Back in January of this year, those of you on FaceBook probably saw lots of female friends, family and colleagues posting a colour/color in their status updates — just one word, or a group of words, like “pink” or “blue” or “nude” or “white with black trim.” It was the color of the bra the posting person was wearing. Some people claimed it was an effort to raise awareness about breast cancer.
However, there is no data whatsoever saying that this what-color-is-your-bra campaign increased the number of women getting medical checkups regarding their breast health, doing self-examinations regularly, etc. There’s no data whatsoever that says someone knows about breast cancer now and how it impacts women that didn’t already know that before the campaign. Yes, Susan G. Komen for the Cure said they got some donations they think may have because some people followed up their bra color status with a link to its web site. But others reported no donations at all.
Lately, people are changing their Facebook profile photos to a cartoon character. They say this is to raise awareness about child abuse. Yet, there is no information offered on child abuse, no information offered on how to prevent such, etc. And there’s no data whatsoever that says someone knows about child abuse now that didn’t already know that before this “campaign.” No one is discussing child abuse; they are discussing cartoon characters.
I think it is yet another example of slackervism, where people clicked something online, or did something equally simple online, and walked away thinking, “Wow, I really made a difference”, but they didn’t. My fear is that these people then do not do what’s really needed — like volunteer or make a donation to an organization like Parents Anonymous, or Prevent Child Abuse America or know how to report suspected child abuse — because they think what they’ve done on Facebook has real impact, that that’s enough to make a difference.
And it’s interesting to note that when I challenged friends and colleagues about this — when they would post the cartoon photo and say, “This is to raise awareness about child abuse”, and I would post a comment asking “how”, people because very defensive, claiming that I didn’t care about child abuse or was “spoiling the fun.” Yes, it’s a lot of fun to change your profile to something silly — I do it often on my personal FaceBook page. But creating this false sense of activism is dangerous. Here’s what so many people are thinking as a result of campaigns like this: Why make time to volunteer or why reserve any money to help others when just clicking helps someone somehow? I can change the world just by clicking something or changing my Facebook status, right? Have a look at the Community Service section of YahooAnswers or similar online fora to see how often people ask for ideas for “just click and help” web sites, because they “love helping without having to really do anything” (do a search on FreeRice if you doubt me).
I made recommendations regarding the bra color-to-raise-cancer-awareness last year, detailing what would have taken this from slackervism to real activism. So, what would have made this cartoon-charater-as-a-profile-pic a true social marketing/health marketing campaign, with real impact (changed behavior, new awareness, etc.) regarding child abuse?
- Encouraging people to not only change their profile picture, and not just saying it’s to prevent child abuse, but also, to link to a web site for more information about child abuse, including specific aspects of such: child neglect, shaken baby syndrome, child sexual abuse, etc., and information on what to do if you suspect child abuse.
- Having a banner on the home page of your child abuse-prevention or information site saying, “Did you change your FaceBook status photo to a cartoon character?”, which links to a page focused on educating people about child abuse and encouraging people to participate in the campaign.
- Having a FaceBook fan page specifically associated with this campaign, and using it to not only educate about child abuse, but also, to survey fans about the impact of the campaign regarding their actions (did they have a discussion this week with friends about child abuse, or just cartoon characters?)
Online volunteering / virtual volunteering is not slackervism. Here’s more on what ROI for online action really looks like. Also see the Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) status updates on Facebook from Nov. 25 – Dec. 2, 2010, for an example of an EFFECTIVE online awareness campaign using Facebook regarding preventing and responding to abuse of women.
Amen! luckily I did see a number of people question the validity or helpfulness of the campaign and offer real solutions/suggestions.
Thanks for the affirmation! I’m still getting the you’re-no-fun comments off-blog, but, well, I think it needed to be said…
I had friends posting status updates challenging it as well, and it did instigate a bit of an online discussion amongst a small group of us about how it doesn’t do anything to raise awareness, and what kind of things could.You bring up some great ideas Jayne to truly challenge people into activism… I will try to implement some of these the next time one of these campaigns rears its head!!
Thanks, Tracey. Some people have tried to characterize me and other bloggers who have been critical as saying these kind of campaigns should never be done. Thanks for understanding that what we’re saying is – make them worth doing!
@jcravens42 Thanks for the comment on http://www.i-volunteer.org.uk/beckie_williams/more-than-just-mickey-mouse (I’m double posting it here to make sure my response gets to you). Actually, your blog post is much more constructive for charities going forward than the ones I read yesterday before writing this . That said, it does miss a very important point about the whole cartoon character thing: its origins had nothing to do with the charity it went on to benefit (indeed, even the country home to the charity it went on to benefit… see: http://www.seedol.com/20104968-cartoon-character-images-invade-facebook-profile-pictures.html). At some point someone/ some people changed their ‘cut-and-paste-status’ to mention the NSPCC and the ensuing popularity meant significant amounts of PR and donations without any effort or expense to the charity at all: that sounds like very real grass roots activism to me.A great many people who have taken part will feel like they’ve done something without so much as even clicking through to a website or pausing to think about child abuse. In reality, these people probably wouldn’t go any further even if the infrastructures you suggested were in place. But I don’t believe in being too harsh on people who’s entry level to engagement is low. Instead, I would celebrate that the initiative of those anonymous few was able to harness the power of their slacktivism en masse and benefit a charity. And try to think creatively about how to harness the potential of these ‘one-clickers’ again in the near future…
Exactly, do them with an actual purpose. There is alot of power in FB, for example, to get things talked about so use that power well.
