Since my blog is about
social marketing and the powers it may have to “change the world,” I thought I
would comment on the #Kony2012 phenomenon, not really as a real bona-fide
campaign (because it isn’t) but as an example of what can go wrong when the
creators of a campaign completely disregard (or are ignorant of) the proven
principles of social and behavior change marketing as well as the supposed
benefactors of the campaign. It’s clear that Invisible Children, Inc., the organization that created the campaign, knows nothing about social marketing. They just figured they could
make a video and “make it go viral,” not bothering to ask their audiences what
they needed, or wanted. I call it the “just add water” method of campaign
design.
The film is about the Joseph
Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a militant group that originated in Uganda but has moved on to terrorize neighboring countries of South Sudan, DRC, and the Central African Republic. Joseph Kony was indicted in 2005 by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and has been proved nearly impossible to capture. Ostensibly, the film was the kick-off
for a campaign that focuses on making Kony “famous” enough within largely
Western, pop culture/social media circles to somehow get him arrested, or it
seems, assassinated.
If you’re not one of the 85
Million people who’ve seen the video in the last few weeks, here’s a link.
Social Marketing uses commercial marketing principles to affect
societal and behavior change, for the better. Shortly after the “Mad Men” era in the 60s, it was
determined by a few “Good Men” that if marketing and advertising could be used
get people to buy cigarettes and Coca Cola, it might also be used to encourage
positive things like wearing a seat-belt, not littering, and quitting
smoking. Although the term is used
interchangeably with “social media,” it actually has little to do with social
media, except that social marketing campaigns can include social media in an
overall media plan that may also include print, radio and TV. Most social marketing campaigns are
heavily researched to determine what the key problem and related objectives
are, along with their nuances and patterns. Then, it’s determined what is the desired behavior and or
attitudinal change to affect that problem, and who are the groups or audiences
who are most likely to adopt the behavior.
After the fall-out from the
Kony 2012 film, the creators appeared on CNN and other media outlets to try to explain their
intentions, but this didn’t seem to help, nor did the subsequent incident
involving public masturbation by Jason Russell help their cause. How did they end up in such Kaka,
if all they really wanted to do was help these Ugandan children?
Let’s break it down into a
few “Social Marketing 101” basics:
Objective:
Who are they trying to reach
and why? Clearly they were able to reach young people throughout the world who
wanted to be part of something big, and who donated their piggy-bank money for
the cause yes, but also to get a t-shirt.
So they raised money, to make more t-shirts, and thongs (more on that
below) of all things. But is their
objective simply to raise money or to actually affect change? Are the people in
power in Uganda or the ICC going to take this campaign seriously? Giving them
the benefit of the doubt (and boy, is that difficult!) that they are raising
this money for their programs, how are these programs specifically helping the
children in Uganda now (or countries that are now feeling the brunt of the
LRA’s brutality) other than getting them a ticket to America or a spot in the
video?
Message:
The key message that Jason
Russell and Invisible Children tout is that they want to make Kony “famous.”
Really? Have they even looked in a
dictionary to define the word famous?
Here, I’ll help:
Famous: [fey-muhs] adjective
Famous: [fey-muhs] adjective
1. having a widespread reputation, usually of a favorable nature; renowned;
celebrated: a famous writer.
At the very least they might
use a word like infamous—would you call Hitler famous? It reminds me of the
days I taught English as a Second Language, and I would do a comprehension check
using an absurd sentence that would be sure to let me know if my students “got
it.” Bookstore: Would you buy a
dog in a bookstore? Really, it seems that obvious to me. Maybe it’s the university of reality
television that has drummed into the Y Generation’s head that simply being on
television defines you as “famous” and being worthy of a t-shirt, or for that
matter a campaign. Here, Invisible
Children is reinforcing this idea with young idealistic philanthropists.
Messenger:
With any campaign, you must
also consider the messenger. An American guy from San Diego, CA, USA. Hmm. Doesn’t seem to be any consideration for the audience, or the
intended benefactors of the campaign: Ugandans.
Media:
Marketers choose media and
products to get their message across that also provide a “benefit” for the
audience and spread the message. Invisible Children chose thongs. Thongs, really? There are many things wrong with this,
number one your audience includes children, and your intended benefactors
too. Secondly, rape, a common
weapon of war, is also common weapon of the LRA. In no way shape or form should sexuality or “sexiness”
be associated with atrocities of this kind. Further, the “Che-like” romanticizing
of Kony is another reason people are so pissed off and uncomfortable with this
campaign. These factors are probably the most harmful of the all, as the massive attention being paid to
these images and associations by young people may have a detrimental effect on
social norms, i.e. associating brutal rape with sex, and wearing an image of a
brutal killer on a t-shirt seems “cool” and “normal.”
Take a campaign like SlutWalk,
which was started in Toronto in 2011 by several women in response to controversial
comments made by a police constable that suggested rape survivors “asked for
it” by “dressing like sluts.” Why is this campaign different? Because they are turning the
problem on its head, with the idea that no matter how a woman dresses, she
should never be blamed for being raped.
Because the messengers are credible, real women, the campaign stuck with
women all over the world, creating a live-viral phenomenon worldwide, from Rio
to Johannesburg.
So what did Invisible Children
do right? In my opinion, nothing.
No doubt they raised money, but seems to me to pay for more thong
underwear and t-shirts than affect legislation, influence decision makers, or
empower survivors.
There are many that agree
with me, but also many that don’t, including ICC Chief Prosecutor Louis Moreno Ocampo, who said the
social media campaign by Invisible Children had “mobilised the world.” Sarah Margon pointed out in
her post on Thinkprogress.org that one benefit of Kony 2012 may be the flood of attention paid to LRA and the need for action. This may be true to some degree, but public
awareness rarely translates into action, and further, the propagation of images of disfigured children
“victimizes” them yet again and reinforces the social norm that this is
something current, widespread, and difficult to do anything about, other than,
of course, to assassinate Kony. If
some think that’s a worthy enough goal, look no further than Hitler and Bin
Laden, who now share a t-shirt with Kony thanks to Invisible Children. These men may be dead, but their legacy
of hate lives on, and putting them on a t-shirt out of context only normalizes
them, even if it demonizes them for a moment.
This campaign, if I were
going to take it on, would be directed to the people who are most able to
influence Ugandan officials—that is Ugandans. Involve them in every step of the
campaign, from audience selection, to messages, to messengers. They may not be able to donate money,
but they can tell you what they would like to happen, how justice might be
served, and whom should be targeted.
My guess it is not Kony (the ICC already has them on their list) but the
people in power who continue to turn a blind eye and allow impunity to
continue.
Some worthy reading and takes on #Kony2012:
Sean Jacobs, Africa is a Country Blog #Kony2012 The Musical
2 comments:
This was an interesting analysis. I agree with you, the campaign was flawed and not thought trough properly. I also think that they never thought that something going viral and basically people being over-flooded by the information might actually make them more apathetic to it.
Thank you so much Virginia for writing this blog!! It explicitly details many of my thoughts (as a social marketer) of what is so wrong and frankly unsettling with this campaign, including your comments about SlutWalk. It will be far easier for me now just to share this link to your blog than have continued arguments with ‘friends’ on Facebook. Really, thank you!
Post a Comment