“Slacktivism” can be loosely defined as sharing a post online, signing an online petition and tweeting a link to a charity’s website.
Cynicism Exhibit A: Brian Moylan wrote a provocatively titled post calling everyone who posted the red marriage equality sign on their Facebook profiles “useless”.
Cynicism Exhibit B: UNICEF Sweden, in a controversial new ad campaign, features a stereotypical, poverty-stricken child from the developing-world with the captions: “My mom got sick, but I think everything will be alright. Today UNICEF Sweden has 177,000 likes on Facebook. Maybe they will reach 200,000 by summer.” (Rather ironically, they posted this video on social media site YouTube.)
Moylan’s point is that everyone should be out there pounding the pavement and calling their elected representatives if they support marriage equality.
The point of the UNICEF campaign is that people who Like them on Facebook don’t give them money. (Whether or not Moylan or UNICEF have actually researched these alleged connection is not discussed.)
I have worked with many nonprofit organizations on their social media strategies. They have dedicated many hours to connecting with stakeholders, engaging community members and educating the public about their cause and their impact on the world.
Moylan’s and UNICEF’s attacks on so-called “slacktivists” (anyone who takes action online) are harmful to nonprofits for several reasons:
1) It encourages the unhelpful, unproductive and antiquated nonprofit notion that spending time and money on social media is a waste of time. (Educating a fan base and engaging directly with stakeholders is NEVER a waste of time, in my opinion.)
3) How do they know that people who take action online don’t actually donate money or time to nonprofit causes? Where is this shown with actual, hard data? In fact there is hard data to disqualify this POV: A 2011 study found that “Most evidence in recent years suggests that being active online promotes off–line participation as well. Although this link is not necessarily very strong, there is certainly no evidence of a negative effect from Internet activity.”
4) Social media efforts cannot exist in a silo. Ideally they should exist hand-in-hand with the marketing, fundraising, community services, human resources and programmatic efforts of the entire organization. Therefore, social media cannot solely be blamed for a lack of donations this year.
6) Browbeating, guilt mongering and shaming someone into giving a donation may work once, but it is not a sustainable fundraising strategy. This might be the reason for the abysmal donor retention rates in recent years.
7) Where does it stop? Do we criticize people who give us their email address, right before we email them for a donation? Do we sneer at volunteers who give of their time, if they don’t give us a sizable monetary contribution?
Yes, it is true, Facebook Likes do not directly save children’s lives. (Neither do those posters or that video you created, but that’s besides the point.)
Effective fundraising is about telling a story and showing the donor the impact their contribution will have on a cause that they care passionately about.
It’s about evoking positive emotions – saving children, protecting the environment, building a school – not about creating a shame spiral where your supporters are made to feel terrible.
Rather than fighting the alleged effect of “slacktivism”, nonprofits should re-examine their fundraising, marketing and social media programs.
UNICEF Sweden – If you are really against this form of passive activism, why not make a real statement and delete the Facebook page?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
What do you think about UNICEF’s campaign? Please share your thoughts in the Comments section. Thanks for reading!