A Glimpse at Campaigning

I arranged a meeting with Trevelyan so he could start me off along the research path of careers, finance and funding. It's an area that scares me a little bit because I know that there is so much I need to know about these aspects and I don't want to completely confuse myself and understand less after research than I did before it!

I was scheduled for an hour with Trevelyan before his next meeting on the other side of campus. Due to the awfu parking situation on College Road, he was delayed by half an hour, which meant we had to cut our discussion short. I would have liked more of a structure to our meeting, but as we had to squeeze everything in, information just flew around in no particular order. This isn't the way I like to do things as I need organisation and coherence. 

Organisation of events requires strict time keeping and a steady flow of clear communication. It is essential to the successful running and outcome of projects. A great deal of meetings need to be arranged and attended in order to keep a maintainable target within reach. Regular discussions ensure everything is on track and developing smoothly. Issues can then be brought up with plenty of time to resolve them or change direction slightly to accommodate.

At the end of our meeting, I did want to move on to the subject of the Fringe Festival and get a few updates on the progress. This wasn't possible with the time limitations we had, so another chat will be needed in the near future, or a series of emails to answer a few queries I have on the overall plan of the Family Day.

There are two types of events that raise money for charitable organisations; events that raise the money directly, and events to reach beneficiaries (programmes, workshops, activities).

Large organisations participate in a lot of campaigning to raise their profile and get noticed. They direct a lot of this at generating events in aid of trying to affect the government policies. The media then becomes involved and gets society on side of the charity. There isn't much publicity better than being all over the media supporting a good cause. Barnardo's is a prime example of an organisation who use campaigns to send their message to the public. Some of their adverts are so shocking, the media can't help but comment and discussions are sparked. This is what the charity want; it increases their audience. 

An article I came across on the BBC website talks about advertising campaigns used to attract attention and raise awareness. It goes on to discuss the shock tactics used to do this. Keeping in with the example of Barnardo's, they use 'disturbing' images to inform people of causes normally ignorant to society. Some of the images have been blocked by the Advertising agency for being too shocking for public viewing; such as the image below:

Smack on the bottom: An image from the banned Barnardo's campaign

The question I ask is, are these tactics working in today's society or a people becoming accepting of the imagery released by charities because they now their strategy. Would the images bring more of a shock factor if it wasn't a charitable campaign displaying them?

Barnardo's 'Silver Spoon' was another one of their campaigns that became banned by the authorities after they deemed it to disturbing and shocking to be broadcast. Members of the charity has tried to argue that it is the issue of child poverty which is the shocking aspect and the images are simply bringing to to attention. The photographs meant to spark a reaction and show just how serious a problem there is. 

In the Guardian, representatives from the charity speak about their controversial campaigns and how they are carefully created and appropriate for showing people what is happening right under their noses.

"We are disappointed the process has failed us, and that the ASA has not accepted that the issue of child poverty warrants hard hitting images. We maintain it is the subject matter, not the images, that is shocking - but we have no choice but to respect the ASA's decision"

The article titled 'Banned - But we'd do it again' explains that people often wonder why the charity create images instead of using real life situations.

Above are the 4 images that sparked the complaints and resulted in the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banning the charity from showcasing them. The issued a warning also, informing Barnardo's not to produce imagery like this again. The magazine 'Campaign' voted the adverts as the 6th most effective of 2003, which showed that Barnardo's had made the right decision to use them. Campaign comments that advertising campaigns need to be thought-provoking and Barnardo's definitely delivered.

"Any campaign tackling child poverty needs to be thought-provoking and BBH came up with the goods for Barnardo's."

Another question that can be asked is, are the public getting agitated and complaining because they don't want to be made aware of the issues and would rather stay in the dark? Pleading ignorant is the best way to remain in your own little life bubble and not have a conscious about the suffering of anybody else. If you don't see it, it isn't happening. It isn't affecting you directly, so why should it be brought to your attention and made to make you feel guilty about living a life rich with potential.

You should be shocked! It is a very important issue being raised and one that needs the support of communities to ensure that help is provided for children to give them a chance in life. I look at these images and I get stunned by the power they generate. I don't believe there could be a better way of raising awareness than these photographs. Emotions should be provoked and anger should be showing through. That is the point.

