I posted a couple times recently on the use of images in fundraising (Images that work in fundraising and What kinds of photos of hunger work in fundraising?).
There were several comments on the "ethics" of fundraising imagery that bear some commentary of their own.
I my experience, most of the time, "ethics" is a big, fat straw-man, used to confuse the issue: Unethical is how some people label images they don't like. Which is fundamentally dishonest. Your taste is not a matter of ethics.
The ethics of fundraising images are straightforward:
- Never use images that inaccurately portray a situation. There's no excuse that makes it permissible.
- Don't use images of people who don't want their image used.
If you aren't violating one of those, you are probably on solid ethical ground, even if you use very negative images.
And if someone throws the ethics argument at you, you should be able to comfortably ignore them, because it's a bogus argument. (Unless they have authority over you or your work, which makes it a different situation.)
A more reasonable (though still wrong-headed) position against negative imagery would be one of branding: Some organizations ban the use of photos of people who are malnourished, visibly in pain, crying, in squalid conditions, or any number of situations like these. They say these images are at odds with their brand.
Fair enough.
There's a good chance that brand is hurting fundraising in this case, which is a very common situation (see How a brand change will impact revenue: Real-life figures). But an organization has a right to define itself, even if elements of its self-definition are unwise.
Just don't call it a matter of ethics. That cheapens true ethical issues.
(I've written more at length elsewhere on similar topics, including the "dignity" of those we seek to help and what happens when political correctness infects fundraising.)
