14 The Prevalence of “Poverty Porn”
Connor Old
As discussed in our lesson on visual culture, class, and poverty in the 19th Century, wealth inequality and its social division is a long withstanding issue that has continuously inspired artists and social reformists. During our discussion, many of my classmates had a moral dilemma regarding the ethical responsibilities of Thomas Barnardo and the staging of children in the fundraising images he used. I found myself conflicted because I understood Barnardo’s reasoning as he was trying to capture the essence of their lived experience, one he knew well as the charity’s founder. This led me to reflect upon how charities today deal with this central issue of potential exploitation in their marketing and fundraising efforts. Is it something that people still have a problem with? If so, why is it still being done?
Unfortunately, during my research, I found many instances of charities and nonprofits still using similarly divisive marketing efforts with what is often described as “poverty porn”. While it’s unclear whether the photos are manipulated, they are framed in such a way so as to reinforce harmful stereotypes and position the people in need of being rescued (Gharib, 2015). The most recent example being just last year when Médecins Sans Frontières launched a campaign that was eventually pulled after a mass public backlash criticizing the campaign for being exploitative and promoting colonial ideas (McVeigh, 2020). Instances such as this bear an eerie resemblance to the backlash and lawsuit Barnardo received in 1877, making it clear that the public doesn’t appreciate this style of advertising. So why are charities still producing these types of ads? The unfortunate truth is that they work.
The Nonprofit Management and Leadership journal conducted a study that found that the use of a happy face in a company’s advertising was positively correlated to increased donations from highly involved participants. However, the use of a sad face was more effective for an audience with lower recognition and psychological involvement with the charity (Cao & Jia, 2017). Studies have also shown that emotional marketing that evokes a negative or unpleasant reaction is the most effective when the charity asks for aid, a position they are often in (Faseur & Geuens, 2010).
This 150-year-old dilemma is still as relevant as it was when it started because, while there has always been a consistent backlash, charities continue to go back to this ethically murky marketing style because it is the most effective at getting new donors. As covered in this class, the power of the image is paramount, and by engaging with this form of marketing, nonprofits are inadvertently sending a different representation of the message they want to send. So instead, maybe the question should be framed not around finding other ways to receive donations best, but around the systems of success that the charity values. There has been extensive work done around the effects of increasing brand awareness in building long-term consistent financial success (Keller, 1999) (Edelman, 2010). Therefore, the nonprofit sector could leverage this research by shifting its approach from being donation-focused to being awareness-focused. Therein allowing them to achieve a different version of success without the need for exploitative marketing. A simple approach summed up best by Kate Marple, director of communications at the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership, who said “Before a story introduces a problem, it should introduce a person” (Steimer, 2019).
