“Hi my name is Maria and I was nominated by Stacy to do the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge” was probably one of the most frequent things you heard on your Facebook newsfeed in the summer of 2014. The ALS Ice Bucket challenge was started by the family and friends of Pete Frates, who was diagnosed with ALS in 2011. The first ice bucket challenge video was posted on July 27th and in the next four weeks the internet blew up, first in Boston (where Pete is from), then nationally and globally, attracting the attention of news outlets like BBC and celebrities such as Bill Gates. You can learn more about the Ice Bucket Challenge and why it was started from this TED talk.
Before the Ice Bucket Challenge, I personally had never heard of ALS. Then suddenly, this word was all over my Facebook page and other social media. The challenge helped me to learn about the disease that is untreatable and has no cure that impacts over 30,000 Americans. The Ice Bucket challenge helped to draw the attention of the ALS Association, because the people taking the challenge either had to dump a bucket of ice over their head or donate money to the ALS Association. Although this challenge wasn’t officially started by the ALS Association they quickly got involved and now their website is full of information about the success of the ice bucket challenge. The quick and intense impact of the Ice Bucket challenge shows how important it is for on a nonprofit connect to their potential donors with social media. They even included an infographic on their website that showed how $115 million dollars raised was used within their organization. (Compared to the $23.5 Million dollars they raised in the year of 2013).
The Ice Bucket challenge was very successful in bringing in money towards the ALS Association, however it was also met with a lot of skepticism. The challenge gave the option of dumping the ice over your head or donating your money, which made people question if the challenge was really making an impact. Other people argued that the challenge overshadowed the cause. Other articles showed that the challenge is doing good, but not the most good. There were also several people who supported the challenge because of the good that it was doing.
Did you participate in the 2014 ALS Ice Bucket Challenge? If so, what motivated you to do so? Do you think that “viral activism” is a good thing or is it too focused on “showing off” instead of giving? What other examples of “viral activism” have you seen in the media and were they successful?
Personally, I think that viral activism (or cyber activism or internet activism, there are a lot of names for a generally unified concept that are circulating) definitely has it's time and place. I get the Ice Bucket Challenge, I think the ways in which it was effective at fundraising and increasing awareness was positive, but I'm also sort of against it in this concept. Personally, I think it plays into a form of narcissism that's super prevalent with millennial/online culture, and people were doing it to show off and get attention. So in this specific case, I'm against it.
ReplyDeleteBut I also do really think it can be effective, but in a different format. As a sort of activism campaign, I think the internet can be very useful as a tool, not a means to an end. It can definitely be utilized to quickly organize campaigns, efforts and protests, and can also be a source of very efficient giving. For example, the Red Cross frequently will publicize a number that people can text in order to donate money quickly to an immediate cause or crisis. This isn't based in any sort of social media flare, it truly just capitalizes on the convenience of giving digitally or mobility, since manually giving can take time and excess effort.
A little further off topic, but I'm also very conflicted on the effectiveness of cyber hacking for social causes. The Nation published this article (http://www.thenation.com/article/cyberactivism-egypt-occupy-wall-street/) where they discussed the ethics, effectiveness and general safety from hackers like Anonymous that are based in a form of vigilantism and pranking for political causes. I find them a little bit dangerous, definitely, especially as they sort of teeter on a border between orderly and anachronistic intentions. But I also think they can definitely be effective in raising awareness for causes and acting as a catalyst.
I, personally, did not participate in the Ice Bucket Challenge, however, a lot of my friends did. Prior, to this challenge, I, as well as many other people I suspect, could not have told you what ALS even was. However, due to the challenge, I was able to learn about the disease and became much more aware of this cause that is out there. This in itself goes to show that the concept of “viral activism” is, certainly, a great and powerful thing. Following the start of this challenge, many people were talking about the cause including, as you said, many news outlets, as well as professional athletes, other celebrities and many philanthropists out there. As the results show, people were not only talking about it, but were much more inclined to donate to this cause.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, I immediately thought about the tweet of the week involving UNICEF donating clean water for every five minutes a phone remained untouched (https://tap.unicefusa.org/). A question that somebody asked in regards to this was why the organization doesn’t just donate the money and what purpose does putting a phone down actually serve. I believe the answer would be the same answer that one might give to a skeptic of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge which is that it brings attention to the cause and gets more people involved. Before this phone challenge was proposed in class, I had not heard of this particular cause. However, following class, I, not only did the challenge myself, but shared it with my friends and got them doing it, as well. This demonstrates the power of “viral activism” and how similar platforms can become recognized through movements such as these which get people talking.
ALS Ice Bucket challenge was clearly a success. As you stated in your post they raised 115 million dollars over the course of 2014. In 2013, ALC only received 23.5 million dollars. They received a huge increase in donations due to the ALS bucket challenge. Maria, you also mentioned that a criticism for the Ice Bucket challenge was that people were not learning about the disease. Now almost two years later, people are still talking about the Ice Bucket challenge, which shows that this strategy had tremendous impact on raising awareness for a terrible terminal illness worthy of considerably more funding for research. Hopefully with more research will come greater knowledge about disease.
