Mennonite Central Committee and the End of Famine Pornography

It’s Christmas, a time for giving—and also a time for Christmas appeals.

Over the next few weeks you will see lots of ads and appeal letters asking you for money, including from aid groups.

While you will see lots of photos of people who need assistance, one thing you won’t see is famine pornography.

Famine pornography—the use of terrible images of dying children, with flies in their eyes and distended bellies, in order to raise funds—was very common in the 1980s and 1990s.

Use of the images was widely criticized by many for the way they promoted a negative stereotype of people in the developing world as always being needy, starving, desperate, and helpless.

But even though academics and some NGOs denounced the practice, famine porn continued to be used on TV, and in print for one simple reason: It worked.

At that time, I was directing communications for Mennonite Central Committee Canada.

Like many other aid agencies, we were upset by the constant use of famine porn, including by some leading Canadian NGOs.

But instead of just joining the chorus and criticizing the practice, we decided on another approach.

We decided to set the bar higher.

In 1992, we created the first Canadian code of conduct for reporting about needs in the developing world.

According to the code, MCC would portray people in the developing world in ways that affirmed their dignity, promoted their skills and abilities, and revealed them as active participants in efforts to improve their lives.

At the same time, we would report honestly about urgent needs, such as for food. But we would not use language or images designed to shock donors into giving money.

We announced the new code of conduct at a press conference on November 25, 1992. It received widespread media attention.

Immediately, the bar was set higher not just for MCC, but for all Canadian NGOs.

The code was a game-changer. For the first time, the media and donors had a yardstick against which to evaluate NGO fundraising appeals.

It would be wildly simplistic for me to suggest MCC's code of conduct was solely responsible for the demise of famine pornography in Canada.

But it played a significant part.

As was reported by Esther Epp-Tiessen in her history of MCC Canada, in 1995 a leading authority in the Canadian humanitarian sector credited the agency with raising the bar for other NGOs.

Of course, it didn’t stop all at once. But over time the use of famine porn lessened.

Today, you would be hard-pressed to find any famine porn in fundraising appeals. And any reputable NGO has a code of conduct to govern how it reports about and uses images of people in the developing world.

I’m not saying images of extreme need should never be used. Sometimes we need a picture of starving children to shock us out of our complacency—as with what’s happening in Yemen, right now.

But they should never be over-used, and they should never be the only kinds of images NGOs share about the developing world.

Today, the big challenge facing the NGO sector is not famine porn, but things like short term mission and service trips and Christmas shoeboxes—both of which are very popular, but are poor ways to address the issue of global poverty.

Maybe it’s time for another NGO to step up with a new kind of code of conduct.

The fall, 2018 issue of MCC's Intersections is dedicated to the issue of how the agency represents relief and development. Find it here.

Amazon Isn't Too Big to Fail, and Neither Are Non-Profits

Amazon is not to big to fail.

That’s what owner Jeff Bezos told staff recently.

Despite the fact the company is the largest retailer on the planet, it’s future is not guaranteed.

What would cause Amazon to fail?

Not caring about its customers.

“If we start to focus on ourselves instead of focusing on our customers, that will be the beginning of the end,” Bezos said.

“We have to try and delay that day for as long as possible.”

What’s true for Amazon is true for non-profits.

When more time is spent talking about in-house things—what language, messaging, images and words to use to describe the need to be addressed—they are started on the road to trouble.

Don’t get me wrong; all those things are important.

The people non-profits want to serve be described in a way that affirms their dignity and self-respect.

But when more time is spent coming up with the perfect words that will make program staff happy about an appeal, rather than the words that will motivate people to give, an organization has begun that inward and downward spiral.

Hey—I’m not saying the concerns of program staff shouldn’t be heard. There can and should be vigorous discussions.

But there’s a reason why program people do programs, and fundraisers to fundraising: Both know best how to do their jobs.

When it comes to programs, fundraisers shouldn’t tell them how to do their jobs. And vice versa.

But that’s often not what happens. People who know nothing about fundraising—who know nothing about what motivates givers to give—insist on being involved in writing and approving appeals.  

