Enough with the lazy advocacy.

Aid Watch recently posted a satirical send-up of African advocacy videos.  It may have come off as a bit too flippant for some and sarcastic for others, but that shouldn’t detract from its substance.  Namely, it highlights how predictable and ineffective campaigns aimed at engaging apathetic audiences in the aid and development of Africa have become.  And I’m not just piling conjecture on top of conjecture here.  This perspective is based on sound research.  Last year, I directed a national study, on behalf of The Gates Foundation, of US voter attitudes towards global health issues.  The key findings of our study challenged the historical, and still dominant, narrative framework of global health advocacy campaigns.  Much of which corroborates, albeit more dryly, the criticisms posted by Aid Watch.

The dominant narrative of global health advocacy campaigns employs a well-established script – it begins with the size and urgency of the problem, then tries to guilt the audience into caring, and concludes with possible solutions and a plea for help. During the past few decades, this narrative has helped increase awareness of several global health problems. However, it has also created crisis fatigue. In effect, this narrative has now run its course.  People have heard the same story for over 20 years.  At best, most audiences just tune out these campaigns today.  At worst, these campaigns promote skepticism as they implicitly suggest that there is nothing to show for all the aid we’ve sent to the developing world over the past quarter century. 

This goes a long way toward explaining the aid world’s current obsession with “success stories."  But simply providing evidence of successes may be insufficient in capturing the attention and interest of otherwise disengaged audiences.  Our analysis suggests the entire framework needs to be reconsidered.  In effect, we concluded the narrative for global health needs to stop emphasizing problems and despair and start highlighting progress and optimism.  The biggest challenge for most global health advocacy efforts today isn’t about recognition of the problem(s).  The biggest challenge 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. Thus, in our estimation, effective advocacy campaigns need to start by immediately addressing the progress already underway.  Americans are desperate to hear of results.  And they showed a strong willingness to support further investment for proven interventions.  Of course, for those organizations with no progress to report, it's probably best if you devote your resources to fixing your product before you try to market it.  That trick may work with consumer products, but when it comes to issue advocacy disingenuous attempts to solicit support only make it more difficult for the efforts of legitimate initiatives to capture people's interest and involvement.

From there, our message framework recommends redefining what success means for global health in a way that mirrors the public’s definition of success – empowering people to build productive, self-sustaining lives.  Receiving a bed net is not an outcome.  Nor is being put on ARVs.  These are just means to an end.  And people rightly want to know about the end.  They want to know how our aid efforts are helping create a self-sustaining society not a culture of dependency.  This is much easier said than done.  Now that I'm working in the field I can fully appreciate the complexity of M&E (monitoring and evaluation) beyond basic health metrics.  Nonetheless, if aid organizations are serious about advocacy they should seriously invest in robust M&E programs to provide interested parties with the proof points they need to commit to their cause.

This is not to say that we can't continue to introduce audiences to the many problems of the developing world.  We just shouldn't begin by dwelling on the issue.  We should begin by demonstrating the progress already underway - whether that means lives saved, jobs created, or policies enacted.  Just as viruses become resistant to drugs, audiences have become resistant to the standard regimen for advocacy campaigns.  Audiences clearly aren't responding to these tired formulas.  So enough with the lazy advocacy and wasted resources.

As for those who contend that sensationalized messages using over-simplified statistics and celebrity spokespeople are the only way to get apathetic audiences involved, I wonder how long you think you can hold their interest.  Treating issue advocacy like fashion advertising will only subject your cause to the ruthless and ephemeral world of consumer trends.  Here today, gone tomorrow.  This style of advertising celebrates and exacerbates our disposable culture.  Which may (or may not) be good for the economy, but when applied to issue advocacy it compromises the sustained interest and involvement aid groups need from their supporters to help them reach their goals.  Naive supporters don't understand the consequences of their erratic involvement.  Then again you shouldn't expect them to when you sell yourself like any other shiny new object.

Comments

[duckrabbitblog]

This is a great post that should be read by all charity fundraisers working in International Development. I think you'd find that 'shock' still works to a certain extent when channeled through traditional news outlets like the BBC, but when attached to fund raising campaigns they can come across as tired, cynical and manipulative.

[Account Deleted]

Thanks for this thoughtful post. The 'compassion fatigue' argument is complex, and it is good that you bring some evidence to this (many don't and just make assumptions). Maybe we should call it 'lack of solution fatigue' instead, as this appears to be the real problem? I would suggest that we need 'problem, solution, progress, action' rather than one or the other. Many NGO products are 'broken' yet there is much less scrutiny of this from supporters than you would expect. This makes me question what the NGOs are selling, and why people are buying it? Having worked in a major INGO for ten years I can say that evaluation, although institutionalised is not the driver that is should be.

Your last two paras are bang on. Resistance to traditional NGO advocacy is now generating different approaches. Either upping the ante (more shocking or slicker), or selling in a different way (what has been termed the post-humanitarian sensibility). This re-packaging brings its own problems, but there is a move from problem to solution. It is important to understand that NGOs see support in 'layers' - from core volunteer activists to the one off donor - and the visual media / communications they use for one will be quite different for the other.

[duckrabbitblog]

Is it possible to post a link to the study that you mentioned?

[Chris Murphy]

@duckrabbitblog
Unfortunately, we did not publish the study. We've briefed many aid organizations, including USAID, on the findings and framework. But it could clearly be of use to a much wider audience. I'll speak to my colleagues at Gates to see if we can post something. In the meantime, drop me an e-mail if you'd like to learn more. And thanks for your support.

[Chris Murphy]

@Rob Godden
Great points, Rob. Especially re 'layers' or audience segments. Many of us working in this field are very quick to criticize creative that may be intended for an audience very different from us. Nonetheless, NGOs do a pretty poor job managing their brand. Different messages to different targets is the right approach, but the brand has to be coherent and stand for something that all interested parties can get behind. The new MSF ad was clearly not meant for people working in or studying international development. But it still reached them. Consequently, aid/development blogs and twitter have lit up with commentary about it (mostly negative). This all contributes to the narrative surrounding MSF and the meaning of their brand. MSF, or McCann, should understand that audiences are now active meaning makers of brand identities. But it seems safe to say that MSF lost the forest for the trees on this one. And more importantly, they missed an opportunity to enlist a highly engaged audience in their advocacy. If given the right content, those criticizing MSF are equally prone to commend MSF and help spread their message (i.e., free media).

[Peter]

Just discovered your blog. And I see it is pretty new.. Welcome to the blogging world? ;-)

Keep going!

Can we include you on the blogroll on www.aidworkers.net (pse answer me via email)

tnx

Peter