Few things in the philanthropy space are as predictable as the vocal carping that bubbles up when a campaign - organic or planned - goes viral and starts grabbing headlines. It's a rather entertaining phenomenon, actually.
The recent success of the #icebucketchallenge is the latest to receive a nattering of negativity. I struggle to agree with much of the vitriol going around. Commentary in advance of break out successes would lend more credibility and suggest objectivity to those looking to add valued reaction to a thing. That's not what's going on here.
When the campaign to pour ice over your head and pressure your peers to do the same first began to pick up speed the interweb seemed to welcome it, suggesting obscurity more than anything - as in, "You still haven't arrived so we're not going to tear you down." As more $2 bags of ice began to flow from liquor store coolers and those with something to say started to have something to say, the conversation evolved into increasingly pissed off voices of outrage over the audacity, wastefulness, and glib nature of a thing. And that's when I took an interest.
I've been working for causes for nearly 15 years. Most of that time was invested in terribly underfunded, understaffed, woefully under-appreciated organizations. It was the best of times. Truly. In that time, I saw many successful campaigns catapulted into viral fame - some, ahead of the adolescence of social media, surged to notoriety through email chain letters, print media, tv commercials and other even more dated channels. Lately, I've spent more time raising awareness and resources for some of your larger and more enterprising NGOs and while the societal ills we labor to resolve differ little, there is a noticeable dissonance in the attitude that I think sets the stage for the type of criticism beginning to emerge about the success of campaigns like the #icebucketchallenge.
I recall a powerful solidarity that exists between perennially resource strapped organizations and their underpaid staff laboring towards the abolition of this or the recognition of that. It's not like we enjoyed never having enough budget to do what we needed or getting the media to take us seriously, but there was a pride in starving for our cause and being ignored. Watching causes hit the jackpot with a viral campaign was like watching your neighbor win the lottery or become an overnight movie star. We always found a way to discredit the event or the charity. They paid for the media. Or. They have that one super rich board member. Or. They got lucky and their mission just happens to coincide with a major media event. Or. Or. Or...
Rarely were we capable of acknowledging someone in our peer group created a simple, authentic, fun and infectious way to get people engaged. When you work for a really small charity, it's too easy to convince yourself that the world needs to engage on your terms. I suggest it's this kind of thinking that's partly behind the negative response to the #icebucketchallenge - and, if course simple jealousy.
I've read some pretty well thought out criticism. William MacAskill, for example, went into considerable detail identifying a psychological effect called Moral Licensing and coupled it with observations from his own charity's house file to claim that there is a very real likelihood those engaging in the #icebucketchallenge will be significantly less likely give elsewhere or again. He's worried about cannibalism and lowering the bar to altruism.
One problem with MacAskill's thinking is that it fails to recognize one of the central statistical facts of fundraising, especially in direct response and mass marketing programs, those who give and/or engage tend to give and/or engage again and often in increasing capacities. I find it very hard to believe that participation in the #icebucketchallenge means those "bucket heads" will somehow be less likely to sign another petition or support their buddy's walk for cancer. If anything we have the #icebucketchallenge to thank for converting some otherwise do nothings - lurkers, as they are often called - into action takers.
But mostly, we shouldn't be looking to thank the #icebucketchallenge or those enganging for their good work. That's for the ALS Foundation to do now. And if they do it well, they might actually gain some new and meaningful donor relationships.
Another nabob, Ben Kosinksi, on HuffPo, picks up some of MacAskill's themes, but invites us further down a road on which far too many in the non-profit sector find themselves. Idealism Avenue. It's always goes something like this, "Imagine if one tenth of the people who did the thing saved the time and money spent on the thing and gave $XX to the cause. Imagine what could be accomplished." Yes, Ben. Imagine all the people living for today (see what I did there)...well come to think of it, that's exactly what is happening.
Successful charities, those that routinely break through the competitive landscape do so most often not by mistake because they recognize the realities of marketing, messaging and engagement. They don't sit around with a fist full of magic beans hoping a giant bean stalk is going to carry them into the heavens or secretly wishing they remain in obscurity. They work hard, raise money, invest in growth models, test and incrementally foster their programs until one day they realize they've transformed themselves into different thing. Some in the sector say this is when you've sold out. Others might say this is when you've broken through.
Whatever you think it is, you can be sure of this, if you're doing something right, the Bens and Williams of the world will come swinging. In our industry it's lonely at the top.
I congratulate ALS.org. I don't believe they've dealt our sector or even their cause a blow. I just think they found a really clever and fun way for thousands of people to engage. They deserve all the funds they raise and a moment to enjoy a little light on their cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment