How can nonprofits best make use of the watered down altruism of slacktivism?
In perhaps the most organized attack yet launched by a nonprofit on slacktivism, UNICEF Sweden unveiled a coordinated PR campaign last week against the “likes” it receives on its own Facebook page. The campaign’s intent was to force donors to confront the fact that “liking” their page does not equate to helping children in need. Concerned that a more nuanced message might lack the impetus to pierce through slacktivism’s hard shell, UNICEF Sweden chose to be unashamedly forthright. In the process, the veneer of cordiality was peeled back, exposing donors to a tender, throbbing nerve in the nonprofit physique.
Slacktivism is a kind of watered down altruism, where the donor convinces him/herself that he/she is doing good when in fact his/her “donation” has little to no direct effect on the cause at hand. The donor contents him/herself with acting altruistically when in fact his/her sacrifice is anything but. The ubiquity of social media has only amplified the means for donors to engage in slacktivism. Whether it’s through changing one’s Facebook picture in support of a human rights campaign, sharing a post with friends about the good work a nonprofit is doing, or “liking” UNICEF Sweden’s Facebook page, there is a genuine fear in the nonprofit community that Facebook is actually (albeit unintentionally) discouraging donors from making cash donations to the organizations using its platform.
While the campaign gives unequivocal voice to nonprofits’ growing frustration with slacktivism, it goes beyond that. Indeed, it cuts to the very heart of the function (or lack thereof) of social media. Underneath the protestations about slacktivism lies the plain fact that nonprofits have no way of knowing the material value of a “like”. On the contrary, if UNICEF Sweden could know with clarity how a “like” contributes to its mission (assuming it does), it is doubtful slacktivism would even register on its radar. Yet, because UNICEF Sweden can’t know its impact, it assumes there is none. (It should be noted that Facebook hasn’t provided UNICEF Sweden with the information it seeks because Facebook itself doesn’t have that information.)
To be sure, UNICEF Sweden’s campaign is commendable in that it calls attention to our motivations for giving. It asks us to question what constitutes a donation. This is bold. How often do we see nonprofits confronting their donors with such a question? UNICEF Sweden should be praised for being so courageous.
Unfortunately, the organization actually damages its own goodwill by presuming something about its supporters that it has no way of actually knowing. Slacktivism is revealed only through self-examination; one must probe one’s own motivations to uncover its presence. No organization can know whether or not slacktivism exists in a particular instance because slacktivism is impossible to discern from a distance. It is one thing to caution against this mindset, to bring it to light and open a conversation about it; but it is a totally different thing to use language that constitutes a de facto accusation regarding the motivations of a large group of people. (The fact that only one in seven people think that “liking” an organization on Facebook is the same as a donation suggests that UNICEF Sweden’s fears are not as grounded in reality as they might think.)
What’s more, UNICEF Sweden has just as much of a distorted view of giving as all those “slacktivists” out there. Its ad campaign suggests that donating only counts if it can be measured in dollar terms, meaning that the approximate value of everything else is $0.
Could there be a more reductionist way to view giving than this, that philanthropy is philanthropy only if it contributes directly to an organization’s bottom line?
Ironically, UNICEF Sweden’s view of what counts as a “real” donation is exactly what perpetuates the slacktivist mindset. Indeed, I would argue that slacktivism is actually a response to the narrow view of philanthropy that nonprofits have put forward to the giving public. It’s not hard to figure out why nonprofits have such a difficult time engaging donors (especially Millennials) when such a weak vision for philanthropy is placed before them.
I applaud those who are looking for creative ways to support the organizations they care about, even if some of those creatives are in fact “slacktivists.” Millennials see social media as a powerful tool for effecting change, even if it can’t as of yet be quantified. They grasp its potential and employ it because they believe it actually does something. Why are nonprofits (UNICEF Sweden, in particular) responding so antagonistically to this form of philanthropy? Simply because they can’t quantify its effects on their bottom line, and this frustrates them?
But what is most disheartening about UNICEF Sweden’s ad campaign is that it reveals the organization’s utilitarian view of its donors. Instead of a desire to cultivate a relationship with its donor base, UNICEF Sweden draws a line in the sand delineating what is and is not philanthropy. It forces donors to fit into a definition of its own choosing, a definition that says only your money matters to us.
This reflects anything but a relationship mindset. When relationship is the goal, humility is primary. A posture of humility causes an organization to listen to its donors for the purpose of better serving them. Part of listening is believing that what is being said has merit. If UNICEF Sweden hasn’t gotten to the point of being able to empathize with its donors and with the slacktivist mindset, it doesn’t really understand their position.
To the extent that slacktivism is a problem, its solution lies in nonprofits owning up their responsibility to relationship. Slacktivism ought to compel nonprofits to pause and seek to understand the why behind the phenomenon, holding their own practices up for examination in the process. UNICEF Sweden may have the gumption to call its own donors to undergo self-examination; the question is, does it have the humility to do the same?
–Photo: orangeacid/Flickr
See More in Social Justice
What would be more useful, would be to not use the label of ‘slacktivism’ at all, but instead to find ways to make practical use of what is happening rather than moan about it and berate the very people who are connecting with UNICEF! If what people want is to give your organisation a casual ‘like’ on their way to the next amusing cat picture but not, for most of them at least, to actually send you money, that tells you something and gives you a starting point from which to connect more strongly with people in a way that… Read more »
too long; didn’t read… : – )