When we wrote a satirical guide to making advocacy videos about Africa, we didn’t expect anyone to actually make a video using some of our (fake) principles! But the people at Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) UK apparently did so, with their new controversial cinema ad campaign, entitled “Boy.”*
In the new ad, the camera is locked on a single shot: a concrete, bullet-ridden hut, with the graffiti images of war, the front door left open. We are somewhere in Africa. The only movement is the rustling of a plastic bag in the foreground and black smoke billowing from somewhere behind the building. The one-minute soundtrack, from start to finish, is a child desperately crying. The messages which appear slowly on the screen give a horrible meaning to the cries:
One of our doctors is treating a 5-year-old boy/
Militia have just raped his two sisters/
Then clubbed his parents to death /
We can’t operate without your help/
Visit msf.org.uk
You can see the ad here.
Once you recover from the punch to the gut, you note this ad is powerful and well-executed. This is no surprise since it was created by McCann Erikson, the ad firm that brought us “I’d like the teach the world to sing” and “There are some things money can’t buy. For everything else, there’s MasterCard.”
The second thing that struck me is that there are no details, no information on whether this is the story of any one particular child, or which specific conflict has orphaned this boy. In the absence of detail, this “no place” becomes “every place” in Africa, the terrifying Dark Continent.
After watching this ad several times (I don’t recommend you try this), I feel 1) deranged and 2) hopeless, as though nothing I could ever do, much less donate a few dollars to MSF, could possibly have any effect on the vast, incomprehensible suffering in the world.
I also don’t learn much from this video about the work that MSF does other than that they operate on helpless children in horrific circumstances and need our money. What is the goal of the video? If bad videos are justified by effectiveness, then how is it measured?
I asked the head of communications at MSF UK, Polly Markandya.
She told me that the ad was not intended as a direct fundraising campaign—they deliberately avoided listing a telephone number on screen. Rather, the idea was to “try and raise awareness among a general public audience of the kinds of situations and atrocities which we witness daily in our work and which are so easily ignored by people living comfortable lives in the UK.” MSF is gauging the impact by visits to their website.
Another video on their website, called “Make Your Mark” is more informative and less emotionally manipulative than “Boy.” But, given its more conventional style, it probably hasn’t attracted nearly as much publicity. After all, we haven’t just devoted an entire blog post to that one. But was all the attention really worth such an exploitative video?
*Thanks to Twitterer @IdealistNYC for pointing us to this video.
**This video has recently stirred up a fair amount of controversy in the UK, which you can follow on these blogs.
29 Comments
You warned us, and yet I still managed to completely underestimate how horrified the video would leave me, to the point of feeling nauseated. The urge to hit the stop button was immensely powerful.
The concern it raises for me is it perpetuates the false image that Africans are all violent ‘barbarians’. Heart of Darkness indeed, but without the insight. There should have been some demonstration of internal social structures at work, rather than just “Doctors without Borders” swooping in to ’save’ the day. They need to be more attuned to the pervasive ignorance on Africa and Africans and avoid perpetuating it.
Don’t get me wrong – MSF is a remarkable organization. But I do appreciate the point of your post. Although, your delivery could use some work. Starting with the dripping sarcasm about their following your “what not to read” rules is more likely to put backs up than to build dialogue. And you come off quite self-righteous.
I bet it works as intended, which is why they spent the money on such an accomplished firm. Advertising is expensive, and it would also be a shame if they spent loads of money on ads that didn’t work.
I do see your point, but what sort of better solution do your propose? That would raise funds and “brand awareness” for MSF while respecting and serving their true clients (their hosts and recipients)?
BTW, since I’m thinking about it, this blog needs a “Subscribe to post” feature. Is that available in MoveablType? It would sure make it easier to follow and join in discussions.
There is a huge chasm between program and marketing at most development organizations and generally a great deal of frustration on both sides regarding how the other wants to talk to and engage people. I’d bet that MSF program people feel that this type of ad undermines credibility of their work and goes against what they actually do on the ground, perpetuating a false image of their work and the people they are working with.
