Facebook profile pictures, the NSPCC and charities in social media
6th December 2010, 09:38 pm by Matt Rhodes
- Image by dullhunk via Flickr
This weekend friend after friend of mine on Facebook changed their profile picture. One changed it to a Smurf, another to He Man and another still to Bart Simpson. In total probably 25 of my 171 Facebook friends had a cartoon character as a profile picture by the time I had lunch on Saturday. And it wasn’t just my friends entering this craze – all over Facebook, profile pictures had been changed. Any why? Well that’s the pivotal question. If you were lucky enough to have a friend who had also added a status update that read:
Everyone please change your profile pic to your favourite childhood cartoon character until Monday 6th December in support of the NSPCC charity.
As the NSPCC announced on Twitter this morning, the cartoon profile craze was not initiated by it but rather grew organically, virally even perhaps.
Although the NSPCC did not originate the childhood cartoon Facebook campaign, we welcome the attention it has brought to the work we do
That the NSPCC did not create this campaign did not come as a surprise, mainly because however successful it might have been, the ‘campaign’ showed clear signs of not being strategically-led. OF not working as hard as it might for the organisation. Why? Well the idea is a good one – make people reminisce about their own happy childhood to raise awareness of those children less fortunate, the work of the NSPCC to help them and, presumably, to provoke an action (supporting or even giving to them). The problem was the cartoon profiles did not do this. Not only was there, in many cases, no reason given for the change in to a cartoon, there was also no call to action to support or even to donate to the NSPCC. In fact, I suspect the campaign also failed to raise significant discussions about the work of the NSPCC and of child protection in the UK. My suspicion is that most people would actually be more likely to talk about the cartoon than child abuse.
There have been many similar ‘campaigns’ in social media and social networks – changing profile pictures or annotating them in some way, or even passing messages in your status updates (such as the ‘I like it on…’ breast cancer awareness status campaign). The problem with many of these is that it is often not clear what the change is in aid of, and there is rarely a clear call to action or next step. Both are critical if you are to successfully get benefit from campaigns in social media. Tell people who you are and give them something to do next – if you engage them with something fun then give them something to do next, somewhere to find more information, learn or engage further.
Charities, on the whole, show some of the most innovative use of social media. Even with simple status-based tactics. From simple Twitter status takeovers (passing a clear message with a link through to donate to a charity you are supporting) to micro-donating on Facebook as we have seen with charities such as Breast Cancer Care in the UK.
The cartoon profiles this weekend were not started by NSPCC, they probably did raise some awareness of the charity and of the issues related to child abuse. But they could have done so much more. Social media can be a great media through which to raise awareness or to get a message out. But it is important to give people a way to find out more, a way to keep them in the experience with the organisation and to engage more deeply. It is important to let people know why their status or profile picture is changing and to truly educate them not just about cartoons, but about the real issues that you want to raise. If a ‘campaign’ is going to go viral, then make sure your message and call to action goes viral with it.
(Note – I didn’t change my own profile picture. If I had, it would probably have been to Penfold from Dangermouse)
For social media agency support get in touch or follow us on Twitter.
LStacey:
I did change mine and I did so for a couple of reasons. Of course my first thought was “what good will it actually do?” and it probably did very little but as far as I’m concerned, very little is better than nothing. It certainly did no harm. The second reason was that it was a bit of fun. The only people I have as “friends” on Facebook are real friends and family, it’s nice to share that kind of thing with them. That’s what social networks are all about, isn’t it?
What I did notice was that it created conversation or “engagement” as we in the business call it, which in turn raises awareness, the long term gains of which are hard to measure (as we well know) but are definitely there (as we continually preach). Take this blog post for example. It wouldn’t have existed if it weren’t for this accidental campaign. On top of the obvious conversations around the topic there is also a fair bit of link juice flowing around so it’s also good for SEO.
I was using Mark from Battle Of The Planets as my avatar. Shows my age…
6 December 2010, 10:16 pmMatt Rhodes:
A fair point, Lee. And I imagine the ‘campaign’ was successful in raising some buzz and some awareness. I just think it could have done more. Imagine a simple change. Rather than just change your profile picture, update your status until Monday too with a link to find out more about the NSPCC, to Like them on Facebook, or to sign up for more information from them (the last two being, in effect, the same thing). I’d expect the number of people who actually engaged with the organisation and issues (not just the profile picture-changing) to rise significantly with this. And the SEO benefits of status updates all with the same links and the same words. And you’d still get all the benefits you were getting anyway.
