WWF Would You Care More Campaign

The Campaign

I stumbled across the following campaign for WWF when I was doing a bit of research for a responsive brief, and thought that it could be very relevant to my essay because of how guilt-inducing it is.

This campaign is particularly relevant because it issues a direct challenge to the public, making them question themselves and in doing so making them feeling guilty for the answer that the campaign leads you too. The wording of the campaign is very reminiscent of the wording I used when I was speaking to a woman on the train as to weather she'd be more likely to buy a Big Issue magazine off a woman than a man.

I also feel that the Panda one in particular is particularly relevant to this because of how it's using the idea of taking advantage of someone else image to break down barriers, similar to the Bob Hoskins BT advert that Celebrity Sells references. Albeit this example is using the image of an animal not a person, but the same concept applies. By using the globally recognised symbol for conservation it makes you feel guilty for applying double standards.

WWF themselves ackwnowledge the importance of the Giant Panda to conservation by saying on its entry on their species index;

"The panda also has a special significance for WWF because it has been WWF's logo since our founding in 1961"

Going on to say;

"WWF’s founders were aware of the need for a strong, recognizable symbol that would overcome all language barriers. They agreed that the big, furry animal with her appealing, black-patched eyes would make an excellent choice."

The Agency

This campaign was designed by Ogilvy, an advertising agency based in Paris. When I looked into them further this example became even more relevant. The client list they display on their website include the following:

• IBM
• Phillips
• Netflix
• Coca-Cola Zero
• Nestea
• American Express
• Ford
• Allianz
• Dove
• Fanta
• Google
• Nestle

All of which are big corporate brands. But then right at the bottom was "Cheng Du". I happen to know that Cheng Du is a place in China where a large amount of Pandas live in the wild and in reserves. I know this because I am a Sheffield United fan, and we have a Chinese-based franchise called the Chengdu Blades, which made me inquisitive about where it was. I've always had an interest in animals, and when I was younger was specifically interested in Pandas, and so this turned out to be quite a coincidence. 

After clicking on the link and looking into the work Ogilvy did for Cheng Du, I found a very happy and upbeat social media based campaign called Pambassador 2012. Seeing some of the claims they made on their PR website (here), it shows how a campaign can still use a serious issue in a positive feeling campaign and still get it's results. The video below is from the Chengdu Pambassador YouTube channel.

Ogilvy's PR page claims that;

"The campaign drove a 30.3% increase in international visitors to Chengdu versus China’s national tourism growth of 1.2%. Global media coverage and high social media fan engagement attracted 255,000 worldwide applicants to live and work in Chengdu."

Despite such positive results from such a positive campaign, the same company used guilt as a method of advertising for WWF.

Other Campaigns For WWF

This is also a good example on that it uses guilt alone as the appeal, not a combination of guilt, fear, and shock tactics which is often the case.

When you compare the "Would You Care More" campaign to WWF campaigns that use imagery such as the below, it'll allow me to more clearly assess the impact of a guilt appeal.

Harvard Referencing

Ogilvy. (2015). CITY of CHENGDU Pambassador 2012: Into The Wild With Chengdu Pandas. Available: http://www.ogilvypr.com/en/case-study/pambassador-2012-wild-chengdu-pandas. Last accessed 28th Jan 2015.

WWF. (2015). Giant Panda. Available: http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/giant-panda. Last accessed 28th Jan 2015.