WWF Gets It Right, Almost
Jeff Brooks at Future Fundraising Now can be pretty scathing when he blogs about nonprofit ads that don’t work. Here’s his latest diatribe, where he notes that World Wildlife Fund UK is a frequent ‘bad ad’ culprit.
But redemption might be possible.
As reported on MediaPost, here’s an ad from WWF that I think is pretty good. I felt its impact. As did my 17-year-old daughter. The two of us represent a pretty broad audience to connect with effectively … at least age-wise, if not psychographically.
However, despite its superb images and editing, I can still find a classic shortcoming in this ad. One that happens in 99% of nonprofit TV ads. The call-to-action and contact info flashes by in two seconds at best. Creatives never want to deflect attention from their creative genius! Even when the result is less response for the client.
What do you think?
Tom
6 responses to “WWF Gets It Right, Almost”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
The tension between maintaining ‘creative integrity’ and achieving ‘direct response effectiveness’ is probably most keenly felt with DRTV ads. The basic rule of thumb I’ve used in the past when briefing a DRTV ad is to instruct the creatives that the response mech appears – and stays on screen – as a sub title from 25 secs in for a 60 sec ad ending with a full screen call to action for 5-10 secs depending on the complexity of the call to action. Creatives may moan but at least your ad will have a chance of generating a response.
Cool ad, but definitely misses the mark on the call to action.
I think both ads are good. I liked the first one, found it mesmerizing. And yes, I did find myself only peripherally listening to the vocal message. But I was listening. Also that ad might be one I’d share on Facebook. It was definitely “neat” to watch. I’d probably watch it more than once even. That was some really interesting hand work. Funny thing is, the message sort of seeps in. The hand movements were a bit hypnotic, IMO, and I felt like I was sort of “absorbing” the message.
The second one that you and daughter liked I also liked a lot. I found myself feeling “connected” by the end. I agree that the call to action should have been longer at the end. If I wasn’t already familiar with the organization (peripherally) I wouldn’t have had time to pick up just WHO to donate to or what website to visit. That should be fixed, definitely.
I think ultimately what defines “good” is results. Neither ad was cheap to create. I assume WWF has better things to spend it’s money on than on expensive ads that don’t generate a good ROI. Ad metrics are readily attainable on many platforms these days. So if the ad cost them 150K and they made 5K off of it, I would think they’d not be making more “stupid ads”.
You’re so right. I love this creativity. I hate it totally misses the mark.
What a shame – absolutely no call to action. Lovely idea, beautifully executed but totally wasted. You can raise money and awareness at the same time. If you choose only to raise awareness, you’re just wasting donor money.
I loved this advert when I saw it and immediately thought it must have cost them a lot of money. I hope it does prove to be effective for them, maybe they could edit the ending to include a cal to action? Seems like like a waste of beautiful concept and cinematography!