ReplyDeleteI think the ALS Ice bucket challenge was silly for its task, but its methodology was extremely intelligent in spreading awareness and raising money for a worthy cause. I think virtual activism has its pros and cons. VA can be spread quickly along social media networks, costs little to no money to spread those ideas, and can potentially reach to the greatest number of individuals, however, many of these ideas that are spread remain based on simple assertions or ideas, and definitely appeal to individuals who simply do not have time to think about a heavily rooted issue or even care for that matter. Marketing of their philanthropic goals remain one-dimensional and can often take advantage of donor psychology.
ReplyDeleteThe marketing behind the ALS Ice Bucket challenge is heavily rooted in that psychology of giving (1). Donors, for virtual activism, are looking to advance their own personal reputation. We like to be part of the group, and do not like facing a stigma. Furthermore, ALS also does a great job of shifting the depressing topic of disease to a fun little activity. Upon hearing about the ALS ice bucket challenge, I did not initially care to hear what ALS meant, and was more focused on the comical aspects. ALS really studied their donor market, using time limits, celebrities, and other minute social pressures definitely influence the common man. Marketing their philanthropy is this manner does a great job of saving ALS money, and creating almost a social culture. This social culture is evident in companies such as Starbucks, which use a convincing rhetoric to influence their consumers, such as the naming of specific drinks to make the consumer feel each is personalized, the store structure to appeal to the mind, etc. For philanthropic organizations, its important to create this social culture and use a persuasive rhetoric to convince donors.
What remains to question is whether ALS is ethical. I think that in this situation, ALS is ethical, for it is at least fighting for a cause that at the end of the day, is bringing some kind of aid or research to the betterment of mankind. I believe the end justify the means here, and "virtual activism" is simply another tool to bring out more donors.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/magazine/the-ice-bucket-racket.html?_r=0
Hello Maria,
ReplyDeleteI love how you decided to spark a controversial topic about how media frenzy affected a philanthropic action. As a class, we mentioned advertisement and marketing as a way for organizations to reach out to the public but what marketing strategy is really effective? I do not think we discussed this topic in depth in class and as a marketing major, I find this topic very interesting and debate worthy.
First off, I did not participate in the Ice Bucket Challenge. I thought the whole idea was a “showing off” act at first because you needed to be nominated by a friend. When a friend posted the video of them dumping water by their garage or in their shower or over the balcony, instant likes and comments followed on Facebook. The articles raised a good point in that it raised awareness for the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Disease. Now, when someone mentions ALS everyone associates it with the ice water bucket challenge or when someone brings up ice water bucket challenge, one will synonymously associate it with ALS disease. The whole viral activism was a great spark for an organization that was making only $23.5 million a year (2013) before it became famous worldwide, when it earned $115 million in 2014. However, when I read the Times article you linked, I was slightly annoyed by the perspective they presented about the whole movement. They proposed that those who don’t want to donate money should just “dump some cold water on [their] head.” What I learned throughout this movement was the ice stimulated a similar reaction to patients who are diagnose with ALS. In this case, I would like to disagree with the Times article in that the whole movement should be improved because I believe it did contribute to the success of raising awareness and donation for more research in the future. And I believe the ALS foundation also gave a lot of attribution to the challenge and decided to show their funds transparently with the donors because of the viral attraction and support they received.
To address your final question about viral activism – The novel Pay It Forward by Catherine Hyde shows how effective and vital the role of media plays in spreading awareness. Through this link (http://www.payitforwardfoundation.org/) you can find out more about the movement. I believe everyone heard of the saying “pay it forward,” but have we ever thought where it came from? When I read this book last year, I fell in love with the movement. I liked how easy a good deed can be and although the goal is slightly idealistic, the results can be very impactful in the community. If everyone did a good deed for three people and those three people then performed three good deeds, the results are exponential. After reading the book, I had the honor of emailing the actual author, Catherine Hyde, to ask her what she thought of media playing a role in her movement. And luckily, she replied to my email. She said that media was a good spark to initiate her movement and without media the whole idea would not have been able to take off. Through her reply, I realized how important the role of media can play in spreading news, either bad or good. At the same time, the negative effect of media is that it is short-lived. As a challenge, can you think of any way to keep these movements growing?
I used to think that online activism was reprehensible. Like Alex commented, I thought it was linked with narcissism that is prevalent in our generation. A major criticism of today’s activism condemned the act of engaging in sharing and liking on social media and participating in symbolic token gestures as “slacktivism” or “armchair activism.” It seemed like people who posted on the internet about an issue would be less inclined to actually do something, having felt as if their share or like made enough of a difference. Or worse, they just wanted to show the world they were socially conscious by jumping on a larger trend by sharing a video (eg Kony 2012), wearing a color on a day, or posting a sticker on their car. However, after seeing the evident success of the ice bucket challenge, my views definitely changed.
