Sunday Sermon: Saving the world is just too easy.

A common example given in marketing classes is of the origins of cake-mixes. These 'just add milk' concoctions were seen as simply too easy, and housewives felt guilty, as if it were cheating and were embarrassed to be seen using them. So the producers responded by making them less convenient. As a result, you now have to add eggs, as well as milk, to your cake mixes.

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.

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).