(A former fundraising colleague called this “brilliant spillover;” people who are good at one thing think they are good at other things, like fundraising.)

When programmers start to act like they are the targets of the appeals, an organization is in trouble.

The truth is they are the worst people to approve fundraising copy. They know too much.

Fundraisers need to attract the attention of people who know little, or even nothing, about the need at hand.

People who have a dozen opportunities to give.

Who are distracted by a hundred things in their day.

And fundraisers have to do it in a few hundred words.

Of course, the situations we appeal for are way more detailed, nuanced, and complex than can be described in an appeal letter.

But appeal letters aren’t educational documents. They can inform, but that’s not their main purpose.

Their main purpose is to raise money.

Anything that gets in the way of that reduces their impact.

When more time is spent discussing how to make program staff happy, rather than what will raise the most money, then the discussion has turned inward.

And that can lead to failure.

If a huge company like Amazon is worried about turning inwards, then non-profits should be, too.

The Future of Newspapers, or Can You Love a Foul Slum?

Many newspapers today are looking for ways to replace the their old business model of advertising and circulation revenue.

The thing that seems most attractive is the membership model.

It's an intriguing idea. People aren't customers any longer, but members. But what does membership mean?

Newspapers are struggling to find an answer to that question. 

From what I can tell, many are simply taking the old business-customer model and adding a few perks, things like special insider information, e-mails from the editor, access to journalists, or tote bags and mugs with the company logo. 

Nice, but I don't think that will do it. If the membership model is really going to work, newspapers (and other news platforms) are going to need to re-think their relationship with their readers.

They need to offer something else besides a newspaper, in print or digitally, or other inducements. 

And what is that?

They need to offer something that provides an emotional, or even a spiritual, payoff, something that provides a sense of having done the right thing, of being part of something bigger.

Say what? Why would anyone give money for something like that? 

Actually, it happens all the time. It's called giving to charity.

When people give money to charity, they don't expect to receive something in return.

They give because they want to help others, improve the quality of life on the planet, advance research into a disease, or some other charitable purpose.

Sure, they get a tax receipt, but research indicates that is not a prime motivator.

They may also benefit indirectly because they gave to groups that work to clean the oceans, do medical research, or help panhandlers get off the streets. 

But aside from those things, there is no direct benefit.

People give because it's the right thing to do, and because they believe, or hope, it will make the world a better place. (Or maybe make them into better people.)

Can something similar work for newspapers? I think it can.

After all, people already value something intangible made possible through journalism: Democracy.

A survey done earlier this year by Angus Reid found that 94% of Canadians believe journalism is important for the flourishing of democracy.

The New York Times seems to have figured this out.

When they send me e-mails, they don't just offer me X number of days of a subscription for Y number of dollars. 

Instead, they invite me to hold power to account.

They offer me something real, but intangible, in other words, something I cannot do myself. And that's the essence of charity. 

If I am moved by the plight of starving people in South Sudan, I give to an NGO that can use my gift to provide them with food.

I will not benefit from this gift. But others will. And I will feel better for it.

Can newspapers take a lesson or two from the philanthropic sector and apply it to their model?

I think they can. But it will require a change of perspective.

It will require editors and publishers to do what British author and philosopher G. K. Chesterton wrote about over 100 years ago to fix a foul London slum called Pimilco.

Today, Pimlico is a nice place to live. But  back at the turn of the last century it was a vile place. 

Chesterton’s solution was novel.

“The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico,” he said. “To love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason.”

If that happened, “then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles,” he wrote.

“If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence.”

Some people, he noted, “will say that this is a mere fantasy.”

His answer? “This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great . . . men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”

What does this have to do with newspapers?

If we loved our community, then we would want the best for it. And for a community to be its best, it needs a vibrant and robust local press.

That's why people should become members of a newspaper. Not because they get comics, sports and the crossword, but because it makes their community a better place to live.

In other words, what I might do for starving people a world away is something I can do for people in my hometown—and, indirectly, for myself.

