The apparent merits of the social web for engaging people has been a topic I’ve touched on a few times over the years, with various studies suggesting that the enormous support campaigns receive online, seldom translates into more tangible signs of support.

Indeed, one study found that the more public your display of support, the less likely you were to follow that through with meaningful actions, which were defined as either donating time or money.

Getting a response in the first place

Of course, that assumes that you have obtained some support in the first place, which in a crowded online marketplace is far from guaranteed.  A recent study from the University of East Anglia highlighted the challenges involved in raising awareness about humanitarian crises.

It suggests that we have become almost de-sensitized to shocking events, and therefore online campaigns need to be surprising to grab our attention.  Far from providing a new way of reaching people, the web often makes us harder to reach.

Why people don’t respond

The authors suggest that part of the reason we don’t react well to humanitarian messages is that the web is so vast that actually finding information is often a particular challenge.  This is especially so in the case of trustworthy sources, such as from a government or respected charity.

For instance, it emerged that content from blogs and social media was often rejected by people for its potential for bias.

“My findings suggest that the internet is not a magic bullet for getting people engaged with or caring about humanitarian issues or crises,” the authors say.

Interestingly however, there appeared to be a more positive response to information from previously unknown organizations.  For instance, when faced with information from Charity Navigator, who are an intermediary that aim to help us decide where to donate money, the response was more positive than it was from well known names such as Oxfam or Save the Children.

Over-exposure

The authors believe this is because we have become jaded by more traditional campaigns and appeals from such organizations.

“The reasons why people might dismiss a television appeal seem to be simply transferred or modified for online campaigns. For example, they feel they are being manipulated or that they are not being told the whole truth. The key implication is that campaigns – both online and offline – often have to be surprising in order to be effective. When the participants in this study did respond positively, it was when they were unfamiliar with the organisation or not sure how to deal with the information they were getting. Campaigns that don’t challenge well-established patterns of avoidance are less likely to succeed,” they say.

The paper suggests that whilst high profile campaigns such as Kony 2012 have received a lot of attention, much less is known about the odds for success with more run of the mill campaigns.

It should be said that the sample used in the study was on the low side so it would be dangerous to read too much into things, but it is nonetheless a useful reminder that we shouldn’t get carried away by the blockbuster successes and assume that such exposure and engagement is a natural byproduct of online campaigns.  If anything, the reverse may well be the case.