This is fascinating research, thanks for adding this elaboration to our understanding of it. This brings to mind the oft-heard criticism of environmentalists’ fund raising appeals: that they paint overly-dramatic doomsday scenarios instead of talking about the need for (say) pragmatic consensus solutions, and/or that they focus on touchy-feely subjects like oil-soaked birds instead of (say) scientific facts and stats. Putting aside the question of whether this criticism is correct about the content of environmental appeals, Small’s research would suggest that enviro groups SHOULD use these sorts of appeals, assuming we can substitute vivid images of emotionally-arousing non-human entities, like birds or polar bears, for the effective images of kids as described here. Right? Very interesting.
Perla, Small makes the point that she’s talking about advertising. Auto makers for instance use emotion in ads to sell cars, but sites like Edmunds.com provide extensive analysis of which cars are best. It seems to me that the nonprofit world has plenty of emotional appeals and almost nothing like Edmunds. Do you think (or does Small) that statistics and analysis of nonprofits suppress giving in general or just within the inherently emotional advertising medium?
Good question. She would say that the nonprofit world is full of emotional appeals because they work better than statistics/analytical arguments.
She says that - in general for most people - empathy is what triggers giving. Empathy is elicited, for instance, when we see a photo of a person who is sad. She is talking about averages of course, so I’m sure there will be some people for whom this is not true.
What we’ve found at our human services nonprofit (http://www.domuskids.org) is that the emotional appeal may open the door, but we’re not invited inside unless we can prove a few things. We need to show potential investers that there’s a real need to be met (low literacy levels, etc.), that we have previous and sustained success meeting that need, and that we are smart and responsible stewards of their investments. Telling the stories of our vulnerable kids and families is critical, especially since the effects of poverty are often hidden from view in our wealthy community, but providing evidence we can effectively address the challenges they face is just as important.
There are many emotions to be aroused by vivid storytelling; too often it seems, non-profits exploit pity and evoke sympathy rather than rousing hope with their storytelling efforts. Images of despondent children, barren forests, and other seemingly hopeless situations are rampant in the press and web materials of many very successful charitable organizations.
Most non-profits, however, have compelling stories of happiness, transformation and hope to share. Many “newer” initiatives, like Room to Read and Kiva seem to have re-framed this dialogue; my own organization, Epic Change (http://www.epicchange.org) follows in their footsteps. If you look at these sites, pictures of smiling children and hopeful entrepreneurs dominate the storytelling rather than more traditional, somber images.
It seems to me that hope and inspiration may be more powerful tools for non-profits than fear, guilt and sadness. To your knowledge, has work been done on which types of imagery & storytelling is most effective in generating interest and encouraging donorship? Of course, even if heartwrenching images do currently encourage giving & involvement, it may simply be a byproduct of the historical correlation between pitiful images and charitable giving.
It seems to me that for most organizations portraying our causes in a “pitiful” way undercuts our main objective: if we, for instance, focus on the poverty and lack that exists in a community we serve, we may implicitly convey to them that this is their “core” attribute, which could not be further from the truth; worse yet, our “stereotype” stories may perpetuate the very issues we’re attempting to address. If instead, as I’d propose we must, tell stories about the communities we serve that underscore their promise, their beauty, their humanity and their strength, we communicate - to those we serve and to our donors - the real essence of our cause.
Thanks for sharing your experiences! I’ll send an email to Deborah and see what she has to say.
I couldn’t agree with you more than we don’t want to stereotype. One of my favorite websites is homelessnessnation.org which shows amateur video interviews with homeless people. It debunks stereotypes of homeless people. It shows creative artists, young energetic kids, single moms - a whole spectrum of humanity.
We shouldn’t exploit the people we serve by showing them in any light other than they are. Having said that, I think that Deborah would say that, you also shouldn’t shy away from showing people as sad if they are indeed sad. Doctors Without Borders’ photos show women looking sad lining up at refugee camps for water and it’s both accurate depiction and it’s effective for fundraising.
The best of both worlds, my guess is, if we could show before and after photos that capture the promise of these people fulfilled.
I know this is from eight years ago but I just came across this from a google search… did you ever receive a response from Deborah regarding showing images of hope vs. pity? Also/or have your thoughts regarding nonprofits advertising changed since 2008?
COMMENTS
BY Michael Moody
ON February 5, 2008 12:32 PM
This is fascinating research, thanks for adding this elaboration to our understanding of it. This brings to mind the oft-heard criticism of environmentalists’ fund raising appeals: that they paint overly-dramatic doomsday scenarios instead of talking about the need for (say) pragmatic consensus solutions, and/or that they focus on touchy-feely subjects like oil-soaked birds instead of (say) scientific facts and stats. Putting aside the question of whether this criticism is correct about the content of environmental appeals, Small’s research would suggest that enviro groups SHOULD use these sorts of appeals, assuming we can substitute vivid images of emotionally-arousing non-human entities, like birds or polar bears, for the effective images of kids as described here. Right? Very interesting.
