Kony 2012: Social Media

Source: Sabotage Times (2012) 

If you live in the 21^st century, you’ve probably heard of KONY 2012. This viral campaign has accumulated over 80,000,000 views in just 5 days. If you ask me, that’s a pretty big deal. For anyone out there who doesn’t know what it’s about or just lives under a rock, KONY 2012 is a 30 minute YouTube video created by Invisible Children, Inc whose main focus is capturing and arresting international Ugandan war criminal and leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) Joseph Kony.

I logged on to Facebook about two weeks ago and was immediately bombarded by shared posts about this mysterious KONY 2012 video. Realizing that the video was 30 minutes long, I thought that there was no way I would spend that precious time watching a YouTube video. However, the video went viral; it was ridiculous. After finally conforming and watching, I was not only moved but persuaded by their overall message. So persuaded that I was tearing up just 7 minutes into the film. This exemplified the wide parameters of their use of social media: I previously did not care much about Ugandan current events and had never heard of this faraway issue. However, after those 30 minutes, I did know and I did care.

Obviously, social media has played a huge role in this movement. This brings us to the question: how effectively has Invisible Children used social media to achieve its stated goals and reach its target audience? With the help of the book The Dragonfly Effect whose focus is a “quick, effective, and powerful way to use social media to drive social change”, I will analyze the strategy of the KONY 2012 video in how it focuses, grabs attention, engages and takes action, the four key concepts the book says an organization must embrace. Unless otherwise noted, all concepts and models are taken from Aaker and Smith’s 2010 book The Dragonfly Effect.

Grabbing Your Attention Immediately

In my opinion, KONY 2012 is at grabbing attention; how else would they have persuaded millions of people to watch a 30- minute video on Ugandan events? The film has what the book refers to as stickiness: “a quality that the most successful ideas and endeavors have: that of grabbing and holding attention” (Aaker and Smith 50). Early on [1:38], the narrator says “The next 27 minutes are an experiment. But in order for it to work, you have to pay attention”. Here the video uses what the book calls “delivering the unexpected” which explains that when something is new and original, and thus attention getting, humans are biologically wired to be stunned to surprise (Aaker and Smith, 58). By asserting such a bold statement watchers are curious as to what the video is all about, which is not revealed until later on [8:46].

Telling a Story to Engage Attention

Jacob telling us his story. Source: Vimeo

Gavin. Source: Tumblr

Jason Russell, the voice-over of the film, starts his story by showing the birth and childhood life of his son Gavin. By doing this, Jason contrasts the life of an American boy to a Ugandan boy, Jacob. Jacob tells his story: “We worry the rebels when they arrest us again, they will kill us. My brother tried to escape then they killed him using panga. They cut his neck…I saw…it is better when you kill us, and if possible, you can kill us, you kill us, for us we don’t want to stay on earth.” Such a shocking statement, followed by Jacob crying, “gets attention fast” by creating a story’s hook (helping Jacob), a huge factor in storytelling according to the book (Aaker and Smith 85). More obviously, this statement “keeps the audience wondering what happens next” by engaging the attention of the audience to see what happens to the poor boy (Aaker and Smith 85).

Empathize/Be Authentic

Jason uses his son as an analogy saying “If my son were kidnapped and forced to kill, it would be all over the news, so we are making Kony all news.” Here he tries to uses a technique in the book “personal reference” to spark empathy in the audience (Aaker and Smith, 88). Most people could relate to feeling devastated if one of their family members was captured and conscripted into the LRA army. In addition, the organization “shows authenticity” by creating a sense of closeness and connection by showing real life of Ugandan boys, which makes us want to offer our help to these kids (Aaker and Smith, 91). By seeing Jason’s point of view and why he wants to stop Joseph Kony, Jason is viewed as trustworthy and thus authentic.