The crux I suppose is that marketing/ fundraising staff has fund raising as their end goal, and pictures/stories about programs are a tool to get there. Program people have program goals as their aim, and see money as a tool get there.
From the marketing side though the sense is that ‘this is what works’ and that we can ‘hook people in and educate them later’, that development is too complicated to explain in 30 seconds, and without money we can’t do our work. From the program side, there is great concern about the long term impact of marketing that goes against the principles and work that dev orgs do and continues to reinforce negative stereotypes.
Normally the more ‘programmy’ attempts get no attention ($ or webclicks or phone calls), as you rightly pointed out (Boy vs. Make your Mark). Finding the right mix — something engaging as well as real — is really hard. So how do you raise money right now at the highest possible ROI to keep your org and its programs going and still stay within your overhead ratios? You use ‘what works’.
But then how do you remain true to your methodology and reach your long term objectives, which most of the time imply structural changes in perceptions, politics and power relationships, and require a change in attitude in ‘donor’ country populations?
Ongoing educational efforts, involving mass media, to help the public understand what good development is, and to change perceptions about people that dev orgs are working with would be a place to start, but since these are not aimed at raising $, they end up getting cut out of the budget. And in any case, the marketing budget is always much bigger than the education budget, and the two can end up somehow working against each other (the educational messages conflicting with the marketing messages).
I think most organizations struggle with this. It’s complicated, as is most everything, and kind of requires a complete overhaul of the whole system.
Interesting post… Just want to make it clear at the outset that although I work for MSF UK, any opinions I have are mine alone not MSF’s.
Firstly, I think it is a little disingenuous to make the assumption “We are somewhere in Africa” (and especially before you link to the ad), as there is deliberately no reference made to location at all. Doesn’t give the viewer much chance to make their own mind up.
The second thing I would like to comment on is MSF’s adherence to your ‘guide to making advocacy videos about Africa’. It’s a clever opening to the post (apart from the repeated geographical assumption), but as far as I can tell, entirely untrue. I would be interested to know where you find inflated statistics, merchandising, celebrities, MTV-style editing, good Vs evil etc etc in the ad…
The only points I can assume you are talking about are the first and last. But here also I struggle to understand. Are we treating someone watching this as someone “unable to grasp any complexity”? I don’t think so. The ad challenges because it does not spell out a time and a place and “a cause”. It requires a viewer to make use of their brain – it deals with difficult concepts and it is very bleak. As for the last point… In the narrative of the ad, the impact MSF is going to have on the local population is basically zero – they will not stop any of the listed atrocities from happening. What they will do is treat the child in pain, along with anyone else who needs medical care. MSF doesn’t pretend to be able to save the world, only individual lives.
I can understand if the ad doesn’t connect with you. I can understand if you question the lack of context or information. I can understand if you think the ad is overly manipulative. I have said publicly on the blogs you listed at the bottom of your post that this method of communication isn’t for me either and I am happy to discuss why. However, I think some of the points you make in your post are a bit cheap and some of the analysis a bit over-simplified.
@petemasters ‘It requires the viewer to make use of their brain’
its not exactly George Orwell is it …
@Frogcontrollsthecat
True, but what I meant is that it does provoke questions and opinion.
Point 1. on the ‘guide to making advocacy videos about Africa’ is:
1. Assume that the people watching your video know nothing about your cause. In fact, as far as you are concerned, their brains are completely devoid of content and unable to grasp any complexity.
I think it is unfair to say that the ad conforms to this whatever you think of it.
Yep and let’s face it, anyone can sit in America and make flippant remarks.
The problem with Laura is that she comes across as a smart arse cynic rather than someone who wants to constructively engage in the debate. Like the MSF advert she’s ended up advertising the Laura Freschi brand rather than move the debate on.
Come on Laura it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that a lot of development communications is complete crap, but that’s because the industry insists that everyone spends their lives collecting Masters and PHD’s rather then learning how to tell a story.
Here’s an idea. For your next post why don’t you write a real guide to making advocacy videos about Africa, and maybe even point to some of the good stuff out there.
