I'm not on facebook, but from what I've seen there doesn't seem to be an easy way to broadcast your donation. I wonder if people would be more inclined to donate if it also broadcasted "columbo gave $2" over "columbo likes this".
If it sorted the highest donations to the top it'd even encourage large companies to donate for the free advertising - "Nissan gave $2,500"
How about an alternative ? Actually visit Africa. Look at what UNICEF is doing there and how. Never give a dime to them again and know you're doing the world a favour. Visit New York, see where most of UNICEF's money is being spent and how, talk to them if you can. Note the car they're driving, ask who their dad is, and where they live. Suppress the feeling to shoot them.
Give to an organization that isn't focused on money and would never in a million years pay off dictators, doesn't use external people/materials to build it's buildings, teaches local people instead of handing out stuff, builds hospitals, actually maintains contact, and is extremely, extremely reluctant to just solve problems with money. Frankly, give to the church (one of the big ones), if you want to help African children. And yes I've seen the luxury of the Vatican, the luxury the pope is surrounded with, it's not enough to get my blood boiling, and most people there are actually dedicated to either the museums or communication with the churches around the world - both of which I find worthy causes.
UNICEF - giving money to dictators if they hurt children. And a cushy job to the kids of their posse.
Bitcointip already solved this problem, but it only works on Reddit unfortunately. Unfortunately I don't really see a way to implement an analog for Facebook or Google+ without official support since they're not public forums in the same way Reddit is.
it's up to them to create a facebook app that will broadcast messages on their page whenever someone donates. And I can help , they can hire me since I can do it ! ;)
Because the vast majority of UNICEF money comes from having friends inside governments and employing the -usually moronic- kids of foreign government officials, to give them salaries exceeding the President's pay.
Just like most worthy causes, money comes from relatively few (still hundreds to thousands in the UNICEF case) very big donors. Small donations just transfer money to banks.
Maybe there should be a "Like+" button or something. You can fund your facebook account and every time you "Like+" an image the person or entity who posted the image receives a dollar which is deducted from your account. Maybe only certain types of accounts, like UNICEF, should be eligible to receive funds.
Bitcoin could play a key role here. In my experience, donating using bitcoin feels clicking a "like" button. After learning about the system and how to use the client, its as easy as logging into facebook to like something.
It's very disappointing to see such a smart community bicker about a topic they clearly know little about and have done even less research to back up their comments. Let's cut the crap about Bitcoin, building esoteric Facebook apps to broadcast message, and A/B testing funding effectiveness to prove a point.
An article from Humanosphere (full disclosure, I work with this organization) http://www.humanosphere.org/2013/04/unicef-sweden-wants-your... actually digs a little deeper into the topic. Regardless of what you think of The Atlantic's article, the UNICEF campaign is fully integrated with press ads, tv spots, radio commercials, digital material, and PR. An integrated campaign on this scale is (unfortunately) relatively unheard of in the development community due to funding issues and uproar whenever any non-profit's seen to be spending excessively on initiatives that don't directly go to the task at hand.
I personally think the campaign is effective; UNICEF is going against the grain by calling out the shortcomings of social media when most other non-profits (I've had experience working with a couple) are all using likes, retweets, and pins as KPIs (but clearly don't have a perfect correlation with the bottom line)
I'm working on an idea to tackle/nudge slacktivists into become really active ... or at least make visible to them how volatile and in the end meaningless their +1, Likes and Favs really are when true/real world/operative support would be due.
If you are interested please stop by at www.sustinion.com as I'm looking for "external" feedback to validate the ideas.
Fully on bored with UNICEF, but this article is poorly written.
First of all, the entire article says nothing I didn't get out of the headline but it used a lot words to say it. And, the paragraph that quotes Zeynep Tufekci seems to misunderstand, or the very least mis-apply Tufecki's statement. After all, it never took a full-on activists to donate four euro to UNICEF.
Point is well taken, UNICEF. But are the people who Like the pages the same people who are likely to donate? I suspect that many of the people who Like the sites are either unable to donate or are too young to donate. So the Likes are a good idea because they encourage involvement and influence future behaviour when such people are able to do more. Might not help in the short term, but it will likely have great benefits in the future.
Seems like they want it both ways. They put share and like and follow buttons all over their site, but then they say it's meaningless.
"Likes" seem very similar to ads and mailers. They generate donations. At least Likes don't cost Unicef anything... that mailer they send me stops some kid from getting a polio vaccination.
Oh, on average, I'm sure the mailers have a net positive, or at least I hope so. I'm saying the particular mailer they send me is costing money and they aren't getting a donation from me because I already have my charities, so it's actually worse than me Liking one of their posts on Facebook.
I take offense at this. My facebook activity has yielded hundreds of grains of rice for starving children! I also stopped Joseph Kony and brought about marriage equality.
Actually, likes and shares may make people feel like they did their part and can move on. Donate, then share culture would help but if everybody thinks they are doing great job by "charity marketing" then we have a problem. Probably UNICEF has a problem so they are taking an action against it.
I would not say that sharing the word is volunteering because it's so trivial that people share and like things by mistake all the time. When was the last time you heard somebody accidentally helped somebody in need?
>Actually, likes and shares may
make people feel like they did
their part and can move on.
That is true.
Perhaps people who donate can share a different message. Not everyone on FB may be able to donate, but they will help spread the word which may prompt someone in their network to donate. Ignoring this base might not be smart, but yes, the message should be to donate instead of like/share/retweet.
maybe charities can exploit the methods that games use? badges, avatars... something to differentiate paying and sharing users without scaring away the sharing folks while rewarding the donors.
As far as slacktivism goes, people shouldn't feel good about themselves unless they are actually making an impact. Trying, be it likes, shares, or giving money to an incompetent or corrupt organization, just doesn't count unless they have evidence of results. Just like any real world project. Otherwise, these actions are just video games for personal entertainment.
Spread the word? To who, exactly? The millions of people who simply did not know that children are dying from preventable disease?
Awareness makes sense when you're trying to trying to affect the democratic process. But in charity, the problem is, when you're the kind of person that could trivially afford a $N/month recurring donation, "raising awareness" is NOT the best way you can help the cause. Signing up for the donation is.
I wonder if someone might be more likely to donate actual money/time to a given cause after "liking" a sufficient number of items related to that cause. If so, then FB likes could be a completely valid fundraising strategy.
This is a valid strategy in sales, wherein the salesperson gets a prospect to engage in cheap/free sales affirmative behavior.
Perhaps I'm groggy, but it seems like non-profits ought to rigorously test for optimal sequences of social media likes that lead to actual real-world donations.
Wouldn't the 'share' button be more analogous to spreading the word? At least with sharing, you have the ability to add some of your own personal language.
Too late to edit; what I meant to say was not that "Liking" is doing; but rather, that if someone does something real, they're no longer a "slacktivist". Continue to "Like" away and salve those troubled consciences, Youth of Today.
Liking is not doing something, the same way people commenting on internet forums about something (patents, privacy, whatever) is not actually doing something.
Commenting on internet forums and engaging in debate is at least better than clicking "like". In terms of conversation, the "like" button is DH3, where comments and debate can potentially be DH4 or higher (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html).
If I "like" a support page about marriage equality, I'm not convincing anyone who holds an opposing view. That's not necessarily true of commenting on e.g. HN.
Of course, commenting does nothing for many issues, such as those requiring money, but a comment can be marginally better than a "like".
If it sorted the highest donations to the top it'd even encourage large companies to donate for the free advertising - "Nissan gave $2,500"