Visual Imagery/Sounds

One of the books main points for grabbing attention in the film is to “show, don’t tell” (Aaker and Smith, 61). The film effectively utilizes visual imagery to get their point across. By using clips of Kony abducting children and pictures of people’s mutilated faces because of Kony, the video uses this to “surprise, startle and shock the audience” (Aaker and Smith, 63).

Pictures of mutilated faces. Source: Vimeo

The book describes how sound is a critical tool in grabbing attention saying “It may not be the type of music you use for your campaign that grabs attention, as much as it is the pace of the music and whether changes in music are worked in”(Aaker and Smith, 66). By starting slowly with sad and slow music to show the seriousness of the video, the video slowly starts picking up the pace of the music in the end. When the film asks people to take action and shows people posting flyers of KONY 2012 all around the US, it plays the chorus of “I Can’t Stop” by Flux Pavilion, an upbeat Dub step remix. By building tension through music, the filmmakers create a sense of urgency in watchers to take action.

Focus on Conquering Short Term Goals

TRI, the donation program for KONY 2012. Source: Vimeo

The book defines a tactical micro goal as “a short-term goal that is small, actionable, and measurable” (Aaker and Smith, 27). The KONY 2012 video shows that Invisible Children have taken action to rebuild what was destroyed, rebuild schools, create jobs, and built an early warning radio network to protect villages from rebel attacks. In addition, they created a program called TRI, funded by young people who donate a few dollars a month. These actions were clearly “visionary and realistic”, showing that they were able to maintain focus.

20 Culture Makers & 12 Policy Makers. Source: Vimeo

As stated in the video, the organization will target 20 of the most diverse and influential culture makers, and 12 policy makers with the authority to see Kony captured.  They will target celebrities, athletes and billionaires because what they talk about spreads instantly. They chose policy makers to decide if U.S. military advisors stay or leave. Although not easily testable, the goal is clear and is geared towards one of their long term goals of raising awareness.

In the video, when the organization first talked to senators at the White House for America to help Uganda, the senators said that taking action would put American people in jeopardy. However, Invisible Children came back 8 years later determined for change and the government listened. Obama deported a group of 100 soldiers to assist the Ugandan army in arresting Kony. The video stated that this was the “first time in history the USA took that kind of action because the people demanded it.” Thus, the organization was extremely effective in achieving short term goals, one step closer to achieving their long term goal of capturing Kony.

A Call to Action

The Invisible Children’s main target audience is everyday citizens, of various ages, races, or political groups.  In their KONY 2012 video, they show pictures of different people that represent diverse backgrounds.

Example of the diversity of the campaign. Source: Vimeo

They even make it easy for everyday citizens to write to government officials directly on their website, call them or meet with them to get their attention. In fact, the organization states that each person can contribute to the cause by “1. Signing the pledge to show your support 2. Getting the bracelet and the action kit 3. Sign up for TRI to donate a few dollars a month and join the army for peace”. The video’s main objective, however, is to get its viewers to share the video to other people, ultimately raising awareness of the issue. 

People will “wake up to hundreds of thousands of posters demanding justice”, and they want everyone to help make this possible. The book says that the psychology of asking is about “what you are asking of people must be highly focused, absolutely specific, and oriented to action”. The video is clearly good at this.

 Transparency/Response to Negative Feedback

Although KONY 2012 has used a lot of the techniques in the book, just like any big issue, there is controversy and criticism. The book calls this transparency: “The brand shares news as it happens, even if it might not appear to be in its best interest” (Aaker and Smith, 80). Their responses can be seen at http://www.invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html. One of the biggest critiques of the organization is their use of finances. Invisible Children responded by saying that 80.46% is used to further their mission of awareness, advocacy and on-the-ground development, 16.24% on administration and management costs, and 3.22% on direct fundraising (Invisible Children, 2011). They even show a breakdown of expenses, a screen-shot of the organization’s annual report. Another criticism of Invisible Children is that it advocates a disempowering approach. Their approach to helping people is that only rich, white North Americans can “colonize” and help these people, even though a lot of work has been done to deal with Kony (CBC, 2011). The organization responded with: “We have found that many Ugandans welcome the film's message of stopping Joseph Kony, but some take offense at how the message was delivered. Admittedly, KONY 2012 was geared towards young, western audiences in an effort to raise awareness of what began in Uganda, but is currently taking place in DR Congo, Central African Republic, and South Sudan [http://vimeo.com/38406755].”These are just two examples of their response to criticism, a good way of using transparency like the book says.