@duckrabbitblog
I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate on your blog.
Please see: http://blogs.nyu.edu/fas/dri/aidwatch/2009/08/how_to_make_an_advocacy_video_1.html
While I agree with the power of the video clip, the entire premise is incorrect, and misleading. MSF does NOT treat children while the soldiers are still there killing their parents and raping their sisters. Anyone who has actually been “on the ground” in Africa with them knows that MSF is the first organization to do the “NGO Boogie” whenever there is threat of gunfire or soldiers (either side) into their area of operation.
I can speak with authority on this, because I have personally been “on the ground” in the South Sudan conflict, and witnessed the MSF western staff doing the “NGO Boogie” whenever the fighting threatened to get within 20+ miles of their operations. Don’t get me wrong, I also had an evacuation plan in place if the fighting actually got within 1 mile of my location, but that’s far different from 20+ miles.
So not only is their video misleading, it is also impractical – most western NGO’s cannot afford the negative publicity (much less personnel cost) were they to stay on the ground during active fighting, because their staff would be wounded or killed.
I can also state with some certainty that if the soldiers who supposedly killed the parents and raped the sisters were still in the area, the MSF staff would also be up for rape and killing. The soldiers who do these things may be violent but are not stupid. They don’t leave witnesses – especially western witnesses, and especially witnesses with any kind of camera or radios or sat phones.
So….nice ad. Gets your attention. Completely inaccurate in terms of the ground war-zone realities, at least in Africa.
ps – If MSF did truly stay and treat the wounded and dying during the active fighting/gunfilre, some of their people would naturally get shot/killed. Since that has not happened (or rarely), one can use this as a confirmation that my personal ground observation is correct.
NYBNKR
fancy a game of humanitarian top trumps?
You wrote:
“I also don’t learn much from this video about the work that MSF does other than that they operate on helpless children in horrific circumstances and need our money.”
Isn’t that enough for a short ad? Do you want a dissertation?
I thought your original posts on satirical advocacy videos went a little overboard, but I could understand your points about celebrities talking tripe. But now I’m beginning to wonder whether you have another agenda entirely.
You are going after a video that tells it like it is in war, and which I think takes great care not to look like anywhere identifiable or demonize any people other than the human race in general. It shows no faces. It doesn’t exaggerate — these situations are real.
No place may become Africa to you, but perhaps that’s your own prejudice. It could be any resource limited / conflict setting.
I’m bemused by the fact that Europeans/Americans are riled up by this. Perhaps the concern is not so much whether it is exploitative as whether it makes you really uncomfortable.
Play this to people in resource limited / conflict settings and see whether they see it as exploitative. I seriously doubt it. You should watch the regional news in resource limited settings sometime.
One the few people commenting from Africa on the duckrabbit site says: “…what continent it is happening in… South America? Africa? Asia? I don’t know. I quite frankly don’t care… These issues are usually the same anyway.”
She did agree with you that the video left her feeling rather helpless and that she wanted to know whether MSF’s helped made a difference.
Feeling hopeless is a natural response. Anything I could do is just a drop in the bucket.
But what would you do, Laura, if you were in that MSF doctor’s situation? Run away screaming and leave the child crying because its all pointless? Decide to first conduct a cost-effectiveness study to see what will be the outcome for that child ten years down the road?
It takes a strong stomach to go into these type of situations and provide an emergency response. I for one am grateful that that is one of the things that MSF does. I think it is fine to leave it to other ads, news stories etc, to describe what else the organisation does (which is a lot).
This whole discussion reminds me of “How Not to Write About Africa” by Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainaina.
It’s an excellent satirical view on how Africa is often (and unfortunately) portrayed. Watch this YouTube narration of it – the photos at the end of the best – and are a stark difference to this MSF video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-jSQD5FVxE
EVERYONE talking or consulting as part MSF’s laudable/admirable/big-hearted/&c effort at understanding audience impact, are exactly the cross section of people who will watch and respond to the ad. As in chi-ching!
The fact that the ad offers a weblink, and Pete ‘the IT web guru’/MSF is seeding a blog-blizzard is all marketing. It’s very clever.