I guess my point is that engagement with a creative construct is good. Engagement also with the issue, brand, organisation or cause is better.
I always want more, better, quicker!
6 December 2010, 10:29 pmClaire Rollinson:
Hi Matt,
I think the key sentance to all this is:
“the NSPCC did not originate the childhood cartoon Facebook campaign…”
The fact it wasn’t their campaign, they would not have been able to control or encourage people to add a link to NSPCC or a donations page.
As Lee stated above though, it has created a whole lot of conversation and i have seen a lot of people on twitter actually take it a step further and say ” i wont change my profile pic but i will donate 10pence to NSPCC for everyone who retweets me” – so people have taken it upon themselves to use the awareness to drive donations..
7 December 2010, 8:58 amand i bet if anyone of these people on facebook are on the NSPCC mailings lists and receive the xmas appeal or see an underground poster promoting NSPCC, who knows this might just be the nudge they need to make that donation!
Vicki Maggs:
Hi Matt,
I must agree with Claire – we need to remember that this campaign was not created by NSPCC. Do we know who did create it? Was this consumer created? If so, surely this displays the power of Social Media?
For me personally, it did create conversation and awareness. I wanted to know why my friends were all changing their profile photos to cartoons? Ok I accept your point that this could have gone further by asking people to donate, but by making people aware of the NSPCCs “involvement” surely people would have gone to the site to see whether they were responding to this? And perhaps this would have encouraged them to donate?
An interesting campaign none the less – and I’d have had thomas the tank engine as my avatar
7 December 2010, 10:51 amHermes:
Slacktivism like this really gets my goat up.
I saw many cases of people feeling all warm and fuzzy having taken 30 seconds to Google an image and upload it to Facebook and how it would help the problem of child abuse – I even saw an article saying it was solving it. Yes, no kidding – changing your profile picture on a social network would solve the problem of child abuse.
If people were actually donating to the NSPCC, offering some of their time up (yes, getting off their backsides and volunteering rather than sitting in front of their PC) it would have added value, but to change your profile pic that of Smurfette was just pathetic as a vacuous gesture.
Glad I got that off my chest
H
7 December 2010, 1:31 pmSeb:
The fact you have written this, has come from the changing of profile pictures. It has made enough of an impact on you to take the time to write this, you can also assume that it also inspired at least one person to donate! one person who may have not otherwise done so.
7 December 2010, 10:57 pmnommo:
I changed my profile pic for fun – a couple of weeks ago before someone added the NSPCC bit onto the ‘meme’ – and it was fun.
Then – inspired by the buzz about the profile pics change, and to spite the naysayers regarding the NSPCC addendum – I donated.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/Applications/Donations/DonatePredonation.aspx
Which I am sure all those who criticised others for changing their profile pic have already done…
8 December 2010, 10:24 amAnnie Mole:
This shows what I hate about Facebook, the ability it has for people to sheepishly follow others & what I love about Facebook – the potential it has for social change. A good number of my friends changed their pics too – none mentioned why (which totally defeats the object in my opinion) One person had the good sense to highlight a campaign which actually tried to help & has raised over £2k in the process which is great http://www.justgiving.com/jagregory although a drop in the ocean in comparison to what could have been raised if everyone who changed their profile had actually donated money
Most of my friends have changed back now probably because this status update is doing the rounds
“your profile picture to a cartoon from your childhood was actually created by a group of Paedophiles because if children see pictures of cartoons they will add them. It was on the programme Internet Frauds, And will Also appear on the NEWS tonight. …Please warn others and Change your profile picture back. Protect our children!!!Pass it on
Seriously!!…”
I had to sigh in despair!
It certainly shows the power of friendship, tribes, not wanting to feel left out & a gazillion other things. But it also shows how well “campaigns” set up by ordinary people with no professional knowledge of marketing, social media, community management, whatever can work.
Charities should look at these campaigns and try to work with the people who set them up to refine them for good. Last year’s Anti X Factor Rage Against the machine was a great example of how “sticking it to the man” or giving a finger to Simon Cowell, actually managed to raise over £100,000 for Shelter http://www.justgiving.com/ratm4xmas & it’s great to see the campaign still doing well.
8 December 2010, 2:26 pm