TV Campaign 2020 – Boycott TV Campaign:

WWF’s World Wildlife Fund can expect millions in the bill after Sunday’s television campaign.

But the choice of this particular organization as a recipient has created controversy:

In August, it was announced that 21 municipalities intend to boycott this year’s television campaign. Since then, the number has increased.

According to Nationen, there are 32 municipalities that either do not establish a municipal committee or that choose not to make a municipal contribution.

Many cite WWF’s position on the predator debate as justification.

Punished for television boycott

Sensitive topic

– We think it is a shame that someone has chosen to boycott this year’s action and with this the opportunity for citizens to join the great community that television action invites, but they sincerely want to return next year.

This is what campaign leader Vibecke Østby tells Dagbladet.

It also indicates that 321 municipalities have pledged to contribute.

It is the Fundraising Council that evaluates the requests of the organizations that will be awarded with the television campaign and presents its recommendation to the head of broadcasts.

Council Secretary Erik Skarrud believes it is a shame that WWF’s position on the predator debate is used as an argument against this year’s fundraising campaign, which aims to fight plastic. at sea.

– We think people should be able to distinguish between the two, says Skarrud.

At the same time, he understands that the debate on predators is a sensitive issue in several municipalities.

– It is very voluntary to donate money to the television campaign. But I do not believe that one hundred percent of the inhabitants of these municipalities are against our purpose. I think we will also get money from the so-called boycott municipalities.

Drop physical weapon carriers

There are two other factors that Skarrud believes will affect this year’s final sum more than a boycott:

Absence of physical weapon carriers and a business in crisis for the crown.

– We have 100,000 weapon bearers who stay at home, who do not knock on the door of 2.3 million homes. There’s no question that meeting at the door is important, says Skarrud.

This year, it is “digital gun ownership” that applies, says Vibecke Østby. In addition, they have gone to great lengths to get people to donate in a traditional way.

Can be eradicated

The other factor that can be decisive is the economic situation of Norwegian companies and industry.

– This also marks individuals on the wallet, says Skarrud.

– Are you afraid that the collection result will be significantly lower than in previous years?

– They’re just sightings. But we are excited about it.

Vibecke Østby marks 2020 as the “different year” and believes it is impossible to say anything about what the fundraising outcome will be like.

At the same time, the campaign leader can say that Wednesday night’s sum was completely on par with the result at the same time in 2018 and 2019.

– We see, among other things, in the phone calls to the business community, that both Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim have set a new fundraising record this year. It’s incredibly fun!

He met with the boycott municipalities

WWF is not the first recipient of the television campaign to generate debate.

In 2016, the Red Cross election was criticized, when it was revealed that the organization had billions of crowns in a fund. And when the Salvation Army received the action money in 1995, the organization’s attitude toward homosexuality was questioned.

In recent years, there has been very little noise, according to Erik Skarrud. 2020 is the exception.

The council secretary acknowledges that they may not have been fully prepared for the reactions that occurred when WWF was announced as a recipient.

Since then, among other things, they have met with several of the Østerdalen municipalities, who announced a boycott.

– We have spoken with quite a few over time and we have tried to explain what the background of the award is.

That’s why the WWF got a yes

Skarrud says the Fundraising Council knew that WWF “has areas where not everyone agrees equally” when they gave the broadcast director their recommendation.

The decisive factor for the organization to receive the award was the following:

– They had a very good application. The most credible app. They also served a very good and very important purpose in our time, says Skarrud.

– The fundraising council looks first at the academic aspects of the application. We look at what gadget applicants have to be able to handle to get a couple of three hundred million on the book overnight. It is important that it is a good organization that has the administrative and operational capacity to run a television campaign.

Will the noise surrounding this year’s award affect the council’s evaluations going forward?

– The council certainly takes with it the discussion that has taken place, in terms of communication and such. But I don’t necessarily think there is so much that could have been done differently, says Skarrud.

– We always look for a purpose for which there is an indisputable need. That is the most important of the award.