Storytelling that moves people: a Red Cross feature about earthquake survivors.
After Mexico's 2017 earthquakes, the American Red Cross response needed editorial that would build donor empathy without exploiting the people it depicted. A feature on six survivors — framed around resilience rather than victimhood — became signature editorial the organization continued to reference.
The challenge
After a major disaster, the genre of "donor-facing crisis communications" pulls in two directions. One side is photo-and-pity work that drives short-term giving but flattens the people in the story into objects of sympathy. The other side is sober institutional reporting that respects subjects but doesn't move anyone to act.
The brief for the Red Cross response to Mexico's earthquakes was to land somewhere neither of those defaults could reach: editorial that built donor empathy by leading with what survivors were doing, not what had been done to them.
The approach
Lead with action, not aftermath. The feature's structure put each subject's recovery work — what they were rebuilding, who they were helping, what they were teaching their kids — ahead of the disaster narrative. The disaster context was present, but secondary to the person.
Six subjects, not one. A single survivor narrative risks reading as anomaly. Six lets the pattern do the work: this is what resilience looks like when communities are supported through recovery rather than relief.
"Heroes" was deliberate. The framing isn't a softening of the disaster's severity. It is an explicit choice about who the story is about. Reporters covering disasters tend to focus on agencies and statistics. Donor-facing editorial that returns the camera to the people it depicts does something different.
The result
The piece became signature editorial that the Red Cross continued to reference. Published on Red Cross Chat in March 2018, "Celebrating heroes: Meet 6 inspiring earthquake survivors" represented a model for how the organization talks about the people its donors support.
For an editorial piece — which is not measured in placements or pickups the way a press release is — the right metric is whether it gets re-used. This one did.
Why it worked
- Resilience is more donatable than pity. Donors who give once out of pity often don't give again. Donors who give to recovery-in-progress see their contribution as an investment in something that's already working.
- The subjects had agency. Quotes, names, choices. The piece is about what these people did with the support they received, not what was done to them.
- It read as journalism, not solicitation. The CTA is implicit. Readers who want to give find a way to give. Readers who don't, finish the piece anyway and remember the subjects.
"Donors who give once out of pity often don't give again. Donors who give to recovery-in-progress see their contribution as an investment in something that's already working."
What this kind of work looks like for crisis communications teams
If you are running disaster or crisis communications for a humanitarian organization, the editorial choice between "what was done to them" and "what they're doing now" is the choice that determines whether donors come back. The first frame raises money once. The second frame builds a relationship.
Telling the story of a community in recovery?
Work with me →