ReplyDeleteI now realize that the act of spreading information and beliefs, even if just through a like or share is important. While social media has its fair share of information distribution issues, every now and then really good things like the ice bucket challenge can arise. Viral videos like Kony 2012 can raise awareness of important causes on a massive scale. Even if viral activism does play into perhaps narcissistic tendencies of our generation, it is more likey a product, not a producer, of these tendencies . Also, I realize that supposed “slacktivism” and actual action are by no means mutually exclusive. A Georgetown study (linked below) shows that supposed “slacktivists”/social media promoters are actually more likely to have an active role in their causes than non-social media promoters. The study found that promoters are more than twice as likely to volunteer and go to an event, just as likely to donate money to a cause, and four times as likely to encourage a friend to contact their political representative. The ice bucket challenge and the Georgetown study show that if anything, social media doesn’t reduce action, it encourages it.
http://csic.georgetown.edu/news/1308/slacktivists-doing-more-than-clicking-in-support-of-causess
I think the ALS Ice Bucket challenge was an extremely successful campaign and I think that most people would agree with me when I say this. The fact that the ALSA raised over $115 million dollars in 2014 when only one year before they raised about $23.5 million attests to its success. I didn't personally dump ice on my head but my family did donate to the cause, and I personally know several people who accepted the challenge and donated. Because of campaigns like this, I think that viral activism is incredibly useful and I really don't even see why people would be against it. There might be aspects of "showing off" or narcissism, but even if that is the case these campaigns are still raising awareness for a cause and donating money and time and that is essentially the goal of a campaign like the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.
ReplyDeleteAs for other examples, I think we have all seen campaigns like GoFundMe or even Change.org where people sign petitions for change. These campaigns might not be on the same scale as the ALS Challenge, but they still have an impact. In todays society where everyone is attached to their phones and checks Facebook or Twitter every 10 minutes, it is extremely beneficial to take advantage of that and run campaigns on social media. I know that every time I see a post about a petition or a GoFundMe I always click on the link and read about the campaign. I might not always donate but at least that is one more person who knows about the problems that some people feel need to be addressed. As for the GoFundMe campaigns, they are a great way to connect communities and campaign on a more personal level. Earlier this month on Staten Island the Wagner College Baseball House that was privately owned by the students burned down along with everything in it. Thanks to the GoFundMe, 385 people donated over $20,000 in 13 days to help support these students who lost everything. These campaigns are extremely successful and a multitude of people donate to a wide range of different causes. Because of these examples I think that viral activism can be extremely useful even if it might me narcissistic.
A number of my friends and family participated in the ice bucket challenge. I was surprised at how many people were talking about it and knew what it was. To answer your question, I think viral activism is ultimately a good thing. While it is definitely fueled by people's desire to show off, the end result is still positive. The ice bucket challenge raised both money and awareness for a relatively unknown disease. Using social media is a smart strategy by an organization. Trends on social media can grow rapidly if they take root. Marketers for businesses are constantly trying to come up with an idea that will be picked up by people on social media. It is not easy to make something interesting and simple enough to attract a large amount of people's attention. Additionally, businesses' strategies often come off as disingenuous to most people. It's easier for a nonprofit to build a social media presence because people recognize that it's for a good cause. However, for a nonprofit to achieve the level of attention that the ice bucket challenge received, they need to get very lucky. For something to go viral, a number of random variables have to line up, and an organization has little control over that. One thing that the ice bucket challenge did right was encourage people to interact with their friends. When someone was challenged, they felt a level of peer pressure to respond. After they completed the challenge, they wanted to challenge a different friend to make them do it. This created a snowball effect which was a brilliant strategy to spreading the word for the organization.
ReplyDeleteSociologist Zeynep Tufekci, in her TedTalk “Online social change: easy to organize, hard to win” (https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_how_the_internet_has_made_social_change_easy_to_organize_hard_to_win?language=en#t-548378) talks about the problem with using online platforms for social movements. She argues that online tools such as Twitter and Facebook make it easy for people to mobilize these movements, but aren’t very effective at creating lasting change. I think we can draw the same comparison when it comes to online philanthropic initiatives. I believe twitter and facebook can be a very good starting point for causes, and can be very effective at spreading awareness. These instances of “viral activism” can even be successful in raising a lot of money. The problem that I see is the superficiality of it. I think what may happen a lot of the time is someone feels emotionally compelled to donate to one of these causes they see online, but then forget about it a few days later. For a cause like ALS this might work, because what it really needs is money for research. But for other causes and problems, we need people who want to really create change, not just donate here and there and forget about it after.
ReplyDelete