I thought I was done ranting after writing about how slacktivism is a really stupid term that’s not real and should be stopped immediately. But there have been so much weird and bitter criticism for the Ice Bucket Challenge this past week, that I have another rant coming on.
Here are some of the, to me, baffling pieces.
- Ice Bucket Challenge – A middle class wet t-shirt contest for armchair clicktivists
- The notion that these donations are somehow “stolen” from other charities
- This one, who slams it for being narcissism.
- The one that thinks people should just give money and don’t post it online
Just to mention a few. Well. I really don’t see how you can criticize something that has raised an astounding
$41 $53 $70,2 million at the time of writing. I have so many issues with this, that I don’t even know where to start. So the following is in no particular order of annoyance – just the order they ranted their way out.
Who CARES if people give for narcissistic reasons?! As long as they are giving, it certainly does not matter to me. And guess what? We’re all narcissistc in some way or other. And we all have different reasons for giving. Please read this great piece by Lesley Pinder for a nice write-up on all the different reasons we give. The narcissism is what keeps the phenomenon moving. If people just gave, and didn’t tell anyone about it – guess what, far less money would be raised. Use it, don’t hate it. You wouldn’t spite a major donor with a plaque on the wall for being narcissistic – it’s no different when a teen posts a video to instagram.
For a complete debunking of the slacktivism-myth, see my previous blogpost for all the facts. So there’s that out the window. But even if some people do just to the online thing (also know as clicktivism, hashtag-activism and other derogatory terms) – that also helps move it all forward! Seth Godin has written a very good piece on this: There have always been those who just talk and don’t do – there still are. But they help get the word out. They normalize the behaviour.
The “these people don’t really care about the cause”-argument
Well again – who cares, it’s 72 million to cure a horrible disease! While technically, I think the argument has some truth to it – I don’t see why that should make a difference. If people can give because it’s fun, that is just as good a reason to give, if you ask me. It’s like some people think that unless you truly care on a personal level, you shouldn’t give. I do not agree with that.
The “these people will never be loyal donors”-argument
Well, first of all: you don’t know that. Even if just a fraction of the 600.000 (or so) who have donated become regular donors, it means a lot of money for the ALS Association. But even more important, I think we should be less afraid to let people go. Yes, it might be true that these people won’t become loyal donors of the ALS Association. And they might move on to some other cause for the next viral craze. Then let them. Trust that they will be back next time you have a moving story or fun activity. Trust in your own ability to reach people again later.
Also: If this had not happened – ALSA would not even have the chance to TRY to convert these people. These are hundreds of thousands of new leads for them to thank, steward and tell about their cause (that they have now even heard of). If ALSA does this well, the next time these people see an ALSA ad, they might just respond.
The “these money are stolen from other charities”-argument
This is the most bizarre to me. I haven’t really seen any stats on it, other than the author’s claim that half the money they raise would have come in anyway. And that somehow, that means that the challenge is now eating out of the half that it is possible for all charities to raise money from. I do not believe that for a second. Looking at the numbers from our own Cold Water Challenge that raised a lot for the Norwegian Cancer Society this spring, almost all donors were new. I don’t just mean new to us, they were probably new to the act of giving too, bar dropping a few bucks in a bucket here and there. Most of them were 18-30 year olds. As any fundraiser know, these are not the staple of your average donor database.
So not only is this money from people who wouldn’t normally donate (and thus cannot be stolen from other charities) – these people are now being exposed to giving as something “expected and normal to do”, as Seth says in the previously linked blog post. How great isn’t that?!
We always talk about how we can find ways to interact with a younger audience. And then, when a younger audience engages with our world – raising more money than any of us have ever managed, without us even helping them – we look down at the way they choose to do it?? That is just so rude, un-grateful and short-sighted that I don’t even know what to say.
Don’t be that guy. Stop raining on someone else’s parade. Get with the program.