Here's a sad tale of personal preference winning out over effective communication, as told in the Washington Post: Wagging tails replace sad eyes: New sponsor for Westminster show to run happier dog ads.
Last month's Westminster dog show (a very big deal for the designer-dog set) changed sponsors. The previous long-time sponsor showed shelter-dog adoption ads with sad, caged dogs who clearly need help. The new sponsor's ads show happy, healthy dogs running on the beach.
The reason for the change? The Westminster folks didn't like the old sad-dog ads:
Show me an ad with a dog with a smile. Don't try to shame me. We told them that and they ignored us. Our show is a celebration of dogs.... When we're seeing puppies behind bars, it takes away from that. Not just because it's sad, but it's not our message.
I'm assuming that helping get as many dogs as possible out of shelters and into homes is a goal of Westminster. If that's the case, then they traded away that goal in exchange for feeling better about what they aired on TV. They decided that the downer visual of sad dogs is a worse thing than the downer of real dogs not getting adopted. Better to feel good than do good.
Now I have no knowledge about the marketing of shelter-pet adoption. For all I know, happy-dog imagery actually drives more people to adopt than sad-dog imagery.
But I doubt it.
If motivating people to adopt dogs is anything like motivating them to give financially to good causes, then showing the problem you want them to solve is exponentially more effective than showing the problem already solved.
Many, many nonprofits choose the same trade-off: Upbeat, positive messaging that makes insiders feel good over the messaging that motivates outsiders to act and move the cause forward. That is an utterly irresponsible choice.
Every nonprofit I know of exists to accomplish its mission. Not to stroke the egos of its employees.
If you are serious about your cause, and you need others to support you, you're just going to have to get used to effectively communicating with them -- often at the expense of your own taste, preferences, and liking. That's how the big boys play.
