Opinion: The global south isn’t a billboard, big aid brands

Straight talk for all you bilateral, multilateral, international NGO, and big aid brands: Poverty is not your PR. Struggle isn’t your stage. Crisis isn’t your campaign. And the aid logo arms race in the global south is neocolonialism. Because it’s colonial when branded gifts or rations are meant to remind the receiver whose money it is. Jan Egeland from Norwegian Refugee Council, or NRC, recently wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “It is increasingly distast[e]ful, the excessive branding by donors, UN agencies and us in INGOs of everything from school bags to tents, shelter, latrines and health posts. Children in need should not have to advertise their donors.” And his tweet got me thinking. So after a provocative message I posted on LinkedIn went viral, it seemed big aid brands apparently needed a wake-up call. “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, a Ugandan who was a refugee in Kenya in the 1980s Here are six implications of this overboard branding. Plus six comments on the LinkedIn post, to reinforce the severity. 1. It undermines host governments and changes relationships with communities In my experience — as an American who has lived in three African countries and worked across 30 global south nations — excessive branding breaks down reciprocal engagements. Slap a logo on a well, and suddenly it belongs to the donor, not the community. Ownership fades, and with it, the community’s will to sustain it. People see an agency’s mark, not their own — and their investment in maintenance may dry up. “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!” Jimmy O. commented on LinkedIn, from the United States. 2. It steals awareness from locally led nonprofits on the ground Grassroots nonprofits need all the brand recognition they can get. They’re often in a starvation cycle, trying to keep their organization and community healthy. Overshadowing their brand with INGO logos diminishes visibility and leads to a scarcity of critical resources. Plus, these implementing organizations are most often delivering innovative programs. Not just shipping bags full of maize. So if any organization deserves the awareness, it’s those doing the real work. “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 commented, from Peru. 3. People feel disgraced to carry items that label them as in need Aid should not weigh down dignity. Yet, essentials emblazoned with a logo carry a stigma. Branded items are more than material goods: They’re walking billboards of poverty that mark individuals — especially impressionable children — with a badge of need. The psychological impact is profound and lasting. I’ve heard countless community members say that branded donations unintentionally turn recipients into living, breathing symbols of charity — leading to feelings of shame and otherness and reminding them of a painful time. “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,” wrote Gotto Danny, from Uganda. 4. Waiting for branded materials can cause delays in aid Slapping a brand on a crisis isn’t just vanity; it’s a logistical nightmare. Each branded Band-Aid means a mountain of red tape and approvals, holding up the work when seconds count. While aid agencies play the branding game, disaster zones wait on a lifeline — a deadly pause when every tick of the clock measures life or loss. “I remember working on a project in Somalia and a placard of the donor delayed us from operating for 4 weeks,” Harbi Jama shared, from the United Kingdom. 5. Energy invested in donor glorification dilutes the focus on aid impact The scramble for branding real estate on aid merchandise can eclipse the mission’s core, turning impactful outreach into a petty competition for recognition. When the turf war is over logo placement, not impact assessment, we’re branding egos, not aid, and when the focus shifts to stickers over safety, we fail those we claim to help. In places meant for protection, the logo count gets audited, not the lurking risks. “A t-shirt or bucket with a ‘mental health is wealth’ or ‘end GBV now’ message was more easily reused if the added logos were hidden or far smaller than the message. Logos (often huge) crowded the actual message we knew was needed to transform entrenched problems,” according to Dinnah Nabwire, from Ghana. 6. It’s just plain wasteful from a cost and environmental standpoint The economics of ego-etched aid are as flawed as their ethics. Spending more on brand-stamped supplies is like burning cash in the bonfire of vanity. It’s an ad masquerading as aid, where the price of recognition outstrips rationality. Frugality and earth-friendliness seem forgotten in the high-stakes game of donor dominance, which turns landscapes into cluttered billboards — polluting not just environments but also the purity of goodwill. “Branded items are not appreciated. Most lie wasted even when they can be reused,” Caroline Teti said, from Kenya. In summary, the splashy display of aid brands is a neocolonial pageant. A throwback to savior attitudes that trample over the agency of global south leadership. It’s a subtle yet insidious form of cultural overshadowing. What should big aid and INGOs do instead? Here are five ideas for improvement: 1. Brand your building, vehicles, or team uniforms — not the supplies or gifts. 2. Use a unique identifier like a barcode if you need tracking or traceability. 3. Communicate stories — not just pictures of logos — to donors back home. 4. Never let branding interfere with what’s right/best/fastest for implementation. 5. Invite communities to co-design the branding on items they will use or wear. It’s not just my opinion. The Center for Global Development explained that since the impact of branding by donor agencies and governments on aid effectiveness is unclear, branding should only be used in specific cases such as disaster relief and governance assessments. If the only way to recognize your work is through labels, it’s time to rethink your strategy. Aid isn’t a branding battleground, so stop the “aid-vertising.” Favor dignity over donor decals and lives over logos.