An interesting case: The Uncut movement is failing because it does not allow slacktivists to join in.
Despite extensive media coverage, the ‘Uncut’ citizen movement has so far been unable to catalyze a groundswell of public opinion. One reason is that they do not make good use of the internet to allow busy people to join in, albeit in a slack way. Amy Sample Ward highlights the need to connect online communities to offline actions (see “Slacktivism, the Gateway to Change?”). Social media could help to connect US Uncut’s protesting minority with the slacktivist majority.
US Uncut’s message (and that of its British counterpart UK Uncut) appeals to many being affected by public expenditure cuts: greedy banks messed up and now citizens have to foot the bill. Meanwhile, banks and other corporations making billions of dollars avoid paying tax at anything like the rate that citizens pay. If they were made to pay their taxes, no cuts would be necessary. A series of protests is planned for March 26th against the firms they see as the main tax dodgers: Bank of America, Verizon and FedEx. The website usuncut.org states, “In 2009 and 2010, Bank of America didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes”.
With such a standpoint, public pressure cannot fail to force the government to make the firms pay up, right? Wrong, because the movement has failed to get the majority of citizens onboard despite receiving extensive attention in the traditional media. Why have they failed?
One reason is that the movement has not used the internet in the way that Amy Sample Ward suggests. US Uncut expects people who are already busy to become activists by joining a sit-in at a local shop or a protest at the high street bank. The busy majority may agree that tax levels should be made more fair, but have insufficient time to make it their priority. So far, US Uncut was ‘liked’ by around 16,000 Facebook members. This mass of people, however, is not able to participate online. Not even in a slack way. The Uncut movement does not make the connection between these supporters and the offline actions.
If many normal people agree with your point of view, the internet can be used to allow them to add their teaspoonful of support, by watching a short film, signing an online petition, sharing with their social networks or sending an old-fashioned e-mail to the target firms. A case where this was successfully done was initiated by the NGO Oxfam Novib in the Netherlands. They used an online game to mobilize about 80,000 Dutch slacktivists to promote fair-trade chocolate. This game was fun and, more importantly, very easy. It forced the cocoa branch in the Netherlands to agree to procure only fair-trade chocolate.
The Uncut movement should not expect much action from the slacktivists who support them but they should let them join in online. Before long, all those teaspoonfuls may add up to form a sea of public opinion which representatives on both sides of the house will be unable to ignore. In the case of the Dutch chocolate industry, slacktivists made a difference. The Uncut movement should take note.
I’ve been thinking a lot too about ‘slacktivism’ having recently participated in a panel discussion on social media strategies for nonprofits. Perhaps it’s the word that leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. For me, it’s more than just clicking on ‘like’ or even donating $5…there has to be, as you have detailed above, a greater level of offline engagement. A study in 1995 demonstrated that all people have a ‘need to belong’—that is, we need to engage with other people in a positive manner, usually beginning with common interests. This would seem obvious, but the study also found that we will hold on to these relationships, even if we’re not benefiting. So, it makes me wonder, is ‘slacktivism’ just crowd psychology in action? Arguments, good ones, could be made on all sides of this issue, so the conversation continues… 😊
COMMENTS
BY David Langley and Tijs van den Broek
ON March 25, 2011 06:47 AM
An interesting case: The Uncut movement is failing because it does not allow slacktivists to join in.
Despite extensive media coverage, the ‘Uncut’ citizen movement has so far been unable to catalyze a groundswell of public opinion. One reason is that they do not make good use of the internet to allow busy people to join in, albeit in a slack way. Amy Sample Ward highlights the need to connect online communities to offline actions (see “Slacktivism, the Gateway to Change?”). Social media could help to connect US Uncut’s protesting minority with the slacktivist majority.
US Uncut’s message (and that of its British counterpart UK Uncut) appeals to many being affected by public expenditure cuts: greedy banks messed up and now citizens have to foot the bill. Meanwhile, banks and other corporations making billions of dollars avoid paying tax at anything like the rate that citizens pay. If they were made to pay their taxes, no cuts would be necessary. A series of protests is planned for March 26th against the firms they see as the main tax dodgers: Bank of America, Verizon and FedEx. The website usuncut.org states, “In 2009 and 2010, Bank of America didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes”.
With such a standpoint, public pressure cannot fail to force the government to make the firms pay up, right? Wrong, because the movement has failed to get the majority of citizens onboard despite receiving extensive attention in the traditional media. Why have they failed?
One reason is that the movement has not used the internet in the way that Amy Sample Ward suggests. US Uncut expects people who are already busy to become activists by joining a sit-in at a local shop or a protest at the high street bank. The busy majority may agree that tax levels should be made more fair, but have insufficient time to make it their priority. So far, US Uncut was ‘liked’ by around 16,000 Facebook members. This mass of people, however, is not able to participate online. Not even in a slack way. The Uncut movement does not make the connection between these supporters and the offline actions.
If many normal people agree with your point of view, the internet can be used to allow them to add their teaspoonful of support, by watching a short film, signing an online petition, sharing with their social networks or sending an old-fashioned e-mail to the target firms. A case where this was successfully done was initiated by the NGO Oxfam Novib in the Netherlands. They used an online game to mobilize about 80,000 Dutch slacktivists to promote fair-trade chocolate. This game was fun and, more importantly, very easy. It forced the cocoa branch in the Netherlands to agree to procure only fair-trade chocolate.
The Uncut movement should not expect much action from the slacktivists who support them but they should let them join in online. Before long, all those teaspoonfuls may add up to form a sea of public opinion which representatives on both sides of the house will be unable to ignore. In the case of the Dutch chocolate industry, slacktivists made a difference. The Uncut movement should take note.
BY NEENZ
ON April 6, 2011 01:20 PM
I’ve been thinking a lot too about ‘slacktivism’ having recently participated in a panel discussion on social media strategies for nonprofits. Perhaps it’s the word that leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth. For me, it’s more than just clicking on ‘like’ or even donating $5…there has to be, as you have detailed above, a greater level of offline engagement. A study in 1995 demonstrated that all people have a ‘need to belong’—that is, we need to engage with other people in a positive manner, usually beginning with common interests. This would seem obvious, but the study also found that we will hold on to these relationships, even if we’re not benefiting. So, it makes me wonder, is ‘slacktivism’ just crowd psychology in action? Arguments, good ones, could be made on all sides of this issue, so the conversation continues… 😊