Millennial Activism: Is it Activism 2.0 or Slacktivism?
by Kristin Ivie on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 14:15
Social change agents of all generations are embracing social media and applying it to their causes, and the Millennial Generation is beginning to own it as the mode of activism that fits them. Social media has helped equip our generation with options beyond striking, boycotting and marching for our causes, as well as made it easier to organize some of these more traditional events. At the same time, there is some concern that this is also encouraging a less committed virtual bumper sticker era of activism.
During my interview with Justin Dillon for the Social Citizen Sighting series, I was struck by his reflection on activism 1.0 as the tendency to want to have one big event/concert/race/march, but not be involved on an ongoing basis, not maintaining a relationship with a nonprofit where you are committed to a cause, committed to solving a problem - like human trafficking, genocide, malaria, peace in the Middle East.
That's not to say that grand gestures cannot be meaningful and impactful. No Mas FARC, the mass protest against the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces organized via Facebook drew worldwide attention to the injustice Colombians had suffered for years. More than 5 million people in more than 100 cities around the world marched together, a gesture both significant and moving. Big one-time events can be used strategically, but mega-concerts and boycotts do not a movement make.
When we are honest, sometimes these events can be more about how they make us feel - as part of a meaningful movement, a suffering group of martyrs. Research on what motivates people to give shows that people are more likely to give when there is a difficult event or action required along with the donation. Known as the martyr effect, it argues that we actually like to suffer because it makes our contribution feel more meaningful. But we cannot participate in a couple of strikes or protests over the course of a decade and think that’s the best way to make the world a better place.
Then what's activism 2.0? Models like Justin's Call+Response and The Extraordinaries efforts suggest that it's fitting into people's everyday routines and finding ways for people to use technology and social media to habitually contribute to social change with small, practical acts - and, often, clicks. The ideal is a place where people integrate activism and supporting their causes into their regular routines – using downtime at the airport to send emails for their cause, donating at the grocery check-out counter, asking friends to charitini for their birthday. Those sharing lessons from the Obama campaign, and others, are stressing that we have to connect this online support to offline action and opportunities. Social media has certainly increased our awareness of causes that need our help, as demonstrated by our growing pile of requests to join a Facebook Cause or turn your avatar green or add a yellow bracelet.
But some fear that this mode of activism is vulnerable to the other, arguably worse, extreme. Slacktivism and bumper sticker philanthropy have also been made easier by social networking. You can tweet about a cause or vote for them in a Facebook contest without really ever engaging with the organization or feeling that you are responsible for its success, so do all these little acts really help? Scott Henderson says it can. Awareness eventually sparks engagement, and social signals regarding systemic problems can facilitate conversation. These easy clicks are introducing Millennials to causes in which many of them will eventually further engage. The cause for caution is that most real change takes more than a few clicks. When those clicks don’t actually produce action and change, people grow understandably cynical.
But we have to recognize that just because someone is using social media as a part of their "strategy" does not automatically mean they are using it strategically. There are ways to waste time with campaigns that, in the end, don't really bring about social change, but there are ways to waste time with direct mail and organizing rallies too. This flaw is not that the tools are ineffective; it’s rather a misuse and missed opportunity by the organization. As Ivan Boothe said in a recent post, we have to look at this technology as a tactic, only truly effective when part of an overall strategy for change.
So, how do we find the balance in this generation's appetite for activism? Can someone really be eased into a cause? Or are we inviting the Millennial Generation into a life of passive - and ineffective - involvement?
Comments
Great post! It's true that part of the appeal of social media activism is how easy it is to just click a button or share or link. But I still think it's important for a large group of people to be made aware of an issue, even if they don't neccessarily follow up. It's also the responsibility of the nonprofit or cause to help educate their community, ask their Twitter followers, Facebook fans or newsletter subscribers to take the next step in supporting a campaign. At least for me, I'm usually happy to sign up for a newsletter when I'm signing a petition or reading about a specific cause that captured my attention online and I'm expecting to hear back about what I can do next.
I think you bring up some great points and conversations like this are incredibly valuable in demonstrating the importance of creating research and developing of metrics to assess the value of impressions and discussions in creating sustained engagement.
To illustrate Dorothee's point, while putting a pink ribbon in the corner of my avatar may not make much of a direct effect in finding a cure for breast cancer, if it serves as a visual reminder for one of my friends to schedule a mammogram, then it has value. And it's a low barrier to entry to get me involved in a cause.
There are tons of causes I am willing to click for, but there are simply not enough hours in the day to march, fundraise, or volunteer offline for them all-- I don't think that necessarily equates to slacktivism, but being strategic and realistic about my ongoing commitments to a cause and my ability to fulfill them in a way that is meaningful.
But whether or not I can "be eased in" to sustained involvement with a cause falls partly on me, and partly on the organization. As a sector, it's easy to assume that just because someone will click for us that we have earned the right to count them as a committed volunteer activist-- the "burden" is still on us to provide valuable opportunities for engagement that meet the needs, interests, and skills of our volunteers in a way they feel valued and empowered on an ongoing basis. The volunteer and the cause have a shared responsibility to the action they wish to achieve.
