Why Humanitarian Aid is NOT Crest Toothpaste
Posted by Allison Fine on July 9, 2009
It is astonishing when very thoughtful, passionate people get something so utterly wrong. It’s even worse when that wrongheadeness is in the op-ed section of the New York Times for the world to see and many to take as gospel.
This morning, Nick Kristof writes:
One of the reasons, I believe, is that humanitarians are abjectly ineffective at selling their causes. Any brand of toothpaste is peddled with far more sophistication than the life-saving work of aid groups. Do-gooders also have a penchant for exaggeration, so that the public often has more trust in the effectiveness of toothpaste than of humanitarian aid.
This is so totally and completely wrong!!! The problem isn’t that we don’t sell causes like toothpaste, the problem is that we too often DO sell them like toothpaste.
Should we act more like Tropicana and spend millions not listening to customers, repackaging a brand in a way that is universally panned, sales plummet and spend millions more undoing the damage? It is exactly these kinds of habits, of developing messages that are focused groups but have no real connection with regular people, of doing things at people rather than with them that were created on Madison Avenue and adopted by too many cause organizations that has led us to this place of silos and fortresses, of public relations people and marketers working at odds with program people, of “selling” causes rather than weaving networks.
Cause organizations need to throw out the old toothpaste playbook and start working from a new one that focuses on building strong, trusting relationships and really connecting with people, influentials and regular folks. We need to facilitate lots and lots of conversatios online and on land about the underlying issues, what’s hard, what needs to be done, and engage millions of people in solving social problems. And we need to stop judging people if they want to give to one hungry child rather than eradicate hunger because it makes them feel good. Our focus, as cause folks, needs to be on creating lots and lots of opportunities for lots and lots of people to participate in ways that work for them — not to buy the cream or rinse or lotion that we’re selling because we’re trying to make a profit.
Acchhh, now Kristof has ruined my whole day with one smart-ass moment at his keyboard and I’m going to have to spend of it cleaning up after him. Maybe I’ll send him the cleaning bill.
Share this:
This entry was posted on July 9, 2009 at 5:59 am and is filed under Social Media. Tagged: humanitarian aid, Nick Kristof. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
19 Responses to “Why Humanitarian Aid is NOT Crest Toothpaste”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Lars Hasselblad Torres said
I think the challenge here is the conflation of humanitarian “causes” with “aid.” I think of causes as enduring and lasting mechanisms to deliver, if not life-saving support, at least life-improving support over time. humanitarian “aid” is more like disaster relief and other “clean up” jobs (yeah, like yours just now
in the wake of natural and human catastrophies.
In the latter, Nick is correct I think: too often, these groups – from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent to Doctors Without Borders – are rallying their resources toward “port-to-mouth” concerns amidst a mediastorm of sensational press. Its very difficult to do anything other than, on the one hand fight fire with fire (the exaggeration caused by imperfect information flows) or shuttle out the less-than-sophisticated press release. Meanwhile, every Tom and Jane codejockey with a laptop and cellphone is out their making their own microcampaign with more web-savvy than some of the biggest direct aid organizations so of course they come off as unsophisticated.
When it comes to the former, the long-term aid and “cause” driven organizations, I think Nick is dead wrong and I agree with you. Some of these – from human rights group like Amnesty International and Witness to development orgs like Oxfam and One campaign – set the bar for sophisticated, “user-centric” campaigns. And with all that intelligence directed toward high-end media production values, I think Kristoff is right when writes that the public is skeptical about aid, that it “has more trust in toothpaste than humanitarian aid” (er, except for that blip during 2007)…
Anyway, let me know if you need help with than clean up – I think I’ve got some extra paper towels around here somewhere!
Allison Fine said
Thanks for the clarification, Lars, it is helpful to remember that aid and causes are different things. Will call you if I run out of cleaning supplies!
Fran Loosen said
Um, toothpaste is about the consumer him/herself and what his/her direct needs are. Humanitarian aid is removed, by geography, by class, by any number of things. There is an inherent difference. When you can connect social work to an individual’s own personal experience (and some to degree, benefit), then it sings for them. If you look at the way disease organizations partner with families and friends affected by disease, you see the connection (Komen, anyone?). I’m with you on the ruined day thing. He had me at “do-gooders” and “exaggeration”. Really? Want to come take a tour with me, Mr. Kristof?
Keep up the great work, Afine!
Allison Fine said
Thanks, Fran for the thoughtful comment and well wishes. Completely agree that it really is all about the personal connection with the cause that motivates people to action – really not the same behavior as buying toothpaste!
Mike Everett-Lane said
My favorite “huh?” line from his piece:
“Do-gooders also have a penchant for exaggeration” — as compared to Madison Avenue?
Allison Fine said
Exactly! I had a WTF moment at that line.
Hildy Gottlieb said
Allison:
Thank you and thank you again. It is such a joy to watch the nails accumulate in the “run like a business” coffin, and to see the groundswell build for a loud New Orleans-style funeral for that whole concept.
An entire sector-full of individuals and organizations dedicated to changing the world is brand new in our world’s history. Commerce and faith and governments have been around for ages – we know what it takes to make those systems work (even when our actions go counter to our wisdom).
But this sector filled with people who are intent on changing the world? We are inventing things as we go. We tried emulating all those others, and have watched that approach lead neither to stable organizations nor to a significantly changed world. That was the entire impetus behind my writing The Pollyanna Principles – the need for our sector to create its own ways, to be effective at attaining OUR goals. Those goals are not about selling anything. They are instead that we all link arms and march forward together to create the world we want.
