Nov 09, 2009 Posted by
Tehani Ariyaratne (Project Assistant, CEPA)
Cordaid, an international development organisation, launched a People in Need campaign with the following visuals in 2007. The visuals depict people modelling with consumer products that can be purchased in many outlets in different countries. The advertisement contains comparisons of the price of the item and the price of daily requirements for the people depicted in the visual as a way of conveying that it takes less to support someone in poverty than the money spent on such an item.
We would like to open a discussion about this campaign and obtain your views on it.
What do you think the campaign is trying to portray? Is it effective in what it conveys? Please explain
Who do you think the target audience is? Is the advertisement effective in influencing this audience?
Do the pictures adequately portray poverty? If so, in what way? Does it address facets of poverty such as employment, empowerment, safety etc?
Do the visuals provide an accurate depiction of poverty which is applicable to all global regions?
Abdul Azeez (Director Communications , Beyond Borders)Says : 2009-11-20 01:51:13
I saw this campaign some time ago. I remember thinking that it had the same effect as telling a kid to eat his food 'cos children in other countries are starving. Showing emaciated poor people with luxury goods shocks the conscience, and the shock somehow overshadows the connection a bit. the words, which actually do emphasize the actual situ are rendered secondary. Seems like guilt trippage targeted at people with mid to high range disposable income.
As for it looking at the different aspects, it clearly does not do that, it seems to be involved in simply looking at the surface of the problem - manifest poverty- and not root causes.
It is debatable as to whether it is applicable the world over since the visuals pretty obviously brings to mind africa
Hmm...looks like a guilt trip attempt to me. Trying to guilt regular consumers in the West to donate instead of buying their usual (pardon my french) 'shit.'I personally think guilt tripping and similar shock campaigns are not the way to get a regular invovled donor base but trying to convey stories of empowerment, etc would be more effective (Kiva comes to mind).
Visuals are interesting but the incongruity and the highly processed appearances of the images tend to jar wtih the message they are trying to convey. I wonder how much Saatchi & Saatchi got paid for this? And how many gallons of water that could have bought for the poor.
Nadira Abdul Cader Irfan ( , )Says : 2009-11-20 06:43:39
Poverty is generally portrayed in a way that usually inspires pity rather than guilt among the more affluent, as this does. It is clear the message is a call to action. Their poses, while indicative of their state of health, is also a dig at the way models usually pose for luxury goods like perfume and accessories. The setting indicates the reality of poverty - drab, depressing, deadly which is a total antithesis to the colour, vibrance and life of the usual magazine ad for luxury products. Execution is very good.
Prinko Holsinger ( , )Says : 2009-11-20 06:45:24
I think that the visuals are arresting. The discord between the obviously poor people and the way they model as well as what they hold up don’t gel which make you look. It appeals to the upmarket consumer’s feeling of guilt.
The execution is well done and a refreshing change from the tear jerking visuals we usually get for these kinds of ads.
Great stuff!
NiroSays : 2009-11-23 06:01:46
As someone has mentioned above, Guilt tripping is not the ideal way to get about in appealing to consumer emotions, in reality it works in the reverse, 'feel good' would be a better emotion. And if the pictures are trying to portray that I do not think it does a good job.
A suggestion would be to link it to 'every dollar spent earns them a bottle of water' or similar campaigns.
Even the pictures need to strongly illustrate that, not remind us that we are guilty cos there are lesser fortunate people in the world.
If this is a genuine attempt, i wish them all the best, after all its serves a good cause.
GNSays : 2009-11-24 01:45:55
No one seems to have picked on the fact that these people may not be 'poor' at all. everyone jumps to the conclusion because they are Africans wearing African clothes? 'cos there are no large buildings or modern urban services in the background? seems to be a very mainstream, and inaccurate view of what 'poverty' is.
if these clothes and jewellery were being modeled by 'Paris, London, New York' model...it would be chic...so very ethnic high fashion, huh?
