Google results can tell you a lot about an organization.

I wanted this blog to be balanced so I started googling WWF to see if there is any criticism about their recruitment or donation policies. I was planning on making a post discussing the criticisms and my reaction to them. What I found was nothing related to recruitment or donation, only two links had criticism of any sort moderately critiquing actions in the Philippines and Australia.

Here is what I googled:
Anti WWF
Stop WWF
WWF Criticism

All other criticisms were about the World Wide Wrestling Federation, which used to have the same initials, WWF.

I have been doing a lot of research about this blog pertaining to recruitment and donation policies for Greenpeace. After looking for negative comments on WWF I started doing the same for Greenpeace, so I googled the same adjectives I did with the WWF:

Anti-Greenpeace
Stop Greenpeace
Greenpeace Criticism

What I found was night and day. Where WWF had only two legit criticisms, Greenpeace has pages. Most of the grievances have little do with recruitment, so I tried googling "Greenpeace annoying." If you follow some of the links you find that people have posted on a forum speaking out against Greenpeace recruitment policies and the post will get pages of responses in agreement.


I know Greenpeace won't change how they go about recruiting and receiving donations, they are an aggressive "anything to get press" type of organization much like PETA. Also like PETA, they rub a lot of people the wrong way, and although it works for PETA it isn't working for Greenpeace. Canada has taken away its charity status. The WWF receives double the amount of donations without using street recruiters. They have been proven to use false facts to garner support. The public goes out of their way to avoid them.

It is time for a change. That change can start with you, Abigail Smith. You are in charge of the recruiters in Orange County. Tell the recruiters you oversee to be respectful and give people space. It will result in less money at first, but more respect. People will donate to an organization they respect.


Like the WWF.

Concerned about the environment. Respectful. Successful.

Comedy writer worked at Greenpeace as a joke.

A previous blog post mentioned that Greenpeace trolls for applications for management positions on craigslist. They also do that for the recruiters you see out and about.

This made me wonder, could someone who could care less about Greenpeace and the environment get a job within the organization as a recruiter? The answer is yes.
I thought it would be funny if I applied for a job with the company and write an article about it but it seems someone beat me to the punch.

In the article he talks about how he needed money, so he started working as a recruiter for Greenpeace. In it he describes his enthusiasm for Greenpeace

Unfortunately for Greenpeace, I’m kind of a mercenary, which means I’ll ask people to sign up for a newsletter about cock piercings if you pay me enough.

Wonderful. Excuse the language posted, but I think that drives the point home. Greenpeace not only tells recruiters to get into a person's face and to be disrespectful and relentless, they will also employ anyone who wants to make $12 an hour.

Knock it off Greenpeace.


They look uncomfortable. Also, in a mall? Really?

Latest "Panther" at Chapman criticizes Greenpeace recruiters.

After being told by multiple classmates, I finally picked up the paper and was not surprised to see a staff editorial by Kristen Salazar speaking out against Greenpeace on campus.

Apparently she got cornered and was late for class and the recuriter wouldn't let her go. Below are some of the gems.

I hate all solicitors, but Greenpeace just
tops them. It has great causes but terrible
means. I understand solicitors have a purpose,
I just want their purpose to be a lot quieter and
less invasive.
Using slanted questions to guilt people into
supporting a cause is not the right way to motivate.
People should be passionate about the
cause without having anyone manipulating
them into it.
I’m in full support of saving the rainforests
but the way Greenpeace talks to me about it
makes me want to print 100,000 photos of
felled trees out of spite. Since I resent its tactics,
I have come to resent its causes.

This is exactly what I have been writing about. I like Greenpeace's cause but their recruitment methods of cornering and laying on guilt makes me run for the hills.


But here is my favorite part of the article:

I finally got to class and told everyone
about being accosted by Greenpeace.
They all seemed to agree that while
they do enjoy whales, they don’t enjoy being
told that whales are dying because they’re
not donating a minimum of $15 a month to
the cause.

The entire class agreed with her. Not one person enjoys their methods. Abigail, why not change to more passive aggressive methods? Start it in Orange County, and then if it is successful let it spread throughout the nation. It might not be as profitable in the short term, but in the long term it will restore credibility and hopefully boost donations to Greenpeace. Who knows, maybe Canada will restore its Charitable status.


WWF does it. They receive almost double the amount of donations that Greenpeace enjoys. So what say you Abigail?

You can read the paper here.

In Canada, Greenpeace is not considered a chairty.

Canada is often seen as one of the most "environment friendly" nations. Yet they openly shun Greenpeace.

Canada revoked Greenpeace's charitable status in 1989 citing that it has no public benefit. They then established a legal work around shortly after, but the charitable status of that was also revoked in 1995. You can still donate in Canada, but you can't get any tax break from it.

Why did Greenpeace get their charitable status revoked? They are a non profit after all.

"This opinion resulted from an audit which raised serious concerns about the charity's compliance with the Income Tax Act. The audit revealed that the charity had failed to devote all its resources to charitable activities."

(Find the source here)

Failed to devote all its resources to charitable activities.
Nice, so when they pressure citizens on the street to donate money to save the environment, what do they spend the money on? I might be ignorant, but Greenpeace is a liar.

Want to donate to a non-profit that devotes 100% of revenue towards the environment?
WWF

Greenpeace uses Craigslist to recruit management.

Ah, so members of the passionate management team of Greenpeace are found through Craigslist. The same site where you can buy sold out tickets, or cruise for casual sex. Neat. (Find the link here)

It seems to me that the management team of Greenpeace should be passionate and devoted enough to seek out employment at Greenpeace, not apply for it after seeing the job listed on Craigslist.

I wonder if Abigail Smith got her job after responding to a Greenpeace ad?

I especially like this requirement in the job description

"Frontlining: City Coordinators are expected to Frontline two days per week averaging $30 in pledges per day."

They are expected to make at least $30 dollars in pledges two times a week, their job depends on that. I wonder if that means they will do anything to make that money? Say guilting people into donating?

Fascinating.