Activism and digital dissent.
>
Digital activism, is just like all other activism in it’s intent and purpose, to enact political or corporate change. It only differs from traditional activism in its accessibility and ‘instaneity’.
>
Digital activism allows constant networked global communication, it promotes instant support and mobilisation (demonstrations etc), it also demonstrates traits of Chris Anderson’s ‘long tail’; it allows niche interest groups that would be fractured by geography or lack of awareness to unite for a mutual cause.
Digital activism movements tends to have no public leaders (though, there are always flag bearers and instigators), and therefore acts like a mutual movement in the eyes of the activists themselves, promoting ‘ownership’ and involvement. One lone person cannot enact a fantastic degree of change, but as the clichéd saying goes, ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.
>
Don’t believe me? Look at Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Iran, Thailand etc. Where were these protests 10 years ago? Social networks and digital may not have caused these uprisings, but they have certainly acted as a conduit, endowing the movements with staying power and legitimacy.
>
Ok, that’s all well and good, but what’s the downside?
>
I honestly think that the main reason for the popularity of digital activism (Facebook groups/trends), as opposed to other forms of activism, is the rise of what I call ‘Me too’ culture, a culture that revolves aro
und shared experiences ‘hey I joined that group too!’, or ‘I don’t want to look selfish by not changing my profile picture for charity’.
>
Does ‘me too’ culture promote insincerity in activism? Or does it let people feel like they have become a part of something, a piece of history. Also, like many things digital, participation is governed by the convenience to the user of that participation; if all it takes for a user to ‘enact change’ is to change their profile picture, change their status, ‘like’ a group, or write your email on a petition then many will gladly take part. These are not true activists.
Kavada (2010:108), argues that it is not only necessary for movements to be seen as mutual, leaderless, movements for audiences to be truly engaged with the movement (eg, proactive, communicative), but they must also feel like they are part of the decision making process (not very common in many forms of digital activism). A lack of power in the decision making process can lead to a lack of ownership and commitment to the relevant cause.
>
What this means for advertising?
>
If your brand does a ‘bad thing’, you can bet your ad spend someone will find out about it. You can also count on people drumming up support and awareness to your actions. If it serious enough, you may end up on the front page of the Guardian, or even worse, the Daily Mail. Some awareness campaigns create movements, this is ‘muchos mal’ if you are at the receiving end of the discontent, expensive to repair.
>
>
Kavada: Joyce, M., ed., 2010. Digital Activism Decoded. New York: International Debate Association. Available at: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sjm217/papers/digiact10all.pdf
AP: Social Networking’s role in Middle East protests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XgtxAg-TSk.
Chris Anderson’s http://www.longtail.com/
Egypt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12289475
Tunisia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12180738
Iran: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201121412571299951.html Naughty Mahmoud
Thailand: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7584005.stm
Would you like to know more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Middle_East_and_North_Africa_protests
Filed under: Advertising, Culture, DCS, Facebook, Flickr, Marketing, Media, New Media, Opinion, Points of interest, Social
