Comments on: In Which MSF Follows Our Fake Principles from Our Satirical Advocacy Video Guide

By: In Event of Moon Disaster

In Event of Moon Disaster — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:45:41 +0000

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…

By: In Event of Moon Disaster

In Event of Moon Disaster — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:08:47 +0000

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…

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:57:11 +0000

Pete-

I have responded to your comments here: http://bit.ly/178nZR

Cheers,

Jon

By: Pete Masters

Pete Masters — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:05:43 +0000

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.

By: Pete Masters

Pete Masters — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:23:31 +0000

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…

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:03:28 +0000

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

By: James Bean

James Bean — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:55:48 +0000

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

By: Rob Godden

Rob Godden — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:06:59 +0000

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.

By: Xenobiologista

Xenobiologista — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:48:35 +0000

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.

By: Frank Lee

Frank Lee — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:36:40 +0000

@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.