the running to receive the payback - which presumably would have been decided early on.

In a way, I think it's good that the charity was separate from the payback: earlier I noticed a few posters thinking that the donated portion of the goodwill fund would be matched by giffgaff as is the case with donated payback, so having it go to the same charities would only have increased confusion.

Crisis seems a topical charity for it to go to, as many people's predicaments are exacerbated at this time of year. However, given their ineligibility to receive payback this time, perhaps another similar charity would have been better. Shelter perhaps?

ujo55

I doubt that fairness was given a second thought, the objective was to maximize publicity.

woodyuk

For what it's worth my view is that no it wasn't fair and that it should never have happened and that giffgaff had banked on nobody realising that Crisis were disqualified from receiving donations this year.

Yes,it's a different lump of money but ultimately it belongs to the same people with those being giffgaff members.The normal bi annual charity donations are of money that members have earnt in payback and opted to give to charity and the goodwill fund payment is money that members have chosen to give to charity rather than having it credited to their accounts so which ever way you slice it,both lots of money come from the members.

This means that in one breath giffgaff have said "Crisis can't receive members' cash this year" and in the next breath,"we've given your money to Crisis without even asking you if it was ok for us to".

What we have is a very blatant set of double standards on our hands but like others I'm expecting to soon be seeing the photos of giffgaff staff handing over lottery winner sized cheques to Crisis because this whole sorry affair was too good a PR oppurtunity to be missed so the donation rules for this year have been quietely swept under the carpet.

hayleyb1187

i agree as i feel personally it would be more benficial to be split between a few charities as it would still help but it would help alot more people in the long run

williamwalker

Hi @natty_noo

Got to agree with you totally.

We should of been told what charities would be benefiting.

I see this in very simple terms.

IIf you were walking in town and someone asked would you like to give to charity you ask what charity.

Response

We can't tell you however we'll put a notice on local board who it went to.

I definitely wouldn't give and would be very suspicious.

jokeyboi77

I asked this very question @natty_noo on the outage thread before we knew it was Crisis getting the cash, but of course it was buried with all the posts, and giffgaff never seen my question, but I agree it should've been split with all the nominations or gone to Adoption UK.

natty_noo

@woodyuk wrote:

For what it's worth my view is that no it wasn't fair and that it should never have happened and that giffgaff had banked on nobody realising that Crisis were disqualified from receiving donations this year.

Yes,it's a different lump of money but ultimately it belongs to the same people with those being giffgaff members.The normal bi annual charity donations are of money that members have earnt in payback and opted to give to charity and the goodwill fund payment is money that members have chosen to give to charity rather than having it credited to their accounts so which ever way you slice it,both lots of money come from the members.

This means that in one breath giffgaff have said "Crisis can't receive members' cash this year" and in the next breath,"we've given your money to Crisis without even asking you if it was ok for us to".

What we have is a very blatant set of double standards on our hands but like others I'm expecting to soon be seeing the photos of giffgaff staff handing over lottery winner sized cheques to Crisis because this whole sorry affair was too good a PR oppurtunity to be missed so the donation rules for this year have been quietely swept under the carpet.

They certainly did bank on it, but as soon as i read where it was going it struck me straight away that Crisis wasn't eligible this year, that's why i felt that this thread had to be made. Not only weren't they eligible, they will now actually end up with more in donations than this years winners.

My op was changed a few times before posting, i didn't want my wording to be taken the wrong way, but one word i did change was 'underhanded', but i'm sorry, it was just that.

None of it sits right with me, not when three other charities could've benefited this year. Charities that were eligible.

natty_noo

Good analogy @jokeyboi77

I wonder if your question would've been answered if it had been seen? Because if it was, and they said it was going to Crisis, then this thread would've been made last week asking them why Crisis are now eligible for giffgaff donations when a few days before they weren't?

And i'm certainly not saying Crisis don't deserve it, but rules are rules. Except, of course, when giffgaff change them to suit themselves, which we see all too often on here.