Introduction

It is hoped that these findings will illustrate social media users’ behavior and attitudes toward online advocacy, and offer insights into effective methods for social capital formation via the social media platforms. Previous research on the Internet and social capital has revealed that social media users tend to have larger offline and online networks than non-users, and that Internet usage correlates with an increase in a particular type of social capital, called participatory capital. Simply put, people who are more engaged online tend to be more engaged offline. Additionally, social media usage, particularly on Facebook, has proven useful in creating bridging capital, the form of social capital best suited for message dissemination and identity generation. Bridging capital, described by Putnam, is more valuable than other types of social capital for creating awareness and action. Additionally, social media users tend to have more trust in others than non-users—a key component in developing social capital. Research also shows that social media, a tool designed to connect human beings to one another, is a natural fit for nonprofit organizations, given their emphasis on relationships.

Social Capital and the Internet

While many definitions of social capital exist among economics, sociology, communications, and other disciplines, I use Coleman1 to define social capital as a resource for organizations that emerges from the relationships among people, including trust, norms, and values. When those relationships change, they facilitate action. Putnam echoes this, writing that social capital “refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.”2 Putnam is primarily concerned with the relationship between social capital and civic engagement, and sees the decline of social capital in the United States as contributing to the decline in political participation. As evidence, he cites the dwindling membership rates in organizations such as churches, unions, parent-teacher associations, and volunteer associations and notes that newer, larger organizations are on the rise, such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Sierra Club. These groups, which Putnam terms “tertiary associations,” are more impersonal and employ a more superficial, and therefore inferior, type of involvement: “The bond between any two members of the Sierra Club is less like the bond between any two members of a gardening club and more like the bond between any two Red Sox fans (or perhaps any two devoted Honda owners): they root for the same team and they share some of the same interests, but they are unaware of each other’s existence. Their ties, in short, are to common symbols, common leaders, and perhaps common ideals, but not to one another.”3 Although these “tertiary associations” do not create the same quality or quantity of social capital as their predecessors, Putnam also notes those that people who are involved in organizations tend to participate more in politics, interact with their neighbors, and to “express social trust” more than nonmembers.4

Wellman, et al. build on Putnam’s work, dividing social capital into two types and examining the Internet’s influence on social capital formation. The first type, network capital, refers to relationships with friends, neighbors, family, and coworkers that provide “companionship, emotional aid, goods and services, information, and a sense of belonging.”5 The second type, participatory capital, involves participation in politics and voluntary organizations that “affords opportunities for people to bond, create joint accomplishments, and aggregate and articulate their demands and desires.”6 To this they also add community commitment, which describes the idea that social capital is more than just a superficial involvement. “When people have a strong attitude toward community —have a motivated, responsible sense of belonging—they will mobilize their social capital more willingly and effectively.”7 The authors’ findings indicate that the Internet supplements social capital formation, and Internet activity must be viewed in context of a person’s life. In this view, the web neither increases nor decreases social capital, but reinforces the activities and inclinations a person already has. In other words, the Internet is “more useful for maintaining existing ties than creating new ones.”8 Despite the Internet’s ability to cross great distances with low cost, people still tend to communicate more with friends and family nearby rather than those far away. Reinforcing Putnam, the authors find that Internet usage correlates with increased participatory capital — people who are more engaged online tend to be more engaged offline.

A 2007 study by Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe notes the results of a Pew Internet survey that found “online users are more likely to have a larger network of close ties than non-Internet users, and that Internet users are more likely than non-users to receive help from core network members.”9 Their study shows that Facebook members primarily used the site to connect with people that were part of their offline networks—friends, classmates, someone that lived nearby, or someone they met socially. Moreover, the authors found that Facebook users considered the “primary audience for their profile to be people with whom they share an offline connection.”10 Ellison, Steinfeld, and Lampe concluded that Facebook not only helped create social capital, but also helped users maintain it. Facebook was particularly useful in creating bridging capital, a form of social capital characterized by “weak ties” and consisting of “loose connections between individuals who may provide useful information or new perspectives for one another but typically not emotional support.”11 Bridging capital, a term coined by Putnam, links together people from heterogeneous groups in a network that can provide different insights, disseminate new information, and generate new identities.12 It is often viewed as more favorable than the other type of capital Putnam describes, bonding capital, and has potential to create action and awareness.