Such an effort is not only possible, it is practical and doable. We see that every day. And your post this morning has given me one more reason to be excited at what we are capable of doing when we use tools that are intended specifically for attaining the goals of a world full of healthy, humane, resilient, vibrant communities.
Thank you so much!
Hildy
Allison Fine said
Thanks, Hildy, we are in perfect agreement about relationships trumping transactions, a new, fresher and more rewarding way of looking at the world. Onward!
Bob McInnis said
If you eliminate the hype and endorsments, isn’t toothpaste supposed to improve oral hygeine? Most pitches for toothpaste actually promote lifestyle rather than a problem/benefit message. We do some of that too in our ‘feel good’ marketing but my semse (at least here in Canada) is that supporters are looking for a tangible difference because of the transaction with humanitarian causes. Often we prefer to soft sell impact and ‘exaggerate’ the good feelings. I give because I hope my dollars will make a difference. If I am not confident that the donation will have or is having an impact I look for a different brand.
Allison Fine said
I’d much rather think about strengthening relationships than completing transactions which is what I think of when the phrase “selling toothpaste” enters a conversation. Tangible benefits are good things, people should feel good about the interactions with causes, it’s just larger than the old checkbook philanthropy approach.
James BonTempo said
I think I may have a different read on Kristof, here.
I don’t get the sense that he’s recommending that aid agencies use the same exact tactics that for-profit companies do. Rather that it might be a good idea to take a step back and evaluate their current communications (and directly tied to that, development) strategies. After all, isn’t evaluation a good thing?
One specific potential shift that he mentions is one that would move organizations from devoting so much focus on challenges to highlighting successes. And consistent with what you’ve written, what better way is there to do that then to elicit those success stories directly from “regular folks”? Honestly, I think you’re both right: he because I feel an updated approach is necessary, you because I think that that approach needs to be driven from within the communities themselves.
BTW, you mention “influentials,” but that sort of approach may not actually be the best one. See Is the Tipping Point Toast? for why Duncan Watts doesn’t think so.
Just trying to find the common ground…
Allison Fine said
Very Obama-like of you to split the difference, James!
I’m all for evaluation, spent more years than I’d like to admit evaluating social change efforts — although I didn’t read Kristof piece in that vein. But, still, appreciate your open-mindedness! Will look at the article re: Tipping Point, thanks.
Nedra Weinreich said
While it’s true that commercial marketing does not have all the answers for how to address this issue, the field of social marketing — when done well — offers some tools for starting to build the kind of movement that you’re talking about. The focus on how to appeal to the values that motivate people to take action, as well as putting a structure into place that facilitates connecting people and makes it easy to get involved, distinguishes social marketing from simply selling toothpaste. In fact, Kotler and Lee have just come out with a book on using social marketing to reduce poverty (haven’t read it yet, but I hear it’s good).
Allison Fine said
Yes, well put, Nedra, re: relationship building and connections – that’s what it’s all about regardless of what you name it. Let me know how the book is, too!
Cindy Ross said
The key point that I took from the column was the insight into the decision-making processes, highlighting the need for the kind of focus that Nedra describes.
Your Grant Solutions » Current News said
[...] “Cause organizations need to throw out the old toothpaste playbook and start working from a new one that focuses on building strong, trusting relationships and really connecting with people, influentials, and regular folks,” she writes on her blog. [...]
Lars Hasselblad Torres said
I think the crux of Nick’s article is here: “In the case of fighting poverty, there are billions of other bystanders to erode a personal sense of responsibility. Moreover, humanitarian appeals emphasize the scale of the challenges — 25,000 children will die today! — in ways that are as likely to numb us as to galvanize us.”
This is a classic problem of collective action. The difference is selling a million people on one product (toothpaste) vs a million people on a million problems (eg children).
He is right: the public isn’t sold on “poverty,” muchless “childhood poverty.” Whether Madison Avenue or Joe and Jane codejockey can change that is another question. Its about efficacy, and the sense that one *must* do something and if so where, and how. His example of the drowning child is illustrative: each world leader knows what at least one of them must do, the course of action is clear. Predicting which of those world leaders is most likely to act first is a totally different question, because any one of them, alone in that situation, would act.
Hope the end of the day has found your work environment a little cleaner
Indira said
Please someone out there I can’t eat. I need some dental help. Thank you.
Indira S,
Anonymous said
I can’t speak for other countries, but here in America, we are overloaded with calls to action every day. Someone is always asking us for something—whether it be phone solicitations, direct mail, broadcast media and the internet—and promising us there is a real need, and now is the time to act. On the back side of that, we find out that there are solicitors that are really hired phone salespeople that get a cut of what we donate, or maybe it’s the more immediate experience of the street beggar wearing Nike’s. Who do you trust?
I think the strategy is really the same for both profit and non-profits . . . connect with your audience and “make the sale”. That is the reality. Of course, if it’s the poor—children, women, communities—we are aiming to help, we still measure our success by our ability bring in dollars to accomplish our goals. The key difference is really in HOW we communicate our message. Humanitarian organizations are in “business” to help impact those in real need in the most immediate sustainable way.
I agree when Kristoff says “Do-gooders also have a penchant for exaggeration, so that the public often has more trust in the effectiveness of toothpaste than of humanitarian aid.” The unfortunate reality is that there are organizations that use guilt in an attempt to move the audience to action. This kind of strategy impacts all NGO’s in that we all loose trust with the public, unless we can communicate and demonstrate the positive ways we have impacted the poor, and encourage people to join us in that effort, and help them realize that it’s not about the small impact one donor can have towards the entire problem, but the life changing impact they can have on another human being.