Yesterday we looked at the use of images in fundraising. Today I'd like to zero in on one area where the use of images causes a lot of controversy and gnashing of teeth: International relief and development organizations.
The right image can unlock the compassion of donors in amazing ways. But it's so tough to get images right for this cause.
The photos of happy, well-fed 3rd World children that the organizations love to show can undermine the message that there's hunger or need and crush fundraising results. But I've seen exceptions, where happy photos were part of very strong fundraising campaigns.
The tough, painful images of suffering people with stick limbs, swollen bellies, and flies in their eyes seldom work in fundraising. But there have been record-breaking exceptions to this, where truly terrible images help unleash incredible compassion.
The safe path seems to be people who look poor, but not like they're dying, and have worried, sad, or other serious expressions. But even that doesn't always do it.
(I have a theory for those correct but non-working images: Very often, photos of children in famine situations have what looks like an angry scowl. A viewer can hardly help but react defensively to what looks like someone who's pissed off. I'm told that a reason these kids have that expression is because they're often suffering from dehydration headaches, which makes them furrow their brows and frown. It's not an angry expression at all. But the visceral reaction is the same.)
Conclusion: There's no clear rule about what works. Too happy and too harsh are risky. Even the right kind can have response-killing flaws.
The frustratingly inexact principle I use: Look for images that touch the heart. Happy, serious, or disturbing. It's that heart connection that does the job.