In June 2011, the Pew Internet and American Life Project released the first national survey looking at Americans’ social networks and the impacts of social media services. The survey was a response to the fear that greater use of computer-mediated communication was diminishing human contacts and relationships, and may be increasing social isolation. Pew’s results, though, revealed the opposite. Contrary to the perception of social media as a bastion of teenagers and college students, 59% of American Internet users subscribe to at least one social networking service, and the social media user’s average age is thirty-eight.13 These people, particularly Facebook users, express greater willingness to trust others, more so 17 than even general Internet users; they also have a larger, stronger social network both online and off.14 Indeed, Pew finds a portrait of social media users that rejects Putnam’s concerned outlook for America: they have more “discussion confidants,” defined as people with whom one can discuss important matters; they have greater levels of social support, receiving a boost from social media roughly equivalent to half of the total support received as a result of being married or cohabitating with a partner; and they are more politically engaged, with a higher likelihood to attend rallies, advocate for a candidate or cause, and to vote.15 Moreover, Pew found no evidence that social media users were less likely to join civic or religious organizations, and in fact, an increasing number of Americans belong to local organizations.16 Pew’s survey reveals that, rather than diminishing relationships and increasing isolation, social media services enrich users’ lives by bolstering the support mechanisms necessary to social capital development. Instead of users withdrawing ever more into an online world, Pew found a correlation between higher frequency of use of social networking services and larger, stronger networks.17 These findings support the notion that social media services particularly excel at creating bridging capital, in addition to shoring up strong ties. Pew offers evidence that the online and offline networks of social media users are larger, better formed, and contain more elements of social capital formation than those of non-users.

Through an extensive literature review, King describes the benefit of social capital development for nonprofits, particularly in bridging capital. Discussing Granovetter, King writes that the “strength of weak ties lies in their ability to bridge different and new networks, thus bringing new resources and ways of thinking. These ties can be a valuable resource for both individuals and organizations.” 18 Continuing on to Brass and Krackhardt, she distills practical advice for organizational leaders wishing to grow their social capital: developing and appreciating social networks, evaluating the organization’s own network, assessing the distance between the organization and connected individuals, building authentic two-way relationships, and considering ways to connect with groups outside the network.19 “The origins and operations of nonprofit organizations are aligned with the core dimensions of social capital: networks, relationships and trust, and shared vision and norms.”20 King concludes that nonprofits “represent the epitome of social capital in action; groups of people coming together voluntarily to meet a collective need,” and that nonprofits offer the best place to meet the conditions necessary to form social capital.21 King’s work clearly shows that nonprofit organizations are a particularly well-suited place to create social capital, given their inherent emphasis on relationships. Social media, also based on relationships, should be a natural tool for nonprofits to use in building social capital.

Online Activism

Nonprofits seek to increase social capital by capturing interest from the networks of supporters. Studies on nonprofits and social media are lacking, and those that exist do not address how these services might best be used to enhance social capital. If these organizations do wish to build social capital through social media, an examination of online activism provides insight into how this might be done. People need to believe that their actions have results, and online activism shows how social media can be used to effect change, but often people feel that no change has happened because they are looking in the wrong places. Bennett writes that “much of the attention to the Internet and politics has been directed at the places where the least significant change is likely to occur: in the realm of conventional politics.”22 Political parties, unions, and advocacy organizations tend to adopt new communications technologies for the purpose of old types of activities and to serve an existing agenda. Because this is less a significant change and more an employing of new technologies for an old purpose, it is harder to see transformative change in this context “beyond reducing the speed or cost of existing communication routes.”23 In other contexts, where new responses are forming to emerging issues, new communication strategies and political action have the potential to create true change. He notes that the Internet and digital media have allowed ordinary users to create high-level content and to disseminate that content quickly, cheaply, and without regard to geographic distance. In this way, activists’ messages can reach beyond their traditional circles that they previously reached through “old media” techniques (flyers, niche newspapers, speeches, etc.) and connect with new audiences. The Internet has created a permeability of both old and new media allowing messages to extend across time and space to reach large publics.24 Kahn and Kellner offer support of this, with the examples of the large anti-war protests in 2003 organized by MoveOn, ANSWER, and United for Peace and Justice, which used the Internet to circulate information and organize participants.25 These organizations achieved success by using the Internet to cross-pollinate many disparate groups, forming alliances, a common identity, and solidarity. The authors provide another example in the attention bloggers brought to racist remarks made by Trent Lott, then Speaker of the House. Communities of bloggers publicized the remarks, generating interest that then spread to the mainstream media, and eventually led to Lott’s removal from office. “Bloggers are expanding the notion altogether of what the internet is and how it can be used. Increasingly, bloggers are not tied to their desktops, writing in virtual alienation from the world, but are posting pictures, text, audio and video on the fly from PDA devices and cellphones.”26

Land, though, notes that broad mobilization and deep participation are inversely related. Her model of networked activism addresses the tension between professionalization and shared participation that creates this relationship. Networked activism relies on the Internet to provide opportunities for various far-flung communities to collaborate and coordinate. She notes Putnam’s emphasis on “active and involved membership,” and that “participants who take part in determining a group’s goals and methods are more likely to make significant contributions, to contribute in meaningful ways, and to involve other individuals from their social network.”27 If an individual only signs up for a cause online, he may just as easily disengage later. For example, a very small percentage of users on sites like Avaaz or Amnesty International attend events, donate, or contribute to online discussions. These people are removed from having any influence over the group’s goals and priorities, and are thus only superficially involved. Networked activism addresses this by utilizing small groups located within a larger network. These small groups foster the benefits of participatory models of activism, such as more trust, producing reliable material, and collective identity, but avoid the pitfalls of decentralized organization. Land’s model also encourages organizations to allow individuals to interact with each other, to take initiative and ownership of the cause through their own actions. Land suggests that organizations should provide tools for group formation and offer the appropriate level of guidance regarding what actions individuals should take, which she says is “either quite a bit or none at all.”28 Organizations should also strive to create a context for these actions and a sense of common culture or interest, which bolsters users’ investment in the organization and its goals.

