I’ve been thinking about this video ad from Medicins Sans Frontieres, which has stirred up quite a bit of controversy on the Chronicle’s Give & Take blog and elsewhere.

Here are my observations.

First, a piece of advertising needs to be assessed against its objectives. If the objective here was branding, I’d rate the ad A+.

Whether you already know MSF or have never heard of it, this ad provides a very clear and emotive picture of human tragedy and the role MSF plays in trying to alleviate it. I expect you would be proud of MSF if already a donor, and probably indelibly imprinted if you had not been previously aware. I think you would know from this ad that MSF tries to treat suffering humans in outrageous situations. Nothing else needs to be said.

The ad is being presented in movie theaters, and is probably generating at least as much after-movie discussion as the movies that follow it! [To say nothing of the online discussion.] That’s a branding victory.

If the objective was fundraising, I wouldn’t be so sure this was an ideal approach. Obviously no "direct response" is presumed (it’s being viewed in a movie theater after all). But more importantly, from a fundraising perspective,  I believe the ad crosses the line of being a bit too overpowering … to the point where it might freeze people instead of motivating them to act.

From work with a past client, Christian Children’s Fund (now, ChildFund International), I appreciate the "tension" between presenting a compelling  and motivating case, including uncomfortable images, versus numbing the prospective donor with a sense of overwhelming hopelessness. Hence the focus of charities like this on helping one child … not saving nations or continents. It’s a proven approach that works.

Note that the MSF ad focuses on helping one child, not ending genocide.

I might regard it differently if I were told the ad was appearing in media specifically targeting a younger audience (by which I mean to say — sorry younger folks — more impulsive, not offended or discomfited by jolting images, and less disposed to "analyze" the what’s and wherefore’s of how MSF will deploy their dollars).

So, back to objectives.

If it’s branding, I’d say very effective. And if they offended some viewers, that’s both understandable and an acceptable price to pay to deliver a strong message.

If they were looking to raise money directly, I’d be surprised that they took this approach.

Tom