Throughout the 1990s, market researchers used to get exercised about what they called "sugging", which was "selling under the guise" of conducting legitimate market research. You'll probably remember the technique. Someone would phone on the pretext of conducting an energy efficiency survey. How many windows in your house have double glazing, they would ask. How much would you expect to pay to have the rest done? Would it surprise you to know that their company could do it for even less than that, if you buy today?
Fugging is a similarly dubious practice. It's fundraising under the guise of market research.
When the British Heart Foundation urges me: "Be one of the first to take part in the Nation's Biggest-Ever Heart Survey" (their capitals), I expect a weighty document, uncomfortably probing my lifestyle shortcomings in some detail.
Instead what I get are 18 pretty lightweight questions. Six on me and my heart, including my age and, in my opinion, do I look after my heart? Six on heart disease, including do I know anyone with heart problems? And seven on the British Heart Foundation. Do I know about the work funded by the BHF? Do I understand that it's a charity, dependent upon donations to continue? Do I think it should continue? Will I make a donation today to enable it to carry on?
Now I'm not saying the charity won't get some useful information from completed questionnaires, along the lines that only seven per cent of the population (we'll say) claims to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day.
But I'm left with the distinct impression that if this is the country's biggest-ever heart survey, the opportunity is being wasted. Unless, that is, the only response that counts is a cheque.
Similarly with the RSPCA's current 2007 Animal Survey. Possibly less blatant, it still ends with the question: "Knowing that we rely on public generosity, would you be prepared to help the RSPCA's work by making a small, regular donation of just £3 a month?"
I first came across the technique a few years ago, when a call centre got a DMA award for its work on behalf of an Aids charity. The strategy was to telephone members of the gay community, seemingly consulting them for ideas on what to do about the Aids scourge. The real point, though, was to get them to donate.
I was uneasy then and I'm uneasy now. These approaches may be very involving, but asking supporters for information and opinions when the only purpose is to extract money from them is highly cynical. Not a good route for charities. And let's be clear - I'm not going to be fugged by anyone.
Ken Gofton is a freelance journalist who has covered the marketing industry for over two decades.