Peter Singer’s new book, The Life You Can Save, has sparked a growing debate amongst VillageReach staff. In his chapter, Why Don’t We Give More, he writes about the power of an identifiable victim — as opposed to group or mass need. He describes Paul Slovic’s research that identifies two distinct ways that we process a call for action. The first is derived from images or stories real or imagined that target an emotional response. The second is based on logic and abstract thinking and can take much longer before we act. Consequently, “the identifiable person moves us in a way that more abstract information does not.”
Certainly this concept is not new as non-profits flood their year-end marketing appeals with individual sponsorship programs and passionate stories of hardship and suffering. Kiva is a perfect example of the power of connecting to the individual as they market to donors with a personalized story and photo of each borrower. So what is our debate about you ask? The question in the office is: If this type of marketing works, and research shows that it does, shouldn’t VillageReach change its message to focus more on individual stories and less about systems?
Up until now, VillageReach has presented its message and for that matter, our brand, as a social enterprise. We are capacity builders and have been recognized as one of the top non-profits for our cost effectiveness in strengthening healthcare systems. Our work directly impacts those children who so successfully appeal to donors. Yet, this is our challenge. If we focus on the child who we are able to save through immunization, do we lose the opportunity to educate donors on the critical importance of systems building and social change? Do we lose the chance to describe the complicated and sophisticated nature of what we do?
Perhaps this is not black or white and just as any good fund development or marketing manager knows, you need different messages for different audiences. Yet, Professor Singer’s book has given us an opportunity to step back and discuss how we tell our story to current and potential donors. And wherever we land at the end of this debate, we know either way the most important message of all is in our ability to save a life. That we all agree on. What are your thoughts? Join us in this debate.
Good questions. Many organizations fail to see fundraising as part of their mission. They see it as a necessarily evil to be able to do their mission. The questions you ask sound to me like you are assuming you have to dumb down your message or that the only way to talk about your organization is through personal stories. I encourage you to tell the story of who Village Reach really is whether that story involves stories and/or systems.
First, a caveat: I haven’t yet read Professor Singer’s book.
It seems the issue is one of “generations.” You appeal to the impact on children, but they are our future generations. And it’s not just systems building and social change, it’s the evolution of a nation.
You need to continually approach your mission from different angles so you don’t lose the chance to describe the complicated and sophisticated nature of what you do. And as you suggest, you should tailor the message to the donor.
Nothing is as black or white we would like it to be….but the nuances can be brought to life by the stories your organization can tell so well. You can “write about the power of an identifiable victim.”
So it seems to me that you need a development organization that is nimble on its feet, that can adjust the message, combine the message into one that properly states a call for action in terms of images that evoke an emotional response and that draws one into a position of logical thinking.
So you shouldn’t change your message, but adapt it to give a more balanced picture of stories and systems.
Good to know that my book has something of interest even to people like you who are delivering such effective aid. Here’s my take on the dilemma you raise. Educating donors about what you do and why it needs to be done is important, but so is attracting more donors so you can do more. Perhaps the best way to work here is to have different messages for different audiences. For existing major donors, or sophisticated potential donors, you need to explain the significance of what you do at the systems level. But if you are appealing to people who are not yet involved with Village Reach, and will be attracted by the idea of helping specific individuals, you can point out that you offer a highly cost-effective way of saving lives, and then telling individual stories is likely to be the best. So you can do both, the messages are complementary rather than contradictory.
Even those of us who understand the importance of systems and abstract data like to hear a good story as well. I would suggest using storytelling to give examples of how real people are affected by infrastructure improvements. A lot depends on the skill of the storyteller, but when done right, an article can be both informative and emotionally compelling. (Many articles in the New Yorker are like this.)
First, this is quite a coincidence. Just the other day, I mailed a letter to VillageReach with some donations I received for Christmas that explained the path leading to me beginning donations to VillageReach. The Life You Can Save was a major part of that path, which I read following seeing Dr. Singer speak at my campus, CCBC: Essex in Baltimore, MD. Now, I see the message from Dr. Singer on Twitter about this discussion.