Zhang, et al., discuss the connection between social 19 network usage and political participation. They note a Pew Internet and American Life Project survey that found 40% of social network subscribers had used the sites to engage in some form of political activity in the 2008 presidential primary season.29 Echoing Bennett, however, the authors also state that the Internet’s greatest impact is not on elections or government, but rather in the social and civic sector. People learn about ways to participate by communicating with others, and social network sites offer a diversity of opportunity through group and cause pages. The authors contend that it should not be surprising that social media lends itself better to civic participation rather than political, as these services are “geared toward maintaining relationships with their friends and can have the potential for stimulating community involvement.”30

Lim and Kann argue that technology is not in and of itself a causal agent of social change. It can facilitate change and be used as a tool by activists, but the change itself must originate elsewhere. The authors stress that most forms of online activism are imitations of offline methods of engagement, such as petition. While online mobilization efforts have been successful, such as with the Zapatistas in Mexico and the “Free Burma” movement, it is more a reflection of the low cost and high impact of mass communication rather than some new form of participation. Nonetheless, the Internet “allows activists themselves to frame their issues and shape their identities,” rather than having their messages and identity shaped for them by outside sources.31 Additionally, the Internet offers an amplification effect for movements, allowing activists to reach large numbers of people and gain influence. Lim and Kann note that there is a downside to this amplification, though, in that “online mobilization is always in danger of being too fast, too thin, and too many.”32 Scholz underscores the idea that the Internet is a means to an end, writing that the web, at its core, is about “networking humans through technology.”33 He states that online activism is in some ways an act of faith, and that people have to believe that gestures mean something. Scholz also notes that social media replaces the disappearing public sphere in the physical world, although it may offer a feel-good type of activism that lacks any real-world effects. “The failed war in Iraq, the disaster of Darfur, the world AIDS crisis—all these many struggles call for our engagement beyond the cathartic couch experience of watching blockbuster films like An Inconvenient Truth.”34 Social media can provide a much-needed access to voice, but often action still must be taken offline to create change. Scholz is also critical of the social web with regard to privacy and rights over content, and encourages further activism on this front.

Nonprofit Organizations and Social Media: Failures and Challenges

Many nonprofits encounter problems with expanding support through social networks and translating that support into tangible action (e.g., attendance at an event, more volunteers, letters sent to officials, donations, etc.) One issue is the difference between the way organizations and individual users perceive social media. A study by Seo, Kim, and Yang found that for a majority of nonprofits, the most important purpose for social media efforts was to promote the image of the organization, followed by providing information to journalists, and then interaction with the public. “This indicates that for NGOs, which generally operate under a tight budget, their online public relations are geared toward enhancing the organization’s image and tapping into current and potential sources of funding.”35 The authors note that for the nonprofits in their study, “providing information to journalists was more important than that of interacting with publics.”36 This indicates that many nonprofits still see social media as a one-to-many form of communication, or as a type of collateral media to be used in press relations. They do not value it as a relationship-building tool, because that would require a loss of control over messaging and image. “Responding to an open-ended question about the disadvantages of using new media for public relations, the practitioners identified concerns about reliability, message control, and the scope of online audiences.”37 The problem is that social media services are inherently a many-to-many form of communication and do not fit well into the old public relations mold. It also demonstrates the difference in perceptions between organizations and social media users, and points out that this difference contributes to organizations’ failure to expand their reach into social networks.

Organizations and individuals simply have different goals when they sign on to Facebook, and neither seem to realize the misalignment of interests. Mark Mann of Denvelopers, a digital media services company focusing on nonprofits, stated in an interview that many organizations use social media services as a means of fundraising. He cautioned against that approach, stating, “However, fundraising through social media has yet to really stand the test of time. It has been done in conjunction with multiple events in real life but solely raising money through social media seems to be a dead-end strategy right now. That’s not to say it can’t be done but I think the jury is still out.”38 Many nonprofits have not been proactive in discovering the feelings and capabilities of their supporters. There is a certain sentiment of “if I build it, they will come”—if an organization puts up a Facebook page, fans will flock to it. In observance of several nonprofits’ social media efforts, though, it appears that their network reach is limited: most fans, followers, friends, or subscribers were people that were already directly involved in the organization, such as current or former interns and volunteers. What is lacking in some instances is a simple ask— encouraging supporters to reach out to their networks. Fundraising studies show that the number one reason people give to a charity is because they were asked to do so by someone they know. It stands to reason that the same would be true of social networks—if your friend asks you to join a cause, you are more likely to do it, assuming of course the cause does not violate some deeply held personal belief. The key here lies in Land’s networked activism approach. Organizations need to reach out to their supporters and give them something to do.

