Why am I telling you this? Because I think the concept runs parallel to online philanthropic and charity-based initiatives that raise money for a cause, funded by the traffic you give to their advertisers. It is also a basic Web 2.0 concept that the more engaged a user is in a process, the more willing they will be to contribute to the cause. Once users have made some sort of investment - and in the case of charitable causes, establishing an emotional investment is paramount - the user will continue to engage with the process.
Different websites have taken different approaches to this. Websites such as Poverty.com aim to educate their audience into donations. In my opinion, this model serves no real distinct purpose. Existing charities such as World Vision, Oaktree, TEAR and Compassion already run their websites in a similar fashion and have a much more direct connection to where your money is going ie. your donations to poverty.com will end up going to a charity like these ones anyway.
Ripple.org is a very Web2.0 looking website, but definitely lacks user engagement. Users click on buttons to have a look at advertising, which in turn makes 'donations' to the host charities. Once again, the website's connection to helping those in need is quite indirect. Ripple does facilitate some sort of user involvement by encouraging users to make it their homepage (and making it a valid choice by enabling Google searches) and 'share' the website with their friends by adding the 'donation' buttons to their social networking profiles or blogs. It will be interesting to see the "final" result (if any) of Ripple's beta status.
You've probably guessed already from the banner on the side of this page, that I am an advocate of FreeRice.com. FreeFlour.com is another good website, with an almost identical appearance - however, it is just a little less tidy and lacks some of the functionality that I love about FreeRice. FreeRice however, is not perfect - while the website actively engages the user, educates the user and allows the user to share and interact with the content, it does not engage with the user strictly within the area it is operating. A better model, I think, would be one where rather than engaging the user in vocabulatory education (obviously I haven't been playing enough), the website would educate the user in areas that can more directly assist them in helping those in need.
You've probably guessed already from the banner on the side of this page, that I am an advocate of FreeRice.com. FreeFlour.com is another good website, with an almost identical appearance - however, it is just a little less tidy and lacks some of the functionality that I love about FreeRice. FreeRice however, is not perfect - while the website actively engages the user, educates the user and allows the user to share and interact with the content, it does not engage with the user strictly within the area it is operating. A better model, I think, would be one where rather than engaging the user in vocabulatory education (obviously I haven't been playing enough), the website would educate the user in areas that can more directly assist them in helping those in need.
I see a generic progression of users' engagement with a cause:
Engaging the audience is key. I don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything clicking on a Ripple Button, or reading about starving children on Poverty.com, but somehow, FreeRice gives me that extra little bit of engagement that makes me feel like I'm making a difference. Saving the world through Ripple is just too easy - it just doesn't feel right.
References:
Mullen, B. and Johnson, C. 1990. The Psychology of Consumer Behaviour: 96. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=--M82lcLDxoC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=cake+egg+marketing+housewives&source=web&ots=oadzEamMty&sig=t4O5RfDfHSNqo5tzY3wqCKazsE8&hl=en(accessed 3 May, 2008).
Smith, P.R. and Taylor, J. 2004. Market Communications: An Integrated Approach: 11. http://books.google.com.au/booksid=rmKoO0U30x8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=cake+egg+marketing+housewives&source=web&ots=xENRaM-8qe&sig=lkfZdj_nlinXijknn0sfWZFZktg&hl=en (accessed 3 May, 2008).
6 comments:
If there are any friendly geeks reading who have an idea why my diagram isn't acting the way a gif should, please let me know!
This blog is a 'cake-mix' James. Just type about starving children and add two cups of self-importance and voila! instant blog...
It feels too easy and really you should be feeling like a lazy housewife but hey, obviously you have no moral standards
Don't go starting flame wars you can't fight, Daniel.
Are you insinuating that my post is in itself a form of self-serving philanthropy, combining the new media with charitable causes for my own social capital?
My response is twofold:
Firstly, yes this post makes no real effort to champion the charitable causes that it mentions, and focuses solely on their effectiveness as new media tools. However, championing the causes themselves would fall into the indirect "educate into donation" form of philanthropic marketing, which as I said in the post, I don't see as effective - especially considering that this is an academically constructed blog being submitted for marking under criteria that are new media focused.
Secondly, this post is inherently self-depreciating…I will happily admit that it is a flawed human condition that I find simple games more stimulating that learning about poverty – however, I believe this is a common human condition, and designers must acknowledge this and make it work to their benefit to produce the best possible results.
It’s similar to ‘Fair Trade Coffee’ (but hopefully without the scandals) or ‘Fair Trade Chocolate’. People are willing to pay a little extra for goods and services they see as less harmful to the world. FreeRice is a ‘Fair Trade Game’. I would never play a vocabulary building game on the web if there was not the humanitarian incentive.
If there is a cake-mix analogy to be had, Daniel, I hope that you will see this as me offering Betty Crocker, or even Steve Crocker an alternate recipe for cakes, one that will leave a sweet taste in everyone’s mouth.
James,
do you really think self-deprecating would be considered academic? I personally only post academic material and if its a flame war you want consider me a napalm dump (and if you make a dump joke i will end you) to your safety match (and yes that is a penis metaphor).
I will wait your response with un-bated breath and disdain for your very being
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen,
Obviously neither of you were present at Christy Collis’ latest lecture presentation for Virtual Cultures KCB201. The reason I say this is because Dr Collis addressed the type behaviour you both seem to be exhibiting toward one another and although this is a private blog war I thought it apt to draw an analogy between it and the destructive nature of edit warring and virtual abuse. Dr Collis framed this type of behaviour in a Wikipedia context but I believe it to be relevant in the majority of online communities. Thus, I have taken it upon myself to act as mediator and virtual mentor (although I’m sure you both out-rank me in cyber-experience, nonetheless…). Daniel your prerogative to post purely academic material is exactly that, your prerogative. Thus, commenting on James’ inclination to be a little more adventurous is neither here nor there. Furthermore, I hope the irony of your rather loose and colloquial expression isn’t lost on you. If you “personally only post academic material” then why are you behaving like such an angst-filled teenager, rather than the scholar you claim to be?
James, I have to say your written expression is superb, but don’t take the bait, if Daniel wants to be critical for criticisms sake then let him be. Don’t feel like you have to justify you personal expression to an individual who is obviously just ballooning his own ego. Surely you both could be investing your time and equally creative talents towards something more constructive. I recommend you both have a listen to Axel’s pod cast for week 11 as I think you’ll both find it rather apt.
Post a Comment