In what Christians call the Old Testament, and what Jews call the Tanakh, the story is told in the book of Jeremiah about the people of Israel being taken captive to Babylon.

As it turns out, they will stay there a long time. What should they then do?

Says the prophet Jeremiah: “Pray to the Lord for it,” he said. “Because if it [Babylon] prospers, you too will prosper.”

I would say the same thing about local newspapers.

If it prospers, the city it serves prospers, and then we all prosper.

For more information about membership models for journalism, visit the Membership Puzzle Project.

"Compassion Collapse," or Why is it so Hard to Help Large Numbers of People who are Suffering?

Hurricane Michael. The Indonesian earthquake and tsunami. Hurricane Florence. Tropical Storm Mangkhut. Hurricane Florence. California and B.C. wildfires.

Those are the major natural disasters since July, this year.

Not included are other hurricanes, storms and flooding around the world, not to mention the terrible war and famine in Yemen and the ongoing crisis in Syria.

Is it any wonder people today are experiencing what’s called “compassion collapse?”

That’s the term used by Jamal Zaki, a professor of psychology at Stanford University and the director of the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory ina recent article in The Atlantic.

Hearing about these disasters, and the numbers of people killed, injured or made homeless can leave people “strangely unmoved,” he writes.

If that’s your experience, he says “you wouldn’t be alone. For decades, social scientists have documented a troubling quirk in human empathy: People tend to care more about the suffering of single individuals, and less about the pain of many people.”

This “compassion collapse” is morally backwards, he suggests.

When many people die, our compassion and sympathy should rise, he says. Instead, it does the opposite; it dries up.

And why is that?

There are several explanations, according to Zaki.

Some psychologists say that it’s due to evolution. We can’t feel compassionate towards so many who are suffering; our brains are hardwired against it.

“Human empathy has been built, over thousands of generations, to respond to certain triggers—for instance, a child’s cry or an anguished face,” he writes.

“A single victim produces these signs of distress, which tug at us and inspire our help. Groups give us statistics, which land flat, triggering little and thus benefiting less from others’ compassion.”

(I wrote about this earlier in a blog post titled WhyYour Brain Wants to Help One Person, but not Millions.)

Other psychologists say it’s a choice. Some people choose not to care about needs far away, to look away.

They may rationalize their lack of response by noting their small donation won’t make a difference when millions are suffering. Or they are afraid of burnout; how much suffering can one person take on?

Which leads Zaki to ask: “Is compassion collapse a ‘can’t’ or ‘won’t’ problem?” His conclusion: It’s both.

“People do empathize more naturally with one person’s visible, heart-wrenching sorrow than with descriptions of massive tragedies, and human emotion does have a limited range,” he says.

But, he adds, “even when people could extend their care toward a suffering group, they often shy away.”

Which is all fine a good from an academic point of view. What can NGOs do to combat compassion collapse?

Zaki has a few suggestions—none of which will be rocket science to NGO communicators and marketers

First, addressing the “can’t” problem, “evidence suggests that focusing on one of the sufferers can jump-start empathy for the entire group, giving them a vivid case on which to hang their care.”

Second, if someone thinks giving aid is pointless (the “won’t” problem), then telling them about the “difference they can make might inspire them to dig into their empathy even amid great tragedy.”

Of course, those of us who do communications and marketing for NGOs know this; we’ve been dealing with compassion collapse for decades.

We know that the best way to solicit support is by telling the story of one person in need. That’s why we always tell a personal story in appeals.

(For evidence of the importance and impact of this, we need only think of the photo of Aylan Kurdi, dead on the beach after trying to flee from Syria.)

Zaki adds on more thing of interest to those who work for NGOs trying to raise funds for development.

We all know that development is a way to strengthen people, a way to make them more resilient so they can withstand and recover quicker from disasters.

But raising funds for disaster response is always easier than raising money for development. Why is that?

Zaki’s response: “Charitable donations tend to be reactive, not proactive—it’s easier to care about the ongoing suffering of many than the potential suffering of future people that could still be prevented.”