Interactivity and giving supporters something to do sound simplistic, but many organizations fail to take advantage of the multimedia platform offered by social media services. Waters, et al. found that “interactivity was essential if organizations were to develop relationships with their stakeholders. Asking for email addresses and ways to donate online can increase interactivity, but organizations should provide a calendar of events or listing volunteer opportunities to involve stakeholders offline as well.”39 Related to this, organizations often do not take care to match their needs with supporters’ abilities. While gaining more volunteers and donations is certainly important, focusing solely on those areas can alienate supporters and make them feel worthless. It is the organization’s job to detail opportunities that supporters find meaningful, and to ask for feedback. It is the organization’s job to provide a compelling reason for people to join its network.

Waters, et al., underscored this. Their study found that nonprofits did not offer many ways on their Facebook pages for their supporters to become involved. “The most common strategy used to involve the supporters was providing e-mail addresses to organizational representatives (71%).”40 Only 13% listed volunteer opportunities on their Facebook page, and only 8% posted a calendar of events.41 Additionally, nonprofits were largely not using Facebook to distribute organizational news, and even when they did, they did not take advantage of the multimedia tools available. They also failed to publicize their traditional public relations efforts, with only 20% providing summaries of their campaigns and only 5% posting news releases.42 The authors conclude by stating that “nonprofit organizations recognized the rapid expansion of the social networking phenomenon, and they wanted to be on Facebook. However, they were not taking advantage of all the options the site had to offer their relationship cultivation efforts.”43

When an organization is able to gain fans, followers, friends, and subscribers, it may find that despite an enormous social media presence, little has actually changed for the organization itself. This disconnect between offline and online support can be a symptom of “slacktivism,” the idea that people become superficially 21 engaged online through clicking a link or becoming a fan on Facebook, and then think that they have accomplished something. The fear of slacktivism stems from the belief that it diminishes offline activism, where real change can more easily be demonstrated. Slacktivism seems to sum up the worries of Putnam and Scholz that social media and the Internet are providing a proxy by which people think they are participating, but in reality they are not. Evgeny Morozov, probably the most outspoken critic of slacktivism, writes, “‘Slacktivism’ is the ideal type of activism for a lazy generation: why bother with sit-ins and the risk of arrest, police brutality, or torture if one can be as loud campaigning in the virtual space?”44 He laments that “a significant portion of the activist population would be morally content with the ‘slacktivist’ option alone, preferring not to get too close to more dangerous activities that are likely to get them in trouble with authorities.”45 Organizations should assess their own supporters to determine if they, like the organizations in Land’s study, have a large number of supporters that exist only in the virtual world, or if people are taking action beyond the digital realm as well. The problem relates back to interactivity and opportunity; online supporters may not know what offline opportunities for involvement exist, or they may not feel strongly connected to an organization that counts them only as a measurement of digital popularity.

An additional challenge is the sheer number of groups, causes, and pages on social media services. The “noise” created by groups like “I bet this pickle can get 1,000,000 fans before Nickelback” makes people tune out organizations, or worse, causes them to see organizations as illegitimate. There are also multiple ways for an organization to use Facebook. It could create an individual account, a group page, or a cause page. Many organizations rush to create all three, and then fail to integrate them in any meaningful way. The cause page is adept at raising funds, but poor for interactivity; the cause page is not linked to the personal or group page; a member of one page may not realize there are two others to join, and if she does, may become frustrated at what is seen as disorganization by the nonprofit. Organizations may be tempted to attempt a gimmick to raise awareness, but this should be done with caution. One example was the Facebook “bra meme,” where female users were asked to post the color of their bra in support of breast cancer awareness. While the origin of the meme is unknown, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation has said it was not behind the meme but supported its actions, it gained international media attention.46 Not everyone was amused, however. Blogs and comments were on fire with the perceived uselessness and even harmful effects of the bra meme. Blogger Allison Jones describes why the meme was ultimately a failure: “Cloaked in a joke with no information or call to action we’re left with a campaign that confused more than it inspired. The message was changed throughout the day with some people being told to examine their breasts (yet no instructions as to how) and others being told to share the color of their panties with no mention of cancer at all. And the vagueness of meme leaves it open to way too much interpretation for it to be taken seriously.”47 Users can perceive this type of activity as true slacktivism because no outcome was desired, beyond spreading the message, and no ultimate result was ever achieved. These viral memes represent a large part of the traffic on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media services, and much like standing with a sign on a crowded street corner, organizations will need to take action beyond just being there to set themselves apart.

Survey Methodology

A web-based survey, created in Survey Monkey,48 was conducted from February 21–March 4, 2010. The key purposes of the survey were to examine users’ perceptions of online advocacy and how they used social media services in those efforts. The survey spread virally, after having been posted to various Livejournal communities and Facebook pages, and respondents were self-selected. The population of interest was anyone who used a variety of social media services. The survey included multiple-choice questions as well as one openended question. Responses to the open-ended question were calculated using a content analysis of the written answers, while responses from the multiple choice section were tabulated in Microsoft Excel. The sample size was 133 social media users, predominantly female. Additional information was gathered from participants in an informal discussion of online activism that took place on the Livejournal community gradstudents.