Myself included, we’re a focus group giving our views gratis in a different medium (sans flipchart, or visible FGD survey tools). Nice one Pete.
The impact indicators are really interesting:
# of blog responses
# of blogs picking it up
The time in hours it takes for a certain level of interest/response to manifest.
The rate of response.
Cross-tabbing the blogosphere with fund-raising.
Etc.
I had no idea MSF was so techologically savvy – but I suppose it’s always been very corporate. Like Oxfam, perhaps more anal in the field though (viz. position email addresses, the whole field power supply protocol, the assembly line of volunteers – MSF is an industry leader).
People – you’re part of Pete/MSF’s laboratory.
Again, nice one Pete!
Frankly.
I am crossposting this here in the hopes that Steve picks it up and responds. I also posted this over on Osocio:
I worked for MSF in 2001 in Ethiopia and 2002 in South Sudan. I have spent the rest of the time up until now as an aid worker. I am still a member of MSF. I have a couple questions for Steve:
1) Was the audio edited in any way? I her staccato gunfire from what sounds like a heavy weapon. Was that added? Or, are they still on the front line?
I hear water and a medical instrument hitting metal. The child is having a bullet or shrapnel removed? Are they suturing?
Reading the text and listening to the child’s first cry of “mama mama” makes me think that he is crying for his family. If the above is true it may be that he is crying because of the procedure.
As a father of a young boy I found it incredibly difficult to listen past a few seconds. However, I finished it and then made myself listen again to identify the sounds. Please clarify if all the audio is original.
2) Is the house pictured the actual location where the care is being given? I don’t see MSF vehicles or any indication that this is a medical facility. If there is nearby fighting policy usually dictates that staff and structures are clearly marked to prevent endangering staff and those we treat. Was this a mobile medical unit?
3) Is all the text accurate and true? The statements shown are actual fact? All those things actually happened to the boy and his family?
4) Why is someone recording the child crying?
5) Have you, Steve, ever worked in the field in a similar environment? If you are going to defend/explain this piece I hope that you have.
6) MSF used to have a policy that images would not be shown of suffering individuals without evidence of an MSF staff member providing aid. Is MSF still abiding by those rules? I am not sure if this advertisement adheres to those principles.
If any of the pieces of this ad have been doctored then I am appalled because you are manipulating your viewers and our supporters with dishonesty and I believe that would be a new low for MSF. If that is the case I sincerely hope you explain, apologize and/or pull the video.
One of the things that has always help MSF win support is the stark realism of the black and white photos that populate all of the literature and websites. They show exactly what is happening and exactly what we went/go through out in the field. Even then I often felt the images were exploitive.
The biggest problem I have with the video is what you don’t show what happens next. We walk in, put our arm around the child and try to comfort him. I have done that many times. That is the only thing that makes it possible to keep going back. That power is one of the strongest forces I have ever felt. Without it, our work is damn near impossible.
You don’t give the audience that ability. You leave them feeling powerless. You drain them. I have been drained so many times I have lost count but the fact that I can always make a difference is what keeps me coming back. It is what has made it all worthwhile.
I understand that is what you are trying to do – you want them to act – but is it really necessary? If you have manipulated the content of the video you have cheapened a child’s suffering and done a disservice to those of us who have spent our lives in the field. You have betrayed our trust that HQ would do right by us if we went out there and put our asses on the line.
Please answer the above questions. If the video has not been doctored then I have a whole other set of questions for you. If it has…well, then I think you know what my response will be.
Please also answer as to why this is not being shown in the US market and if it will be shown and discussed at the AG.
Thanks,
Jon
Presumably the smoke is the burning SUV the doctor got there in (or perhaps they were teleported).
My reaction to the ad was one of hilarity: what a load of old cobblers!
The reason of course MSF didn’t simply film a doctor doing an emergency operation in a field hospital, which would have been honest and probably more effective, is that it wouldn’t have been ‘cutting edge’. The agenda is being set by the ad agency not the aid agency.