Lakwi Perera (Junior Professional , Centre for Poverty Analysis)Says : 2009-11-24 01:51:39
have to agree with naren. this ad pretty much undermines all the talk of community empowerment etc that the development community (?) talks about doesn't it? the message seems to be "you spend so much on a bag/a pair of shades, give it to the "poor" so that they can eat". not very dignified for the recipients no?
i wonder how much of these depictions are discussed between the client and the ad agency and how much the agencies themselves identify with the messages they want to portray.
Nilakshi De Silva (Senior Professional , Centre for Poverty Analysis)Says : 2009-11-24 05:59:06
i was really offended by these pictures. The african tribes such as the masai are known to have tremendous dignity, and pride in their culture. The way the ads portray them, they are expected to embody poverty and low well being! despite the fact that they are fully clothed (not dressed in dirty or torn clothes), do not look malnourished but in fact look bright eyed and interested, we jump to the expected stereotyped conclusion that these people are poor and from there, that they should be pitied/given handouts. i kept thinking of what the "models" must have felt when they were asked to strike these poses. were they told what was going to happen with their pictures ? While the ads may have a good intent, there is a bad after taste ... the end (generating aid funds) surely doesnt justify using any means?
I love the fact that the situation in each ad has a very high fashion look, from the models, to the lighting and the poses. so if you were to place it in a magazine ppl might actually look at it as a "product" ad until they realize it's not. The ad really communicates with the target audience in a way that they're used to and familiar with to prove a point. In other words the chances of paris hilton seeing this ad and feeling guilty are slightly higher then her seeing an in-your-face-emotional-ad =)
The pictures implies that poverty is mainly an African phenomenon and poor people live in dreary, dry and dusty conditions. It takes away, from developed country gazes (target audience), the fact that different types of people (men, women and children - black, white, red, brown, yellow!) in different countries (and within countries) are affected by poverty. I am not sure guilting people really works... the Red Campaign was not such a hit (at least not for the poor) because most of the earning were used for the campaign itself!
GNSays : 2009-11-24 07:28:25
I wonder what the organisation that put out this ad - Cordaid? - has to say? wonder if there was an internal discussion on the breif given to the advertising company? wonder if they think it clashes with values of dignity, self-respect, relationships, accuracy, etc? wonder if they have a code of ethics on how poor people should be treated/ portrayed? or maybe the need is so great that the means justify the end, and money is what its all about? Begs a huge set of questions about the commercialisation large scale 'charities'
FedExpressSays : 2009-11-25 01:29:28
I would understand why someone might be initially offended with an ad like this. Apart from the noble models, too many messages are delivered with a 'side of guilt' today. Hopefully though, people who do take a second look, won't let this deter them from honest self-evaluation. In this case, I believe the ends justifies the means and think this ad deserved to be screened - not just because of it's new angle on consumer spending, but because of the extremely basic amenities all of us take for granted everyday.
NarenSays : 2009-11-25 02:14:26
Also I'd like to add that the ads don't really seem to be directed towards upmarket consumers of luxury goods, rather towards the middle class, every day consumer. I mean the handbags and sunglasses are around $40-50 which by Western standards are pretty average.
GehanSays : 2009-11-25 05:48:54
I remember when these ads came out some time ago, and a lot of people were talking about them. I think the issue about accuracy, adequacy in portraying the causes etc are irrelevant, since the main purpose behind the ads were simply to draw attention and to get their target audience (ie people that were not concerned with poverty) to start talking 'about' it. Perhaps they won't carry out a discourse on the political and economic factors but 'awareness' has been created. Mission accomplished, in my opinion.
Iromi PereraSays : 2009-11-25 07:28:01
While the pictures certainly grab your attention, I have to agree that sending consumers on a guilt trip is not the way to encourage them to donate. I shudder at how much this campaign may have cost, and I'm sure the amount donated by people after seeing these ads would not even come close to how much was spent on the campaign. Its pretty similar to the fancy gala dinners 'in aid of charity', where what you take in is a fraction of your actual cost of the dinner.