Thanks, Dorothee and Kristen, for your comments. I totally agree that organizations have to keep their Twitter followers, Facebook fans, Cause members, etc. engaged and informed about how they can continue to be involved in deeper ways. I hope as nonprofits and people who are passionate about social causes continue grow increasingly acquainted with social media tools, they will be able to use them strategically to foster relationships with volunteers and donors.
I think Kristen hit it on the head - the onus is shared between the organization and the individual, though I would argue weighted towards the org. I would also introduce another dimension: human nature/group dynamics.
When building social change programs, I take it as a given there's going to be a smaller contingent of power-users/heavy lifters (20%), and a much larger group that is only marginally interested -- in the cause, as well as contributing (80%). You have to meet both of these audiences where they are.
If you make the barrier to entry too high, you're forfeiting untold numbers of supporters who can help you meet particular objectives (spreading awareness, small donations, online petition signatures). But you also can't delude yourself or your target audience into thinking a few mouse clicks are going to solve the problem. Therefore, I believe it's critical to offer escalated levels of participation:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonrzepka/3767914882/
A low barrier to entry means anybody can get involved with a click or two. But you also need to offer more meaningful ways for the power users to get involved right away. And when you get those slactivists, you have to prompt them with follow up calls to action -- to try and get them further up the take action escalator (while understanding that many will never give you more than a few clicks).
That's my view anyway. This is the general philosophy and framework we've used to great effect on many campaigns at MTV over the years.
Great post, Kristin, and I'm loving this discussion. I think it's an important one. In fact, I'm planning to launch a new blog soon - slactivism.org - to host a running conversation on these very issues.
All the best,
-Jason
Jason, thanks for weighing in. I think you make a good point about offering varying levels of engagement, so you are meeting people where they are, depending on how much time, effort and money they might be willing to give. And that's a great graphic.
Do you think there is any risk that you will lose that heavy-hitting 20% if they grow cynical over the bumper sticker attitude of the 80%, or are they so committed to the cause that they are happy to have any level of engagement from the 80%? Any good examples of campaigns that have been really successful at keeping multiple levels of activists involved over the long term?
And I'm excited to see slactivism.org!
Hey Kristin, that's a good question -- on the tension between the 20 and the 80. I don't have any scientific or quantitative research to back it up, but my gut is that there's plenty of room for Big Tent Activism in the Millennial era.
Two recent examples that come to mind are the sustainability and Sudan movements.
For decades eco-activists have fought to get people to wake up to the impact we're having on the earth. Now energy efficient light bulbs and Sigg bottles are fashionable, demand for Priuses outstrip supply, and more and more folks insist on sustainable canvas shopping bags. At the same time, the hard-core green activists are powering the green collar jobs movement, composting, and organizing for Copenhagen. The two factions comfortably co-exist, to the benefit of the movement.
The other, which I've been lucky to be a part of, is Sudan. When we launched mtvU's Sudan campaign in 2005, STAND (http://www.standnow.org/) was a few kids at Georgetown, and the movement was a handful of kids on a few campuses around the country. Over the course of the next year and a half, it built a-lot of steam, and by mid-2006 there were young activists mobilizing all over. As a way to help it cross over to the every day college student, who probably had no idea what or where Sudan was, we created Darfur is Dying (www.DarfurisDying.com). We initially took some flack for making a game about genocide, and certain groups were skeptical. Fast forward three years and the game has been played more than 4 million times, led more than 50,000 people to take action, and been celebrated by Nick Kristof as a powerful awareness-raising tool. Sudan may have faded as the cause du jour, but there are still lots of slactivists clicking and pointing for Darfur, while Save Darfur, STAND, and the Genocide Intervention Network continue to swell in ranks.
Another point to consider here is how Millennials differ from Xers. Where Xers were obsessed with bands staying true and not selling out, our research shows that Millennials have a much more pragmatic view. So, for example, when Santigold's music is being used to sell Bud Light Lime, or CSS winds up in an iTunes commercial, our audience doesn't automatically desert them. To the contrary, we hear they're generally excited to see talented artists they love get theirs. I'm extrapolating, but I'd proffer the same would hold true with causes ("Me and my friends worked hard and now our cause is going viral - sweet").
That's my view, anyway. I'd love to hear of other examples -- particularly instances where the slactivists and activists couldn't work together. Want to continue refining and stress testing this hypothesis.
-j
Thanks for those examples of successful Big Tent Activism among Millennials. I would love to see some cases of when it has not worked out as well, to see if some best practices could be gleaned.
I would contend that in this new dawn of convergent engagement with the next generation of influencers (e.g. the millennial change agents of tomorrow) begins with value or, perhaps, narcissicm 2.0. In marketing we talk about impressions, conversions and retention. How does that apply here? How do we not only engage these stakeholders but deliver a unique value proposition from which they will either directly or indirectly benefit – to a tipping point of activation that will compel them to give back, involve their spheres of influence and retain loyalty in perpetuity?