The government have made a commitment to end child poverty by 2020. A spokeswoman for Barnardo's voices her concern about this whilst talking to BBC Radio 5 Live, stating that there is still a struggle ahead, and it is being slowed down by not allowing the charity to show the seriousness of the issue.

"So far about half a million children have been taken out of poverty. But we're concerned there's a long way to go" - Neera Sharma

Charities can't seem to win. On the one hand, they should be 'touchy feely folk' who make it all better. On the other, they should be campaigning organisations that 'provide a voice for the most vulnerable and force action'.

Where is the acceptable balance for the public to be satisfied whilst the campaign circulates in to a success?

Banning the campaign only made it more successful, as a mass debate was sparked and more people tuned in on the discussion, which alerted society to the issues of child poverty and successfully made people aware that it exists in the UK. Job done! With the unintentional help of the ASA. Speaking to the Guardian, Barnardo's director of communication, Diana Green comments:

"We are pleased we have created a debate about child poverty. People are now more aware that child poverty exists in the UK and are aware it is the biggest threat to childhood. We are pleased we have received many calls to our offices in support of the campaign. We are pleased visits to our website more than doubled in the period of the campaign. We are pleased the numbers of donations received through our website are six times higher than usual. We are also pleased by the support of MPs, with an early day motion raised on our behalf in the House of Commons on the issue."

The campaign raised the charities profile a tremendous amount and gave them the opportunity to watch their number of supporters increase. The result of this is more funding coming in allowing them to organise more events and campaigns raising awareness. Even though the charity deny the use of shock tactics, stating that the campaign is them being 'responsible and legitimate', it was a huge success and one that Barnardos seems to rely on in many of their campaigns. But does the campaign have to use this strategy to make people aware? They aren't the only organisation that use these tactics, 'Stop the Traffik' use hard-hitting images to get their message across, but in a more subtle way.

http://www.utalkmarketing.com/Pages/CreativeShowcase.aspx?ArticleID=1692&Filter=0&Keywords=&Order=&Page=15&Title=Stop_the_Traffik_'Baby'_ad

http://jmfinalproject.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/current-campaign-stop-the-traffik/stop_the_traffik_poster_1_by_tirionelf/

Even though Childreach International don't have any active campaigns personally, they  have recognition by a number of campaigns including UN Millenium. In regards to all their advertising imagery, they never use any imagery that shows suffering or poverty, only the success and joy at how lives are being improved. In my personal opinion, I would much rather see the image below that makes me feel good, especially if I have contributed to the charity because you can feel a part of making that child smile and many others in his situation.

http://www.childreachindia.org/

Water Missions International is an organisation that use imagery portraying hope and appreciation of support. Crystal clear water of the purest kind is seen flowing from pipes with children crowding round it like they are worshipping something of incredibly sacred. Water is something that we take for granted and don't give much thought to, so when you view these images, you see how important it is to the less-advantaged, and how much of a difference to their lives it makes; something as simple and trivial to us, saves the lives of others. I believe that there should be more of this campaigning as it shows a long-term development and promise, whereas shocking images like the Barnardos 'Silver Spoon', hit you hard in the short-term from the shock of the imagery, but you're not seeing the chances and prospects these children could have. Personally, I want to see how I will be supporting and how children are getting the 'chance to unlock their potential'. If a child looks content, then I'm more willing to volunteer or contribute to their cause.

http://www.watermissions.org/

Whilst researching this topic of charity campaigns, I have taken an interest in the debates and discussions surrounding them. It has raised many questions in my head about what direction I want to go in. I am considering whether creating a campaign and showcasing it with an opening event is the path I would like to go down. Or stick to being a direct fundraiser of a charity. At the moment after my research, I am swaying more towards the campaigning, as I feel I could grow and develop a lot more within this sector and it would be closer to my heart. I can then focus on the issue and create stimulating ideas from the issue to raise awareness of the issue. Giving children a voice is what I want to achieve, and campaigning for this would be a lifelong mission and a extremely fulfilling achievement as I see progress emerging. Shock tactics wouldn't be one of my strategies, the approach of hope and happiness is what I believe should be advertised.

Which one would you rather see? A shock to the system or the promise of better things to come?

Water Mission International

Barnardos