Shehan TSays : 2009-11-25 08:16:37
What do you think the campaign is trying to portray? Is it effective in what it conveys? Please explain Who do you think the target audience is? Is the advertisement effective in influencing this audience?The target audience would have to be people who have no distinct understanding of what poverty is. The average middle class Human is not going to understand the disparity unless it is shoved in their face. With that effect it tends to make sense.
Do the pictures adequately portray poverty? If so, in what way? I dont think they adequately portray poverty, these pictures from my point of view, could be used as a branding strategy for a high end consumer brand. This could be to not give the audience too much of a shock or displeasure at first sight, instead to convey the idea of what poverty is.
Does it address facets of poverty such as employment, empowerment, safety etc? NO, it doesn't, that would be a complex subject which would require a broader approach. You have to look beyond the "I dont understand, this is so inaccurate" view. Unless anyone has statistics on who the target audience is/was and if they failed in their attempt, i am pretty sure that the effect is to create enough awareness which hints at the idea of comparison of Living standards. This in turn would probably yield a donation of some sort. Note it say's TEXT "aid" to 2255. This is a Hit and run ad campaign Not really meant to be a guilt trip. In my opinion The ads are too light for it to be generating a guilt trip.
Do the visuals provide an accurate depiction of poverty which is applicable to all global regions? No, again, target audience of cordaid and their requirements. if they wanted to generate awareness about Global poverty then, yes.. it doesn't communicate that. I see that many of the comments are regarding the concept behind it and the accuracy of it. The fact of the matter is that they are campaigning for money, its a direct comparison tactic, like when you sell soap. more for less or cheap is not good. Here you live life for a beer, they can live or die with just that one drink you might not have today. i'd say Mission accomplished, unless you want to be picky. Lets face it this world isn't perfect. Trying to find a perfect balance is not going to solve the prevailing issue that people die without water. So i guess they opted for just getting the idea across for a quick jab at the consciousness resulting in a small donation that might have saved a few lives.
Amar GunatillekeSays : 2009-11-25 09:19:51
It is not fair to judge an advertising campaign without knowing what the brief was. Furthermore a campaign can only communicate " one thing" at a time- a single minded proposition. I fail to see clearly ONE proposition that stands out in this campaign. I do not know whether this campaign effectively achieved the campaign objective. If the campaign had been done after researching consumer attitudes and perceptions in a a particular target market and if the campaign was a success I rest my case.
Having said that let me offer my opinion as a consumer in an Asian developing country . If this campaign was targeted to me this is what I would say...
So tell me something I don't know. Price comparisons of branded items against essential goods? We all know about that so what? To tell you frankly this campaign did not make me feel guilty at all. I don't think it will touch Paris Hilton either - fat chance. It is a superficial,insensitive and poor depiction of poverty by a smart-alec art director who may have completely forgotten the communication objectives. There is no empathy, no emotion and it is a desperate attempt to show off creativity rather than to evoke a positive response and get people to reach deep into their pockets and contribute in some meaningful manner. So what is the campaign trying to portray? You tell me. I wonder why all " models " are black in this campaign considering the fact that there are more " white" ( Russian) prostitutes in Sri Lanka than blacks. Well one might say it is more of a moral issue yet I find the selection of and confining it to African Masai models very offensive, why not show others nationalities as well? What about some white skinned bummers for a change? It appears as if the target audience is middle class consumer considering the price comparisons but the tone used may not appeal to them - and finally the answer to questions 3 and 4 is an emphatic NO.
Poverty for me is an unequal relationship. Power is central issue in this relationship. These pictures show me a power relationship between poor people in Africa, CORDAID and a multinational advertising agency. (Could we have some figures about the costs involved in this exercise?) Fundamentally it is also based on what one of the African critic of aid called arrogance of charity found in western societies.
Sunil Bastian