Findings: Understanding User Behavior

The results showed that in contradiction to organizations’ emphasis on online fundraising, raising funds simply was not on the radar of social media users engaged in online activism. When asked, “What is the primary reason that you engage in online activism?”, 60% of respondents said it was to “show public support for a cause/organization I believe in.” Moreover, 47% of respondents felt either “somewhat uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” asking members of their social media networks to join a cause. One respondent commented, “I don’t do it and don’t respond, as a rule, to others asking me to join, though—I feel like my online social networks should not be used that way.” I did not ask how they felt asking people from their offline networks to join a cause, and more examination of this may be necessary. It could reflect a certain reluctance for people to recruit friends and family in general, or it may reflect an idea that social media services are a space where this kind of activity is not wanted.

The top four activities for online activism were “joined a cause on Facebook” (68%), “signed an e-petition” (66%), “became a fan of a nonprofit or advocacy group on Facebook” (56%), and “sent an email written by a nonprofit or advocacy group to a government official” (43%). The top offline activity was by far “donate to a cause” at 71%, followed by “attended an event” (42%), “volunteered for a cause” (35%), and “directly contacted a government official by letter or phone” (26%). The primary reason respondents gave for engaging in online activism was “show public support for a cause/organization I believe in” (60%). This suggests that one considerable motivation for online activism is identity formation, allowing people to shape their online persona by showing support for causes and organizations. Additionally, 89% of respondents stated that their primary reason for using social media services was to “connect with friends and family.” 73% percent stated they knew all or most of the time where the online activism originated from, and 63% said they knew all or most of the time what the outcome of the activity was. This reflects a self-assessment however, and a controlled study would be needed to determine whether or not people actually know the origin and outcome of the activities in which they participate.

Despite 47% of respondents indicating that they were not comfortable with recruiting their social networks into a cause, 41% said they had in fact done so, with 56% of respondents recruiting between one and six friends into their cause. Nearly 10% (9.77%) had recruited ten or more members of their social networks into supporting an organization or cause. Understanding the question of comfort is key for effective social media networking by nonprofits. Facebook was by far the most popular service used by respondents (93%), followed closely by blogs (88%). A good portion of respondents also used Wikipedia (64%), YouTube (56%), photo sharing services (40%) and Twitter (35%.) The majority of respondents (60%) spent between three and eight hours per week on social media sites, with 33% spending more than ten hours on these sites. 46% percent of respondents were between the ages of twenty-five and thirty, and 84% were female. The overwhelming response by females could be a factor skewing the rest of the data, but it was an issue confronted by Ellison, et al. as well, where 66% of the respondents were female.49 For both studies, respondents were self-selected, so this may show a higher tendency for females to use social media services, or simply a higher tendency to respond to surveys about social media.

The delivery method of the survey offers an interesting anecdote in the power of social media networking, however. I posted the survey on my personal Facebook, on my personal Livejournal, and on two Livejournal communities, denver and gradstudents. I also asked people to pass the survey on through their own networks, so that I might maximize my number of responses. Within a week, I had 133 responses, from multiple countries (as identified in the open-ended questions.) This demonstrates how far 23 and how fast a message can move through social media if users are inclined to spread it. (See Appendix for full survey results.)

I asked respondents to answer an open-ended question, “Do you think online activism, particularly through social media, is effective? Why or why not?” 63% percent replied they felt that social media activism was effective to some degree, implying that people generally do have faith in the power of online activism. This optimism was limited, however, mostly to the ability of social media to raise awareness (25%), and a belief that online activism is most effective when it can spur offline action or attract mainstream media attention (20%). Some people felt that social media was a good way to reach audiences that would otherwise not be exposed to the message. “Many people are online for reasons other than activism. While online those that may not be exposed in offline life to such an array of causes can be potentially reached.” Others noted that the speed and ease of use of social media allow people with busy lives to become involved in causes. Even if that involvement appears superficial to others, some respondents felt that simple acts of online activism were still important; “I’d argue that joining a [Facebook] group (and similar actions) is in and of itself a meaningful action, simply because it indicates conscious choice.” Many respondents noted the powerful ability of social media to spread information and coordinate offline activities, such as planning protests. Additionally, respondents returned to the notion of interactivity and the need for organizations to provide pathways for involvement beyond donations and “harassing” networks. For example, one respondent wrote, “I think most people are turned off [of activism through social media] because they expect the typical ‘donate here’ or ‘give us your email/address so we can ask for money that way.’” In an online discussion I began on Livejournal regarding online activism and social media, one commenter echoed this sentiment, writing, “So basically, if I’m a college student with no money, all I can do is join a f***ing mailing list.”50 She felt that nonprofits only wanted her to join their social media network of choice, recruit her networks into the organization’s cause, and donate. She felt particularly abused at the notion that money was the most important, and while she understood why, she did not feel that nonprofits provided her an opportunity to participate beyond her checkbook and networks. This young woman’s frustration is very important for nonprofits to understand; they have to offer opportunities for involvement that people are capable of and willing to do.

Those who felt online activism through social media was ineffective primarily expressed concerns about slacktivism, stating that achieving true change through activism requires more work than is possible through online means. For example, one respondent wrote, “Not even a little bit [referring to the effectiveness of online activism]. I think it makes people feel like they are doing anything without ever having to put on pants and leave the house, much less do something like participate in a march that could get you arrested and/or beaten up. Our society is pretty dominated by laziness.” Another replied, “It can be, but I think that people feel like they are really doing something by becoming a ‘fan’ of a cause and never following it up with real action. It is a great way to publicize a need, but it can have a detrimental effect to direct action that is really needed.” Even some respondents with critical views of online activism noted that it can be an important component of an overall campaign, but that it cannot achieve results alone. The overall results, though, indicated that people were not simply lazy, superficial activists content to click a link and be done with it, but rather that a disconnect existed between their online and offline activities. 87% of respondents indicated they had participated in some form of online activism in the last year, and 84% responded that they had participated in some form of offline activism as well. When asked, however, if the online and offline activities had been for the same cause or organization, 74% responded either “no” or “not applicable.” This indicates that people are active both online and offline, but not for the same causes, and implies that nonprofits are perhaps not successfully translating online support into offline actions.

One interesting outcome arose from the respondents with a negative view of online activism. Multiple people indicated that they did not know the results of online activism, and therefore thought it to be ineffective. This suggests that organizations could do a better job of publicizing the results of these online activities to, as Scholz said, give people faith in their gestures. The group “Demand Justice for Buddy” on Facebook serves as an example. “Demand Justice for Buddy” was formed in response to the 2009 death of Buddy, a German Shepherd dog who was stolen from his owner by Melissa Lockhart and then dragged to death by Steven Clay Romero, Lockhart’s brother. The event occurred in Colorado, but through the Facebook group, an e-petition began to circulate social networks, demanding that Romero be sentenced to the maximum for his crime. On January 26, the Denver Post reported that Gary Sherman, the person behind “Demand Justice for Buddy” and the first e-petition, printed out and delivered over 100,000 electronic petitions signed by people from all across the United States and over 100 other countries to the judge overseeing Romero’s case.51 This development, however, which concretely shows the outcome of the online activism, was not reported on the “Demand Justice for Buddy” group page. A news update from February 27, 2010, stated that Romero’s trial date had been postponed and that the U.S. attorney prosecuting Romero intended to seek the maximum penalty, but contained no information about the results of the online activism. On July 30, 2010, news that Romero received the maximum sentence for his crime was updated to the group’s information page; “Demand Justice for Buddy” administrators did not send news about the petitions, the U.S. attorney’s decision, or Romero’s sentence as a message to members, and instead posted it on the group’s information page where a person would have to actively seek it out. By simply changing the method of communication, the “Demand Justice for Buddy” administrators could have shown supporters the outcomes of, and thus increased their confidence in, online activism.

Limitations

Limitations to this survey include the fact that it was done online, and respondents were self-selected. This could skew the data to a slightly younger audience already more inclined to both offline and online activism. I did not collect data on location, income, or education level. These factors and the small sample size all restrict the extrapolation of the findings to the larger population of social media users. Because I posted the survey on Livejournal and Facebook, the results on which services respondents use could also be skewed. Additionally, more research is needed to understand comfort levels of social media users in spreading activism through their online and offline networks, and the role that online activism plays in identity formation. A controlled study is also needed to determine whether respondents’ perceptions on online advocacy activities are valid. Case studies on organizational use of social media were drawn from research conducted in 2009. Given the extremely fast pace of change in the digital world, new case studies on organizational behavior are also needed.

Conclusion: Building a Connection Between Nonprofits and Users

This research helps to understand the challenges facing nonprofit organization in using social media to build social capital, and offers a foundation from which to derive solutions for those challenges. The most evident solution is for organizations to better understand how people use social media, and to align their online activities with those behaviors. This requires a shift in thinking from the traditional one-to-many style of communication, to one where the organization must learn to let go of its message and allow supporters the freedom to engage in ways they find meaningful. Organizations must strive to offer compelling reasons for supporters to engage, using the multimedia-capable and interactive nature of social media. They must also learn to tie online action to offline results, and offer pathways for involvement that go beyond fundraising and sharing of networks.

The survey results indicated that people generally believe social media activism can be effective, but expressed concern and frustration over the ways organizations have used social media services. These results, coupled with the literature, provide a foundation upon which to form conclusions about possible solutions to the disconnect between organizations and individuals. By returning to a focus on relationships in social media efforts, organizations can achieve the successes that they have so far been missing. Organizations can begin to build a connection with users and improve the effectiveness of social media usage by implementing elements of networked activism. As Land demonstrated, they must let go of their message, and allow users to interact and take ownership of the cause. Networked activism encourages nonprofits to support small group formation, and allow people to meaningfully contribute to the organization via feedback, by writing articles for the website, blog, or group page, and providing insight for goals and decisions. The key here is not to limit their actions, but rather permit users 25 to be creative and implement ideas on behalf of the cause. Organizations need not devolve into mob rule, but without that sense of ownership, users will not develop a deeper commitment to the organization (this holds true offline as well).

The main point underscored by the previously presented research is that organizations simply do not understand their audiences. Larger organizations may perform analysis on their target publics, but much of this analysis remains in the realm of psychographics. Smaller organizations may not have the resources to perform this research, and thus remain unaware of who their publics really are. Particularly for social media, organizations need to make efforts to understand the viewpoints and motivations of their supporters. The survey results showed a considerable level of discomfort with recruiting social networks into a cause, and organizations should take care to respect those feelings. Similarly, organizations need to provide pathways for involvement that meets their supporters’ capabilities. If a user feels that he cannot contribute beyond his networks or money, the research shows he may likely turn away from the organization. Basic actions such as publishing available volunteer opportunities on social media sites, and asking supporters if these opportunities represent at least one way for them to participate, can help organizations address this challenge. Likewise, asking supporters, through polls or open-ended posts, how they can and want to contribute both utilizes the principles of networked activism and helps organizations understand their audiences.

The research also points to the need to tie social media to offline action. Organizations should empower a few dedicated supporters to become “online leaders,” and offer them the ability to post discussion topics, organize offline activities or design new online activities, plan house parties, social gatherings, etc. Not every event needs to have a request for donations and not every event needs to directly apply to the cause; instead, organizations can use the power of social networks to increase “weak ties” and to create a foundation of action so that when the organization calls on online supporters to volunteer, to recruit a friend, or to spread a message, they will have developed a culture of participation. They will feel that they are an integral part of the success.

One of the most common themes in the survey results was frustration among supporters about not knowing the outcome of activities. A simple solution to this problem is for organizations to publish results. Nonprofits should let people know the outcomes of campaigns, even if they are bad. Information should tie online action to concrete results, and should be easy for supporters to find. Organizations should take care to publicize these successes in the most visible way, so that supporters are not left wondering what happened, especially as the mainstream media moves on to other stories. For example, in the previous example of “Demand Justice for Buddy,” the administrators should have posted status updates or sent a message to all members with news regarding the case. Organizations need to include links to news articles if at all possible. When news articles are not available, such as in the case of members contacting government officials, the organization should keep current on the issue, and let members know what is happening (e.g., the bill is still in committee, the panel will vote next week, etc.).

Too many organizations view social media in the old public relations model of one-too-many messages, and fail to employ multimedia applications, publish campaign summaries and press releases, and strive to create interactivity on their site. Social media in its essence is a many-to-many communications tool, and should be used as such. Encourage users to take action of their own, such as sending in a picture, creating their own video on YouTube, posting discussion topics or articles, or suggesting ideas. Organizations can even create mini-contests to recognize user-submitted content. Interaction between the organization and its supporters is important, but interactivity among supporters should also be encouraged. People will naturally tend to do this, replying to comments or posts they find interesting, but organizations have to create the opportunity for them to do so. Publishing campaign summaries and press releases on social media sites conforms a little to the one-to-many style of communication, but it also increases transparency and provides information not only to supporters, but to journalists and casual browsers of the site as well.

In their efforts to spread a message online, organizations should not approach social media as a race to gain supporters, but instead, give them something meaningful to do. However, organizations should avoid gimmicks. While gimmicks often sound fun and create “buzz,” not all the attention is positive. The example of the Facebook meme to have women post their bra color to raise awareness of breast cancer created as many detractors as supporters. Many people were savvy to the fact that this meme did not actually do anything for breast cancer, and as a result, felt used or patronized. This meme was likely created by an individual, perhaps for simple amusement, but organizations may see how quickly and how far this message reached and be tempted to emulate it. A better tactic would be to tie the social media campaign to a concrete offline action, such as presenting an award, unveiling a new research foundation, generating media mentions, or even raising funds. The message itself could be simple (such as a statistic, a quote, or asking users to respond to a question), but without any sense of outcome, users will not feel that their gesture has meaning. The bra color campaign failed not only on this front, but also ended up offending users as well with its blasé treatment of breast cancer.

Social media services are still a relatively new development, and we may not have yet realized their true potential. These services allow people to connect across time and distance with a speed and affordability not previously seen, and offer a powerful resource for organizations looking to build social capital. The effectiveness of social media activism lies within the way organizations implement it, and many nonprofits have failed to build successful campaigns. Often organizations view social media as another branch of public relations, relying on these services as method for one-to-many communication and thus do not create the interactivity necessary for successful social media outreach. While many scholars have examined social media’s role in politics, more research is needed on the nonprofit sector. In particular, studying attitudes regarding recruitment from social networks, both offline and online, could provide valuable insight into developing better methods for building social capital. Politics and nonprofits differ in many ways, but the most prominent difference in terms of sustained support is that political campaigns have a definitive endpoint with a definitive outcome. On election day, either your efforts were successful and your candidate won, or they were not and he did not. Nonprofits often work on issues that are multidimensional, generational, and systemic. Poverty alleviation does not have an election day, and human rights do not have a “we won/we lost” type of outcome. Many social causes are about a multitude of battles, with the war happening over the course of lifetimes and often across great distances. Social media activism can help bridge time and space, but organizations must approach it in a way that makes users want to invest in the cause. Nonprofits need to be creative in keeping the attention of their supporters, because their campaigns are much longer than political ones. Organizations can create an avenue for involvement through social media by recognizing its many-to-many nature, improving interactivity, and by matching needs to users’ capabilities. Despite the fact that social media development is an intensive undertaking that requires considerable time, it offers multiple benefits to organizations if done effectively.

