Two more stupid nonprofit ads

When it comes to speaking in public, so many nonprofits seem drawn helplessly to acting stupid. Two examples today:
If this one, from Goodwill, had only included the "Palin" side of the ad, I would rated it merely "odd," but not "stupid."

After all, the topic of Ms. Palin's upcoming clothing donation is well known. So the unstated message is, I guess, Goodwill is a great place to donate stuff you don't want. Okay, not exactly a clear and direct call to action. But at least it makes some sense.

It's the lame attempt to be "balanced" by bringing up Obama's $1,500-suits that lands this ad squarely in the "stupid" category: Whenever did Mr. Obama's suits ever become part of the conversation? It didn't, because there's nothing noteworthy about a public figure having decent suits -- and you can spend a lot more than $1,500 on a suit. And it's pretty safe to assume he's going to need his suits in the next four to eight years.

So rather than seem partisan by picking on Sarah Palin, they chose to be incoherent and a little bit mean-spirited.

Some nonprofits just shouldn't be allowed to have ad budgets.

Speaking of mean-spirited, this ad, appearing on city buses in London thanks to the British Humanist Association (and reported by the BBC: 'No God' slogans for city's buses)

Saying "There's probably no God" is to some people like saying "Your family is an illusion." What's the point? The goofball assertion that it'll "make people think" is baldly false. This is more like an adolescent attempt to be shocking and cynical and offending old ladies.

Predictably, these ads provoke an equally stupid reaction from a Christian "pressure group," whose spokesperson blustered, "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large."

I'm pretty sure God can take care of Himself on this issue. But the British Humanist Association should find better ways to spend its money.

Discover many more Stupid Nonprofit Ads.

Thanks to Adrants and Church Marketing Sucks for the tips.

Technorati Tags: fundraising, advertising, stupid ads

Comments

[jason bennett]

I agree the palin/obama ads aren't great, but i think the message behind the obama ad, was that maybe he doesn't need his cheap suits any more... now that he's president... but i could very well be wrong.

as for the atheist ones, i love them. they're a bit shocking, and appeal very well to the intended audience. christians aren't their audience, and i dont think too many others would be offended. and even if they are, they remember it.

[mikemuses]

Saying "There's probably no God" is to some people like saying "Your family is an illusion." What's the point? The goofball assertion that it'll "make people think" is baldly false. This is more like an adolescent attempt to be shocking and cynical and offending old ladies

I think part of the BHA ad was to combat the ability of people to get offended at nothing. It maynot make people think, but it has certainly made people talk, and I think the success for the justgiving fundraising in its support has helped to show people that there are more people who think religion is bunkum than we may think. This in itself is an interesting fact.
What is more interesting is the speed with which the fundraising pages on justgiving gathered money, and I think there are lessons that everyone, whether religious or not can gain from it....

[Molly]

I agree that the Palin/Obama ad would have been funnier without the Obama reference... but at the same time, it did make me think about how much our clothes should cost. So you can get a suit for more than $1500 - obviously, you can spend as much as you like - but do most people own $1500 suits? And anyway, should anyone pay that much for... clothing? I thought immediately of the homeless guy draped in a filthy blanket at the bus stop last night. If getting me to think about this was Goodwill's intention, I don't think it was done in the best way. But that is where my mind went after viewing it. An appropriate question for Goodwill to pose.

[Robert Rosenthal]

Great discussion! I happen to think the Palin concept was a brilliant (yes, BRILLIANT) idea for Goodwill. I don't completely agree with the execution.

First off, the Obama part seemed like a stretch (a $1,500 suit is 1% the cost of a $150,000 wardrobe and Palin said the RNC-purchased wardrobe would be donated to charity after the election).

This smells like a politically correct compromise. ("Love the Palin concept but if we slam the Republican female we'll also have to go after a Democratic male.")

I also think it would have been more productive for Goodwill to get readers more involved via benefits-oriented body copy and an offer with a call-to-action, along with the blockbuster concept.

This was funny and timely, and it probably drew in a big crowd, but while the jugular was exposed they didn't go for the kill and pull out all the stops to get regular folks to donate their clothing.

I applaud the conceptual end of this thing. We need more ideas at this level in direct marketing. In this case, they just needed to finish it off.

[Jon Ashford-Smith]

As a professional fundraiser and someone who's actually donated to the Atheist Bus Campaign, I take issue with your comments about it. Our donations were to an appeal not just to the BHA, though they backed the campaign. The BHA backed it for legal reasons, I think, more than anything whilst obviously appreciating the sentiment.

Secondly, it was a direct response to some appalling pro-religious posters that appeared on public transport in London. You can read how this all got started here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion

It's actually garnered a lot of support. It was an adolescent response, granted, and it was designed to poke fun at the aforementioned posters and religious groups. What the campaign is trying to do is break down some barriers and lobby for religion to be laid open to some serious scientific enquiry. It may not do much, but it's a start.

[Rick UK]

If as you suggest god can defend him(her)self, why do you feel the need to do it?

[Ted Grigg]

I think that there is real confusion among clients and their agencies about what creativity is.

The awareness advertising set tends to get bored by customer and donor benefits. So they now spend their time figuring out how to be cute or unusual.

For some of them:
Creativity=cute+unorthodox+funny if at all possible.

Never mind that consumers will not bother to figure what your words mean
-- especially when it has nothing in it that will help them!

Creativity means cutting through the clutter so your target market knows how your service or product helps them with what they want and need. So get to the point already and let them know what they need to do to get what they want. It's all about the reader or viewer. Otherwise, you're just another wasted budget and an unsuccessful creative person.

Thank you Jeff for some great examples.