I have seen a trend of companies social contests that empower ideas that will benefit communities and people in need – there are a lot of positive elements to these contests, the main being an influx of funds from outside, non-typical sources. This not a new idea, but definitely these projects are more open and are getting more attention than ever before because of digital channels.
The competitors in these cases often do most of the promotion in an effort to win: word of mouth; local media outlets such as television, radio and print; local organizations and social networks. The goal here is to rally offline as much as online, as most of those seeking funding have local, real-life applications.
Recently, I assisted a school in setting up social media accounts and promoting their cause in the Aviva Community Fund competition: organizations could suggest their ideas, and through several rounds of voting by users, then a judging round, the winners would be selected. Aviva wanted to spread the word about their philanthropy and they wanted the participants to do this for them. The school reached out to the community as a whole and was featured in many news items about the competition locally, but despite this it was very difficult to surpass programmatic votes for other ideas. Many competitors employed bots that would vote for people; some might say this is fair, others might not. Also, Aviva promoted a few select ideas themselves on their own social media accounts, providing preferential treatment to some. Ultimately, I felt like I was watching a mass of starving people fighting for the same of loaf of bread and then only to see the person with the bread throw it to the person who was standing on the shoulders of others.
Project Google 10^100 was a similar concept – but instead ideas submitted did not benefit a specific group. The ideas were just that: IDEAS. The ideas would then be organized by a group of Google’s choosing. Yes, this leaves a lot more up to the discretion of our big brother Google, but with no personal stake in the competition, ideas could be voted on by sheer merit rather than popularity of a certain group or network. Another notable example is the recent Pepsi refresh contest which has received many criticisms from participants and social media advisors – from issues with the interface to questions about fairness. With their budget and the importance of the project, a higher level of diligence with regards to planning and development could have been achieved.
Looking back, I realize that there are two important take-aways here:
1. Social media is not social responsibility. These contests, while painting companies in a beautiful rose-coloured light, should not be considered a socially responsible endeavour. While money is being given away here, companies are giving the money to the group who best promoted the contest. Not the group with the best idea, nor the group with the most need.
2. These contests allow for a great illustration of how offline social groups can mobilize for common goals. Using Facebook, Twitter, blogs and other social media tools, not for profit organizations can quickly update their offline networks for online or offline action. Social media is not just useful for personal or business – it provides us with tools that can change our lives and change the world.
Popularity: 9% [?]
