Greater shock for the greater good?
Is it ethical to use porn to make a campaign memorable? Is a sexual ad for a nonprofit any better than a sexual ad for a business brand?
Ethics in advertising is not just for businesses. Unethical practices in advertising can also be used by the most well-meaning of nonprofits with the goal of gaining more donations. But even if the end is positive, the means still needs to be ethical.
Like businesses, nonprofits may be operating within the bounds of the law but may still be considered unethical. According to a study by the American Press Institute (API), only 37% of nonprofit media have created guidelines about funding. The API study also found that managers of nonprofits often do not screen their fund-raising collateral until it has already been published.
Call it benevolent manipulation, but “poverty pornography” is a serious crime against the dignity of human persons even if it means selling campaigns that will help them in the end.
Making reluctant donors feel that they’re not doing enough to solve the world’s problems is a common tactic among nonprofits. Their ads make the public feel guilty about being better off than majority of the world. Unfortunately, the point is often communicated using unethical imagery. The use of “poverty porn” to incite guilt, shame, and feelings of inadequacy is just as offensive as business brands’ using unethical advertising practices to sell.
Even the sourcing of these images is in question. Take, for example, photos of starving children in Africa with Michael Jackson’s “Heal the World” playing in the background. This imagery has been so overused that potential donors may have become desensitized.
It is true that the use of emotions can encourage potential donors to feel compassion. However, this strategy should not be at the expense of the beneficiaries’ dignity. Have nonprofits acquired fully informed consent from the subjects? Were the people in the photos aware of the implications of the use of these images for the sake of the campaign? Did they feel obligated to pose for photos in exchange for getting help?
Presenting shocking images of poverty without providing context is a way of tricking reluctant donors into believing half-truths. The subjects are, after all, people and not some abstract fund-raising collateral. In the long run, such a strategy may even cost the nonprofits their donations because of the erosion of trust between them and the public.
It also matters whether imagery and stories clearly communicate what the organization has done and is continuing to do for the community. It is one thing to insist on the need for more donations, but a nonprofit should be clear and truthful about how it aims to solve a problem. What specific things has it done to im-
prove the situation of all those people in the photos?
Other issues facing ethical advertising for nonprofits is the size of their advertising budgets. An example of advertising overspending is when a nonprofit spent millions of dollars on a Superbowl ad. As a result, people asked if nonprofits should restrict the amount that goes to their advertising, and if a Superbowl ad is needed to advance a cause. While no law restricts advertising by nonprofits, ethical nonprofits should disclose how they spend the donations they receive.
In addition, there have been numerous advocacy campaigns that are striking but are almost completely unrelated to causes. The globally viral “Ice Bucket Challenge” raised funds for amyotrophic laterals sclerosis (ALS) research. Without a doubt, it has been one of the most successful and globally replicated marketing campaigns that has raised millions for the ALS cause. However, other participants have been known to imitate the challenge without even having been aware of the campaign behind it. Should the mere virality and funds raised for the challenge be enough to consider the campaign successful?
An even more disputed advertising practice is the use of near- pornographic images to raise awareness of veganism and animal welfare. These campaigns feature celebrities in the nude, with mere fruits and vegetables covering their private parts. While the cause may be noble and the campaign attention-grabbing, is it ethical to use pornography to make a campaign memorable? Is a sexual ad for a nonprofit any better than a sexual ad for a business brand?
Ostentatious displays of poverty, guilt-tripping in behalf of the “masses,” extravagant spending, replicable no-brainer challenges, and nude campaigns. Who’s to say that a campaign is unethical if the results mean nutrition awareness, more funding for research, and the provision of basic needs of Third World countries?
Nonprofits have organizations to run and budget restrictions to work with. But employing unethical tactics should never justify even the noblest and purest of deeds.