Many thanks for your answer and your compliment. ‘Sparks may fly’ as you say on your blog :)

I completely agree with your remark about MSF’s openness. I think I jumped on the criticism wagon without forgetting the basic fact that MSF opened up the discussion themselves. I certainly wish more NGOs would do that.

As for the sender/receiver issue: I suppose any advert reflects a vision of society, and although I’m not completely comfortable in addressing the donor side of the picture, I do think we have to look at it. In any case, I edited my remark to be a little more diplomatic (I hope).

Kees

first off great blog, really interesting work … will add to duckrabbits links.

Secondly I’m afraid I misinterpreted what you originally wrote, apologies. I think I got a bit narked with how a few bloggers were trying to hit MSF over the head when they had genuinely encouraged debate. I can’t say that of any other NGO and I think whilst some of us might not like the advert we should applaud MSF’s openness, otherwise they will just take a closed stance. Has any other NGO engaged so much in a debate about their communications?

You are spot on we can’t separate sender and receiver. But even if we disagree with how the receiver responds I think its dangerous to criticize them.

Benjamin

Thanks for your reactions and feedback. I stand corrected on the point of MSF disabling the possibility to comment. And it’s also true that MSF entered the debate on the Oscocio blog and published the link on the MSF web site. Pete describes it well, I will edit the post accordingly. My apologies.

As to the points duckrabbitblog addressed,

A 60 second message is short yes, I don’t want to say that all that I have written should be part of the message. I want to say that some interpretations may be prevented. I do heart and support the work that MSF is doing. And I wouldn’t want to see it spoiled by one-dimensional adverts. As an alternative, I would in some way add some message about what MSF actually does to help and change the situation in such places as where this bullet-ridden house stands. I’m sure there is a lot to tell, and I’m sure the advert making pros can make something out of it.

As to arrogance beyond belief and the kind of attitude that leads to intolerance and totalitarianism… that sounds like hitting me with a base ball bat after I stepped on your toes.

My point was that in commercials – as in all communication – there is a sender and a receiver that are both part of the same system. Criticizing the sender (in this case MSF) is just one part of the picture. We, as consumers, are all responsible for the fact that these kind of adverts do actually work. I myself am part of it as well. I edited my remark in the post a little to reflect that thought.

I respect the opinions of the people who have written about the ad and the issues that surround it – it is valuable feedback that we don’t get enough of normally. That is why I am here (and on many of the blogs you list in your post), commenting.

Can you explain how on earth MSF is supposed to do all the things that you suggest in your blog post in 45 seconds? Its an ADVERT and should be read in the language of advertising, not documentary.

Finally to criticize those who decide to donate seems arrogant beyond belief. Its the kind of attitude that leads to intolerance and totalitarianism, that denies plurality of action and thought. I’m not a fan of this advert but my wife is and she decided to donate. I’m glad she did because it shows that she cares and that makes for a better world.