-Michael Moody
BY Perla_Ni
ON February 5, 2008 04:16 PM
I think she would say that enviro groups should use appeals to emotion rather than to statistics.
Here’s the link to her webpage: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/people/faculty.cfm?id=25 with more info.
And this is a good article about how her work helps our understanding of why we don’t act in cases of genocide: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=2917131&page=1
Perla
BY Sean Stannard-Stockton
ON February 7, 2008 08:11 AM
Perla, Small makes the point that she’s talking about advertising. Auto makers for instance use emotion in ads to sell cars, but sites like Edmunds.com provide extensive analysis of which cars are best. It seems to me that the nonprofit world has plenty of emotional appeals and almost nothing like Edmunds. Do you think (or does Small) that statistics and analysis of nonprofits suppress giving in general or just within the inherently emotional advertising medium?
BY Sean Stannard-Stockton
ON February 7, 2008 08:12 AM
That last comment was from me, not sure why the comment was unsigned. -Sean Stannard-Stockton
BY Perla_Ni
ON February 8, 2008 11:11 AM
Sean,
Good question. She would say that the nonprofit world is full of emotional appeals because they work better than statistics/analytical arguments.
She says that - in general for most people - empathy is what triggers giving. Empathy is elicited, for instance, when we see a photo of a person who is sad. She is talking about averages of course, so I’m sure there will be some people for whom this is not true.
-Perla
BY Garland Walton
ON February 8, 2008 03:26 PM
What we’ve found at our human services nonprofit (http://www.domuskids.org) is that the emotional appeal may open the door, but we’re not invited inside unless we can prove a few things. We need to show potential investers that there’s a real need to be met (low literacy levels, etc.), that we have previous and sustained success meeting that need, and that we are smart and responsible stewards of their investments. Telling the stories of our vulnerable kids and families is critical, especially since the effects of poverty are often hidden from view in our wealthy community, but providing evidence we can effectively address the challenges they face is just as important.
BY Stacey Monk
ON February 8, 2008 09:18 PM
There are many emotions to be aroused by vivid storytelling; too often it seems, non-profits exploit pity and evoke sympathy rather than rousing hope with their storytelling efforts. Images of despondent children, barren forests, and other seemingly hopeless situations are rampant in the press and web materials of many very successful charitable organizations.
Most non-profits, however, have compelling stories of happiness, transformation and hope to share. Many “newer” initiatives, like Room to Read and Kiva seem to have re-framed this dialogue; my own organization, Epic Change (http://www.epicchange.org) follows in their footsteps. If you look at these sites, pictures of smiling children and hopeful entrepreneurs dominate the storytelling rather than more traditional, somber images.
It seems to me that hope and inspiration may be more powerful tools for non-profits than fear, guilt and sadness. To your knowledge, has work been done on which types of imagery & storytelling is most effective in generating interest and encouraging donorship? Of course, even if heartwrenching images do currently encourage giving & involvement, it may simply be a byproduct of the historical correlation between pitiful images and charitable giving.
It seems to me that for most organizations portraying our causes in a “pitiful” way undercuts our main objective: if we, for instance, focus on the poverty and lack that exists in a community we serve, we may implicitly convey to them that this is their “core” attribute, which could not be further from the truth; worse yet, our “stereotype” stories may perpetuate the very issues we’re attempting to address. If instead, as I’d propose we must, tell stories about the communities we serve that underscore their promise, their beauty, their humanity and their strength, we communicate - to those we serve and to our donors - the real essence of our cause.
BY Perla Ni
ON February 13, 2008 03:22 PM
To the last commenter from Epic Change -
Thanks for sharing your experiences! I’ll send an email to Deborah and see what she has to say.
I couldn’t agree with you more than we don’t want to stereotype. One of my favorite websites is homelessnessnation.org which shows amateur video interviews with homeless people. It debunks stereotypes of homeless people. It shows creative artists, young energetic kids, single moms - a whole spectrum of humanity.
We shouldn’t exploit the people we serve by showing them in any light other than they are. Having said that, I think that Deborah would say that, you also shouldn’t shy away from showing people as sad if they are indeed sad. Doctors Without Borders’ photos show women looking sad lining up at refugee camps for water and it’s both accurate depiction and it’s effective for fundraising.
The best of both worlds, my guess is, if we could show before and after photos that capture the promise of these people fulfilled.
BY perla ni
ON February 15, 2008 01:46 PM
that last comment was from me - there seems to be a bug on the blog where names aren’t showing up.
- Perla
BY Jasmine
ON January 19, 2017 07:48 PM
Perla,
I know this is from eight years ago but I just came across this from a google search… did you ever receive a response from Deborah regarding showing images of hope vs. pity? Also/or have your thoughts regarding nonprofits advertising changed since 2008?
Curious to hear your opinions.