Compare these two web ads for Haiti relief:
The first one, for World Vision makes a clear connection between the words and the image.
The second one, for United States Fund for UNICEF is startlingly incongruous. We see a mother and child. We assume they're Haitian, but they could be Canadian, for all we know. There's no hint that these two need help, are in danger, hungry, sick, or anything in particular.
Kind of odd, given that a major city lies in ruins, something like 250,000 people are crushed, more than a million are homeless, and many more are struggling with hunger and disease.
Now why would UNICEF choose to use an irrelevant image?
I have no inside knowledge of the situation, so I could be completely wrong about this, but I'll venture a guess: It's branding -- that old nemesis of effective fundraising. Branding just tends to do that. I can almost see it in my mind: The guidelines for UNICEF stress the dignity and self-sufficiency of those they serve. It would be exploitative to show them in their need.
It feels better -- a lot better -- to be able to say we protect the dignity of the people we serve. And images of people in pain, in need, surrounded by destruction or squalor -- those just make us uncomfortable.
But what if the cost of our feeling better about our messaging is significantly less revenue to serve?
To me, choosing feel-good fundraising over effective fundraising is immoral. The trade-off is way too steep; lives are at stake.
The only reason people respond to the UNICEF ad is because they're seeing the real pictures elsewhere.
If your organization is trapped by brand standards that force you to be irrelevant and ineffective, you should put a lot of energy toward changing that. It simply isn't tenable in a hurting world to let a discredited marketing theory keep you from raising the funds you need.