Good on you Jayne. My son picked this up. A lot of his FB network were doing the cartoon character thing and his response was to challenge them to actually do something constructive. He made a donation to a charity that supports children instead, and urged them to do the same. They typically returned a ‘spoil-sport’ response but hopefully he got through to a few.
Sounds like Colleen is raising her son right! It’s interesting that it’s been the critics that have turned this into an actual anti-child-abuse campaign, rather than the people turning their profiles into cartoon characters.
I am still bummed that anyone would consider those campaigns as activism.. I sometimes participate but I never take it serious…If I want to raise awareness, it looks different,
Thank you, I will post this on my wall for others to read.
Thanks for the great suggestions for structuring and measuring social media campaigns. I???d like to add one more idea ??? using a corporate sponsorship/fundraising model. For the right corporate partner, sponsoring the campaign and receiving recognition on the related information pages has real value. So does the knowledge that the corporation is supporting a worthy cause. In return the corporate partner makes a donation for every person who likes the facebook page or takes some similar quantifiable action. Often the corporate partners have their own extensive customer/marketing databases and high-traffic websites, facebook groups, twitter subscriber lists and other tools that they can use to promote the campaign and increase your reach.In this way you can generate awareness and funds for the charity, as well as positive publicity and enhanced employee loyalty for the corporate partner. Making sure you engage the right corporate partner is very important.
Hi, Karen. Thanks for replying. Although, honestly, I am totally turned off by corporate online popularity contests such as what you’ve noted. I won’t repeat myself from my previous blog on this, here: http://blogs.forumer.com/jcravens/43876/FAIL%3A+charity+giving+popularity+contests.html
Wonderful article, Jayne! I’ve been saying the same sort of thing about all the FB campaigns to have huge numbers of people "like" something or just join something or even like something ludicrous better than some politician. If only they would think about how to actually make the world better instead of feeling good about clicking a useless button!
I totally agree with the beginning of your article, the 2 examples you gave of "activist" campaigns are ridiculous, although I do have less of a problem with the cartoon character one because actually it did create conversation amongst my friends and I do know at least a couple who made donations to the charity of their choice because of it. For the little effort that was involved, isn’t some donations better than none? Just curious, do you also think wearing a pink ribbon is stupid too? Or should you only be creating awareness if you actually give time or money to that cause? But you are absolutely right, as a "campaign" it could be greatly improved. Where I completely disagree with you though is that you seem to think slacktivism (please try to get your buzz words correct) is a dirty word, and are implying slacktivists are people who are too lazy or inconsiderate to do something that actually means something. I don’t deny that there is some of this involved, but what you need to realize is slacktivism is a sign of the times, people lead increasingly busy lives, with fragmented attention spans, and the internet asking us every day to join this cause, support this friend in their walk, give this season to x….etc.etc.etc. We can’t all give to all cause. People aren’t turning into slacktivists, they’ve always been there, just never before had an outlet to get involved just a little, and now with social media blowing up, it’s far more easy and visible. Giving people easy ways to give or advocate is not a bad thing. Non-profits need not look down on slacktivists, but figure out how best to tap into them. A charity can have a page on facebook and have 10000 "slacktivists" click "like", then complain that it’s meaningless and it’s just a bunch of slacktivism…but what is that charity doing with those people? Have they set up their page so that in just one more click those people can sign a petition? send a letter to government?This article is a great read: http://www.socialcitizens.org/blog/art-activating-slacktivism
I am with Lyndsey on this one. Really great comments, could not put it better. My only comments would be this, Slacktivism is like a four letter word, and really has negative connotations for those who get involved but not at a traditional level. Donations and volunteering don’t occur over night, those actions need to be nurtured and brought along, and perhaps the first action is something as simple as changing your FB picture to a cartoon.
I think Shane and Lyndsey need to actually read my blogs. If you do, you will see that I’m not saying that a nonprofit shouldn’t encourage people to "like" it or change their profiles photo to a cartoon character or other little tiny not-really-doing-anything-but-feeling-good activities, just as I’m not against one day beach cleanups that cost thousands of dollars to coordinate but don’t solve environmental problems or Habitat for Humanity home builds that are not only expensive but often require professionals to come in and redo the work of the one-day volunteers. Rather, I’m saying that these activities have got to be done with an eye on how to turn these look-I-clicked-something people into actual donors, or to educate them about an issue so that they can actually talk about it in a way that leads to changes in behavior and perception by family, friends, etc. Otherwise, they do NOTHING.
In the version I saw the NCPCC was mentioned. To me the issue was rather that many would not know what the NSPCC was. As a British person llving in North America it was noticeable that those of Bristish decent responded but by and large North American’s did not. On its Twitter page the organisation said, "although the NSPCC did not originate the childhood cartoon Facebook campaign, we welcome the attention it has brought to the work we do :-)"So it must have had some effect!
Jayne, I think it’s essential to start where your audience is, rather than where we might like them to be. That might mean starting with very simple education and developing basic awareness as a first step. I also believe that NPOs that are open to partnerships – corporate partnerships and other types – will grow and be able to serve more people faster. I’m not suggesting competitions at all, but rather partnerships. When I worked with Canadian Women’s Foundation they did a great job of building public awareness while fundraising through corporate partnerships. The partnerships gave them much broader reach than they could have on their own. And at the same time they helped the corporate partners better understand the issues facing women so the corporations could improve their policies and enhance their corporate social responsibility in a number of ways that went beyond the fundraising. That said, the fundraising dollars from the partnerships definitely made a big difference for the Foundation’s grantees and should not be trivialized. 🙂