I had noticed that MSF is going very old school with their print ads. Lots of miserable kids and caring doctors, almost reminiscent of the old Christian Children’s Fund Stuff.
This is a very good fundraising ad. It is stark, arresting with a clear call to action (we can’t operate without your help). No one needs to have to see a phone number to know they should get in touch with MSF to contribute. Ads do not educate people about the complexities of development or explain how the charity works; they motivate people to act and this one is good at that. I suspect MSF will see an increase in funding as a result of the ad.
I agree with the criticisms above about how it can be misinterpreted or misleading, but this is the basic dilemma faced by nearly all NGO’s. As Linda points out above, this is why the program people usual don’t like the fundraising people. If you want ads that bring more money in the door, you have to forget about educating the public, being accurate, and being politically correct.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a new guide for development communications (effective campaigns are rarely formulaic), but based on a national study of US voters conducted last year we showed that the traditional framework for advocacy campaigns is no longer working. The narrative needs to be advanced from one of problems and despair to one of progress and optimism. The challenge for global health advocacy is no longer problem recognition, most people are generally aware of the problems of the developing world. Piling more on will do little to engage the the uninvolved. Today’s challenge for global health advocacy is accountability. Our research proved that the primary reason people are resistant to support foreign aid is because they do not trust that the aid provided is reaching the people it’s intended for. Campaigns like the one from MSF do little to address this issue. Thus, it’s likely they’re only preaching to the converted (which may have been their aim). But to effectively reach uninvolved audiences, advocacy campaigns need to start by immediately addressing the progress already underway, thereby demonstrating accountability. You can read more here: http://bit.ly/mFtZK
I incorrectly addressed my post to ‘Steve’ when the intended recipient was Pete Masters.
Pete – Please take the time to respond to the questions I posted in my previous comment.
Thanks,
Jon
@Jon
@NYBNKR
If you two are sincere, and have seen/experienced what you say you have, then you know this whole palaver is ONLY about the attention MSF is now receiving (and measuring, and cashing in on). MSF crossed over and became corporate ages ago. This ad is just clever marketing.
Again, you would have noticed in the field, MSF is not really that different from so many well-organised NGOs.On the media/comms side their photos and exhibitions arrestingly depict suffering (cf. their actual work helping people in need, which is frequently quite modest against the shocking backdrop they draw around their corporate image) and all manner of ‘hardcore’ realities.
NGOs reach a critical mass, becoming better organised and ‘corporate’ (or implode), then consolidate (invariably becoming less adaptive/flexible in the field), then their agenda invariably shifts (subtly at first, then more overtly); this is perhaps the case with MSF. Their agenda is wading into media/awareness/fund-raising, rather than let their work speak for itself. Sadly, they are in an ever-expanding and wholly unremarkable company of equally callous organisations.
At what point do we describe INGOs like MSF as multi-nationals and subject them to the same expectations we project upon large global companies? Their duty AND standard of care deserve closer scrutiny, their accountability warrants inspection, and their disclosure leaves us wanting more… Or does their dazzling cloak sewn from altrusim and concern for humanity confuse and muddle our judgment?
Frankly.
Just my 2 cents as a layperson who regularly donates to humanitarian NGOs including Doctors Without Borders – I liked MSF Canada’s “Make Your Mark” a lot better. I felt it was also emotionally powerful but conveyed a sense of hope rather than despair, and was actually much better at communicating what kind of work MSF does and who are the people it serves.
Wow, this one is running and running. Just to add that Linda is bang-on re. the friction between marketing/fund-raising vs. campaigning/programme departments. I have experienced this in the organisation I work with, where we had to insist one of our offices shred 10,000 flyers due to go out in a national newspaper because the marketing department had decided to include their own ‘research’ that was inaccurate, as well as using images that were misleading. However, I also work with researchers and campaigners who often fail to use communications / visual media effectively to get important information to a wider audience. None of this is easy, and there can be a fine line between making a product that has impact and one that is counter productive. I have been on both ends of this and know that it is very difficult to judge how your comms strategy and products will play out in the rather noisy world. Duckrabbit hits the nail on the head in that NGOs tend to be a bit crap at story telling, which exacerbates the risk of it all going pear shaped. In my experience – which is admittedly of one INGO – there is little training on this and proportionately little resources allocated. So, not so much they don’t no the complexities and realities but that they lack the skills to get it them across. And this is partly because they prioritize comms with governments through policy and research documents rather than mass comms – which may say something about how they believe change can be achieved.
