Social networking and corporate-charitable
allegiances are increasingly funding and forming social justice movements around the world. Corporate partnerships have created a significant source of funding for a range of NGOs and produced an enormous amount of (mostly) positive PR. This is coupled with the meteoric rise of social networking on sites like Facebook. Companies are changing the philanthropic landscape by opening their charitable giving to the voting public, taking it to the people in an attempt to democratize their charitable contributions. I wonder if it’s that simple; click and fund the world’s most pressing issues on the corporate tab? Many charities face the difficult decision of whether
or not to partner with corporations. Reservations may stem from the suspicion that a corporate partnership will create an ethical compromise. For others, the opportunity to win hundreds of thousands of dollars through an online voting campaign is hard to pass up, regardless of who’s offering the money. It can seem like a great way to garner support for a cause. People click, a company gives a substantial donation, a charity can continue its mission, and the public get a feel-good sensation for making a digital difference. I wonder if we have entered a new era when organizations need our clicks more than our cash or contributions.
“Gone is faith in the power of ideas, or the poetry of deeds, to enact social change”
- Micah White
Micah White strongly opposes the widespread branding of clicktivism as a model for twenty-first century activism. He recently stated in the Guardian that the marketing of social justice, “...turns digital activism into
clicktivism...in a race to the bottom of political engagement”. White explains that the new wave of digital activists tend to linger online and subscribe to
6 iAM
“
...the logic of the marketplace”. In White’s view, passive digital methods create
political
cynicism; pretty soon, everyone is a nonchalant social network member and no one is politically engaged. He calls for the radicalization of social revolution without consumerist ideology to further a social cause. However, with millions
of people updating their status, tweeting and surfing, organizations can hardly afford to ignore the massive wave of new media. A young generation of potential donors may be logging in, but they’re also tuning out traditional messages of charitable need. The Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that organizations such as Save the Children, the World Food Program, Oxfam, and Doctors without Borders are all tapping into the millennial generation. Along with traditional modes of raising awareness and fundraising, through education, university student societies, and street marketing, more organizations are turning their focus to digital media. One fundraising expert told IRIN, “We have to use the tools they do, to communicate”. That has charities regularly tweeting, posting, and updating online. In their efforts to address global issues, charities are learning to share their message in only 140 characters. It could be argued that the increase of digitization
Corporate community
brings an increase in public participation along with corporate accountability and transparency. Is it better for corporations to take their charitable giving out of boardrooms and into our homes (and screens)? A couple million people think so. According to Facebook and Twitter, Chase Bank announced in 2009 that it would give $5 million to charities through a Facebook vote, with a whopping $1 million dollars to the charity with the most votes in its campaign. 500,000 charities entered to win and 2.5 million people have clicked the infamous Facebook thumbs up link to say they ‘like’ the Chase campaign. It (almost) goes without saying
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43