A viral post mortem — the aid logo ‘arms race’

My viral post last week was a pointed critique: stop the neocolonial aid-vertising.

Favor dignity over donor decals.

And to all big aid and international NGO brands — prioritize lives over logos.

Because the Global South is not a billboard.

It was backed by research and testimony. It stated why excessive #branding was harmful. It even included a few ideas for improvement.

See the original post that exploded.

After 200,000 views and 3,600 engagements in the first 72 hours —?it was tracking toward a million eyeballs.???

Then, it was suppressed.

(more on that below)

But here are five things I learned first:

1?? The Global South aid-vertising issue is real

2?? There are more problems & ideas I didn’t include

3?? Many people at aid agencies & INGOs saw this post

4?? The rebuttals from detractors were quite weak

5?? LinkedIn (or big aid defenders) shut it down

So read more in my viral post, post mortem. ????

1?? The Global South aid-vertising issue is real

The post generated an outpouring of genuine comments and shares. And countless first-hand experiences that reinforce the severe issue at hand.

Here’s a sampling of 14 profound endorsements out of the 359 comments and 422 reposts:

I have a school bag donated by one of major donors some years ago. A consistent reminder of how "disadvantaged" I was. —? Victor Odhiambo

Branded items are not appreciated. Most lie wasted even when they can be reused. A vulnerable woman looking for decent clothing will never wear a branded T-shirt to an event. That's one opportunity to dress a poor person decently lost just like that. — Caroline Teti

UNICEF's sole criticism when visiting our child-friendly spaces was "there aren't enough UNICEF logos in here" - never mind the fact that there were gaping holes in the floor that posed a safety risk to the children. ?? — Trisha Bury

Yet another example of centering a "savior" behavior and marginalizing Black, Brown and Indigenous leadership. Shady at best and imperial exploitation in its purest form. — Charlotte King, MS Sustainability

I remember working on a project in Somalia and placard of the #donor delayed us from operating for 4 weeks. — Harbi Jama

Donors, stop asking to #brand everything and "make logo visible". This reminds the people that they are in in-equal and dependent power relationship. Which is not how healthy relationship looks like... —? Jan Blinka

Logos leave that salty taste in the mouth after the #funding cycle ends and no one is there to replenish. Communities in crisis are thrown back to the pool of vulnerability and have the brands and logos to remind them of how hope used to feel like when you came! — Jimmy O.

I always remember how I saw a group of camera people and (I guess) non-profit workers jump out of their van in a refugee camp and the first thing they did was putting huge branding stickers on the porta cabin homes and film it. I was flabbergasted. — Sietske Istvan (Broekhuizen)

It removes all sense of humility, hammers home who has the power, and demeans the dignity of the people you support. — Richard Hall

Participated in a program with more than one funder and their agents fought for where their organization logo should go on the program t-shirts, banners, and other items. They could care less about the ACTUAL IMPACT created but the logo positioning. They mentioned how VISIBILITY is key to their funders too. It is a sad!!! — Brian Kibirige

A t-shirt or bucket with a "mental health is wealth" or "end GBV now" message was more easily to be reused if the added logos were hidden or far smaller than the message. That usefulness gave messages greater chance of being visibilised for uptake. Logos (often huge) crowded the actual message we knew was needed to transform entrenched problems. — Dinnah Nabwire MA.PP, MA.EGID

After the tsunami in 2004, I remember several of these 'brand' organisations insisting that THEIR tents be taken up by the administration rather than others' (the number of tents actually required was less than that available, leading to this 'tent war'). In Afghanistan, too, there was 'aid competition' with several organisations insisting that their material, their flag and their logo be prominent. —? Subir Shukla

As someone who was a refugee and received such aids, I love this post... perfectly said. — Tete Loeper

The biggest enforcer of this is USAID, where their comms team have to approve everything. At times causing delays because approvals or stickers haven't arrived. On my last USAID grant there were times we had branding budget way bigger than what we were donating. My first encounter with branding was in the 80s when we were refugees in Kenya. I recall yellow corn flour bags and cooking oil, books etc that were labeled "from the American people". Kenyan local children would hit at us, labeled us poor and useless. — Gotto Danny

2?? There are more problems & ideas I didn’t include

The flood of support for this issue generated countless insights beyond the original post. You can learn so much from writing — the comments are often as golden as your own content. ??

Here are 17 of the best additional insights:

It also costs more to have items branded versus unbranded so it makes no sense. —? Lukasz Konieczka

We're financing projects not buying them. So why should we brand anything other than our own team members? Hardware belongs to the communities and should not be branded for #marketing purposes. — Johannes Tomczak

Take a sustainability angle to the packaging of aid – think reduce and reuse. Sacks that can be used as clothes for feed sack dresses, reusable containers. Of course, with no logo. —? Ozan Toptas

What really it depicts is the desperate attempt to get noticed. Often this logo business is another way of gold-plating the supplies that are otherwise available at a much lesser price. — Aparajita Chatterjee

For NGO’s… I think the principle of ‘brand the people and places, not the provisions and products’ is sound. —? Darren Richards

