World Wildlife Fund. One of the big dogs in the world of species and habitat conservation. Extremely well known for their panda logo, which I've seen plagiarized on materials all over the world as if it was Louis Vuitton, and supported by a strong donor and membership base. Possibly to break out of their mold as being focused on big mammals only, WWF launched this campaign to garner support for the oceans, and for bluefin tuna specifically.Aesthetically, these ads are quite good. Minimal text and good use of centered text (which I typically advise others to avoid). The angles of the school of tuna is engaging and the light in the images create an interesting, yet daunting, appeal to the ads. And the mask approach is very clever and incredibly well done in the photos (I wonder how hard it was to get the masks to stay on the tuna....just kidding!) These are definitely visually compelling enough for me to stop and look at them, even if they were posted in a busy New York City subway tunnel.
Strategically, I get it. They're addressing the common "cute factor" that typically determines which species donors give their charitable funds to, and could possibly be a big reason why WWF is a big dog in the first place. But I honestly feel they missed the mark completely on this campaign. Their goal is to get people to CARE about the plight of bluefin tuna so they will donate money to help. And they seem to be targeting people who either already give money (but focus it on mammals) or are likely to give for species/habitat conservation. So how in the world will a patronizing message that accuses me, the person with the money to give, that I only give to select species and I don't care about the others possibly produce more funds? I'm more likely to flick you off and say you don't get ANY money now, since you're clearly not grateful for what I have given and you've just made me feel like a snob for giving money to other species that you previously told me were THE most important ones to save. Shame on me?! Shame on you!!
But I digress. Let's get back to the goal: getting people to care more about the plight of the bluefin tuna. Tuna are being overfished because we EAT so much of it - we love it - we serve it as sushi and sashimi, we serve it as steaks, or as ceviche, or in kabobs, or even in little neat metal cans. So if WWF really wants consumers to care more, then they should make the issue relevant to the target audience (marketing 101 folks!) What do I care about? I care about eating more tuna of course! If you show me a supermarket with an empty shelf of tuna cans or a sushi restaurant with no more tuna on the menu, then I will get the message that my actions have consequences. Yet my actions can also have benefits if I contribute to protecting tuna. It's not all that different from the Chesapeake Bay campaign that promoted the saving of crabs so there would be more to eat ("Save the Crabs. Then Eat Them." was their slogan).
So even though their visual execution was strong, I'm disappointed in WWF for not creating the proper relevance for their target audience, and worse, for making them feel bad for the giving they have done in the past. My2cents is...shame on you, you should know better.
