Social media and the simple narrative

[Claire Hawk]

Simple narratives of aid are problematic. I think they're problematic whether they're presenting the problem over and over again or a simple story of success for one person. Smart aid needs smart donors and smart donors need more than just a simple narrative to stay interested.

Aid marketing is, after all (at least for the most part), about trying to get people to part with their money. A lot of strategies seem to rely on shock and/or warm fuzzy feelings over pictures of smiling poor or "other" children/women/families. This works for a while but, apart from all the (many) other problems, it's probably not sustainable. People get disillusioned when they hear the same self-congratulatory story year after year.

But it's tough to break from a simple narrative in a press release. Which is basically what an awful lot of aid communication seems to be. Even on social media a lot of NGOs seem to stick to presenting the problem and/or showcasing individuals who are willing to say that their lives were changed by said NGOs activities. People have short attention spans and you probably only get them to read what you're putting out there once.

But social media platforms don't work like that. People engage with many small pieces of information over a period of time. The message people get is not a once-off, pre-polished press release; it's the accumulation of all the small messages. With the opportunity to ask clarifying questions and to request proof in between. Isn't that an ideal context to explore more complex issues in aid with an already engaged donor audience?

That sounds crazy; boiling down complexity to 140 characters. The points is that complexity doesn't need to be boiled down to one tweet - it can be explored slowly, over time, through many. The practical logic of the programme, based on reality, could make good social media content. The accumulation of many bits of information could produce better understanding of what is smart and logical. Interspersed, of course, with the happy, fluffy stuff because jaded donors would be a bad thing. Is this crazy? Are other people already doing this? Are there good examples out there of social media used to engage with complexity around aid work?

[Daniel Drake]

One of the critical "missing factors" IMO is to actually develop a social media strategy that links in with your programmatic (i.e. non-marketing) communications strategy. (If you don't have either of those things then you should probably just cut your losses and head to the coffee shop to tweet sappy quotes from long-dead white people).

Truer words were never spoken.

[Breanna R]

I think it's entirely possible to use social media to build a rich and complex picture, IF it is used effectively and strategically to engage with audiences over a period of time. I agree that we use social media far too much as a "fluff" tool and far too little as a tool for advocacy and engagement. One of the critical "missing factors" IMO is to actually develop a social media strategy that links in with your programmatic (i.e. non-marketing) communications strategy. (If you don't have either of those things then you should probably just cut your losses and head to the coffee shop to tweet sappy quotes from long-dead white people).

There are some people who are doing it well IMO - I think Amnesty International and Oxfam Australia are two organisations that I know of who use social media very well to represent a multiplicity of issues without dumbing them down. I particularly like AI's social media - they mix powerful images, creative multimedia, clear messaging and infographics to create campaigns and build on them. The information is bite-sized but thought provoking, and designed to be shared, pinned and re-tweeted for maximum impact.

Anyone have any other examples of who is doing it well?

[Claire Hawk]

J, sounds a little like the overlap between communication and spin. Love this bit: "in an age of instant emotional gratification, we neither seek or want honesty or reality". 

[Claire Hawk]

Daniel - even though social media are young, they have spread very quickly. I wonder if the aid world can afford to wait for a "changing of the guard" before coming to grips with new media and tech, both as tools for programmes but as part of communications. Come to think of it, the spread of mobile tech in developing world could also present a fascinating opportunity for aid organisations to interact with beneficiaries in a public space. Wonder how that would affect the relationships and whether most organisations would be open to that kind of engagement?

[J.]

Hi Claire. Your post is thought-provoking. If you'll indulge, I'm going to add two somewhat lengthy quotes from Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges. Although I cannot entirely articulate how (will leave that to others keener than me), I think they fit well with your thoughts:

First quote:

"The most essential skill in political theater and a consumer culture is artifice. Political leaders, who use the tools of mass propaganda to create a sense of faux intimacy with citizens, no longer need to be competent, sincere, or honest. They need only to appear to have these qualities. Most of all they need a story, a personal narrative. The reality of the narrative is irrelevant. It can be completely at odds with the facts. the consistency and emotional appeal of the story are paramount. Those who are best at deception succeed. Those who have not mastered the art of entertainment, who fail to create a narrative or do not have one fashioned for them by their handlers, are ignored. They become "unreal.""

I get the nagging sense that he could just as well be describing the marketing paradigms and practices of household charities...

Second quote, a page later:

"Acting politics, and sports have become, as they were in Nero's reign, interchangeable. In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we neither seek or want honesty or reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. we ask to be indulged and comforted by cliches, stereotypes, and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be..."

[Daniel Drake]

It's good to see someone take a fresh approach to this discussion. The "simple narrative" problem has been around in news for decades.

I think you're on the right track. Social and interactive media potentially offer new ways for reporters and NGOs to help people understand complex issues. But a few issues still need to be resolved before we start to realize that potential.

For one, these media are still in their relative infancy and we're still inventing the tools. Facebook and Twitter are both 5-6 years old, and blogs were a new phenomenon just a decade ago. It will take us time to collectively figure out what we need and how to use it.

Also, I think we're in the middle of a "changing of the guard" of reporters and publicists who have different training. It takes a lot of study and practice to become a good newswriter, and it will probably take an equal ammount of training to tell complex stories using social media. We may need to wait for staff turnover and educational program reform.

So what should the dev community do in the meantime? I would prefer to see more people take your approach, Claire, and try to think outside the box. A lot of energy is going into the sometimes circular debate over simple narratives, and I for one am torn between campus because both bring valid points. If no existing solution seems to work properly, let's direct our efforts towards finding new ones.