If we want to build equitable & resilient systems, we need to remind populations that aid is first and foremost meant to be a partnership! Ultimately branding undermines our goals. — Emilie Sabine Koum Besson

There is nothing wrong with bringing the plight of others to our attention, if the focus is on their plight and what is needed to be done to avoid it happening again, rather than just bringing attention to what is being done in the short term as a form of #PR or political point-scoring. —? Martin Lynch

I refer to this phenomenon as "branding our hearts and minds." When the topic of local #NGOs arises within our communities, people immediately associate them with logos and commence comparisons. There exists a lack of belief in the authenticity of local efforts, largely due to the common perception of NGOs as entities overflowing with financial resources that solely seek to address issues. There's a prevailing assumption that well-funded international nonprofits will offer their aid free of charge. — Raymond Amezado ?

If your work is not impactful enough to be known without a sticker or a banner, then you have a much bigger problem. — Matthew Cruse

Ironically and sadly the use of the north-donor-brand is integral part of most funding contracts - local partners don't agree to put their logos subordinated or not at all? No funding granted! The bigger the INGO, the tighter the conditions. —? Eva Becker de Romero

Overuse or excessive visibility of logos can lead to confusion and undermine the intended purpose of easy recognition. This could potentially hinder the safe and efficient delivery of aid, impact the credibility of organizations, and even expose aid workers to risks. —? William van Heerden

When we boil it down is all about fostering stability & security abroad to ensure US national security. And branding is part of geopolitics and diplomacy; the jockeying for the 'hearts and minds' of lower-income countries in Africa, L. America and Asia, to counter the influence from China and Russia (and narcos, terrorists, etc), whether we like it or not. —? David Bonnardeaux

It's visual pollution too, so inappropriate. — Aika-Grace Wangwe

It is a form of power to the giving country that it is capable of feeding and supporting another society better than the government in place. This is intended to undermine the power and legitimacy of that government and allows for a greater and bigger bargaining power on extraction, military bases, and ideological leanings, knowing that they are more "trusted" and are seen to be more "useful". — Paul Okumu

Just last week I was reading somewhere that branding of community water points undermines O&M sustainability because users think it means that the water point belongs to that agency and not to them. —? Sean Furey

We found branding changed relationships within communities and what were reciprocal engagements, even rights, were broken down. — Paul Crook ?

General rule of thumb, if the goods are intended to be used more than once, visible permanent branding should be avoided e.g. school bags, stationary, clothing, shelters, latrines etc. If the branding is on disposable packaging, such as wheat sacks, oil bottles etc, then that's fine as the branding is similar to that of retailers or manufacturers... — Shabel F.

3?? Many people at aid agencies & INGOs saw this post

There were only a handful of comments from staff at international aid agencies or big NGOs.

But the analytics showed they were fully tuned in. ??

At least 5,500 different people from eight major aid players saw the post (as seen in the screenshot below).

And that’s only the available data from top-viewed companies.

Do these aid leaders agree or disagree?

Will they change?

Time will tell.

But awareness is the first step toward action.

So, let's consider a small win here.

___________

4?? The rebuttals from detractors were quite weak

Thought leaders should always be up for a good challenge, especially when posting provocative ideas. Because respectful debate can only sharpen all of our collective thinking.

And none of us have it all figured out.

But I must be honest: the arguments against this critique fell flat.

There were only a few who disagreed.

Maybe not surprisingly, all were from the Global North. ????

Here’s about the only pushback received (keeping these six folks anonymous, out of courtesy) combined with my counter-argument below:

Interesting post, but I'm struggling with the concept of the UN (e.g. UNICEF) participating in a PR/branding war with national and NGO aid bodies. The UN is an inter-governmental funded body who's mission is well defined and understood. —?Nonprofit System Lead (UK)

Fair question.

And I found this explanation from PhD Candidate Stefan Tschauko very helpful:

"My research aims to contribute to the effectiveness of global institutions such as the UN system or the EU. These organizations, which have contributed to global peace and social and economic advancement for more than 70 years, are under siege. Countries quit their membership, politicians withdraw funding, and in many parts of the world the public lacks interest in and support for these organizations.

One of the reasons for this dwindling support is poor understanding of the role, activities, and contribution of these organizations. To counter misperceptions and improve understanding, communication experts in these organizations increasingly employ marketing concepts that have their origin in the for-profit world: branding and brand management."

??

I also wonder how much aid would get stolen if it wasn't labelled? You certainly couldn't get it back. —?Systems Administrator (UK)

A lot of the branded aid in question isn't stealable. Like this toilet in the image above. Or a water well built into the ground, with aid logo signage in front of it. Or a school building plastered with INGO branding.

Not to mention, logos don’t stop people from stealing. Just look at the private sector, where the retail industry loses $100 billion annually due to theft.

In another comment, Dinnah Nabwire MA.PP, MA.EGID wisely refutes this bogus claim: “I think the idea that branding reduces bad actors stealing sits on a deeply rooted colonial mistrust many funder systems have against local communities esp in Africa. It reproduces a vertical accountability that inherently views misappropriation as a predetermined occurrence by bad local actors. Yet research has shown different.”

????

It is important that beneficiaries and their communities around them know exactly where the aid comes from, especially in the new era of misinformation. Private philanthropy is an important part of humanitarian aid, and if having a company logo on some hygiene or food kits is what they want and allows you as an NGO to deliver important support, I do not see a big issue. Let us assume that we forbid logos from private donors, can you imagine how many funds will be lost? —?Corporate manager (Germany)

The comments in this post —?and real-world experience —?tell us that people in need don’t care where the bag of rice, medical care, or emergency shelter comes from. They just want food or healthcare or a place to sleep.

Not to mention — that outside of dire situations — communities wish to be (and have proven to be!) actively involved in their own social change vs. “beneficiares” of top-down “aid.”

And if private donors pull funding due to lack of brand recognition, they shouldn’t be part of the solution in the first place.

That’s the exact point of this post.

We almost always brand food bags and supplies that we deliver to people, but the reason isn't to embellish or boost our brand, it's much more practical… If our food packages are branded then it ensures 1) transparency - if there is an issue with the food then we know where it came from and 2) traceability - this helps to ensure the food packages are not sold on illegally for profit, and if food packages go missing and they are branded, then they are easier to locate. So while I appreciate and agree with many of the points Kevin L. Brown has made in the post - there is a cynical assumption here that all branding is done with the purpose of boosting an organisation's brand. In reality, there are often other more practical, less glamorous reasons behind it. Though not always of course. Hope this helps :) —?WFP officer (Germany)

I appreciated the friendly tone of this pushback. ????

But there are countless ways to mark food bags and supplies for transparency and traceability without giant logos.

And there’s just no excuse for the neocolonial slogan: FROM THE AMERICAN/BRITISH PEOPLE.

Why not use unique numerical identifiers, barcodes, culturally relevant slogans, custom behavior change messages, or artwork co-created with communities?

And hell, it’s 2023 — buy some GPS trackers like travelers use in luggage. A tech solution would probably cost about the same — and be more effective —?as all the ink costs from branding.

In other great ideas, stop putting your name on the title for your vehicle and your house. Stop giving your children your surname. And stop "neocolonizing" (any other words that enflame? this one is getting a bit overused) your property in general by making it anyone's property. Branding is a communication tool and a message of love from people who fund this AID by their taxes. They don't have to. But they do. — Current USAID contractor & former USAID employee (United States)

Since this tirade comes from a deeply entrenched cog in the big aid machine, it doesn’t warrant a constructive response.

Because she later shut the door to any further introspection or dialogue with other commenters, saying, “I have learned all I can learn on this subject.”

As an American taxpayer myself — this close-minded, nationalistic, outdated worldview in our sector is disheartening.???

I agree that slapping flags and logos appears distasteful: but it’s worth considering that a good part of the target audience for this branding is domestic. It’s very difficult to sell aid programmes to a sceptical public. Try making the case - in vague and conceptual terms - for long term technical assistance to the (archetypal) Daily Mail reader in the U.K. Branded mosquito nets, blankets, or field hospitals help sell aid to the taxpayers that pay for it. SLAMMING big donors and their aid programmes as gross, neo-colonial and saviourist seems blunt and counterproductive when aid budgets are under extreme pressure. —?Corporate chairman (UK)

That rebuttal couldn't have hammered home the original point any better:

We agree that it's distasteful, but the branding really is all about publicity for viewers back home.

Because budgets are under pressure. ??

I hold firm that sometimes a hard slam is the only wake-up call. As a blunt tone mirrors blunt realities.

5?? LinkedIn (or big aid defenders) shut it down

I’m not one for conspiracy theories. But this was my fifth viral post. And it’s the only one that skyrocketed for 72 hours, then truly stopped getting impressions.

Check out the screenshot below.

Huge spike, then flatlined. ????

I spoke to a few other #LinkedIn creators this week. And wondered if my calling out big aid could have led to the censorship:

I have been through this numerous times. A post is going viral then goes dead. —?The most followed LinkedIn account from the Global South

Many Black women creators report this all the time. — A Black female LinkedIn Top Voice in the States

It’s not in your head. The reporting function can actually be used as a weapon to hurt individuals on this platform from being seen and heard... You are not alone. —?A white female LinkedIn creator in the States

There’s also the chance the LinkedIn algorithm ‘had enough’ so to speak. Because algorithm changes revealed by Entrepreneur magazine earlier this year clarified that LinkedIn actually doesn’t want a piece of content exploding.?

"When things go viral on LinkedIn, usually that's a sign to us that we need to look into this, because that's not celebrated internally," says Dan Roth, LinkedIn's editor in chief.

Either way, it’s a shame the momentum was halted.

Because this is a debate worth having and an issue worth tackling.

So if you support the original commentary — or you’re reading this for the first time —?and want to ensure this message isn’t suppressed…

LIKE below ????

COMMENT and TAG PEOPLE below ???

SHARE below ???

Because aid isn’t a branding battleground.

Let’s end this aid logo arms race — once and for all.

??????

________________________________

? Follow Kevin L. Brown to maximize your funding

? Click the ?? to get notified about new posts