Good analogy @williamwalker , and not to be upfront about it from the start was very sneaky. (Although they'll say they only just decided)
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.
Totally agree @natty_noo they do deserve it but so do all charities, and whether it was agreed beforehand who was getting the cash is another question, but at least we can agree it's going to a good cause, but the way it was done is questionable.
I do agree with you @natty_noo. As one of the people who nominated Adoption UK, it would have been good if it had been split between the 'runners up'.
I really don't understand how it worked, because my only inconvenience was one failed text message that day, so when the e mail arrived, not knowing which Charity/Charities would benefit, I simply deleted it without choosing. I then received a text message saying I would get 10p added to my credit, for the inconvenience ! So it seems, no reply was taken as 'I'd like the credit'. 10p is neither here nor there, but I'd have ticked the Charity box if I'd known that would happen.
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.
It isn't fair.
It isn't transparent.
It isn't in line with the values of the community.
However, as most in this thread have seen over and over again, fairness and consistency are not words that exist in the giffgaff lexicon. Rules are made up on the fly to post rationalise whatever they feel like doing, or justify something they demand we mere lowly members do not dare speak of.
Good publicity? Well there's loads of ways to get publicity, and giving money to a handful of causes will yield much better (with a competent communications team) goodwill and coverage than throwing one mass of cash at a random charity.
Asking questions that don't get a response? It's naive to justify it as educators not seeing it. They saw it and ignored it, because that's what they do.
People often come here to discuss things, hoping educators come along and treat us as equals. Unfortunately, it's much more likely that if you start a discussion they'll come along with bizarrely thought out contrarian arguments, purely to derail the thread. If they bother to engage at all.
And this then, is a blatant lie...
Considering none of us knew where the money was going, (although i think the majority of foum users thought along the same lines as myself, that it would be going to the nominated/voted for charities) how are they reporting that 'we' pledged the money to the homeless? How was that even possible when we weren't given a choice? When were we ever "offered the chance to donate money to the homeless"?
I have to say that i'm more than a little bit disappointed, £387k
could've should've been split between the runners up of the charities we voted on, all of which were eligible.
I'm hugely disappointed in the whole way this has been handled. Whether a worthy charity or not, Crisis weren't eligible, full stop.
Three charities should've benefitted from this money, this is like a kick in the teeth for us and for them.
Reading this article makes it even more of a bitter pill to swallow that Crisis was given £387k.
In effect, it seems we're just paying their high salaries.
Now i'm not just disappointed, i'm angry that they're getting it whilst three other charities miss out altogether.
At no point has giffgaff specified how the charity would be chosen. Not in the Announcements thread and not in the email which was sent out. So technically it has done nothing wrong in choosing Crisis. It has just been assumed that one of the charities nominated by members would be the recipient and subject to the usual rules.
I didn't respond to my outage email because I think giffgaff shouldn't even have to pay compensation so gave the matter no further thought. When we had the much more serious outage in 2013 members were given the option to choose compensation or investment "in the giffgaff member experience". Charity wasn't even considered. Here's the blog.
It's also worth remembering that if the recipient charity this time around had the been next placed charity nominated by members it might potentially have received more than the top two charities. Had that happened it might well have caused bad feeling - although as already stated in the OP the total pot of money could have been split equally 3 or 4 ways.
Having said all of the above, I can see there is an argument for saying that the outcome of the decision to choose Crisis is unfair and I understand why there is disquiet. This would be the time for a member of the team to put into practice the pledge made by Amy in the recent "Run by You" awards discussion to put in more effort with communicating and contributing to threads, but thus far there has been absolutely nothing. An explanation of the rationale behind choosing Crisis over one of the nominated charities would perhaps have helped. I am sure that commercial considerations were a factor, but to be fair the mobile phone industry is cut-throat and increasingly crowded, and giffgaff has to work hard to survive and grow.
Where I see wrong I am the first to comment and criticise, but on this occasion I don't think there was a deliberate plot to circumvent the rules and I definitely don't go along with the notion that giffgaff thought that it could get away with choosing a charity which had been excluded from the nominations process without anyone realising. The company knows that nothing escapes members' notice - and if it did think that no one would spot that Crisis was ineligible it was very naive. My hunch is that Crisis at Christmas seemed an apt choice for the time of year and no one gave it too much thought but just ran with the suggestion.
What troubles me about the decision, and as far as I am concerned is far more serious, is that it is yet another example of lack of judgement as well as failure to understand what members are likely to want and expect. In short, I see a near-total breakdown in the confidence and trust members have in the team, their integrity and the decisions they make.
Times like this are when we need leadership and a Head of Community, and we haven't got either.
I am happy for the money to go to Crisis , I would have prefered Shelter as they lost out on top 5 (payback) inclusion due to the convoluted rules. What I don't get is the rush to allocate the money. I, like others, expected a discussion and nomination process before a vote.