I still think the message that you can save more lives by switching causes - lives that are as valuable as any others - is worth communicating. Probably best to leave it at that, rather than get into a discussion of exactly how to do this. This blog has some common interests with marketing blogs, but ultimately it is about morality, not marketing.

That said, I wanted to respond to your most recent comment, in which you proposed the following “contrast” message:
“X children [include pictures] die every year from problems that would cost $Y to fix - yet 10x that is being spent chasing a cure for cancer that never comes.”

I don’t have a marketing background, but I see an inherent problem with that message. The word “chasing” implies that cancer research is futile, and the statement overlooks the fact that medical research does more than just search for cures. Through research we are able to create more effective treatment modalities, develop less invasive treatment options, and identify important preventative measures. In the end, that message is likely to offend and alienate potential donors.

I do think this, though: a fundraiser should always check their message to see if it reflects the truth. There are ways to present the truth more or less compellingly; presenting truth compellingly is the challenge of great marketing. Changing the subject, and getting people to give to the right cause for the wrong reasons, is what a lot of fundraisers do instead. That should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

So, the most I can answer to your question is: start with this value, and figure out how to express it compellingly. It could involve photos and stories to humanize the people who can be saved “for cheap,” to remind the donor they’re just as valuable. It could involve contrasts: “X children [include pictures] die every year from problems that would cost $Y to fix - yet 10x that is being spent chasing a cure for cancer that never comes.” I’m really rambling here - the point is just to start with the truth and figure out how to make it connect, rather than starting with what people already want to hear.

That said, the choice of cause is important. When you say “the humans suffering from cancer are equally deserving of my help,” I agree - but if they’re equally deserving, why not help as many as possible, which in this hypothetical example means fighting malaria (of course none of us know for sure whether that’s really the case)? If you believe you’ll help fewer people by fighting cancer, yet you choose it anyway, that implies a belief that the people struggling with cancer are significantly more deserving of your help.

(Of course, your loved one is more deserving of your help. But the research you’re funding likely isn’t relevant to your loved one’s situation - it’s for the benefit of others, and the question is whether and why you value those others over the people suffering from malaria.)

Your clarification in responding to Katya seems to hint at the more important issue: “Most people who have been affected by cancer give to gigantic cancer research organizations; they know how cancer makes them feel, but they have no idea how their dollar is being used to fight it, which means they don’t really know anything about the extent to which their donation is improving the world.”

The real issue isn’t that people are too emotional in selecting a cause to support. (In fact, I think that emotional giving is a beautiful and worthwhile practice.) Perhaps the greater issue is that once people select their cause, they don’t necessarily allocate their donation to the most effective organization. In other words, the problem isn’t that individuals donate to disease X for personal reasons rather than disease Y because it is more cost effective. Rather, the issue is that there are many organizations that address disease X, and donors do not always choose wisely.

All I’m saying is that it can be. And if start your giving process by eliminating the causes that don’t “speak to you personally,” odds are very good (not guaranteed) that you’re not maximizing your impact.

Therefore, I urge people to strike a balance from the beginning between personalization and impact (and I would even urge starting with/prioritizing the latter). That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to give to a cause that moves you - just that that shouldn’t be the only criterion for picking a cause, or an “initial filter” that eliminates others without investigation.

I also agree that it’s good to give to causes you know better - but I’m skeptical of the connection between being personally affected and “knowing” a cause. Most people who have been affected by cancer give to gigantic cancer research organizations; they know how cancer makes them feel, but they have no idea how their dollar is being used to fight it, which means they don’t really know anything about the extent to which their donation is improving the world.

Does that clarify things?