MSF video: An ad too far?

The UK branch of MSF - Doctors without Borders - launched a new advertisement campaign in the movie theaters. On their website, they asked for feedback, claiming "It is our attempt to make a deliberate move away from some traditional charity advertising which can tend to focus on images of starving children."

The video stirred up quite a bit of noise on the "aid watch dog" blogs: Aid Watch and Aid Thoughts. Also the esteemed Philantrophy gave a pitch (Update: see further below for the other "usual suspects" joining in ;-) ). While the commentary has now been disabled on the MSF website (I wonder why, Mr and Mrs MSF, as you "would really appreciate your feedback on the ad." - Update: this is incorrect.. apparently there were never any comments possible on the MSF website.. Confusing.. - see updates below and Marc's comments), the discussion continues on Osocio. The MSF web editor also joined the discussion on DuckRabbit...

By coincidence, just a few days ago, I published a post about an effective UNICEF ad campaign, and praised MSF for their simplicity of this ad. As usual, BBC picked up on the trend we set on The Road (eh), and published a whole picture series about "Branding" humanitarian aid.

So, the discussion of publicity around humanitarian aid is on... Let's have a look at this (in)famous MSF video then:



My train of thoughts were (in sequence):

• clearly studio work mixing a faked video image with the sound of a child crying and artificial gunfire. Update: a friend of a friend ran the audio of the video through a sound analyser. The cries of the child were cut and remixed. Obvious for the maximum effect. The sound of the guns was mixed on top of it. Need I to say more?
• Then I saw the comments of the MSF web editor saying the child cries were real.
• I read the rest of the comments, where it was clear that it was unclear: no answer if the stuff was all cut and mixed by an over-eager "UK's leading advertising agencies, McCann Erickson" (dixit MSF UK). How much was faked, and how much was for real? No answer from MSF, to me, means, bad news: faked.
• I thought.. well, if an ad stirs up that much noise, it must be an effective ad...
• Soon after that, the thought: "Hmmm, nope.. That is not right" in how far does it differ from the cheap pictures of starving children, so often featured in ad campaigns?
• then again I thought back on what MSF UK said on their website: "It is our attempt to make a deliberate move away from some traditional charity advertising which can tend to focus on images of starving children.".. Beh.. clearly worked: they moved away from the images of starving children! They broadcasted the sound of a starving child. Cheap.
• Then my ethics started to work... What if it was my child being recorded while in real pain, and mounted in a faked video, shown to millions? No matter for what reason, humanitarian or not. I would not take it that my child's misery is commercialized, publicized, vulgarized. So why would I accept someone else's child is?
  

My verdict: MSF: you went an ad too far. Realism is one thing. Faking circumstances just for the effect to shock, is another. And publicly claiming "the child's cries are real, but I don't see what the point is", clearly shows you guys indeed have no freaking clue what the point is. Which makes me then think: who are these people who claim to be humanitarians if they don't see the human aspect of it all?

My verdict: humanitarian ad trash.

Beeeeeeeeh!

Update 1:
Aidworkers joining the discussion: Aidworker Daily and Martyns in Africa, In Development, Humanitarian Relief.

Update 2:
I wrote to Marc Dubois, Executive Director MSF UK this morning:

Marc,

As an aidworker, as a humanitarian, and as a human being, I deplore MSF UK's poor judgement and even worse, poor taste in a airing a clearly faked and sensationalistic video "The Boy".

I regret even more MSF's handling of the communications around this video:
- putting it on your website as "our attempt to make a deliberate move away from some traditional charity advertising which can tend to focus on images of starving children."..
Well, you did better than showing images of starving children. You aired the sound of it.
- Asking for feedback and then disabling comments (and deleting them) from your website
- Half-assed "I don't speak on behalf of MSF" of your web editor on different blogs, with a clear poor judgement in responses, and not seeing "the point".

What will be next? Will you broadcast live the image of a child dying? "MSF-Aid-Cam: See Children Die Unless You Donate Now"

Poor quality, poor judgement of an organisation who was judged by many to be 'different'... And up and above, I take offense of the hypocrisy of your communications. Don't ask for feedback unless if you want it. Don't claim to be un-sensational if you are.

I welcome your response which will be published on the web via http://www.theroadtothehorizon.org

Kindly,

Peter

Update 3:
I got some offline comments via Email questioning if I was not too hard on the MSF webeditor, who clearly stated to 'act on his own behalf, and not representing MSF' on different blogs...
My answer: I don't want to target anyone in particular and certainly not personally. However, I think it is a bit of poor judgement if someone enters a discussion clearly stating they work for the organisation, and expecting not to be seen as "representing that organisation" as such... If I am in the field, wearing a Tshirt of an organisation, and speak to the press, I can expect the 'general public' to link my comments to my organisation...
I also want, from my personal perspective, add that sometimes, as aidworkers, we are in a bit of a bind as to up to where we are representing (and are loyal to) ourselves, our values, our beliefs and up to what point the organisation's. Up to what point we should speak up or be quiet if we don't agree. Certainly if there is a situation which is not right, or goes against our convictions... A particularly tricky point if it involves media or any other public means of communicating.

Update 4:
Quite a bit of offline comments going around via Email. A correction/adjustment is in place: Apparently there were never comments enabled on the MSF UK webpage with the video. Even though the blog on which MSF asks to leave comments says: "You can give your comment here on Osocio or on this page at the MSF website." Beh...
It seems originally MSF requested for feedback by Email to their head of communications directly, but the pure volume of response was too high. See also the comments on this blog.
Anyways, if you want to call or email anyone at MSF UK, you can find all their details here.
But let's not diverge from the main topic of the discussion: "Did this ad go too far or not?"

Update 5:
Paul @humanitarian.info and Amanda @feucontinu, Transitionland and Stop Genocide also joined the discussion on their blogs.