Moving on, to address this dilemma, I believe each approach is necessary, as Dr. Singer mentions above. However, in contrast to Dr. Singer, I believe that utilizing each approach simultaneously could be effective. For example, if you are targeting the general public with a flyer or email of some sort, then attracting their attention with an identifiable person would, undoubtedly, be the most effective method of the two. Additionally, if you were to supplement that same piece of awareness with the message of social enterprise, you could potentially create a more thoroughly-aware audience who you’ve now triggered an emotional response in, as well as something logical to rationalization or consider.
I believe this could work particularly well if the logical half was related back to the emotions felt from the identifiable person by connecting the two in a way that demonstrates how drastically social enterprise affects the life of the identifiable person. It’s like saying, “Save this child now, and…” through community infrastructure, “… prevent further suffering in the future.”
Like Cassandra, The Life You Can Save put me on a path to eventually become involved with and donate to your organization. I’ve followed Peter Singer’s writings and lectures on animal rights issues, and because his philosophical ideas are so well thought out, I decided to give this book a try. Reading it made me realize that I wasn’t doing enough to help people suffering from extreme poverty, malnutrition, and easily preventable diseases.
I agree with the above comments about using both techniques to appeal to people who are potential and continuing donors. Personally, I would like to hear stories of specific projects that were undertaken at particular villages.
Because VillageReach is a more complex organization and does not focus on only one area (food aid, mosquito nets, education, etc.) it would be nice to have a simple explanation for what you do. From my understanding, your organization works to improve the infastructure in rural communities of less developed countries so that people can have easier access to health care. But how in concrete terms is that done? Are medical supplies distributed? Are vehicles outfitted so they can transport more essential equipment?
For the person relatively uninformed about the ins and outs of extreme poverty who just wants to help (including me) it’s easy to understand when your donation goes to, say, a bag of rice, or a malaria vaccine for a child, but harder to grasp supply chain logistics and social business platforms (I’m trying!). Your rating on GiveWell and your cost-effectiveness is what sold me.
Hope this helps.
Certainly a story can be a great way of illustrating a point. But I think Professor Singer’s promotion of “personal connections” is a slippery slope to the rather crass end of the fundraising spectrum: sponsor-a-child, send-a-cow, and so on. I understand that this approach works for many people. But I think there are also many others who are cynical about development charities and repelled by these feel-good stories. (Or maybe that doesn’t apply in the US? I’m from England.)
I have an alternative suggestion. In the short term at least, I think there aren’t many development organisations who can be clear that they are making systematic change and measurable impact – whereas the competition among the big organizations with nice stories and “personal connections” is much more intense. Perhaps as a small organisation looking to grow, you’d be better off to target the less competitive market? It seems like you’re doing pretty well there already. I for one recently made a donation to VillageReach (my first significant donation to charity for some years) after reading about how you impressed the people at GiveWell – which is not easily done!
Thanks for your thoughts and comments, Patrick.
To expand on your understanding, VillageReach is a hybrid social enterprise aiming to increase access to essential and basic healthcare services in rural and under-served communities. We call ourselves a hybrid organization because we try to effect this goal of increasing healthcare access by approaching it in three ways: supply chain logistics, information technology, and social business. Let me provide some context.
In Mozambique, VillageReach’s Health Systems Group has developed a locally appropriate logistics platform/model that re-structures the supply chain of critical vaccines and associated medical supplies to rural health centers. This logistics model was introduced to more reliably distribute these medical supplies to where they need to be, when they need to be.
To function intelligently and efficiently, supply chains rely on information management in order to optimize performance. Therefore, VillageReach’s Information Systems Group developed a Management Information System (vrMIS) to provide critical performance data and health statistics to managers and distribution staff.
Lastly and demonstrating the third approach, VillageReach’s Social Business Group launched (in partnership with a local NGO) a socially missioned for-profit LPG distributor business (VidaGas) to provide LPG to the refrigerators at these rural health centers needed to keep temperature-sensitive vaccines.
VillageReach’s approach focuses on strengthening the health system (through these three methods) which is often the most challenging but the most crucial and effective road to sustainable impact.
Nick Amland
Administrative and Program Assistant
VillageReach