Advertising here in Australia is sometimes a little blunt. Last century there was “If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot”, this year there is an interesting advert which shows women wiggling their little fingers at boy racers as they speed off down the street.
Australians love being direct. I love that.
So it surprises me that there are still some circles that love discussing whether their fundraising makes people feel guilty. After all, every day people are presented with advertising messages where products and services are positioned as the solution to people’s problems:
“If your home is smelly, buy our room deodorant.”
“If your children need answers for their school projects, buy our broadband.”
For charities this approach has been replicated. Step 1 – present someone or something who is in need. Step 2 – present message of “if you want to help that person or thing, donate to us”. For many, this approach is criticised because it encourages the development of a new problem for people:
“If you want to stop feeling bad about these people in need, donate to us.” Or even “Give us the money or the dog gets it”.
What are we worrying about? Complaints? Do you think anyone complains that TV adverts make them feel like they have a dirty house, or that their kids aren’t as well cared for as the Ramsey’s next door? Of course they do. What drives this criticism is a desire to reject the given marketing approach. People do not want to feel bad. So whilst for some the answer is to donate to charity, for others the solution is to criticise the organisation for trying to emotionally blackmail them.
The ethics of this approach has been debated since Dr. Barnardo told how he would have to turn homeless children away if people didn’t donate. I think it is getting boring now. Let’s get direct with people, and get over their guilt.
opinionaid 