This is the cultural anthropology we are examining with our social activism in youth culture cancer here at the I'm Too Young For This! Cancer Foundation (http://i2y.com).
Nearly 70,000 Americans between 15-40 are diagnosed with cancer each year. Unlike every other age group, there has been no improvement in the 5-year survival of young adults in 30 years – for all cancers. The last 30 years of cancer's 'progress' have failed the next generation of orphaned isolated and ignored survivors so there is no reason to think the next 30 will be any different unless change happens now.
The activation of these individuals – not only the young adult survivors but their spouses, siblings and friends – is the highest I've seen in 10 years of market research. The retention is unwavering and, with respect to Jason's fabulous social escalator image mentioned above, I will contend that, after 2.5 years of operations, the youth cancer culture is differentiating vastly from the 80/20 paradigm whereby the overwhelming majority of membership burn the midnight oil at the top 4 bars.
Granted "young adult cancer" is a brand new social cause that basically did not exist even 3 years ago so there is a great deal of buy in from tens of thousands of survivors who exclaim, "Where were you when I needed you." They are being given a tangible opportunity to effect near instant change for the next "them" down the human capital chain of cancer diagnosis each year.
This is a great article and a great dialogue.
Matthew Zachary
13-Year Young Adult Survivor
Founder/CEO
I'm Too Young For This! Cancer Foundation
email: mz@i2y.com
web: http://i2y.com
twitter: http://twitter.i2y.com
facebook: http://facebook.i2y.com
I will also add one more link: http://bit.ly/15cfgs
Thanks for chiming in, Matthew. Interesting point on the levels of engagement you're seeing. I guess it makes sense that if you're young and have survived cancer, you + your friends/loved ones would be extra motivated to mobilize for the cause. I'd be curious to hear more about how those without a personal connection to youth cancer are getting involved. To draw a strange (and hopefully not inappropriate) parallel, I'd posit that your movement is where Sudan was in 2006 -- you've got the hard-core activists (20% of the total potential audience) doing the heavy lifting; how do you cross over, engage and harness the collective potential of millions of slactivists?
While time becomes a more and more precious commodity for us, on-the-streets activism has certainly waned. Even if fifty people were rioting in the park, would anybody look up from their iPhone to notice? But even as we are more and more pressed for public time, our private lives work 24/7, broadcasting our presented identities to all our "friends".
There's so much to be done for so many people, animals, and spaces, and it takes the real time and effort of real, live, human people. It seems that many people who would normally be dissatisfied with their contributions to changes they need to see allow themselves to be satiated by posting a link or two on their facebook or twitter page. But I don't think we can write that off as a loss. It can feel brave to publish my allegiance to certain causes on my public pages, including Matthew's abovementioned cancer foundation, because not everybody there knows I'm a survivor. Having felt that, I'm grateful to every person I see who publishes an unpopular cause, or a charity they're deeply in love with. That's personal. That's valuable. It can change the way we casually relate, which is huge.
One big event might fill us with a huge swell of commitment that might last forever, and it might not. A few little clicks might commit us or might not. I completely agree that engagement is the goal, and that that can come of awareness. Engagement is a cooperation between the personal strategies of the agent and the goal-oriented strategies of an agency. I'm just also saying that social media has led to a kind of self-awareness, a willingness to say "Here's my name, my photo, and what I care about. Deal with it." And I respect that.
Matthew and Lily, thanks so much for your thoughts and examples.
Matthew, it is interesting to hear that you have seen such high levels of engagement and retention. As Jason said, it does make sense that young survivors, who might not have felt like they had a voice before your organization came along, would be so active now that they have a place to engage. Are there currently ways that people could get involved at a lower level if they wanted to or do you prefer just maintaining the unique “all in” core membership you have now?
Lily, I agree that people linking to a cause on facebook or twitter should not be counted as a total loss. In some ways, social media is providing a new space to start conversations and increase awareness through people who might not feel as comfortable bringing it up in other contexts. Showing that you have a personal connection to Matthew’s organization, for example, on facebook might facilitate a conversation with someone else that would like to be involved in the cause, but someone who you might not necessarily mention your battle with cancer to at the office or at a cocktail party.
Who is doing the slacking?
It seems to me it is up to the organization to inspire further action from those that sign up. Your mission may be really exciting to you, but how will you hook in these other busy people? Don't forget, you are marketing, even if you are looking for missionaries. Other organizations are competing for the time, talent and treasure of these same people. If you don't grab them, they will migrate elsewhere.
So if you put up a fb fan page, and it doesn't offer fans any more than a place to "become a fan" for your organization, you have wasted a lead. Give them more information, make it easy to share with others in their network, and give them a few ideas to take action (from easy to a bit harder). And be ready if they take you up on it.
Additional Examples (to those in main post): ONE.org seems to do a nice job with integrating social media and getting people to take action.
Post new comment