This organization is the epitome of the global impact of social media. The Dragonfly Effect says “A decade ago, it would have been technically impossible for ordinary citizens to respond publicly to global events and share their opinions easily with such a wide audience. It would have been unreasonable to expect that their ideas could inspire that audience to take action and achieve results” (Aaker and Smith, xiii). Social media creates an extensive web of interactions between activists across the globe, and allows story-telling to be extremely effective through sharing. In my opinion, Invisible Children was very good at hitting the main points of the book, despite the ensuing criticism. They were extremely effective at focusing, grabbing attention, engaging and taking action and I would not have changed much that they did. With all of the correct short and long term goals, good luck to them on finding Kony. 

References

Invisible Children. (2012). Invisible Children Critiques. Retrieved from http://www.invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html.

CBC. (2012). Kony 2012. Retrieved from 

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/world/kony-2012.html

KONY 2012. (2012). Retrieved from http://vimeo.com/37119711

Sabotage Times. (2011). Kony 2012: Why I’m opposed to the campaign. Retrieved from http://www.sabotagetimes.com/life/kony-2012-why-im-opposed-to-the-campaign/

Tumblr. (2012) Kony 2012. Retrieved from 

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/jason-russel?before=1331177313

How much has social media actually helped?

Courtesy: Out of The Mouth of Dave (2011)

Have you ever heard of the Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS)? If you regularly use social media, you probably have. The OWS has virally spread over the internet the past 6 months, “occupying” all of the big social media sites: Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr.

Many argue that social media centralizes the movement because it is run by average citizens and is unified around fighting social and economic inequality. Here is a brief summary of how OWS utilizes social media:

• ·         Facebook: “Occupy Wall Street” has approximately 340,000 fans on Facebook, where members can share news, debates and event details.
• ·         Twitter: @OccupyWallStreet has 154,000 followers on Twitter, which gives quick updates about protests and reminds followers to come to events.
• ·         Tumblr: “We are the 99%”, a blog run by the Occupy Wall Street Archives Working Group, allows anyone to post their personal story and why they support the movement.

Essentially, OWS is run by everyday citizens. Because of this diversity, anyone can join the online protest, from any part of the world. Yes, this sounds like it is a good thing- social media has allowed global storytelling and sharing from the comfort of our homes. Although social media has helped unify the movement across states, it does not explain the complex underlying issues and does not encourage working toward solutions. I have joined the critical voices of the movement and will talk about how social media has allowed many people to rally and because of this, it lacks clear goals and a clear target audience, thus resulting in close to no progress.

Since anyone can join the social media protest at any time, this has caused the movement to lack focus. First, the September 17^th protest complained about Wall Street’s bank bailouts and the “greed” of big companies. Kalle Lasn, the editor-in-chief of Adbusters—an activist magazine—explained in an interview “We need to shake up the corporate-driven capitalist system we're in. To do that, we needed something radical” (CNN Money, 2011). Next they were protesting capitalism and austerity. On October 15, an article explained “Tens of thousands went on the march in New York as organizers aimed to initiate global change against capitalism and austerity measures.” (The Guardian, 2011). And next? Police brutality. A Guardian article describes the scene as “Hundreds of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators marched to protest against police violence and demand the resignation of New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly on Saturday afternoon.”

Example of a OWS meme targetting police on Tumblr. Courtesy: Ekoshyun Blog (2011)

And now? ‘Occupiers’ are protesting killing dolphins and student loan policies (NYU Local, 2011). Many of these issues are protest-worthy. However, raising all of these issues and expecting change on every issue is silly. Because the protestors come from such diverse backgrounds such that anyone can voice whatever they want- whether it is their opinion or story- social media has allowed too many people to talk at one time. For example, the OWS Tumblr blog encompasses a wide set assortment of people: students, teachers, single moms, sick patients, and former delinquents. 

Examples of OWS Tumblr blog stories. Courtesy: G.L. (2011) Source: The Economist

Also, researchers say that for every young person, there is someone in their 40s (USA Today). Because of this, social media convokes people from distinct backgrounds who might not have assembled together in the first place. It personalizes the movement by allowing anyone to join, anyone to tell their story, and anyone to share anything. This in itself is a big flaw since too many people are fighting for different issues, one of the main criticisms of the movement. Thus, social media does not elaborately describe their reasoning to taking action where and how, causing the movement to seem like it is protesting just to protest. Instead, it often just tells people to come to their protest and “support the movement” (Occupy Wall Street, 2011).

Social media has spread the wrong information on who to target. The protestors blame Wall Street big companies for the bank failure. In my opinion, bad government policy and poor regulation caused bank failures rather than greed. It is the EU Central Bank and the EU commission “which have not only blundered economically, but are now prepared to destroy democracy itself in order to remain in control” (The Guardian, 2011). Despite this, many continue to protest in New York at Zucotti Park to the wrong people. This again is a problem with the organization of the movement and how they disperse their message. Because there are no clear leaders of the OWS, a bunch of people just use Facebook and Twitter to say “Hey, come to our event as we protest the big banks” with no real backup and persuasion as to why.  Although these social media sites have been great at getting people to places, it dismisses the complex issues of the movement, which has led to lost time and money by protesting to the wrong people.

Are they protesting just to protest? Courtesy: Know Your Meme (2011)

Clearly, social media has raised awareness for the movement. But the underlying question still remains: how much has the progress actually made? How much help could social media have been if there is no progress and the movement is dying down? Basically, the protest is about Wall Street bankers making large bonuses and salaries. As the Guardian article (Occupy Wall Street is about noise, not change) says, “Yelling at corporations to stop making profits and paying their employees accordingly does not count. If you have a leak in your ceiling, you don’t yell at the water to stop dripping, you find exactly where the hole is and you plug it”(The Guardian, 2011). Because of social media sites like Facebook which suggests yelling at the water to stop dripping, too many people are complaining rather than doing. The article explains that they are not asking for a financial transaction tax, elimination of proprietary/ speculative trading in financial institutions or segregation of traditional banks and investment banks (The Guardian, 2011). Thus, social media sites have encouraged too much complaining about others and do not focus on the underlying goals of how and what to do to change our society. The movement has posed no clear short term or long term goals besides occupying buildings, which is a big part of why the movement is losing people. In fact, the movement is quickly dying down and their accountants have claimed that they have no money anymore. The New York Post claims “New York's Occupy Wall Street group is warning it could run out of money by the end of the month, raising questions about the future of the movement that sparked nationwide protests against economic injustice last year. Donations to the group have slowed six months after it set up camp in a park near Wall Street, igniting the Occupy movement across the United States”(New York Post, 2011). The movement said the majority of their money went to bailing people out of jail and transportation costs. Because of this, the movement itself has not made any progress, and we cannot conclude that social media has exhibited change. While social media has shown to be inexpensive and wide-reaching, it continues to defer from short and long term goals of fighting social and economic inequality and focuses too much on gathering everyone to protest.

