Fine and Kanter wrote two things that caught my attention in chapter 10 of our text: "People are partners, not ATM machines" and "Storytelling makes fundraising personal." This asserts that 1) people shouldn’t be seen or treated as people who just give money – and I would also argue that people are fairly smart and don’t generally like being manipulated. And 2) Storytelling is very important in building relationships with people. But what kind of story should we be telling?
I read an interesting post by James Glave, where he mentioned that the emotional underpinnings of Age of Stupid and “Please Help the World” were, “…built around a “threat” frame.” Resulting in films that were emotionally manipulative and disheartening. Both told compelling stories but Glave made a good point. In business, Trends (Sedans=out, SUVs = In, and Safe!) are created from positive personal interests. Glave makes the point that a future supporting a sustainable environment should be made to look cool and exciting.
Do we need to feel guilty in order to support a cause? Do we need fear? Or do we need to make it fun? Do you agree with Glave or not? Is your opinion somewhere in between? Since we use social media in a sense to market and advertise an idea and associated organizations, which storytelling strategy (fear vs. fun) is most affective? Does the sector (cultural, health, social, environmental) in which the message is coming from have an impact on what is most effective?
Historically, fear has been a driving force behind a great deal of change. Most recently, Americans gave up a good deal of their privacy rights (Patriot Act) because neo-conservative politicians, notably 'the decider', propagated a fear of Islamic terrorism after 9/11. Playing upon people's fears has always been a way to rally support around particular causes, either reputable or disreputable. Indeed, Tea Party supporters current skepticism of "big government" is not based upon fear, but rather, ignorance. I know its cliche to say this, "but people fear what they do not know," and usually it is the loudest voice that attracts followers, not necessarily the logical or rational voice. This is especially prevalent in our current traditional media and the rise of demagoguery(e.g. Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann).
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think that Kanter/Fine are correct in touting social media. To me, social media is a way for people to gather knowledge not supplied to them by corporate media or any other subjectively interested source, and to come to their own, hopefully logical, decisions about what is truly important.
So I do not think there is "one size fits all" recipe for garnering support for a cause. Hopefully social media will foster a culture that values quality of information rather than volume and radicalism.
There are so many causes. All, if not the vast majority appear to need money. I sympathize with those who feel overwhelmed with the multitude of stories and requests for donation. The constant barrage, prompting, and prodding can be a bit much. With the ease of social media, are we to expect the visibility of causes to increase, as well as more associated contribution requests? The adage follows: too much of a good thing is too much. Like an advertisement on the screen, coaxing us to click here and there, on this sad face, and on that image of a devastated village, messages can be annoying regardless of connotation. Many individuals have too many responsibilities and difficulties in their everyday lives to incite benevolent activity. Adjoin this idea with deciding upon which issue to support, given an individual’s limited funds and time. Similar to choosing a favorite family member, deciding which of the many worthy causes to support may cause indecisiveness and guilt. Additionally, many potential supporters are concerned about misappropriation and mismanagement (“Where will my money go?”).
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should not only be concerned with the message or story substance but also with the manner of administration. Should we have to search for causes, or should they confront us at every turn? Too many messages may push supporters away, while too few may fail to capture attention. The same message, given at the same frequency and media location may elicit completely different responses from potential supporters. Similarly, are sustained campaigns more longitudinally successful than special support-seeking events? In the effort to increase appeal and garner new followers, there may not be straightforward answers.
I agree with Dan-- different causes incite different emotions in those who donate. For example, commercials for the organizations that seek to end cruelty toward animals may lead people to donate out of sadness or guilt that they have not yet participated in the cause. Other causes, such as ending childhood cancer, receive support because many people feel helpless in stopping the disease by themselves. Donating money is a way to join in and gain a sense of control over the situation. I also think that it is beneficial to show people that donating and participating can be fun, in some cases. Group events such as sponsored walks and family fun days can encourage people to join in while not utilizing fear or guilt.
ReplyDeleteI think organizations need to consider the impact that their calls for support have on their potential donors. I definitely agree with Kanter and Fine's point about storytelling. Personal stories create emotions. Although the emotions surrounding each cause may be different, those donating to the causes will be more likely to do so if they can connect to the cause in some way.
When reading the questions that you posed to us in your post, Andrea, I was reminded of grant proposal writing tips that I learned from Professor Alden in PAFF 514. Professor Alden told us that a need statement (which I think can be compared to a "story" told by an organization to potential donors) should not make the situation a program/organization is facing sound so hopeless that a foundation is unlikely to fund it for fear that its contribution will not be able to make a significant difference in altering the situation. Likewise, a need statement should not include statements that attempt to guilt funders into awarding a grant. Instead, an organization should provide a realistic picture of the organization's need.
ReplyDeleteI think a similar approach should be taken by organizations when they request donations. Most people do not respond well to a guilt-trip or scare tactics.
When considering the environment example specifically, I think that people need to consistently be faced with the facts (which may be somewhat frightening), while at the same time be educated about ways that they can make a difference. If people don't think that acting in an environmentally-friendly way has much of an impact, they may not bother changing their ways; however, if they are consistently informed that they really can have a significant impact, they may be more likely to change.