Footnotes:

1. James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 304-310.
2. Robert Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,” Journal of Democracy 6. no. 1, (1995), 65-78. http:// xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/bowling.html (Accessed online on March 11, 2010).
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. Barry Wellman; Anabel Quan Haase; James Witte; Keith Hampton, “Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?”, The American Behavioral Scientist 45. Issue 3 (Nov. 2001): 437. (Accessed online on March 11, 2010.)
6. ibid.
7. ibid.
8. ibid., 440
9. Nicole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield and Cliff Lampe, “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends:’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Vol. 12. no. 4 (2007). http://jcmc.indiana. edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html (Accessed online on March 11, 2010.)
10. ibid.
11. ibid.
12. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2000), 23.
13. Keith N. Hampton, Lauren Sessions Goulet, Lee Rainie, and Kristen Purcell, Social Networking Sites and Our Lives (Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2011), 8 http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technology-and-social-networks.aspx (Accessed online on June 16, 2011.)
14. ibid., 23, 33.
15. ibid., 24, 35, 39.
16. ibid., 37–38.
17. ibid., 23.
18. Nancy K. King, “Social Capital and Nonprofit Leaders,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership,14, no. 4 (2004), 473.
19. ibid., 480.
20. ibid., 482.
21. ibid., 483.
22. W. Lance Bennett, “New Media Power: The Internet and Global Activism,” in Contesting Media Power, ed. Nick Couldry and James Curran (Rowman and Littlefield:2003), 5. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBEQFjA A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.101.3969%26rep%3Drep1%26type% 3Dpdf&ei=tbiZS9KIKYqusgPr3aGfCw&usg=AFQjCNEXKqwDE8J9M6Tdg1-ayS0yxTt_5w (Accessed online on March 11, 2010.)
23. ibid.
24. ibid.
25. Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner, “New Media and Internet Activism: from the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging,” New Media & Society 6, no. 1 (87–95).
26. ibid., 92
27. Molly Beutz Land, “Networked Activism,” Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol. 22 (2009) http://harvardhrj.com/2009/09/ networked-activism/ (Accessed online on March 11, 2010.)
28. ibid., 236.
29. Weiwu Zhang, Thomas J. Johnson, Trent Seltzer and Shannon L. Bichard , “The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior,” Social Science Computer Review, 28, no. 1 (2010), 75.
30. ibid., 87.
31. Merlyna Lim and Mark E. Kann, “Politics: Deliberation, Mobilization, and Networked Practices of Agitation,” in Networked Publics, ed. Kazys Varnelis (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008), 89.
32. ibid., 100.
33. Trebor Scholz, “Where the Activism Is,” in Digital Media and Democracy: Tactics in Hard Times, ed. Megan Boler (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2008), 363.
34. ibid., 357.
35. Hyunjin Seo, Ji Young Kim, and Sung-un Yang, “Global Activism and New Media: A Study of Transnational NGOs’ Online Public Relations,” Public Relations Review, 35 (2009), 124.
36. ibid.
37. ibid., 125.
38. Mark Mann, e-mail message to author, March 2, 2010.
39. Richard D. Waters, Emily Burnett, Anna Lamm and Jessica Lucas, “Engaging Stakeholders Through Social Networking: How Nonprofit Organizations are Using Facebook,” Public Relations Review, 35 (2009)103.
40. Waters, 105.
41. ibid.
42. ibid., 104.
43. ibid., 106.
44. Evgeny Morozov, “The Brave New World of Slacktivism”, Net Effect blog, posted May 19, 2009, http://neteffect. foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/19/the_brave_new_ world_of_slacktivism (Accessed March 11, 2010.)
45. ibid.
46. Rob Manker, “Facebook Bra Color Question: Real Breast Cancer Awareness Effort, or Slacktivism at its Finest?” The Chicago Tribune, January 11, 2010. http://archives. chicagotribune.com/2010/jan/11/health/chi-talk-facebookbra- colorjan11 (Accessed March 11, 2010.)
47. Allison Jones, “When Going Viral is a Waste: Learning from Facebook Bra Colors,” Brazen Careerist blog, posted January 20, 2010, http://www.brazencareerist. com/2010/01/09/when-going-viral-is-a-waste-learningfrom- facebook-bra-colors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_ medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+brazen_ careerist+(Brazen+Careerist) (Accessed March 11, 2010.)
48. Survey Monkey is an online survey tool, located at http:// www.surveymonkey.com.
49. Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe, 2007.
50. Catherine Bell, comment on “Survey Please?” Denver Livejournal community, comment posted February 24, 2010, http:// community.livejournal.com/denver/2032237.html?thread=13127533#t13127533 (Accessed March 11, 2010.)
51. Annette Espinoza, “100,000 petitions call for severe penalty in Buddy the dog’s dragging death,” The Denver Post, January 26, 2010. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14256200 (Accessed March 11, 2010.)