Since the term “poverty porn” first appeared in 1981, much has been said about the exploitation of human suffering to inspire charitable giving. Yet for all that we’ve learned over the last four decades, many organizations still struggle to communicate their impact in a way that authentically represents the issue and preserves the dignity of those affected by it.
Websites devoted to calling out organizations accused of “poverty porn” are numerous, and so we might wonder, with all this awareness, why do organizations still use exploitative marketing practices?
I have some theories.
Because of (a lack of) representation
The identities and lived experiences of the people working in nonprofits can be (and often is) quite different from the identities and lived experiences of the people affected by that nonprofit’s program. And it is precisely these differences that cause us to stumble when applying the Golden Rule – “treating others the way we want to be treated” doesn’t work well when other people are quite different from us.
I don’t often encounter a situation where there would be absolutely no overlap in the identities and experiences of nonprofit staff and program participants — usually there is overlap in terms of gender, age, and possibly race, but it is never enough to really say that our staff and leadership fully represent or embody the experiences of program participants.
Our sector is well aware that we would benefit from more diversity and representation in our staff and boards, but I want to caution us that there will never be a complete overlap of identities and lived experiences between two groups.
An organization fighting to end homelessness may consist of a board and staff who have all experienced homelessness themselves; however, the staff may not all embody the other many identities and experiences of their constituents (in terms of sexuality, gender, race, prior experience with trauma, etc.). The range of human experience and the intersectionality of the multiple identities will always be too vast to be replicated in any one group.
I have taken the trouble to explain this at length because this is where I believe a common pitfall occurs: people assume that because one person embodies a certain identity, they are representative of an entire group. We cannot assume that someone on staff who has experienced homelessness can speak on behalf of all people with that experience. Just because you and I have experienced something similar does not mean we want our stories told in the same way.
Because we are not getting real feedback
It’s important for us to recognize that our feedback channels for fundraising communications are often ineffective. Many organizations ask their program participants for feedback on marketing communications. They ask questions about whether the communications accurate, culturally sensitive, and relevant. And most of the feedback they receive is positive.
But let’s acknowledge that most of us are uncomfortable giving critical feedback even in the most equitable of circumstances, and program participants are not in the most equal of circumstances. When there is a power dynamic, like the boss asking for feedback or a key funder asking our organization for feedback, we are more likely to tell them what they want to hear to preserve the relationship.
Our program participants also feel like they have a duty to please nonprofits and tell us what they think we want to hear, because we have the power to provide them resources or not. They may even be afraid that we will discontinue services to them if their feedback is anything less than satisfactory.
Asking directly for feedback, when there is a power imbalance, does not give us the truth. This is why I wrote and article with ideas to help you fix your feedback channel and increase the likelihood of getting truthful responses.
Because it feels so good to help…and so bad to ask for help
We know that the act of giving makes us feel good. Helping other people makes us feel good. Psychological research confirms that giving makes us feel good and makes us healthier.
But this positive feeling of helping others can sometimes cloud our ability to relate to how the people on the receiving end of those gifts want to be portrayed. When we have positive feelings about the deeds we are doing, we tend to ignore or minimize negative possibilities.
The truth is: while it feels so great to help, it feels horrible to have to ask for help.
Many of us cringe at the thought of asking someone, especially a stranger, for help. Imagine needing to make an urgent call, but your cellphone is out of battery. Many of us would feel uneasy approaching a stranger to ask if we could use their phone. What will they think of us? What if they refuse?
Overcoming the fear and shame in asking for help is the first obstacle. Now imagine someone finally lends you their phone and immediately upon your handing it back, they take a photo of you and post it to Facebook. After all, they have to let their friends know about their noble deed. How would that make you feel? Unfortunately, using the misfortune of others as an opportunity to highlight one’s own generosity is so prevalent that there are now satirical memes about it.
What does asking for help do to our self-image?
And what does providing help do to the other person’s self image?
You can see that many of these “noble” posts are all about glorifying the “hero” and humiliating the “victim.”
When we forget how much it hurts to ask for help, we put our own feeling of heroism in the spotlight.
Because of the research
I’m sure many of my colleagues in the fundraising world will recognize this graphic:
This graphic was taken from a study published in 2009 in the journal of the American Marketing Association. Many notable speakers in fundraising cite this study frequently as being total justification to post photos of extreme suffering. They show this graphic as proof that “sad photos” are not only “ok” but exceedingly effective! But this is where the education ends.
Most people don’t bother to read the study, because if they did, they would find that it was conducted of 151 American college students, with the average age being twenty-one. (I’m willing to bet that’s quite a different demographic form your donor population). Now, the students were paid $10 to show up and fill out an online questionnaire. They were told they could donate their $10 to cancer research. They were divided into three groups. One group was shown a campaign ad of a child smiling, another group was shown the same ad featuring a child with a neutral expression, and the third group was shown the ad with a child frowning.
The frowning child got 50% more donations than happy or neutral face. That’s all.
Here’s the thing: we know that people act different in simulations; we know they act different with fake money or with not-their-own money, than they do in real life with their real money. This research sample did not use people who accurately reflect the donor pool, gave them money to give away, and used photos of healthy children with different facial expressions.
Is this what we should really be basing all our communications on?
While I don’t believe this particular study provides valid guidance for nonprofits, I do want to acknowledge that there are other research studies examining the effects of imagery on charitable giving, and that have been conducted on actual donors using actual campaigns. Many of them are inconclusive or contradict one another. The fact is, it is very hard to isolate all the variables in a campaign that compel a donor to give. If you wish to read more research on this topic, I encourage you to look for articles on “beneficiary framing” or “beneficiary portrayal” that focused on the perspectives of the people portrayed, rather than the donors.
I hope this article has shed some light on why we are still seeing exploitative imagery and language in fundraising communications. I do not believe this is an issue that can be remedied by simply replacing the words on your website or changing the photos in your campaigns. The way we talk about our program participants reveals very deep, ingrained issues in the nonprofit sector that will only be remedied through increased representation, more truthful feedback, more empathy, and better research. I believe we can hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Get the latest insight on ethical storytelling and more. Subscribe now:
