Anti-Clicktivists . . . You’re Missing the Big Picture.

Clicktivism, or slacktivism as some call it, is a significant phenomenon affecting irregular competition. What is it? Well, briefly, this newest “ism” refers to the act of people taking part in protest via the Internet. Internet protest is, of course, a central tactic in irregular competition.

Generally, and descriptively, it’s called clicktivism. But its critics called it slacktivism. Why? The reason some call digital protest “slacktivism” is because they believe this form of virtual protest is a “cop out.” Their rationale is that the Internet makes protest far too easy for individuals to engage in activism. Those critics, fearing that digital protest doesn’t pack as much punch as real-world protest, say that the Internet is turning would-be real-world activists into protest slackers. Laziness is always a factor in human behavior, isn’t it? Just as social media is accused of precluding real-world relationships, so is slacktivism accused of precluding real-world activism, which clicktivist critics believe is more effective.

My take on clicktivism or slacktivism is that it is an important trend affecting irregular competition. I have written about this phenomenon before on this blog. And I continually look for new viewpoints on this new “ism.” I recently found one of those viewpoints.

The Keys to "Anti-Slacktivism" Might Burn Corporations in the Butt

The ways to transition from slacktivism to digital activism have been debated in the social web for a while now. Recently, there was another entry in the on-going debate.

In an Ad Age Digital article, “How to Get the Social-Media Generation Behind Your Cause,” Ann Marie Kerwin writes about a TBWA Chiat Day study, “Social Activism 2.0,” that recommends various ways marketers can get young adults to break the divide between slacktivism (e.g., merely hitting a “like” button on a Facebook “Cause” page) and activism (e.g., first-person involvement in corporate cause-marketing efforts via donations of money or volunteered time). To attempt to bridge this gap, summarizing, the article says the study recommends:

Make the cause “fun” for young participants.
Make participating in the cause “social.”
Make prospective participants believe that they will “make a difference” by participating.
Make it “easy” to participate.

These are certainly good words of advice for getting anyone to do anything that you want them to do, and as such really aren’t much of a revelation. Yet, if corporations take the advice to heart, they may indeed succeed in helping young adults break that barrier between slacktivism and activism. But, I don’t want to let this idea go stale. In that article there is some other information that is a bit more enlightening, and can provide a different insight.

Per the study, 75% of young adults (ages 20-29) think that corporations have the resources to assist social causes, while 60% believe that corporations have the knowledge to support such efforts. Hmmm. This sounds like a market segment that can be primed and ignited for activism, especially digital activism, involving corporations. For sure, those corporations would want that behavior directed at cause-marketing programs of their own selection and creation. But once you light the fire of activism, controlling it can be difficult. The United States discovered how this “wildfire” phenomenon can turn around after it supported the Afghani Mujahideen in their 1980s battle against the Soviet Union. The Mujahideen later turned around to fight against the nation who helped make that victory against the Reds possible.

The phrase “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind. Corporations should understand that, if they help break that slacktivism/activism wall in support of cause-marketing, the energy penetrating that wall can be easily converted into anti-corporate activism, (i.e., irregular competition) especially given that 75% of the demographic segment targeted believes that corporations have the resources to assist in social causes.

Perhaps a “burnt butt” is better saved by not lighting the fire?

Could Slacktivism Be the Next Big Thing?

In the digital world, most everyone keeps their eye out for what will be the “next big thing.” Usually it’s a technology, either hardware or software. Lately Google’s been hitting it hard and heavy on the forecasted next big thing stage, Google Wave and Droid.

But I’ve been thinking lately that the next big thing in the online world might be a movement, rather than a technology. And that movement I have in mind is “slacktivism.”

What’s slacktivism? The word itself is a portmanteau of “slacker” and “activism.” Thus, the meaning becomes clear. For further edification, let’s take a definition from the UrbanDictionary.com. They define slacktivism as:

One of those feel-good internet campaigns that doesn’t actually help anybody or has political impact. It’s your way of pretending to care while sitting on your butt in front of a computer playing WoW. Also used for people who want to get a million people on their page by before bettering themselves (sic) or the world instead of just doing it.

Other than the grammar or typo error there in the last sentence, the UrbanDictionary.com is clearly saying that slacktivism is something like what we could call “armchair activism.” It’s being an “activist” without actually being one, although you could still wear the black tee shirt and/or beret while sitting at your computer.

Slacktivism is a way for people to make themselves feel like they are advocating for a social cause, while actually committing little or no time or money to the effort. It’s, for the most part, a feel-good activity. Not only does slacktivism make individuals feel good about themselves when they sign up to be a friend, fan, or follower on the page of a cause’s website or social network or Twitter page, but the act of slacktivism impresses others with the individual’s “social awareness.” That impression, of which the individual is aware, further adds to the individual’s ego gratification.

I don’t think we need any social psychology references to support these assertions. It’s all pretty much backed by common sense acquired from our years of experience with the human condition. So, given the ease of slacktivism as measured against its psychological benefits, it would follow that many people would sign-up online for an activist’s cause, and not really add much to the activist effort in the process. To test my theory, let’s have an example.

On Tuesday, January 19, 2010 which is the day on which I wrote this post (Yes, I know it’s dated January 28th, but thanks to the magic of the Word Press scheduling function such miracles are possible.), I went to the Greenpeace.org/usa site and clicked on the link to their Facebook fan page. When I went to their Facebook fan page, I noticed that, on that date, Greenpeace USA had 41,728 fans. I wanted to see how “active” these individuals might be, so to test my slacktivism theory, I scrolled down to the Greenpeace USA “Causes” box and clicked on “See Greenpeace USA’s Total Impact.”

For

Continue reading Could Slacktivism Be the Next Big Thing?

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes