MA NEW MEDIA AND DIGITAL CULTURE
2017-2018
Speaking Through Face
Combining Methods for Sentiment Analysis in Deciphering Visual Framings of Nonprofit Organisations on Facebook.
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Richard Rogers Second Reader: Dr. J.A.A Simons
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Dr. Richard Rogers, whose vast knowledge and expertise on the subject was extremely valuable to this dissertation. I deeply appreciate his support and guidance received during the period.
I’d like to express gratitude in advance to my second reader, Dr. J.A.A Simons. Thank you for your patience and time.
The opportunity of being part of a prestigious institution, engaged in a programme ranked number one, and living in one of the best cities in the world has truly been a grateful experience.
My deepest affection to my family and friends for their unconditional support and encouragement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4
Donations and Millennials 5
Web for Authentic Action 7
Digital Tools and Research 10
Road Map and Research Question 12
LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Evolution in the Nature of Imagery 13
The Post-humanitarian Approach 17
Marketing the Appeals 19
Personalisation and Connective Action 22
Networks on the Web 24
Measuring Action- Analytic Activism 28
Humanitarian Appeals on Platforms- A Conducive Ecosystem? 32
METHODOLOGY 36
Annotation Methodology 38
The Google Vision Application Programming Interface (API) 42
DATA SET 44
RESULTS 44
Insights from Manual Annotation 59
Scrutinising the Vision API 62
ABSTRACT
This thesis follows a study of nonprofit imagery on Facebook and aims to
understand the characteristics of it. By coding the images manually and through Google Vision API, it builds a discussion on the features presented by them. The modes of representation is understood within the trajectory of development of imagery and nonprofit visual framings. Additionally, inquiry through the Google Vision API provides an opportunity to trace the dissemination and appropriation of these images over the internet. The study examines the relationship between
nonprofit content and the web, particularly Facebook in order to inspect the nature of appeals on a social networking platform.
KEY WORDS
Post-Humanitarianism, Sentiment, Vision API, Networks, Slacktivism
INTRODUCTION
Admittingly, ever since I shifted from India, I haven’t read a newspaper. My Dutch friends are the source of my local news and for everything else, an Indian national daily digital newspaper called “Times of India”. If I am to be completely honest, even back home I would seldom read the newspaper or watch television for the lack of time or convenience. My major source of news remains the omnipresent and all-pervading Facebook and Twitter. Apparently, this is not just my personal experience as Pew statistics notes that 61 per cent of people in America, between the ages 21 to 36 get their news about politics and government form Facebook. (Mitchell et. al, 2015).
Having considered myself deeply aware and empathetic to the social and political situations around the world, I believe to be abreast of most events and crises taking place. This feeling in part is generated from my access to a global network such as Facebook and the faith in the platform that it would deliver major news to me. What I realised soon was that the algorithms perpetuates and prefers virality, and what reaches to me is by the virtue of trending news. As a result, the current event reaches to me in a matter of minutes, which is definitely both beneficial and highly desirable.
But what happens to the slow brewing and chronic issues such as malnutrition in India, the blood diamond conflict in Sierra Leone or the Refugee crisis in the
Middle East? They are highlighted when a certain event comes to the fore, but rest of the times it is buried under cat videos and student struggle memes on the web.
While breezing through my news feed, keeping profound thoughts
mentioned above at bay, I received a Facebook invite to a fundraiser created by a friend. It was a request for the donation of money to the organisation ‘Save The Children’, a nonprofit working for bettering the lives of underprivileged children. Since my friend closely believed in the cause, he decided to create a fundraiser page and generate charity through his network of friends. It was the first time I had ever heard of it- a sort of digital gift-giving packed with feel-good vibes, both for the donor and the initiator.
Donations and Millennials
Jean Case points out to the ‘2013 Millennial Impact Report’, a research study conducted by the Case Foundation, that reveals trends of millennial interaction and non profits on the web. She believes that social media brings in positive results between nonprofits and users. The study records that 75% of millennials like or retweet a cause or an organisation among their friends and associates, as they discover it. She finds the idea of “quick, get to the point, show me where there’s impact, tell me what I need to do in an authentic way” is the most effective form of appeal to this generation. The data from the study demonstrates that 80 per cent of the respondents made a donation, 70 per cent had volunteered in the past, while 52 per cent of them said they were interested in monthly giving. It is noted that
millennials are seeking more than just engagement, “It’s not about just a one-off talking about it, it’s not just about a one-off writing a check, but it’s about full-on
wanting to feel part of the solution and part of the cause” which according to Case, social media uniquely enables. (Creedon, July 2015.)
Upon receiving the birthday fundraiser and looking up the organisation’s Facebook page, I became conscious of the lack of posts sourcing from nonprofits on my news feed. I couldn't recall the last time I came across a nonprofit organisations page. So why were high profile organisations such as the United Nations bodies or
Amnesty’s updates not reaching to me while the cringe-worthy content was? There are obviously many reasons for this. Ranging from my past interaction with content on the web, those of my friends, algorithm structuring and prediction. Alternatively, it could be the inability of the organisation to reach out to users or scale up to efficiently draw in a large audience. This may be the result of poor social media strategies, lack of resources or inadequate technical knowledge. A nonprofit organisation requires the setting up of a Facebook Business page to monetise posts through advertisement breaks and receive insights into the reach of the published content. Facebook claims to strive to deliver the most relevant posts to its users. Out of the fifteen hundred stories that could appear on the news feed, only 300 make it. This only indicates the battle between content to make it to the top of the ranking system. Additionally, Facebook states that they have made improvements in their software to clear the feed off of spams and display “high-quality content”(Boland, 2014). Exactly how they do this and what qualifies as “high-quality content” are questions that have answers sealed in the black box of algorithms.
In order to gain more insight into the operation and presence of such non profits, I started looking them up on Facebook. The pages of some non profits were
extremely interesting. Their images moving and claim purposeful. The opportunity of being part of a noble campaign appeared seemingly simple and easy. The donate
button, fundraising, inviting friends to like a page, posting and sharing were unique affordances enabled that were hitherto impossible.
Often, actions over the web, especially those political or social in nature are considered less legitimate and profound. My initial reaction was to categorise the fundraising acts along the lines of ‘slacktivism’. ‘Slacktivism’ is understood differently by various authors but essentially it is known to be a form of activism where participation is devoid of “real” involvement and commitment. Neumayer and Schobboek (2011) interpret slacktivism wherein satisfaction is derived from the feeling of doing some good in the society without actually engaging in
“politics, civil disobedience, protest or raising any money”(Quoted in M. Skoric, 2012, p.78 ). With Facebook introducing the fundraising button, raising money was now possible thus making the above definition unsuitable. Alternatively,
Gladwell’s definition entails the lack of personal, financial risks and distancing of oneself from “socially entrenched norms and practices” as Slacktivism. He views it as a form of light commitment aimed at bringing social acknowledgement and praise (2010). To Morozov, ‘Slacktivism’ is defined as “feel good online activism that has zero political or social impact”(2009). While he acknowledges that online activity permits the involvement of many more people bringing in increased
attention to a cause, he fears that this form of activism will take over the traditional and physical activism of demonstrations, protests and marches. This behaviour would eventually lead to the decline in meaningful participation and efforts. The nonprofits aiming to build lasting relations need a balance to be authentic while still be able to grow popular. How do they present themselves in a manner where the user feels deeply connected to the issue while being absent physically? This gap is seen to be bridged by an attempt in combining images, text and an action
towards the campaign or cause. The interplay of which is the most interesting to me.
Web for Authentic Action
With the Internet came not only the knowledge of events on the other side of the world but also tools of effective involvement. The web and especially social media platforms have become a site of dialogue and action. As the world saw the genesis of the Arab Spring through the coordinated Facebook organisation and thereafter mobilization, these platforms were no longer seen as banal or reserved for
frivolous action. They contained in them the potential to exercise civil liberties and movements.
Brandtzæg et. al (2012) state that social media platforms have emerged as “a vital arena for supporting grassroots participatory democracy in terms of
enhanced civic engagement” (p.1). It provides with opportunities of turning friends into founders and reinvents appeals, and storytelling (Kanter and H. Fine, 2010. p.137)
Facebook, Twitter and crowdfunding platforms share characteristics that make its use easy, friendly and popular. The interface is interactive and does not require high knowledge of technology, which makes the setup of the organisation’s cause and promotions, relatively easy.
Companies and organisations also recognize the networking and sharing power enabled by social networking sites. Facebook, a medium that hosts almost 2.2 billion monthly active users is probably the largest audience one can have. (Facebook Newsroom, 2018).
Currently, as half the world is online, it is crucial to understand how we perceive requests for donation, especially since the medium now is electronic. Questions of successful communication, imagery, presentation and aesthetics take a centre stage in analyzing what triggers our emotions and the desire to help
through a so-called ‘virtual’ space. The challenges and advantages of not only being online but the greater implication of the new medium. This may indicate the focus and development trajectory of nonprofits campaigning styles and methods. For example, ‘Share The Meal’ was one such user-friendly application introduced by UN’s World Food Programme. The users, via the application, could donate $0.50 on-the-spot micropayment to feed a child for a day. Totaling 13 million shared meals by 2017. Interestingly, the programme released a feature called ‘Camera Giving’ where one could advertise their donation among their friend network on social media by sharing a photo of their meal with the WFP’s filter. Electronic transactions, while being the way of life lately garnered “three times more” to Barclaycard initiative in 2016 where the average cash donor handed over £1. Claiming that technology could fetch charities an extra £80 million a year. A poll from You.Gov suggests that one in 7 people fail to donate as they no longer carry cash (Everett, 2017).
Image 1: (WFP’s) Camera Giving-Share a meal
In an empirical study done on the intellectual capital of German non profit
organisation, Blankenburg found Images to be representative of the organisation. The image is said to effect social acceptance and is affected by it. Social
acceptance on social media could be measured via the response the post generates. This could be in terms of comments, likes and shares. Further, the author suggests that signs of social acceptance strengthen the image of an organisation and more so if the images are positive. Social acceptance from an image is also linked to quality and trust that are essential for fundraising (Caritasverband der Erzdiözese München und Freising 2007, p.30)
New systems of feedback and engagement are made possible with interactive platforms. These are not only personalized but also cheaper to update and maintain. An innovative model akin to “track your parcel”, that enables
sometimes hear back directly from their beneficiary about a difference they’ve made, eliminating the likelihood of the organization to manipulate information. Contact between survivors and beneficiaries are being reinforced repeatedly compared to that seen on television or mailings. The new media platform
potentially enables long-term, more personal connections between NGOs and their beneficiaries and supporters and beneficiaries. (Daynes, 2012). Rieder expresses the presence of actions produced on platforms as “arrays of meaning and practice that emerge and manifest online.” This provides opportunities to researchers and scholars from social sciences to study the expressions of multiple individuals and groups in order to gain behavioural insights on the usage of such platforms. (2013, p.2).
The visual framing holds to be of the utmost importance for nonprofit organisations that aim to invest and enable the public. One would also imagine the most popular organisations to produce fine quality material and maintain a certain standard. Much has been written about the various forms of imagery used, its intent and consequence in charity raising. The visual and textual narrative is required to be captivating and ‘worthy’ of audiences attention and desirably, engagement. The subject of these narratives is of equal importance. What pushes me to be involved with an agenda may not push you, but perhaps some images thrust mass public into action. The image of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi washed up dead on the shore or Kevin Carter’s photograph of a vulture approaching to devour a malnourished African boy is such. With increased digitisation, companies and organisations have embraced the cost-effectiveness and reach of the internet.
Therefore much of their information is disseminated through the web. The Content Marketing Institute (CMI) and Blackbaud found that 92 per cent of nonprofit
Facebook to distribute the content, and almost 65 per cent are producing more content than they were one year ago. However print magazines, newsletters and research reports form only 45-49% of avenues for distribution of the content. (“New Research Shows 92 Percent of nonprofits Use Content Marketing”, 2013). My first thought was how are nonprofit organisations adapting themselves to these platforms? This is obviously a big question. I was specifically curious in the ways that digital tools were evolving to facilitate the unique needs of nonprofits. Such as the donate button, the fundraiser function or google suite for nonprofits. But most importantly, it was most striking to see the ways in which images were being framed and constructed.
Digital Tools and Research
Adopting the strategy of marketing applied to profit companies in general, nonprofits are also approaching standardisation and formula driven procedures. Central to any effective strategy is data that is quantifiable for further planning. A measurable feedback to improve organisational structuring and reach. The iCAT is one such organizational assessment, planning and evaluation tool I came across, that aims to strengthen nonprofits growth and reach. The package provides various tools for planning, resource generating, evaluation and more. Optimisation and data-driven packages such as the iCAT follow the concept ‘Analytic Activism’ coined by Karpf (2017) and elaborated in sections below.
The Google Vision Application programming interface (API) emerged as an interesting tool for analysis. Following the path of deep neural networks, Google Cloud Vision API detects emotional facial attributes such as anger, joy, sorrow and fear, results of which are constantly being improved by deep learning technologies
(Shah and Zimmerman, 2017). Apart from this, it distinguishes logos, brands, colours and other attributes one wishes to investigate like landmarks, nudity and brands. It is based on machine learning and delivers output by reading data points and indicators that were previously and simultaneously being fed in the system. In a research study done by mediabrandsadvision.nl, nine thousand advertisements with metrics for click-through rates (CTR) were run through the Google Vision API to arrive upon certain features. Characteristics that were revealed through the API were then analysed to observe the commonality between highest CTR
advertisements. Aspects of ideal colours, shapes, size and position were stated through this behavioural analysis. (IPG Media Brands 2016). The point of such data obtained from the research was to help companies strategize their output following the results to drive marketing.
Like effective advertisements are a measure of the organisation's success, the same concept could be extended to studying imagery of nonprofit. Characteristics that are common to popular posts could be enlisted to highlight a trend or
“formula” of what garners attention. To look at certain patterns and standardise them, we undertake the assistance of data-driven analytical tools.
What is to be noted is that these technologies are not a hundred per cent accurate. Various studies have explored to exactly pinpoint what the system overlooks, ignores or circumvents. Since it is based on machine learning, the API does get better but never matches human processing power or accuracy. However, what it excludes is itself an interesting critique of the system.
Anja Bechmann's paper ‘Keeping It Real: From Faces and Features to Social Values in Deep Learning Algorithms on Social Media Images’ (2017) also demonstrates the ability of deep learning machines in mapping image or video characteristics. According to her, images have an intended social value, wherein
decode this meaning while the machine tries to imitate human levels of processing data.
The most difficult element in designing deep learning algorithms involves providing a deep understanding of the picture. While identifying faces and features is the standard first step, it is imperative to also take into account the intention and social value of the picture. Questions of inclusion and exclusion become relevant in identifying features. Bechmann's study piques the critical issues of what is systematically or unsystematically left out by the algorithms, the incapabilities of recognition and how to then reintroduce this knowledge into the algorithmic design when focusing on social value in combination with image features.
Additionally, images are subjective to interpretation, personal experience and history. Organisations then have a task to publicise those photographs which would evoke collective feelings and emotions towards them. As we will see, the choice of imagery has changed over time and been modified to suit the latest sentiment and aesthetics on concepts of suffering, need and distress.
Road Map and Research Question
This thesis entails research on images and the text accompanying them via two routes. One, by manually annotating then and two, by scanning them through
Google’ vision API. These images are owned by the nonprofit organisation on their Facebook page. Once the attributes are accounted for, an analysis will be carried out on results emerging from each method. Human annotation, especially when being done by a single person is highly subjective and can result in errors or
relation to one another. The tool of the vision API by the virtue of its functions will reveal the location of the images over the web, that would provide useful insights about the dissemination and presence of appeals.
Finally, we arrive at the crux of the research, the question raised by the study. What are the visual attributes of the most engaging posts with various nonprofits on Facebook? Two, what are the insights produced by the tool and how can they be repurposed to contribute productively in image analysis and research, in the
humanitarian context.
LITERATURE REVIEW
First is the task of establishing a clear definition of a nonprofit. Heyman (2011) describes it as a voluntary group action for either mutual benefit or the benefit to others. nonprofits form a different category of the sector in society that is distinct from the government- public sector or for-profit- business sectors. Their approach to ‘private action for the public good’ sets them apart from governmental public action and businesses private action for profit gain (p.6)
In order to carry out this research, it is imperative to understand what previous scholars have established about imagery and the relation of nonprofits with technology. Various studies have been conducted to identify efficient strategies on fundraising. Lipovsky (2016) claims that photographs, the most common form of representation and central to any organizational appeal, have a persuading role rather than an informative one. The encouragement through these photos is for potential donors to align with the nonprofit's mission and make a
A German organisation and the non profit Caritas state their choices and strategy when coming up with a campaign or post. The executive at TERRA TECH Foerderverein indicates that their prime method of information pictures. “Most texts are not read completely anymore, we notice that on our Facebook page. Articles with pictures [...] are in higher demand.” (Schmetz, TERRA TECH Foerderverein, 2018,p. 160). Also, the criterion for selecting photos was
highlighted, such as “not too upsetting” (Schmetz, TERRA TECH Foerderverein), “respecting to the dignity of the person shown” and “able to transport a message” (Utters-Adam, Caritasverband der Erzdiözese München und Freising. Quoted in Blankenburg. 2018 p.161).
For example, a study done by Smith and Berger (1996) demonstrate greater outcomes when the appeals are framed positively.
Evolution in the Nature of Imagery
Much of the literature repeats the apparent and clear shift in the imagery from negative to positive. The popular and common depictions of starved African children as described in the finding frames study shows the effects of
dehumanizing imagery that endorse the patronizing view of the “powerful giver” and “grateful receiver” and reinforce stereotypical views of developing countries. (Orgad and Vella, 2012, p.4).
Dogra in her paper ‘Reading NGOs Visually’ provides many references of studies that reiterate the ‘negative’ imagery categorized by passive, helpless, ‘victim’ from Africa saved by the heroic, Western emancipators (Benthall, 1993). However, the extreme and negative genre of photos up until the 1980’s, for
also reinforced Africa’s image as the ‘dark continent’ (Benthall, 1993; Lidchi, 1999). A shift from the “ flies-in-the- eyes” representations to more positive imagery and accounts have been palpable. An alteration from the ‘negative’ visual images towards ‘deliberate positivism’ that showed self-sufficient and functioning people of the South (Lidchi, 1999; Smillie, 1995).Meanwhile, efforts were also towards bolstering the sentiment of the donors and international supporters as resilient empowered agents making real changes in communities and lives. (Daynes, 2012)
To Chouliaraki (2010), the photographs can be categorized broadly into two types of appeal, ‘shock effect’ and ‘positive images’. The difference between the two lies in rejecting the imagery of the sufferer as a victim, in the former category towards the acceptance of the sufferer’s dignity and agency in the later. Taking the example of Oxfam and Save The Children’s campaign imagery, she notices two key characteristics of the ‘positive image’ style. One, the personalization of the sufferer as distinct and identifiable individuals and two, singularizing donors by addressing each one as a unit capable of making a concrete contribution to advance a sufferers life. This use of “bilateral emotions” helps in both empowering the sufferer by giving them a voice along with stimulating the donor’s ‘modal
imagination’- the capacity to recognize and acknowledge other sufferings. (p.8). This “shared quality of humanity” according to the author is absent in shock-effect appeals. The shock-effect approach ticks people’s sense of powerlessness towards distant suffering and in turn results in their negativity towards the campaign.
Despite these differences, the overarching essence remains in the emotions and the ‘reliance on photorealism’. The shock –effect appeal or the “shocking destitution” entail guilt and indignation to make us act. (p.10).However, often these negative emotions run the risk of apathy and fatigue, making us feel a causal agent in global
in fact, a reaction to the negative emotion that leaves individuals feeling powerless. It is a “sense of the situation so utterly hopeless and incomprehensible that we cannot bear to think about it” (2001, p.94). Positive images, on the other hand, entail tender heartedness and gratitude as emotions for action. This may also run the risk of a view where charity is viewed as a “gift”, restricting action as being “unreal” or “unnecessary”. (Chouliaraki, 2010. p.10).
In either case, The sufferers are portrayed to be powerless victims or
dignified agents. The intention of the campaigns produces two forms of discourses- a universal discourse of justice, through negative emotions that ultimately
dehumanize the sufferer, or a universal discourse of empathy, through positive emotions that eventually appropriate the sufferer in a world like ‘ours’.
Despite the opposing approaches, Chouliaraki states that neither of these two forms of moral universalism ultimately manages to sustain a legitimate claim to action on suffering. (2010, p.9).
As Dogra summarizes, ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ appeal is an oversimplified way to approach images that conceal power relations, nuances and complex
ideologies. Most often with the exception of ‘extreme’ images such as starving children, images are somewhere in between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. Different potential readings, time, context, the purpose of the image along with the quality of the image and its accompanying text also play a role in determining its nature. (2007, p.166). Thus, Lipovsky (2016) identifies the need for balance between stories of crises and suffering with stories of change and hope. Pigeonholing of the beneficiary as needy, disempowered and passive carry negative connotation
robbing them off their humanity and dignity. Moreover, the use of strong negative emotions can antagonize the audience, who feel “manipulated” resulting in
“resistant and critical audience” instead of fostering empathy. It is true that the entire campaign of the organization cannot be driven by emotion, more nuanced
forms of engagement are required for long-term engagement. However, emotions play a critical role in gaining an audience and are central to effective
communication.
Therefore, NGOs want to produce equitable stories by presenting the reality on the ground and global injustices while also affirming their donors that their donations are making a difference. This makes me wonder if the complex balance can be achieved through indicators provided by digital tools. So, can sentiment analysis software aggregate enough data to suggest effective forms of communication of images and text? Corporate organisations are continuously testing various approaches received through a feedback in the form of A/B testing to gauge what is most effective. Perhaps, this could become a widespread practice among nonprofit publicity.
The media type is majorly photographic images, with a documentary-like attribute to it. The content if including children and animals aims to appeal to our innate “dispositions of affection and nurturing”. They bank upon predictability of such responses in their appeals. In addition to the subjects of these photographs, they are also enhanced by “controlling the perspective of viewers like the angle such as looking down on the subject, the visual position of the subject, looking straight at the camera, proximity etc.” (Messaris, 1997, p.34)
Initially, photorealism, that is, producing extremely detailed and precise images in order to achieve the highest degree of representation was a case for authentic witnessing. However, photorealism now may be an option- an aesthetic choice by which suffering can be represented. Most appeals still rely on the impact the imagery of suffering contributes towards the humanitarian causes Therefore a choice in representation is made. With the central theme being the imagery of
suffering, we are “confronted not with the ‘truth’ of suffering but with acts of representation” (Vestergaard, 2009.p.16).
Ultimately, the history of humanitarian communication forms both the history and critique of ‘aesthetics of sufferings’. It is also seen as a critique of social relationships established between the spectator and the sufferer. This critique encompasses the two very distinct kinds of emotions. One of guilt and indignation, associated with the ‘shock’ aesthetics in the past. Along with the critique of
emotions of gratitude and empathy related to the theme of ‘positive image campaigns’ (Dogra, 2007). The two critiques acknowledge that the aesthetics of suffering is a catalyst in moving the spectator to action while challenging the ethical discourse that underpins emotional motivations to action in each type of appeal.
There is a chance that there may be a correlation between the medium and the images and donations. In the course of my research, I found it impossible to locate sources or information that report on the revenue generated via the web. There exist statements that quote a percentage for increase or decrease, by the organisations but never explicitly the amount. Neither does Facebook report the monetary success of its fundraising tool. It is quite dubious to accept that Facebook does not hold a record or data about the amount it has amassed through its
platform. Since research indicates what approach works for traditional mediums such as newspaper and newsletters, it may be interesting to see if they have changed when transferred to new digital mediums and if yes, then in what ways. There exists a substantial amount of work that seeks to understand the nature of visual framings used by nonprofits. Seu et al. (2012) in their paper ‘Who Cares’ write about a gap between knowledge and action. According to them, there is still very little information on what people know about suffering and how they react or act to it. On one hand is bringing out a story through image, language and
action delivering the plight of the affected and the power that individuals, nations or communities hold in bringing about development. On the other hand, it is also predicting what emotions it would elicit amidst the growth in access to social media technology mobile and platforms mediums. How do people respond to messages? Does it works on their emotions or blocks it? These are particulars still in the process of being discovered. The first step would them be to understand the content or the ‘lingua franca’ of nonprofits. (Daynes, 2012)
The Post-humanitarian Approach
Chouliaraki, in her work ‘Post-humanitarianism: Humanitarian Communication Beyond a Politics of Pity’ (2010) talks about two core concepts- The
technologization of action and de-emotionalization of the cause that may suggest changes in behaviour already taking place. The key feature here is the
simplification of action wherein the user is asked to click or go to websites and donate. This overview according to Chouliaraki “simplifies the spectator or user’s mode of engagement with the humanitarian cause”. (p.117)The use of the Internet as a vehicle for making possible this simplification of action on distant suffering is the first dimension. According to the author, the speed and on-the-spot intervention prompted by the Internet results in the non-sustainability of deep emotions towards a cause in time. This “expectation of effortless immediacy” a dimension of the contemporary consumer culture is also spreading across the technologized humanitarian communication and affecting the “moral imagination of
humanitarianism”.(p.109) Now ‘all’ we need to do now is sign a petition or make a donation via the link. Post-humanitarian communication thus becomes the
“low-intensity emotional regimes” and a “technological imagination of instant gratification with no justification.”All this of course, still depends on the imagery, which demands to be realistic and emotional, but in the post humanitarianism sphere, there is a slacking of the link between “seeing suffering and feeling for the sufferer”. The meaning of suffering in this context is “dis-embedded” from the general societal and moral discourse, now provisional upon the personal
interpretation and judgment of each individual and their action. (p.119).
The crux of post humanitarianism lies in de-coupling emotion for the sufferer from acting on the cause of suffering while still depending on realistic imagery (of the poor, the wounded or the about-to-die).
In further explaining how suffering becomes self consciously aestheticised and the properties of moral agency in this style of communication, Chouliaraki explains the de-emotionalization of the cause. The first thing to note according to Chouliaraki is that all appeals consist of at least some affective dispositions towards suffering. No appeal to action without emotion could be legitimate. The traditional affective regimes of humanitarian communication such as indignation and guilt or empathy and gratitude already exist as objects of contemplation to be reflected upon.
Through analysing three campaigns, one from WFP (No Food Diet) and the two other from Amnesty International (‘Bullet. The Execution’ and ‘It is not happening here now’), we can observe some methods undertaken to present the appeals. Chouliaraki provides examples of the dynamics of emotions or perhaps, de-emotions in these regimes. Without dwelling into the particulars of the
campaigns, Chouliaraki’s analysis brings out themes of irony, hyperreality and optical illusion manifested in them. These frames include and make possible the ‘constitution of moral agency’ but also at the same time, they manage to refract grand emotions into, “low-intensity affective regimes” – regimes that connote the
“classic constellations of emotion towards suffering but do not quite inspire or enact them”. (2010, p.119)
It is noted that the politics of pity in earlier appeals assumes that emotions operate in a moral economy of abundance ready to be applied to their universal discourses. An economy wherein everyone can feel for and act on distant suffering in an unrestricted manner. Post-humanitarian considers appeals to operate upon emotions based on ‘economy of scarcity’ where the ‘emotional wealth of one agent necessarily comes at the expense of another’ (Gross, 2006, p.79). Chouliaraki does not believe that the post-humanitarian style commodifies communication, rather, it shifts ‘the terms’ on which the commodification of humanitarianism occurs
currently. (2010, p.120)
Thus the post-humanitarian style offers an alternative vision of agency – one whose political implications are deeply ambivalent. The focus is on individual judgement as being the main resource for engaging with suffering as a cause. It activates low-intensity emotions, that omits public communication of intense and sentimentalist argument. This focus on individual judgement further bolsters the power of personal action rather than collective, which make a difference in the lives of the vulnerable others. As the pictures are appropriated by the users for tweets, reblogging and commenting, one can witness the activation of these low-intensity emotions. The emotion buttons on Facebook are perhaps the most literal example of the lack of intensity and passionate exchanges.
Bennett’s argument of personal motivation as a starting point to collective action is in sync with the author’s statement until the collective network emerges from coming together of inspired individuals.
In addition, the capacity of new media to engage individual users in fleeting and effortless, but potentially effective, forms of solidarity activism has been a major
Marketing the Appeals
As quoted in ‘Who Cares’, NGO supporter databases are advancing themselves to tailor appeals for individuals lifestyles, preferences and characteristics. The
fundraising professionals are following the footsteps of commercial cooperation in personalizing their communications and custom building their “packages” to
consumers. In the past, the channels of such communication were single or primary, but personalization is now possible via multiple and specialized uses of media and communication. (Ograd and Vella, 2012 p.8)
Critical in her view of the technologization of humanitarian causes, Chouliaraki (2010), quotes
“It is this contrast between the traditional, universalizing styles of campaigning and the contemporary, particularizing ones that render the
post-humanitarian style vulnerable to critiques of commodification. In requiring no time commitment to the cause of suffering, humanitarian branding obeys a market logic [……] and fails to inspire a sustained form of moral agency vis a vis
suffering others.”(p.119)
The other dimension of simplification draws attention to the absence of
justification in the appeals: Styles of appealing largely draw on universal theories of ethics, however, appeals here abandon the general universal morality. Instead, a brand is communicated. The organisation attaches its brand value to these appeals without nudging the audience as what and how to feel. The imagery of suffering, as
a result, circumvents risks of cynicism, fatigue and suspicion or miscommunication that are caused by emotionally laden messages. Therefore, the campaigns rely on signalling the strong ‘brand equity’ of these organizations, that is their solid image and international reputation (Slim, 2003)
Vestergaard notices the emerging blueprint of corporate branding being taken up by the humanitarian agencies. Suffering as a cause is not the subject of marketing anymore, instead, it is the implicit investment in the identity of the humanitarian agency itself. The moralistic instigation is strategically replaced with brand recognition. It, therefore, becomes less about the issue of contention and more about the ‘aura’ of the brand that sustains and determined the relationship between product and consumer, mimicking the most effective form of corporate persuasion. (Arviddson, 2006 p.75).
Image 3: Branding on ‘Brand Ambassador’, UNICEF (Orlando Bloom, Hollywood Actor)
Chouliaraki’s empirical research demonstrates the breakdown of post-humanitarian sensibility into an “emotional repertoire of pity and privileges” It is no longer driven by an intellectual agenda, rather it seeks to briefly engage us in “practices of playful consumerism” (2010, p.107).
Chouliaraki realises that the branding of suffering does two major things. One, it abandons visual realism, grand emotion and the question of ‘Why’? Two, it enables a consumption-savvy audience to engage with brand associations of solidarity and care independently and as autonomous creators of brand meaning. This process causes a major transformation in the historical affective dimensions of suffering towards new meanings.
To Chouliaraki, there is a clear shift from emotion-oriented to post-humanitarian styles of appealing that tend to privilege low-intensity emotions and short-term
forms of agency. This shift is also an attempt to re-establish the legitimacy of humanitarian communication, one that follows a market logic in which the humanitarian organisations operate today and abandons universal morality and focuses on the resources of the media market (Cottle and Nolan, 2007).
The emerging style does not abandon emotion-oriented styles, but it steps away from the emotion of pity to that of “effortless immediacy” the fact that one need not invest emotions to the cause, rather by making it simple and somewhat less intense, it abandons the appeal to suffering as a universal moral cause and challenges the relationship between humanitarianism and politics. (Chouliaraki, 2010).
Can it then be argued that the presence of nonprofits on social media has entered a post-humanitarianism era? One may say, for instance, that the act of fundraising on Facebook actually requires sustained engagement up until the amount has been raised. The members of the initiative are kept in a loop and updated at every point of donation, that results in a prolonged but maybe low-intensity engagement. In addition, users also have a choice in choosing images from the organization's catalogue, suitable and personalized to individual preferences.
Personalisation and Connective Action
The process described above is accompanied by theoretical framework Bennett and Segerberg’s work on connective action (2012) which may be extended to non profit organisations operating on the web.
