What's this all about?

  • I'm Mark Phillips, the founder and CEO of Bluefrog. After a decade working for both ActionAid and YMCA England, I decided in 1997 to create the fundraising agency that I had been searching for. This is my private space where I share ideas, results, research findings and the odd thought on fundraising. I try to avoid looking at my belly button and concentrate on stuff that will make fundraising more effective. It should all be stuff that you can actually use. If you want to know more, click on the About button below.
My Photo

Free updates

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Follow Me on Pinterest

Where I work

Search queer ideas


Categories

Blog powered by Typepad
Blog Directory for London

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

twittercounter


« Will you lend me £15 please? | Main | Why have just one supporter, when you could have a whole group of them? »

Thursday, August 12, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a01053597f309970c013486283b7f970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The most powerful tool in fundraising is imagination:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Elliotharmon

Isn't this precisely the opposite of what we should be encouraging? It's just adding another layer of abstraction to the story. The ad doesn't give me any idea of what the organization actually does.

When the two choices on the table are "Show some bloody animal footage" or "Show some scripted reaction shots to bloody animal footage," I'd say it's time for some brainstorming.

Tara Lepp

I for one think it's a brilliant ad! I found it upsetting to watch the celebrities' reactions and to hear the dogs wimpering in the background and had tears in my eyes without seeing the footage firsthand.

This kind of thing could work for Amnesty International. I know when I worked with them years ago this was an issue. They wanted people to know what was going on and be angered and horrified about it to do something but they recognized that some people didn't need to see all of the graphic images to be upset by what was happening. And to encourage them to take action.
I know some countries are more in your face but in Canada it usually doesn't fly.


mark phillips

Hi Elliot

I think we are going to disagree on this point.

There's another video from the same organisation that takes a more direct approach that you may wish to take a look at (graphic image warning)

http://www.keepcrueltyhistory.com/

But the whimpering that Tara describes along with the viewers' reactions created a far more powerful image in my mind that those in this second video.

I genuinely think it a tremendous response to a very difficult creative problem that ticks some key fundraising boxes...

It is emotionally engaging.
It engenders trust.
It firmly defines an enemy in respect of the lobby to change the law.
It offers a route to tackle this and protect animals.
It offers a means of self-definition.

But as with all creative work, it it is how it impacts on the individual that matters. In this instance it didn't work for you and i'm grateful for you taking the time to share your thoughts.

Thanks for reading.

Mark

Elliotharmon

Thanks a lot for taking the time to reply, Mark. It was interesting to me to watch both videos and compare my reactions.

The celebrity one actually did have a pretty strong emotional impact on me, but without a clear idea of what was being fought against, my emotion really only translated into anger/annoyance at the org making the ad. In that way, the second one was considerably more successful for me.

I think there's also some culture clash going on. Hunting in America -- as well as the stereotypes associated with hunters -- is considerably different. My experience with hunting consists of a few pheasant hunting trips with "hunting dogs" that are really nothing more than pets. I now realize that when I watched the first video, I had no idea what the celebrities were actually watching. But I appreciated both ads more after I actually read online about what the Hunting Act entails. That's context that the target audience for the ad would (I assume) already have.

Cheers,
Elliot

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.