High Pressure Salemanship in Campaigns

Communication to the Editor

Under date of February 5th, Mr. Emanuel Weiss of Reading, Pa., was quoted in the “Jewish Daily Bulletin” to the effect that “high pressure salesmanship was one of the objectional features of former campaigns which interfered with the work this time.”

This was in connection with the campaign for $35,000 for the United Jewish Campaign and the United Palestine Appeal. The total raised in subscriptions was $18,000, the campaign falling short by $17,000.

It is claimed that the campaign fell short because of personal differences between some of the workers and some of the largest contributors, Mr. Weiss then puts one and one together and assumes that it was high pressure salesmanship which was the objectionable feature. This statement does not stand close scrutiny. A little more than two years ago, a similar campaign was conducted in Reading to cover a period of three years. Two of the outstanding subscribers were approached. They had previously pledged a certain amount which had not been paid up to that time and which should have been included in the campaign plus an additional amount for the joint campaign. This, however, was not consummated by the potential subscribers who felt that the burden of one-third of the campaign was too much to thrust on them. To a degree, they were right. In the campaign just completed, these subscribers failed to participate or to subscribe, but their total subscription, even if it were a very favorable one, could hardly have been $17,000 out of a grand total of $35,000.

The writer was personally connected with the campaiguns two years ago and this year. The campaign this year became imperative because that part of the community that had subscribed in the previous campaign, failed to pay the second year’s installment. Presumably in isolated cases some payments were made, but as a matter of fact, part of the first year’s remained unpaid and none of the second year’s was paid. The present campaign was organized in order to wipe the slate clean and get a new start. Failure to pay could not possibly have been due to the indifference of the two subscribers, and Mr. Weiss had in mind the two subscribers when he made the statement.

It was not high pressure salesmanship by any means but rather low pressure salesmanship that killed the first campaign and a still lower pressure salesmanship that more thoroughly killed the second campaign. The thought was not driven home to the people that starving, suffering Jews must survive and that such survival depended upon cash contributions from Reading as well as elsewhere, and it was the only means for their salvation. The Reading campaign was a gentlemen’s campaign, and the gentlemen just as kindly, did not subscribe. That is the answer to low pressure campaigns generally. As long as human beings, anticipating bad business or business losses, will continue to own Packards and Pierce Arrows, to subscribe to their golf clubs, will not reduce house hold expenses, but will only cut on their charitable contributions, so long will high pressure campaigns be necessary. The first thought is the reduction in the charity subscription. There the retrenchment begins and ends. The acceptance of personal hardships, even if relinquishing luxury means little hardship, is not a consideration for one moment. This is a common failing in most charitable undertakings and it is regrettable that it was an outstanding feature in the Reading Campaign.

Very truly yours,

William Hirsch,

Secretary, United Jewish Campaign,

Eastern Division, Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia, Feb. 11, 1929.