Rob, you’re bang on the mark in your assertion that NGOs focus disproportionately on relationship and comms with Government (i.e. “Please accept our agenda”). But their focus is more often than not predominantly donor-oriented – certainly in my experience anyway. The donor is placated through media that focuses on success stories and feel-good imagery.
But the space they should devote more of their efforts to – improving trust and confidence amongst communities and their government – is often overlooked; the project(s) supplant those of government, who may be unwilling or unable to undertake the activities in question.
MSF’s ad is innovative and will mobilise private funding and get their brand back in the spotlight.
Many stay-at-home donors might baulk at the actual net cost of media interventions such as this – I reckon my Granny would be shocked (she’s been donating a monthly and seasonal cheque with MSF for ages), both at the ad and the real cost (staffing, shooting, post-production, broadcasting).
It’s almost a separate discussion because it’s much more technical than the first blog or the thread-replies.
Jim
All-
As it seems there will be no response from MSF I have decided to continue the discussion on my own blog, Aid Worker Daily. Please feel free to join the discussion and review my post titled, MSF UK – Your Silence Is Deafening http://bit.ly/12iMjG
Cheers,
Jon
Hi Jon, sorry to disappoint, but it has been a bank holiday in the UK and I have spent a long weekend in the countryside without an internet connection. I will be happy to answer your questions, but please give me a chance…
Hi Jon, sorry to get to this so late. As I explained on your blog I have been away without internet connection for a long weekend.
To answer your first three questions, the audio is not real to that situation, nor is the house pictured the actual place where the care is being given. The advert has been ‘made’ by the ad agency. The text has also been added and presents a situation – it is not fact. You say [and excuse my paraphrasing] “if the video has been doctored, then I think you know what my response will be” and yes, I think I can guess. I want to tell you that I think what you have written is valid – you share that opinion with many others who have commented on this ad and on some points I agree with you. I have been honest about my opinion of the ad.
However, I do not think that there is dishonesty in the ad. It doesn’t pretend to be a situation that is happening in front of a viewers eyes – it represents a situation that is not unheard of in MSF’s work. These kinds of situations present themselves to our staff in the field as I’m sure you know. I have never been a field worker, but I do work for MSF and hear about and read about situations as awful as this. My biggest problem with the ad is your biggest problem. The situation is unimaginably horrible and then the ad ends. It doesn’t show what happens next and the ‘what happens next’ is the reason I work for MSF and the reason I supported them for years before.
I know the responses here are not going to be what you want to hear, but I hope they answer your questions. Please do realise that ‘defending/explaining’ this ad is not part of my job. The debate was already happening before I got there – I wanted to contribute, so I did. I don’t really understand why I need to have field experience to do so.
I’m also not sure if the ad will be used in the US, but I hope that the debate we have seen will inform any decisions that are taken. I can promise you that the opinions of everyone who has taken part so far have been brought to the attention of MSF UK staff and McCann who made the ad. This is why I linked Osocio from the MSF UK web site (which doesn’t have the functionality to field comments on content) – so that anyone can see and contribute.
Pete-
I have responded to your comments here: http://bit.ly/178nZR
Cheers,
Jon
BREAKING!! Advertisement Oversimplifies, Appeals to Emotion
The development blogs have been all over this ad from MSF this week. Is it exploitative? Does it oversimplify a complex issue? Have the images and sound been edited in any way for television!?
Fretting over the content of advocacy ads is not new. With…
BREAKING!! Advertisement Oversimplifies, Appeals to Emotion
The development blogs have been all over this ad from MSF this week. Is it exploitative? Does it oversimplify a complex issue? Have the images and sound been edited in any way for television!?
Fretting over the content of advocacy ads is not new. With…