They’re both completely different, yet in the end work towards the same goal.

Campaign 1.

From: ENDSUICIDENOW.ORG

Towards: people who care about other people’s lives and want to help prevent suicide.

Versions: Gun, Noose.

Campaign 2.

From: Quit

Towards: People who are thinking of commiting suicide.

Versions:  Grandad, Novelist , Hammers , Proposal.

The image has a really long text, so click on the links to see them in a size in which you can fully appreciate them.

So, what do you think is more effective: a single image or a long text? Talking to the suicidal person or to those who can help?

But is it effective?

I leave that to you.

Their strategy is to give special glasses to road-side teas stalls that commonly use children to sell tea in the streets.

So, picture this:

A child comes up to you offering you a glass of tea. You buy it, pay for it and drink it. As you near finishing it, you notice a red and white thing on the bottom. After you drink the tea you read the message at the bottom of the glass:

With each sip you’ve helped spread child labour.

Shocking? I think I wouldn’t buy anything from a child ever again. Would you?

Do you want to leave the posibility of contracting HIV to chance?

When I saw this ad I was reminded of an exercise I did in school once. You were to pretend you’re at a party meeting people, and you have to write down the names of at least 3 people, in a room of around 60. After a few minutes everyone sits down again and the teacher asks a person previously marked as ‘having aids’ to stand up, and then everyone that wrote down that person’s name, who supposedly has aids/hiv too. Then anyone having their names had to stand up as well… and so on. So it comes to the point where every single person in the room is standing.

I think they’re trying to make a similar point, to show how easy it is to get aids, a way to make the statistic be more than a random number, but something that people can relate to. 

Do you think they managed? Would you relate to it more this way?

(in case you were wondering, yes, this ad was not made for an NGO, but it was made  for World Aids Day)

The German organization Sharkproject along with Young & Rubicam implemented the following campaign to raise awareness about the extinction of sharks, specially regarding the common practice of cutting the sharks fins and throwing them back into the ocean.

This practice, called finning, leaves the shark unable to swim, just floating to the bottom of the ocean, bleeding to death.

How would you feel if you got this in your mailbox, and after opening the envelope according to its instructions you get the message- “You have just finned a shark” along with a bloody fin in your hands?

I think this would definitely call my attention… after dropping the envelope to the floor in shock. Would you pick it up and make a donation or throw it away?

 Does the end justify the means?

Sometimes when it comes to social campaigns the agencies feel a need to go an extra mile in order to get donations trying to give the message as much impact as possible, to shock the viewer and thus make him/her stand in the place of who needs the help, hoping that way they’ll understand the importance of the donation. But, does it really work that way? Will people stop believing crying children? Will they shut away ads that hurt them? or will the viewers in fact make a donation to the cause?

This is a blog about what the advertising world is doing for NGO’s.

Feel free to comment and add to the discussion!