The authors study the factors giving rise to networks wherein ‘personalized communication’ plays a major role. This concept can be explained by studying content that is ‘universally-personalised’- values that most people believe in
requiring little or no reasons, reframing or persuasion. Hunger or child abuse being such examples. These issues cut across different personal reasons or experiences and can potentially mobilise people. The other integral part of their theory that facilitates networking is the ‘personal communication technologies’ that carry and spread these ideas. This also results in further personalisation by the virtue of digital connections present on platforms such as Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc. Imperative to connective action is the determining element of ‘sharing’, a form of personalization that leads actions and content to be distributed widely across social networks. This sharing occurs both in close friends networks such as Facebook as well as more public exchange spaces shared among strangers on YouTube, Twitter, or blogs. This ‘sharing’ is forwarded through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube in the spaces of communication such as comments section, retweets and hashtags on these sites. Understanding the dynamics and interrelationships among these different platform networks and their intersections is an important direction for research. What features are unique and common to which platforms, which special functions are adopted and how are the tools emerging?
Therefore, the social media logics as elaborated by Dijck and Poell (2013), bring out four markers of the logic, namely programmability, popularity,
connectivity and datafication. The authors draw parallels with the mass media logic and observe how social media platforms “shape all kinds of relational activities, such as liking, favouriting, recommending, sharing and so on” (p.5)
Leading with examples of the Iran election and specifically the hashtag #iranelection, Rogers et al (2017), demonstrate the undertaking of a ‘quanti-quali’ methodology. (Niederer, 2016).Other components of such an approach can also include URL frequency, hierarchical list of concern and most-referred-to content. Networked content analysis proves to be extremely important for the enquiries in
the ways which the network filters or includes stories, mobilises particular media formats compared to others, and the attention it garners- all in a measurable way. It is an amalgamation of “both different types of relationships between informational content” and the ways in which people react and interact around the digital
contents (p.6)
By looking at the domains on which our image is present, a weighted graph will indicate the most popular sites non profit images travel to. Are they social networking sites? Are they news sites? Are they blogs? Further, to what issues and agendas have they been connected, what do individual users have to say in the connection of the photograph, what are the discussions being fueled in the
comments section are some of the qualitative aspects that could be looked at. Such framings of the image on such web pages would enable a quanti-quali analysis, which currently is out of the scope of this study.
Connective action brings together a dynamic combination of communication and networks that are more than “mere preconditions and information” (Bennett and Segerberg, 2012 p.760). The Communication technologies operate to enable the growth and stabilize the network structures. Castells, in his work (2000) claimed that networks are core to civilisation which in recent times have become “more central organizational forms”, stretching across various groups. To him, the network itself is an organisation rather than being a part of it. (quoted in Bennett and Segerberg, 2010, p.745)
Networks as an organisation can be epitomised in the way we perform on the web. These may be social (Facebook), occupational (LinkedIn), recreational (eBay) or even political (Occupy Wall Street). These networks consist of values that need not be neutral. These values enable communities and ties them together towards a
certain action. In addition, these networks are both personalised and transcend different cultural and social settings.
What we notice in such exchanges is that people participating in them are diverse and far apart. What then is the starting point for individuals to come together? To Bennett and Segerberg, the starting point for an individual to contribute for a collective action problem through connective action is the “self-motivated ...sharing of already internalized or personalized ideas, plans, images, and resources with networks of others.”(2013, p.753)
Through the example of protests, Bennett and Segerberg notice how personal action frames spread through social media. The social technology through with which the personal calls for social action are shared is in a way the “organizational form of the political action” (Earl & Kimport 201, p.102). Personalised
communication facilitates organized forms of contention which may lead to a social movement. At a particular intersection, connective action gives way to collective action.
Networks on the Web
Drawing an analogy between digital technologies and organizational logics, the authors remark that the spread of personal action frames is intended rather than automatic. The display of sharing, appropriating and shaping various themes by people is an interactive process. And though this process of sharing and
personalisation, the networks of communication through digital technologies may determine how people exchange ideas and relationships.
when one thinks about the propagation of collective identifications, it seems to be a structured process requiring education, pressure, training. The formal organisation cost money in paying professionals, campaign publicity and rent for spaces.
(McAdam et al. 1996). Digital media here cuts some costs drastically, but not entirely. The dynamics of action remain more or less the same, however. (Bennett et al, 2013)
In the actor-network theory, Latour (2005) identifies two systems of digital networking. One, the network agents of various social media and devices on which they run. Two, the human actors, such as individuals and organisations to explain that explains organisational structure between people and social technology. Each piece of digital technology displays unique mechanisms in enabling action. Web links act as organizational connectors protests calendars as event coordination and youtube and facebook as information sharing and multifunction networking
platforms. Sometimes other networks also become embedded such as links on Twitter and Facebook along with various capacities of the devices that run them. These technologies are seen in not only creating a meeting space or coordination of online activities but also in measuring relationships. This is done via multiple levels of privacy, transparency, security and interpersonal trust. It is also important to vary of the fact that networks do not seek strong demands of membership or subscriptions from individuals who may not show interest in the cause. Therefore organisations participating in these networks undertake “custom built (e.g. ‘send your message’) and outsourced (e.g. Twitter) communication technologies.” (p.757)
Network technologies subsume individuals, organizations, and networks in one broad framework. Differing from the classic collective action model that examines relations between individual and organisations or between organisations,
Bennett et al. include networks in this equation and expand to attach technologies that build “fluid action networks in which agency becomes shared or distributed across individual actors and organizations as networks reconFigureure
in response to changing issues and events” (p.764, 2011)
However, not all transmission of personal expression across networks leads to collective action. It is also dependent on the individual who makes choices about design and appropriation of social technology and the content of the action which would have the capacity to motivate, anger or mobilise publics.
Following this logic, action networks may spread rapidly through the combination of easily communicable personal action frames and digital technology enabling such communication. This invites analytical attention to the network as an organizational structure in itself.
It is interesting to mention how the API manages to produce a network that can be given meaning to. In the section of its web entities, the Google vision application presents with links and domains of the image present and in which ways it has been altered, appropriated and repurposed. Particularly interesting to these link are the ones shared on social networking platforms such as Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook and Instagram. This personalisation is completely unique to the social networking space. The possibility of customising a photograph to suit any language and local context or attaching a personal experience in relation to the cause and putting it forth in my friend's network are features that were not possible on a newsletter, fundraising events or even websites.
.
Image5: Post in Spanish on Pinterest (UNICEF)
Measuring Action- Analytic Activism
The fact that all online acts are measurable, has given rise to a ‘culture of testing’ which determine and change how organizations think about strategy, tactics, and power. This is a new style of activism that David Karpf introduces as - analytic activism.
