MSF does good work in the field, there’s no doubt about that, but by allowing this advert to be shown, you have shown that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Why not try to engage and educate the British public, rather than patronise them with this throwback to the worst 20th century fundraising tropes? These people are not just victims waiting for MSF to save them, and to pretend that they are is to sacrifice the reality of their lives for the sake of your media profile.

I think with increased skepticism about the long term effects of their giving (despite the successes), it needs to be demonstrated how your giving makes a particular solution possible.

These sales techniques work, no matter what you are selling. Cars, toothpaste, environmental destruction. You create a lack, a need, a void in your consumer, and then you come in to present a solution fill that void.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with shocking people, making them feel bad about something. That’s a necessary part of the sales pitch. But after you suckerpunch someone with the inevitable suffering, you spend at least half of your time lifting them up, providing them with the SOLUTION to the problem you’ve created. It’s important to present a concrete and specific solution when they sign up (a field hospital in country X, a campaign on issue Y), rather than a generalised (save the world) solution, otherwise the buyer might feel a little ripped off when they realise the world hasn’t been saved 2 years later. Amnesty International, with their focus on individual cases and individual successes, is very good at this.

I don’t think this ad does that, not properly enough. At the end, we still feel a little too powerless. Those who already understand what MSF does will not feel powerless, but I don’t think it will resonate quite the same with those who don’t. It is much better than most ads, and it’s almost there.

Furthermore, it is relevant to the clip in an indirect way: the clip (I would assume) is supposed to support MSF’s work in one way or another. If the way the debate around the clip is conducted is damaging that work unnecessarily, don’t you think that is relevant? And if you don’t: why bother with the clip in the first place? (Unless you have the view that it doesn’t matter whether or not MSF’s field work is damaged and you only want to discuss the clip on its narrow technical merits; but I hope and expect that is not the case — I don’t think you are that cynical.)