Charities
Over the years I've donated to multiple charities on a monthly basis in the hope of helping others, where I can't directly interact / contribute but believe in their mission. I started donating when I turned 30 / was at a point in my life where I could do it without worrying about the next meal / bills bouncing due to a lack of funds.
In the many years I've been doing this it has had its ups and downs, including two periods where I needed to pause donations (for the sake of having a roof over my head), and throughout this time the constant communication themes have honestly left me questioning myself / in some cases leave me feeling a failure.
My guiding rule with each charity (from the start) is that they all receive the same donation amount from me. This isn't to say one charity isn't more vital / more impactful than another, it's so I can give something to multiple charities rather than a lot to a few. In truth I found this helped with the initial moral dilemma of prioritisation, which frankly becomes a recurring theme (more on that later).
The pressure around donating does differ based on the charity / their overall size (and not as I had initially expected). In my experience I've found that smaller charities are actually more polite / less pressuring regarding recurring donations / their need. The common theme for these was around how they were grateful for the donations and hoped they would continue. Occasionally there would be a request for either a one-off additional donation (wrapped around a specific ongoing issue), or if I could increase my monthly amount (but these requests were infrequent).
Focus on larger charities and things change dramatically (for the most part). The monthly amount never seems to be enough, with frequent requests to give more wrapped around how an ongoing crisis is critical and it all hinges on me. On the latter point, the wording is very charged / pressured to elicit an emotional response (and frankly a feeling of inadequacy). I've honestly lost track of how many people have been negatively impacted because I wouldn't double my monthly donation.
Attempting to adjust the communication preferences is also an interesting endeavour, with (in my experience) it rarely working as desired. While some people prefer to be part of a mailshot / to receive a hard-copy booklet, I prefer to get the same information via email (mostly because it saves on cost, which can then be used to benefit those the charity helps). With some charities I've tried multiple times to have the paper mail stopped, but still it's received (months after each request).
When attempting to stop some of the charity donations (as their mission has changed / a recent public investigation has found them to be about as trustworthy as someone selling DVDs at a car boot), it becomes an ordeal in itself. Whilst one of them spotted the direct debit cancellation and sent a polite email to indicate they were grateful for the previous donations and hoped I might choose to donate again soon (very civil, very polite), others would take the approach of doubling down on how it must have been a mistake because surely I wouldn't be trying to cause suffering to those I was previously helping. Make no mistake, the guilt trip is real with these.
A somewhat recent set of developments with charities is that of the will inclusion and the lottery-style gambling. With the former, more charities will now assist you with your will for free in the hope that you will donate funds to them upon your demise (I have no issue with this, when it's asked politely and isn't pressured like other parts of their communication). With the latter, it has become commonplace to see how a car / house could be won etc. This I do take issue with, as while it clearly gets more people donating it does change the nature of the donations (it's no longer a selfless act, it's because you might win more than you put in).
Someone once said to me that each charity is a sign of a broken system, and I agree... Taking a large charity that helps get fresh water to those that need it (i.e., creating wells) as an example, needing people to donate to support something that is a basic human right / is a problem that we have the technology / manpower to solve, illustrates how broken the system is. The means to solve the issue (permanently) exists, however the motivation isn't there. Sadly this highlights how humanity as a whole is somewhat lacking.
Every time I think of this I recall someone else once telling me that sometimes you have to let a system fail before it can become better (as the scale of the issues are hidden otherwise), and this always leaves me in the middle of a moral dilemma: donate in order to help those in need (continuously trying to hold back the tide), or do nothing and watch the system fail (and potentially people losing their life) in the hope it finally gets the permanent fixes that are needed. I don't think there is an easy / simple solution (or choice) here, as either option comes with a cost (be it financially or morally).
So why write all of this, and what point am I trying to make? This isn't me advocating for donating to charity, nor is this me advocating for not giving to charity, it's an honest view of frustration in a global system whereby charities are even needed when the means to solve their issues already exists. I truly hope (for the sake of the charities themselves) they ease up on the guilt trips / pressure in their communications, but I get it, the maths shows that they are more likely to have people increase their donations than get new donors in.
Hopefully in my lifetime the world can get its act together and sort these issues permanently, for the sake of those who need it now, and those who come after.