In his book ‘ Analytical Activism: Digital Listening and the New Political
Strategy’ Karpf examines the organizational logic underlying key digital activist tools. These digital tools of activism include various petition sites, automated tactical optimization systems, and online video platforms designed to promote “virality” following a media logic that determines the power and effectiveness of these tools.
All social movement tactics are based on strategic analysis of what the media environment affords. The digital era supports different tactics from what the era of television or broadsheets and pamphlets did. Therefore the success of non profits and citizen activist organizations will, depend on who leverages, innovates, and adapts most efficiently .
When extended to clear political agendas or movements by people and organisations, analytic activism makes use of the affordances of digital technologies to fashion new strategic interventions in the political arena.
Changes accordingly are made across organizational structure, processes, and work routines.
Karpf postulates three ways analytic activism is taking shape and how it is being defined.
First, analytic activism adopts a culture of testing, which guides
organizational learning and shapes organizational practices. Advocacy groups are testing which tactics and techniques are most effective at engaging new supporters, leveraging power over targeted decision makers and forging deeper ties with
existing supporters, (Han 2014) Rather than relying on the way they’ve always done things. The culture of testing creates feedback loops that help analytic
activists learn, innovate, evolve and adapt within a fast and ever-changing hybrid media system.
Second, analytic activism prioritizes listening through digital channels such as social media, like Facebook and Twitter, or more established digital media like email and website traffic. All forms of present-day activism make use of (at least some) digital media to construct new forms of activist speech. But the
distinguishing feature of analytic activism is that its practitioners are using these channels to listen in new ways, which may not solely be for new forms of speech.
Third, analytic activism requires scale. Google, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon, there is a have already tapped in the tremendous digital advantage in raw numbers. These companies are known to routinely extract valuable information about the interests, habits, and needs of their customers. They do so through testing and analytics, applied on a massive scale. The more information you give about yourself, the more precisely (and more frequently) you can turn to analytics for
insights. Karpf also brings in Bennett and Segerberg’s work on connective action (2013) where they describe how the lowered costs of communication and
coordination online have given rise to new forms of “connective action,” wherein disorganized masses of citizens gather around a shared political interest without having to develop a stable organizational infrastructure They draw on the new “culture of connectivity” that has become ubiquitous in our daily lives (Van Dijck 2013).
Karpf thinks that if an advocacy organization incorporates analytics reports and experimental results into its weekly strategy meeting, then analytics could have the capacity to alter decision and course of action. “Since strategy is about making choices, and strategists make choices on the basis of information that they have jointly agreed is relevant to the outcome.” (p.4)
The author also studies the limitations of emerging technological platforms, and raises a cautionary flag stating that putting too much faith in these new measures of online sentiment can lead us astray.
The main goal of analytic activism remains in building strategy from the gained new forms of digital listening and in turn, contributing to new forms of digital speech.This is also what marks it different from other digitally enabled activism.
By digitally listening, monitoring, and testing, activist organizations are
pushed to try out new strategies are able to better define tactical success. Analytics encompass a cluster of technologies that allow organizations to monitor online sentiment, test and refine communications, and quantify opinion and engagement. These are backend technologies, viewed by professional campaigners through internal “dashboards” and fashioned into strategic objects that are discussed at weekly staff meetings. Well harnessed, these technology allow huge companies to
society businesses down a crooked direction that ends in prioritizing issues, campaigns, and methods which can be extra clickable over the ones which are greater essential.
If digital media has dethroned the economic broadcast media system, it has additionally created new opportunities for exposing people to topics of public importance. Pariser and his collaborators accept as true that excellent content material with important topics may be simply as viral as celebrity gossip and cat movies. However to reach past the activist choir, those problems of public
importance have to be framed in approaches that generate interest and interactions. People come across unexpected facts through social channels like Facebook and Twitter. While they like what they come across, the content is shared and spread amongst groups. You need compelling content if you want people to further
communicate the messages, and you need attractive headlines if you want them to click on those messages The entire internet is an engineered phenomenon, and the internet that we've got today is, in essential respects, extraordinary from the
internet we had in 2001 or 2007.
Platforms like Facebook and Twitter play a crucial mediating function as
information conduits. Their programmers and software engineers face the hassle of crafting search outcomes and prioritizing news feeds to help their customers
stumbleupon testimonies, information, and content which might be accurate, relevant or exciting. within the technique, Google and facebook can make the issues of information nests and knowledge gaps better or worse, depending on what kinds of behavior their programmers pick out to engineer. The emphasis on framing content points to an interesting transformation in how framing processes occur in a digital media environment.
largely studied in through the analysis of texts. To Upworthy, the “frame” of a piece of content is the packaging that surrounds the text. The frame consists of the headline and image that will appear on Facebook, on Twitter, and in people’s inboxes. A good frame will generate clicks, while good content will hold attention, generate shares, and prompt additional forms of engagement.
Analytic activism experiences limitations that civic technologists and digital activists are innovating and experimenting with. There is an attempt to push
against the analytics floor to increase the relevance of digital tools to small organizations and niche issues. The other intention is to also “ help large organizations trace and incentivize the types of behavior that align with their theories of change with new platforms and metrics”, pushing past the analytics frontier. As noted in The MoveOn Effect (Karpf 2012) by Karpf, this process is possible and less costly in the digital era than it was in the direct mail era.
As Marshall Ganz (2009, 8) puts it, effective social movement organizations need to cultivate “strategic capacity” that can help them convert “what [they] have into what [they] need to get what [they] want.” Ganz believes in building power through relationships and public narratives, that cannot be simply correlated with digital metrics.
To understand the current situation of digital activism, Sifry in his book The Big Disconnect, defines the concept of ‘atomization’ as “a combination of ‘Let’s watch it by ourselves’ and ‘Let’s respond to it by ourselves.’ ” The implies that the bulk of digital activism does not rely on repeated interaction or collaboration
within a community of interest. Instead, it consists of watching a tragedy unfold on our screens and receiving an invite from an activist organization to take action through our screens. This is popular within both the mobilizing and campaigning
interactivity”, which as a result limits the community- building and deep, identity- based ties that social movements generally rely on and hope for. Karpf also point out that Sifry, in this context does not try and rehash the old clicktivism rant. He is also noted to not make case for the Internet being only good for lightweight action or that digital campaigning and mobilizing lack meaning or value. Instead, he reflects on the current landscape of digital political activism.(2014)
Karpf realises that we possess some incredible tools for mobilizing mass publics, allowing them to take part in simple acts of raising a political voice. These include a range from fundraising to spreading political to petitioning messages through likes, shares, and retweets, netroots political associations have developed a robust set of tools. However, the major concern of Sifry remains in the availability of few tools for large- scale deliberation and participation in the current landscape.