In cases like these, he says, “aid and philanthropy should be driven by something else—for instance, objectively reasoned principles about which policies can make the biggest difference.”

(Hmm . . . I’ve yet to see much money generated by “objectively reasoned principles” about policies. Has anyone given that a try?)

Anyway, more food for thought. Comments?

Zaki is the author of a forthcoming book, The War For Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World.

Stressed and Stretched: New Report about State of Charities in Manitoba

Stressed and stretched—that’s the state of the charitable sector in Winnipeg.

That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Winnipeg Foundation, a registered charity that pools and invests gifts from donors in the local charitable sector.

The report was based on data from 439 Manitoba-based charities, and combined with data from Canada Revenue Agency tax filings, findings from an online/telephone survey of Winnipeg charitable organizations and from three focus groups held with leaders from local charities.

The report notes that while Manitobans are still the most generous in Canada—in terms of percentage of income donated, it led the nation with 0.83% donated versus the Canadian average 0.56%—the number of people in the province making a charitable gift is declining.

This matches trends in Canada as a whole, as reported by groups like CanadaHelps.

In November 2017, it reported that the total amount donated by Canadians was 7% lower in 2015 than in 2006.

In the same timeframe, it said the percentage of Canadian families (not taxfilers) reporting donations dropped from 45% to 40%.

Meanwhile, the Fraser Institute reports that the percentage of aggregate income donated to charity in Canada has declined from 1.26% of aggregate income in 2005 to 0.83% in 2015—a decline of 34%.

It also echoes the findings of Imagine Canada’s report Thirty Years of Giving in Canada, which concluded that “the donor base is getting ever-smaller.”

And yet, although the number of givers is going down, total giving in Canada is up. Which means, the Winnipeg Foundation says, that “fewer people are giving more.”

The Foundation concludes: “Donors are very special people, and becoming harder to find.”

To promote giving, “every effort must be made to thank those who give and to demonstrate the impact so we can rebuild the donor base in our province.”

For Manitoba charities, the challenge is a big one.

65% of groups surveyed say they will not be able to function in the future without a more stable funding situation.

The challenges include lack of a meaningful reserve fund; inability to attract and retain qualified staff (partly due to lower salaries); and an uncertain funding environment (both government and private funding).

Based on the findings, The Winnipeg Foundation is drafting its 2019-2021 Strategic Plan with a focus on strengthening the sector by enhancing capacity-building opportunities including professional development and promoting charitable giving across the province.

It will also support the exploration of potential collaborations, mergers and partnerships in the sector and convene the sector to promote the exchange of ideas and best practices.

In the end, the Foundation notes that while charities in the province are stressed and stretched, they are still standing.

The question is how many of them will still be standing 10 years from now. 

Curiosity: The Most Important Thing for Communicators

A young friend—a student in a creative communications progam—recently asked me to name the one skill that has been especially useful to me in my career.

“It seems that the communications world is changing so much that some of the skills I put time into learning might not be as valuable years down the road,” he said.

“Can you think of skills that you've always improved upon that haven't gone out of style?”

What would you respond?

What I told him was that the most important thing for me in my 37 years of doing journalism, communications and marketing is not a skill at all.

It’s curiosity.

For me, if there is any one thing that separates great communicators from good or average communicators, it is being curious about the world.

Curiosity is not a skill; it is a quality of your personality, something you develop and nurture.

It is always asking: "Why?"

Fortunately, many of the people attracted to careers in journalism or communications are headed that way because they are curious—they want to know why the world works the way it does, or why people behave the way they do.

As for the skills needed to do communications, those will always be changing.

I have seen that up-close during my career.

Since I started in 1981, I've gone from the world of Gutenberg to the world of Google; from mailing press releases to fax to e-mail; from pasting up magazine pages to graphic design programs; from land lines to cell phones; from printed newspapers to social media.

It’s been an amazing and dizzying trip. So many changes! 

But one thing has always stayed the same for me: Being curious about the world, and then telling the stories I find along the way.

