A recent article via The Guardian says that charities like Dogstar Foundation that avoid traditional images of extreme poverty/neglect in favour of a more positive campaign which shows the results the charities work receive far less donations and support than charities that show negative imagery and shocking images
looking at our accounts it does feels that we receive less funding and public support than charities that use negative imagery and emotive appeals. Our policy has always been for the majority to show supporters the successful outcomes due to donations rather than solely focussing on the issues and challenges we would face without their help. We have always wanted to demostrate our work is effective and sustainable , that it delivers short term relief and long term solutions.
When we post results of our regular sustainable animal welfare work or education program on Facebook the interactions are far fewer than when we ( or someone else ) posts about animal abuse or neglect. Its seems almost counter intuitive that people don’t celebrate the success of animals rehomed , sterilised or owners educated to take better care of their animals but on social media it does seem that shocking images are more “shareable” and commented on.
who do you think is right ? should a charity do whatever it takes to raise money ? are we failing our beneficiaries by not using more shocking images ? would it change the way you support our work if we did ? and do you agree with the article that charities that don’t shock are less well supported overall ?