The big melting pot

When did charities get afraid of standing out?

I used to work at a pharmaceutical agency in Toronto. My creative director, Gord Schwab, said to me, not long after I started, "We do not do 'smiley, happy people' ads". And we never did. Yes, occasionally the clients would come and say, "...but we want a smiling, older couple, looking happy because our product helped them...". Back then, the only advertising you could do was direct to doctors - they were the audience. We needed to show them how the drug/product worked and how they helped people by prescribing it. No "smiley, happy people" ads. They won tons of awards and sold a lot of product for their clients.

I read about another re-branding for a high profile charity. In this case, it's the United Way of Greater Toronto.

You'll remember some of the older creative that was done for United Way:




And now:

In the June 11, 2007 issue of Marketing Magazine, the article discussing the re-brand reads, "In the past, the UWGT had pulled on heart strings by showing troubled people and stressing the need for financial contributions... Now the focus is on prevention and the positive impact of the United Way's work..."

How and where does the donor fit into this? Where is the "me" or the "you"? It doesn't need to be all death and destruction, but the donor needs to be involved and see how they help. It's these sorts of visual concepts that get noticed. I think that's why the old ads and visuals worked so well.

And by the way, when did 'pulling on heartstrings' become a bad thing?

A few years ago, I was working on creative for a international organization - the concept was - by joining this monthly giving program, you were helping immediately, and all the time, everywhere... I had developed a conceptual image of "the donor" reaching out with a spoon and feeding a hungry child who was sitting in his mothers lap...
It's a little rough, but it shows the donor helping now. It shows how being a part of this program, you are make a difference immediately.

Sure, you could show a bunch of happy kids eating or playing... but what do you think is stronger?

As the demographics of this country change, so does they way we need to communicate. If it's all "smiley, happy people" ads or brochures - what will make you different from the next charity?

SIDE NOTE: In the paper this weekend was a fantastic article about a site called Kiva.org. This is - in a sense - fundraising in the 21st Century and a great idea that could be applied to many charities today. In a nutshell "Kiva lets you connect with and loan money to unique small businesses in the developing world. By choosing a business on Kiva.org, you can "sponsor a business" and help the world's working poor make great strides towards economic independence. Throughout the course of the loan (usually 6-12 months), you can receive email journal updates from the business you've sponsored. As loans are repaid, you get your loan money back." You get to pick the business and how much you loan - and make an amazing difference.

Now that's a fantastic idea.