Internet campaigns about humanitarian crises seem to be the new alternative to Sarah McLaughlin making you want to curl in a ball for a few days, and they can be extremely popular (remember KONY 2012?). But what elements are necessary to make such campaigns successful? Dr. Martin Scott of the University of East Anglia decided to find out.
The study, which was published in the International Communication Gazette, involved 52 UK internet users. They were monitored over two months and were asked to complete tasks such as finding out more about issues in developing countries, and to discuss their online experiences in group meetings.
Martin defined a successful campaign as one that promotes a greater understanding of a crisis and encourages people to become more involved, whether by donating money, singing a petition, volunteering, or making changing consumption habits so as to be more ethical. And as it turns out, there are two major elements that seem to make internet campaigns more legitimate and successful: Novelty and surprise.
The smaller, the better
Participants reacted much more positively to campaigns from organizations they didn’t recognize, like Charity Navigator (a resource that helps people decide where to give donations). The more well-known groups, like Christian Aid and Save the Children, led to more dismissive attitudes, especially toward traditional campaigns and appeals.
“The reasons why people might dismiss a television appeal seem to be simply transferred or modified for online campaigns,” explained Scott. “For example, they feel they are being manipulated or that they are not being told the whole truth. The key implication is that campaigns – both online and offline – often have to be surprising in order to be effective. When the participants in this study did respond positively, it was when they were unfamiliar with the organization or not sure how to deal with the information they were getting. Campaigns that don’t challenge well-established patterns of avoidance are less likely to succeed.”
Further, campaigns that required a lot of time in order to find and search through online material—or that relay their information via non-news sources like blogs and social media—tended to discourage the participants.
Scott added, “We can’t respond to every humanitarian appeal we see on television or online. So I’m interested in why we respond to some appeals and campaigns and not others, and in particular, whether there is anything special about the internet which makes people more or less likely to engage with a campaign. These results suggest that there isn’t.”
—–
Image credit: Thinkstock
Comments