This week’s articles focused on the difficulties of finding investors or funding for social enterprises. While a slew of options were presented, including social impact bonds and corporate loans, crowdfunding represents one of the most compelling and potentially transformative method for social ventures to gain traction and capital. I tend to believe that a lot of the people interacting with the world through online media fall into a category called “slacktivists”. Typically slacktavists are people who perform actions on the Internet in support of a cause but require very little time or effort. Slacktivists are the people changing their Facebook profile photo in support of a cause they align with (i.e. the recently popularized rainbow filter which supports gay marriage). Slacktivists spread hashtags on Twitter to promote a cause (i.e. #YesAllWomen #BringBackOurGirls #Kony2012). Slacktivists are also the people who participated in the Ice Bucket Challenge to raise awareness for ALS. Perhaps the latter example best demonstrates the power of such social media campaigns, which eventually raised over $115 million for the ALS Association [1].
Slacktivism, though typically referred to with a negative connotation, could have a powerful influence in the world of crowdfunding social causes. The potential to harness the spending power of people that contribute passively to a cause via social media could provide both viral success and widespread awareness regarding the social innovation or change. The same motivation behind the online crowds’ decision to support a hashtag or share a video can perpetuate towards the motivation to give small, yet meaningful contributions towards a social innovation. There are a number of crowdsourcing sites dedicated to funding projects for social good, and they have already successfully facilitated the funding of cases like fighting malaria in Africa through small anti-mosquito patches [2][3].
One problem with the idea of seriously involving slacktivists with the funding of social innovations lies in the nature of the audience. Online supports are inherently fluid and easily disengaged. Often the causes that generate traction on social media are meteoric in rise and suddenly burn out, quite forgotten. This can be seen through a simple Google Trends search of one of the aforementioned hashtags [4]. One way Kickstarter supports audience engagement is by offering perks to investors. The perks could be tangible gifts, or simply update videos, thank you notes, or first-access to the product. Another solution for the issue of disengagement is to have a narrative-driven plea for support. People need to believe in not only the cause but the people involved in the cause [5]. Generating attention and notice from the social web is another vital consideration for social ventures seeking crowdfunding. The stories of ultra successful crowdfunded campaigns often involve an online viral presence. How might social innovators stir the collective consciousness of the web to pool their powers and do good?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.