And when you are curious, there's no end to the stories you will find.

My friend Steve Bell put it this way, in the context of songwriting.

When people compliment him on the songs he writes, he demurs, telling them that the songs are all out there—he just bumps into them because he has his antennae up.

Similarly, good communicators are people who have their antennae up. They can’t help bumping into stories, no matter where they go—because stories are everywhere.

Of course, having good skills is also important, especially at a time when the way people receive information is changing so fast.

But just knowing how to use the latest technology isn’t enough. I have met skilled communicators who turn out pedestrian work.

The best communicators, in my opinion, are the ones who see stories that others don't. They have their antennae up all the time.

They are always alert and alive to the story ideas that are all around them; they can't stop looking for them.

After finding the stories, they need to know the best ways to tell them. That's where skill comes in.

But it all starts with curiosity, so you can use your skills to tell the stories you find. 

One of the best quotes about the role of technology versus storytelling comes from famed American journalist Edward R. Murrow.

Murrow, who died in 1965, never got to see how computers changed the way we communicate. He never knew about something called the Internet.

But he saw enough to know what they could—and couldn’t—do.

Said Murrow:

“The newest computer can merely compound, at speed, the oldest problem in the relations between human beings, and in the end the communicator will be confronted with the old problem, of what to say and how to say it.”

That, and how to be, and stay, curious. 

Image above from The Hans India. 

Pink Gorilla Suits, or Getting Media Attention for Charity Runs, Walks and Whatever

A friend wrote recently to ask for advice about raising money for cancer research.

His children were planning a run in a local park to raise funds in memory of their child—my friend’s grandchild—who had died of a brain tumor.

He wanted to know: How could he get media attention for the run to raise funds for other children and parents in the same situation?

After expressing sympathy for the loss of his grandchild, I told him the truth: It would be very hard.

The best way, I said, would be to tell the story of the grandchild, or what his loss meant to the parents, or about others facing the same thing.

But even then, it would be tough.

It’s not that the media are jaded, or don’t want to help people raise funds for good causes for things like this.

It’s just that there’s so many of them. It’s impossible for the media to cover them all.

I know; as a columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press, I get e-mails from people who want me to write about their fundraising efforts of various kinds.

There just isn’t enough time or space to write about every one.

Ever since Terry Fox tried to run one-legged across Canada in 1980, there have been multiple runs, walks, rollerbladings and whatever else across the country, or in most any locality.

All of them are well-meaning, done for the best and most altruistic purposes.

And all of them want media attention.

Frankly, it’s impossible for the media to do that, especially considering the downsizing that has occurred at most media outlets lately.

A gimmick helps, like the man who is rollerblading from Manitoba to the Pacific Ocean in a pink gorilla suit.

(Although the publicity didn’t necessarily help in this particular case, since reporters also discovered he has been charged with fraud—not exactly a stirring endorsement for someone who wants you to donate to their cause.)

As for cross-country charity walks, runs and whatever, not only are they hard to do and get media attention for, they often fail to raise as much funds as hoped.

This was addressed by the National Post in 2017.

In an article titled “Why your noble plan to cycle or run across Canada for charity is probably a bad idea,” author Tristin Hopper notes that some of these efforts fail to even cover expenses.

A cross-Canada marathon “remains lodged in the Canadian psyche as a noble and surefire way to support a cause, but it can be one of the least efficient ways to generate money for charity,” he writes.

In many cases, participants “would have generated more cash for their cause if they’d just stayed put, gotten an entry-level construction or resource job and donated the paycheque to charity.”

Which raises another important point; the media is wary of lending its support to charitable causes today—they don't want to be accused of promoting efforts that defraud donors.

So don't be surprised if reporters want to know if causes are connected to reputable charities, have the proper permits and approvals, and can explain how expenses will be covered.

So: What to do if you want to do a run or walk or something else for charity?

Plan for it as if the media won’t cover it. Use social media, personal networks, word-of-mouth, whatever.

And if they do cover it, be prepared for anything—even if you have a gimmick like a pink gorilla suit.