DialogueDirect - the Children's International Mercenaries

The most aggressive evangelists in Manhattan I know of are the paid solicitors from DialogueDirect working on behalf of Children's International, who step in front of walkers as they make their way crosstown on their commute home anytime between 5 and 7 each evening. Their tactics include stepping right in the oncoming path of a pedestrian waving their arms and providing any verbal hook such as "You like children, don't you?" or "Hey, I know you want to talk to me," or something to that effect.

Apparently, the kind folks at DialogueDirect have created a bit of a negative reputation, as noted in a local Portland newspaper. It's clearly a money-making venture to them, and to their credit, the vests I've seen them wear don't hide the fact that they're hired guns. It would be cynical to say that the legions of trained solicitors at DialogueDirect could care less about that kid in Africa which gets 80¢ on the dollar (by the same token, World Vision, which I give to and I think is far more worthy charity, puts 87¢ per dollar into programs) of every donation, but clearly the $180 commission that each of these pushy solicitors scores for every person who signs on is the much larger driving force here. Let's put it this way, they're not volunteering their time for free because they believe so much in the cause.

I have to say that I feel a little conflicted about paid solicitors. One one hand, there's a certain degree of irritation that I feel towards people who I sense are taking advantage of the false perception (even though many are upfront about their "paid solicitor status") that they're dedicated to first and foremost a very worthy cause, as opposed to making a living from it. And of course these people are some of the pushiest people on this planet, as noted in a recent article from the Village Voice. They are either oblivious to, or willfully ignore any non-verbal signals that you do not want to be approached or talk to them.

On the other hand, I also acknowledge that it's fundamentally unfair to condemn people who make a good living out of doing things which help people while people who profit by doing either morally neutral, or worse, morally-dubious things escape such scrutiny. As I had written in a previous blog, the double-standard is completely unfair. I quote, again, social entrepeneur Dan Pallotta:

“We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them. Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.”

So I will try to bite my tongue and avoid the temptation to be a jerk by blowing off these Children's International mercenaries with comments such as "Do I look like a $180 commission to you?" or "World Vision gives 87% of proceeds. Waive your commission to make things even and then we'll talk" or "Your passion for children is commendable. I'd be happy to give if you, as an agent of a children's charity, can provide me a brief summary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the basic rights contained within. I'm sure you know it inside-out given your zeal for the subject. Just the main points."

So carry on, DialogueDirect, but please honor my non-verbal signals to leave me alone.