I have some very charitable friends: just giving their Facebook pages and Twitter feeds a cursory glance, I see they've lent their support to a staggering number and variety of causes. They were happy to change their statuses to the colour of their bras for breast cancer awareness, and their profile pictures into their favourite Disney character for the NSPCC (though it later turned out that the charity wasn't behind the campaign). Every year they throw their weight behind stopping Simon Cowell from getting another Christmas number one.
Running a relatively new charity myself, I have a vested interest in paying attention to these online campaigns. Everyone knows that awareness raising has been revolutionised by social media, allowing us to show our support at the click of a button.
The thing is, there's a growing movement of sceptics and scholars who say this is actually making our charitable work less effective; that far from having a positive impact, it actually makes us less likely to make a difference.
The technical term assigned to this is 'social loafing', which refers to the phenomenon of people making less of an effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work by themselves. Also known as 'slacktivism', in real terms it's the quick 'like' on Facebook that makes us feel we've done our good deed for the day, and might actually stop us from doing something more tangible like donating. If we're honest, we've all be there; who doesn't get a little buzz out of clicking 'like' or 'retweet' on something charitable?
I have to admit, I can see the sceptics' point. We're so overwhelmed with charitable causes that it can be tricky to focus on them. For example, did you know that 22-29 January is Cervical Cancer Prevention Week? It's a big deal for a charity like The Odysseus Foundation, which works to tackle breast and cervical cancer in developing countries, and we'll be using it to draw attention to our work. But for the public, there's a real risk of awareness week fatigue.
It seems that daily and weekly there is something we should be aware of, with more awareness days being designated all the time and a social media campaign for every single one. The month of May seems to be particularly popular, playing host to the awareness day, week and/or month to no less than 36 causes, from the very worthy (mental health, cystic fibrosis, hepatitis, Huntington's Disease, MS, spinal health, road safety) to the more obscure (28 May is multiple births awareness day).
Charities are more accessible than ever, but this means there are more and more causes competing for our valuable time and attention.
So are all the advances of the modern world actually helping charities to make a difference?
In a word: yes.
You only have to look at Breast Cancer Awareness month to see an example of a campaign that does exactly what it says on the tin: Downing Street and other landmarks around the world lit up pink in its honour. And who can miss Movember? Critics might see it as an excuse for wannabe hipsters or fans of the Village People to try out facial hair that hasn't been truly acceptable since the 1970s, but if just one in a thousand of the people who know about the campaign has been reminded to check themselves for testicular cancer, then it was all worthwhile. Both of these are led in large part by social media, and they're growing in impact every year.
We may live in a world of shortened attention spans, but that's pushing us into finding new ways to allow us to give, quickly and easily. Text donation technology has had an incredible impact, and we're also seeing the rise of 'microgiving' websites like ploink! that allow us to make little donations as and when, with the added bonus of some whizzy graphics that let us drop virtual coins in virtual piggy banks. Not to mention JustGiving: a far cry from the days of the dog-eared sponsorship form, and the arduous post-event task of collecting sponsorship money.
And what about the simple 'like'? We have to accept that for the many, that's where the engagement stops. But done properly, that first little hint of interest (the equivalent of a double take at an eye-catching advert in the old, pre-social-media-world) is an opportunity to form a lasting relationship. Charities have a responsibility to be creative, and transform that 'like' into direct action. The world is changing and there are more demands on our attention than ever. Let's make sure we harness the opportunities this provides.
Follow Justen Schafer Humes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SchaferHumes
Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More
Facebook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Facebook, Inc. News - The New York Times
Facebook vs Google : What's the best social network?
Facebook: anti-SOPA post was removed in error
Mitt Romney is dominating Facebook (infographic)
Your web-site is very short on information concerning activities at list of locations you cite. There is no transparency regarding disbursement of funds.
There is no information regarding how you measure effectiveness. There are no details concerning your relations with local health-care providers, other charities, major NGO's or the WHO.
But there are many pics tearing at the heart-strings.
Mew charities should be at the forefront of innovation, of openness and transparency. You do not appear to be.
As you can appreciate being a new charity, like any new business, social or otherwise, our online reporting is evolving as we grow and secure the resources to be able to manage this. Also, impact measurement is invariably retrospective and given we’re so new, we’re currently in the process of collecting our quantitative and qualitative data and content. Our commitment to transparency and social impact is second to none and this will be reflected in our updated website once we’ve completed our first retrospective review. We thank you for taking the time to review our website and appreciate all comments and feedback and hope you’ll be very impressed with our first annual review when it’s published in a few months' time.
Best,
Justen
It may well be that some donators do ‘just click and move on’. But who is to say that they might not even have been click donators in the first place had the click option not been available? It may be that the click option encourages and enables them to at least ‘just do something’, even if they do not wish to be practically involved.
It would also be useful to have some kind of measure on the extent to which making an initial click donation, acts as an incentive or encouragement for that donator to later become more practically involved with the organisation.
This is a useful and thought-provoking piece, thanks Justen.