Humanitarian Appeals on Platforms- A Conducive Ecosystem?
With more than one billion registered users on Facebook, no organization can afford to leave out this extremely large user base. Facebook is regularly used as a stage for discourse, debate and information that users participate in. It entails a form of expression taking shape as we engage with particular content. The
platform introduced a new tool in mid-2016 that allowed people to raise money for nonprofits directly on the social media website (Rosalie, 2016).
Causes for Facebook is an application cofounded by Joe Green, that enables Facebook users to make their friends aware of a cause and fundraise for it.
According to him, the social network is dynamic market space where young potential donors seek out issues on Facebook and then “serendipitously discover” the organizations working on the particular issues. This marks the point of entry for younger people and first-time donors who hadn’t been engaged before. (Kanter, 2009). Facebook proves to be a channel that performs A-Z functions of igniting conversation, creating engagement, generating awareness, building relationships, organising events and raising money.
It began with Facebook displaying its own fundraising requests in the newsfeed, amidst the Ebola Crisis in Africa. Later, in April 2015 the same was done to raise funds for the Nepal earthquake. More than 10 million dollars were generated by over 500,000 donations contributed by users. It is true that Facebook can make its own pleas and fundraisers appear repeatedly and on top and of the news feed, but more and more organizations have embraced this tool to boost their fundraising efforts. According to Donor Drive, donations over social media have grown by over 32 per cent in the last two years, with 90 per cent of it received through Facebook. A recent study by ‘Artez Interactive’ found that 15-18 per cent of their donations were generated through Facebook in peer-to-peer campaigns like walkathons. Furthermore, 28 per cent of the traffic referred to nonprofit
fundraising pages came from that platform, with those visitors making a donation nearly 23 per cent of the time. The one click away approach is directed towards centralisation of mechanisms on these platforms. The donate buttons on Facebook enable money transfers through allowing users to register their credit card and process the payment on Facebook itself, rather than navigating out of Facebook and onto an external website. Once the donation has been made, the action is shared on your newsfeed and the organisations Facebook page or the fundraiser page. (Zilliman, 2015).
The advantage of the internet to Ben Rattray, the founder and CEO of Change.org, remains in the democratisation of access. “Among the many
limitations of traditional media is the limitation on who gets to speak. The Internet [...] empowers even the most marginalized people to be heard …” The resulting personal narrative to Rattray, is what binds the reader to the subject creating “real empathy and changed perspectives. ” (Kanter and Fine, 2010, p.164)
Organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace and the Bob Brown Foundation have successfully raised thousands by direct appeals to their Facebook supporters. With Facebook being the site of news and ongoing events, the platform connects action through fundraising. (Bernard, 2016) Particular to the platform, the media type most effective is said to be video content as it is prioritized by Facebook’s algorithm. (Kanter, 2018)
Despite the vast potential of the digital space, statistics show that charities have not completely embraced the technology or kept up with it.
According to the Select Committee on Charities Report of Session 2016–17.
Amongst the 500 recently registered charities from May/June 2016 showed that, of the 60% with websites, 45% were not mobile responsive and over 85% lacked ‘an attractive and professional design’ in the view of the assessor.” It was also noted that 62% of the charities were potentially missing out on income, as they did not have a regular giving option within their online donation system. In another report by the Global NGO Tech Report, only 32% of nonprofit organizations have a written social media strategy. Do-it.org states “The sector as [a] whole is lagging at least five years behind the corporate sector in terms of utilizing digital tools. This is a great concern as technology evolves at an ever faster pace.”(Quoted in House of Lords Report, 2017, p.75)
Facebook ran an experiment in December 2013 by giving 19 charities that are particularly active on the social network a donate button to use on their Facebook pages to boost year-end donations. However, the 78 per cent of daily Facebook users who access the platform on their mobile applications, did not see this function on their devices as it was not yet released for the mobile version, thereby skewing the potential.
Facebook is also said to tweak the algorithm to be more selective, out of the favour of charities. This makes the non profits posts appear significantly less on news feeds, thereby dropping people’s views and "likes" of those posts.
With the new algorithm, individual posts placed on a nonprofit’s Facebook page are delivered to only a small percentage of its users, and even more so if those posts don’t generate comments, likes, and shares. Many organizations contend that Facebook made an intentional move to cut the audience reach of posts to force businesses and nonprofits to buy ads or sponsored posts guaranteed to appear in visitors’ news feeds.
Wendy Marinaccio Husman, a senior account executive with Donordigital, explicitly states that “Facebook is designed to make money. It’s not designed for nonprofits to raise money. Organizations don’t realize how many people aren’t seeing those posts". The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society successfully generated over $98.5-million in charity through all online sources last year, however only $3,500 was raised through Facebook. According to Drew Bernard, the chief executive officer of ActionSprout, the social network is making organizations to "pay to gain reach for content that didn’t attract an audience organically," and that nonprofits can avoid paying by creating engaging posts. (Charities Like Facebook for Rallying Support but Not Much for Fundraising” Held, month 2014)
low. “Habits and expectations for how we find resources and support have
changed; digital is often the first channel people use. If important charity services aren’t accessible via digital, they’ll be hidden by the services that are – making our depth of expertise invisible and inaccessible.” quotes Dan Sutch, The director at the Centre for Acceleration of Social Technology. Apart from being equipped with digital tools and skillsets, the organization could benefit from reaching more
people and being relevant. (Amar, 2017)
The Facebook Business page states that it aims to reduce the clutter for every individual user by filtering out content from the possible 1,500 posts that one could view. The news feed algorithm is being continuously updated to deliver best
quality posts, content and causes of interest based on users history of shares and likes. (“Organic Reach on Facebook: Your Questions Answered” Facebook Business, June 5, 2014) Therefore, in order to find space in the multiple possible combinations, organisations have to produce engaging, impactful and “shareable” content.
In order to bring together imagery and platforms, the dynamics of the two are important to look at. In Affective Publics (2015), Zizi Papacharissi sets out a
theoretical model for understanding sentimental publics: public formations that are textually rendered into being through emotive expressions that spread virally through networked crowds. Affective publics are defined as public network
formations that are mobilized and connected or disconnected through expressions of sentiment. Papacharissi’s research focuses on Twitter text, but communication on social media is increasingly undertaken through images. Just as using social buttons such as Facebook Reactions and the heart-shaped Like button in Instagram, the way users produce, re-contextualize and distribute images to engage with
societal issues is part of the contemporary connective action (Bennett and
