film/television fundraising
The naked reality – and how to portray it The debates about reason versus emotion, and positive versus negative imagery have been around in fundraising for decades. Having noticed a new edge creeping into the language being used, Alex Daniel weighs in with his point of view on the issue.
Y
ou may never have thought of yourself as a ‘pornographer’ but if you’re involved in creating film or television content in a field such as humanitarian relief, sooner or later someone may accuse you of producing ‘poverty porn.’ The accusations often come from insiders with an in-depth understanding of the complexity of development work. While I applaud the complex insights that can lead to innovative solutions, emotive and needs-driven appeals make the best use of the power of the film medium and inspire the most support. But the debate won’t go away, so it’s as well to be across the main accusations made against fundraisers and also to know the other side of the story.
Accusation 1: Fundraisers manipulate reality. I’m glad to say that neither I nor the agencies I’ve worked with have ever done this. Indeed, when requests are made to change reality, it is often so
it looks less awful – by removing flies from near a child’s mouth or eyes for example. However I have heard stories of groups of children being directed and effectively auditioned to appear in humanitarian relief appeals. That is so wrong, that certainly any organisation securing footage in that way must be in breach of its own child protection policies. Along with this responsibility to deal ethically with people being filmed, I believe fundraisers have a moral duty to tell the truth – not to fabricate it. And the bottom line is that showing ugly reality inspires good people to help.
Accusation 2: Fundraising robs people of their dignity. I have seen fundraising that treats people in an undignified way, for example appeals where people are nameless, without context or any sense of being real, individual human beings. But people are truly robbed of their dignity
by poverty, war, famine, exploitation, and social injustice. By contrast, good fundraising offers people the chance to create a world where fellow human beings have more dignity.
Accusation 3: Fundraising gives a false impression of Africa. An argument has been advanced that the cumulative impact of all humanitarian charity communications leads to people seeing ‘Africa’ as a basket-case. There are a number of reasons I find this wrong-headed. For one thing, charities communicate a balanced view. Simple and single-minded messages recruit supporters. More complex communications build relationship and loyalty. Both are necessary. For another, people are smart. They know how multifaceted Africa is. Parts of it face famine, while parts are holiday destinations. Parts experience conflict, while others are a haven for
Finding it hard to see how drtv can work for you?
10
| F&P Magazine | February / March 2015
220928_BOMPUB_FPM_FEB15_INNERS_FA.indd 10
Insight, analysis and inspiration for nonprofit executives and leaders
3/02/15 11:12 AM
amazing wildlife. The continent faces extreme poverty, while being home to some of the world’s fastest growing economies and innovations such as mobile-phone-based micro-credit schemes. It is a place where there are terrorist groups, as well as burgeoning democracies. Finally, mass public perception is shaped by broadcast news, print media news, TV wildlife programs, and by cultural and political comment. Not by charity communications. If you added up all the public communications budgets of all good causes, it wouldn’t be enough to shift mass public opinion and deeply held beliefs, even a little or for very long. That takes vast sums and time, and mostly doesn’t work even then. Ask any newspaper editor, politician or marketing guru.
Accusation 4: Fundraising makes people feel guilty. Good fundraisers know that guilt-tripping people into giving money is not a strategy for long-term success. No one wants to stay in any kind of relationship where they are made to feel guilty. It tends to recruit supporters only for the short-term, and is not a good use of any charity’s money in the long-term. It is hard to even define guilt. One person’s guilt is another person’s sense of compassion or gratitude. If someone gives money to help restore sight to a blind child, they may do so because they feel guilty that they can see and have such a rich life, because they empathise with this child, or because they are grateful for their own sight and all it has enabled them to enjoy in life. Of course, each of these descriptions could apply to exactly the same donor.
Accusation 5: Fundraising simplifies and dumbs down complex issues. To any seasoned development professional, fundraising can appear simplistic (especially at that initial point of supporter recruitment). Yet if we try to present too complex a picture too soon,
The sorts of questions to ask when considering how to depict your cause include: 1. There are 6.4 million preventable deaths of under-5s every year. Does appealing for help for one of them, rob that child of dignity? 2. Would you lower your fundraising targets in exchange for a message that is less responsive, but more informative? 3. Should you try to tell the entire complex story of your cause … every time you communicate?
people will not give the support that policy, program, and fundraising teams require to do their essential work. As advertising guru David Ogilvy once said: ‘You can’t save souls in an empty church’. So you need relatively simple messages to get people inside before you start preaching. Many of those who work for great causes can point to a moment when they became aware of injustice and felt inspired to join the sector and make the world a better place. That spark is powerful and, usually, powerfully simple, and it is the start of the journey, not the end of it.
Accusation 6: Fundraising allows ‘beneficiaries’ no sense of personal agency. The development sector is keen to portray all who receive charity help as having a sense of personal
agency. Sadly charities often assist people who do not have agency in any meaningful sense of the word. A starving child, a refugee family that has lost everything: with the best will in the world, their ‘agency’ is hard to discern. Trying to graft it onto a story can feel very much at odds with the harsh reality they are experiencing. This article has been a brief overview of complex issues in which either side holds passionate views. To move forward requires mutual understanding so everyone in the sector can work together for the good of those we serve. Agree or disagree? Head to the F&P website and join the discussion at http://www.fpmagazine.com. au/?p=340597
Alex Daniel Alex Daniel has been working in direct marketing for 20 years, including in various Asian markets. He is the regional managing director of DTV Asia and has set up and continues to manage direct response television fundraising programs for local and international nongovernment organisations in Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Indonesia and India. But his best work is the part production of his two daughters.
Then drop a line to plain talking, fluent in fundraising DTV. Email info@dtvgroup.asia to speak with Alex, Kerri, Angeline, Derek or Peter. Or find out more at www.dtvgroup.asia
Insight, analysis and inspiration for nonprofit executives and leaders
220928_BOMPUB_FPM_FEB15_INNERS_FA.indd 11
F&P Magazine | February / March 2015 |
11
3/02/15 11:12 AM