It’s obvious that World Vision does amazing work. And it’s an incredibly important cause. In fact, my wife and I have been donating to World Vision for the past 15 year. But these ads are very disturbing to me. I’m not sure the tone of these ads convey what I’m supporting. Yes, they are arresting and will capture attention, but it feels like the attempt at shock value humor could turn consumers away rather than connect with the cause.
Like any charity the goal should to raise more money to support the cause and related work. These ads are likely trying to raise more money from those who already support the cause. While the ad community will love the creativity of the ads, I’m worried the tone is wrong and will cause even less donations. Not more.
Creatively, do you make people feel really bad about the problem, or do you make people feel good about the progress you are making?
Here are the two Ads
I do not like these at all. The tone feels way off. What’s your view?
Poll: Will these ads raise MORE or LESS money for World Vision?
Follow me on twitter @grayrobertson1
To read more about how the love for a brand creates more power and profits:
Other Stories You Might Like
- How to Write a Creative Brief. The creative brief really comes out of two sources, the brand positioning statement and the advertising strategy that should come from the brand plan. To read how to write a Creative Brief, click on this hyperlink: How to Write a Creative Brief
- How to Write a Brand Plan: The positioning statement helps frame what the brand is all about. However, the brand plan starts to make choices on how you’re going to make the most of that promise. Follow this hyperlink to read more on writing a Brand Plan: How to Write a Brand Plan
- Consumer Insights: To get richer depth on the consumer, read the following story by clicking on the hyper link: Everything Starts and Ends with the Consumer in Mind
I run the Brand Leader Learning Center, with programs on a variety of topics that are all designed to make better Brand Leaders. To read more on how the Learning Center can help you as a Brand Leader click here: Brand Leadership Learning Center
Pick your Social Media vehicle and follow us by clicking on the icon below:
To reach out directly, email me at graham.robertson@beloved-brands.com
About Graham Robertson: The reason why I started Beloved Brands Inc. is to help brands realize their full potential value by generating more love for the brand. I only do two things: 1) Make Brands Better or 2) Make Brand Leaders Better. I have a reputation as someone who can find growth where others can’t, whether that’s on a turnaround, re-positioning, new launch or a sustaining high growth. And I love to make Brand Leaders better by sharing my knowledge. I’m a marketer at heart, who loves everything about brands. My background includes 20 years of CPG marketing at companies such as Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer Consumer, General Mills and Coke. My promise to you is that I will get your brand and your team in a better position for future growth. Add me on LinkedIn at http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamrobertson1 so we can stay connected.
Beloved Brands 
Hello Graham
I completely agree that these ads are creative but weak. Very weak. It’s been a weakness of the charity community to use shock tactics to raise money, using images of children starving or ill or dying to raise awareness of their plight. What I want to see are more ads showing exactly what it is that our money is doing to create change and then we can be encouraged to continue the support for the change. We don’t see deodorant ads with smelly people but rather the result of the action of the deodorant. It would be great to see charities following this approach.
Cancer Research UK is a charity whose advertising I admire. Their ‘Enemy’ TV ad (2012) http://youtu.be/jWuyPi_nuJE takes us on the journey they are on and puts it all into perspective. They are acting in the way a brand would. Let’s hope others learn from their approach.
Hello Graham
I completely agree that these ads are creative but weak. Very weak. It’s been a weakness of the charity community to use shock tactics to raise money, using images of children starving or ill or dying to raise awareness of their plight. What I want to see are more ads showing exactly what it is that our money is doing to create change and then we can be encouraged to continue the support for the change. We don’t see deodorant ads with smelly people but rather the result of the action of the deodorant. It would be great to see charities following this approach.
Cancer Research UK is a charity whose advertising I admire. Their ‘Enemy’ TV ad (2012) http://youtu.be/jWuyPi_nuJE takes us on the journey they are on and puts it all into perspective. They are acting in the way a brand would. Let’s hope others learn from their approach.
I’d like to say their heart is in the right place, but these are really unforgivably bad and frankly trite executions. They do not work as a shock tactic, instead I suspect leaving the viewer bewildered at best, unaffected at worst.
Dear James,
Great point.
I responded to the survey by voting these ads will raise less money. But, I find it difficult to believe that a potential donor would punish the messenger for the horrible taste of the marketer…would you?
With that said, I’ve found some harsh ads very powerful. However, this ad isn’t one of them. It’s not creative, it is simply bad.
Thanks for your thought provoking post.
Best,
Larry
It’s a creative team going off strategy through humour. Lots of ideas I’ve seen that use humour to make something heavy feel light, but being tasteful and sincere is important. Game show communication would be off-brand in my opinion. Screams for some help from Beloved Brands on setting the pillars, or goal posts as I call them, for what the brand is, and more importantly what it is NOT. Tim
Hi Graham,
I agree with you that this ad leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it demonstrate what slavery was like thousands of year ago, except that this ad has a modern take on it. I do believe that it does not full fill the objective of the campaign which is to raise money, but it does raise awareness to the cause. Bottom line, this ad shouldn’t be used to raise money but to educate.
Thanks for the post.
Yes, I completely agree with you Graham, these ads are hideous and repulse me to the point that I would not donate money. The humor aspect is not working.
I don’t think humor was an objective. What they got was something that stood apart from everything currently done by World Vision. It snuck up on those who change the channel who can’t deal with the emotional appeals. Cuts through the clutter of other ads, and yes it is repulsive, but so is the point of the ad. Coming in so quickly after the building collapse in Bangladesh, it is current and relevant.
The question is what is the campaign objective: fundraising or issue awareness building?
If they are meant to build awareness of the all too present situation of indentured children, human trafficking, and workplace slavery they got your and my attention. The ads are definitely uncomfortable to watch. It is an issue than many of us and our neighbours don’t want to think about. We really don’t want to have have the dots connected: the goods we purchase with indentured children.
(Aside: it is a very complex matter where attempting to do good can backfire.)
History has shown that the big picture approach hasn’t resulted in the behaviour change desired. Too big? Too far away? No emotional connection?
How does one personify the life of an indentured child, slavery and child trafficking? World Vision has shown us one way.
These ads seem to be effective at issue awareness building and generating a gut clenching emotional response. In behaviour change marketing, building awareness of a situation is step one. From that perspective they are effective.
So what’s the step two — is it to have viewers lobby their politicians or brands to force behaviour change or is it to fund-raise so World Vision can help children escape such a life? Or is it a combination of all three?
I’ve had conversations about these ads but not about the cause (which I was already aware of). I don’t think that was the objective. Using a paid child model to appear as a slave, is hardly better than using photographs of real children around the world. And to read comments by World Vision social media staffers on various sites, doesn’t make me like the ads any more.
Interesting that this is a World Vision Canada microsite and campaign. It does NOT meet the brand guidelines of World Vision US or WV International. Not sure how they got away with doing this — not sure anyone at wV knows. It’s awful.
It is no longer on TV. I’m assuming it met with overwhelming negative feedback. It’s completely off-side.