As the New York Post quoted, “Critics say the Occupy movement lacks direction and specific demands and has lost momentum. Occupy protest crowds in New York and other U.S. cities have tended to number only in the hundreds, despite the group's social media savvy” (New York Post). While it is clear that social media has been an effective tool for spreading news and sharing stories, in reality, it has caused unclear goals, unclear target audiences and has shown declining progress. Social media has made the movement so personalized, that even if anyone wanted to tackle and improve “social and economic inequality”, they wouldn’t know where to start. Moreover, the movement’s supporters are quickly declining. In a poll surveying people from San Francisco, one of the most liberal cities in the US, support has gone down 26% and 71% oppose “occupying” buildings (Hot Air, 2011). Clearly, the movement is loosing traction. How much is social media doing its job? Not enough. Just like other movements, this one will slowly fade and people will move onto a new issue. To all of the online protestors out there: at this rate, you’re probably better off using your time to find a job or reassessing your goals rather than sitting behind a computer screen complaining about how much others make. And that’s what I plan to do: get a job.

References

CNN Money. (2011).  Hundreds of protestors descend to ‘Occupy Wall Street’. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/17/technology/occupy_wall_street/index.htm

The Guardian. (2011). ‘Occupy’ anti-capitalism protests spread around the world. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/16/occupy-protests-europe-london-assange

The Guardian. (2011). Occupy Wall Street demonstrators march to protest against police violence. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/25/occupy-wall-street-protest-police

NYU Local. (2011). Occupy Wall Street is making noise, not change. Retrieved from http://nyulocal.com/national/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-is-making-noise-not-change/

USA Today. (2011). Occupy Wall Street shows diversity in age, politics. Retrieved from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-shows-politics-age-diversity/1#.T3fyWTGmhEI

New York Post. (2011). Occupy Wall Street could run out of money by the end of the month. Retrieved from http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/occupy_wall_street_could_run_out_7mKabGUk1AUg2PnPqfQBkN

Hot Air. (2011). Occupy support drops more than 20 points in…San Francisco? Retrieved from http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/31/occupy-support-drops-more-than-20-points-in-san-francisco/

Occupy Wall Street. (2011). Occupy Wall Street. Retrieved from http://occupywallst.org/

 Ekoshyun Blog. (2011). Occupy Wall Street Meme-fied. Retrieved from http://www.ekoshyun.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-meme-fied.html

Know Your Meme. (2011). Occupy Protests. Retrieved from http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupy-protests

Out of the Mouth of Dave. (2011). This Site is Occupied! Retrieved from http://www.outofthemouthofdave.com/2011/12/this-site-is-occupied.html

Covering the March 1st Day of Action

About a week ago, I received a Facebook event invite for the March 1^st National Day of Action.  The description stated “We refuse to pay for the crisis created by the 1%...this is a call to work together, but it is up to each school and organization to determine what local and regional actions.” I found out that they were going to be in Berkeley and I decided to check it out.  

On March 1^st, 2012, UC Berkeley students and supporters attended the Day of Action for Public Education. Approximately 150 attended at Sproul Plaza in Berkeley, California for a noontime rally to “protest state cutbacks to education” say the UC Berkeley News Center. Briefly passing by and checking it out, I noticed that there weren’t as many supporters as the Occupy Cal movement demonstrations. After looking at a few articles, one even named “Slow, soggy start for Day of Action”, I was curious as to why the protest seemed so small this time around.

Upon further inspection, I realized that the university website articles and other traditional media articles seemed very objective and boring, simply stating the movement’s objectives, but didn’t include any juicy gossip. However, the protests twitter (Occupy Education) told a different story. Every tweet was positive and uplifting, exemplifying the protesters accomplishments and actions. They tweeted all aspects of the protest from many different schools, a livestream containing actions such as Humboldt’s samba circle and fire show and occupying a theater.  YouTube was also very subjective as they made short videos on the march to Sacramento while interviewing many of the leaders of the movement who showed strong support for rebelling against public education cutbacks.

While all of the sources had different views on the day of action, it brought up the bigger issue: Which sources are we supposed to look into? How often are people misguided by different social media outlets? Was the movement actually successful? (I can’t tell because all my sources are telling me something different.)