Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided


11:20 am - December 6th 2010

by Ellie Mae    


      Share on Tumblr

Nothing quite brings out my more miserly and rancorous qualities like a Facebook campaign. And the ‘cartoon character’ campaign is no exception.

For those of you yet to have the displeasure, the campaign asks Facebook users to change their profile picture to a cartoon character in order to prevent child abuse. Or raise awareness about child abuse. Or just remind us that ‘abusing kids is bad LOLZ!’

I wasn’t clear on the detail.

In any case, there are two principle reasons for my finding this particular campaign somewhat irksome.

Firstly, I find it irresponsible to promote such an emotive cause without giving any thought as to how that cause is framed. The response to child abuse changes arbitrarily, depending on the contemporaneous narrative of the press.

The usual media response to child abuse stories is to vilify social workers and demand that children are removed from their homes. This response is certain to change the moment the Daily Mail publishes a spurious tale of a child being put into care on superficially ridiculous grounds. Given that these issues can make or break a family unit, and that social workers are under real pressure to respond to whatever the conventional wisdom of the time is, I can’t help recoiling.

It is testament to the hysteria endemic in these types of campaigns that some users have removed their pictures, believing the ‘campaign’ to be hatched by a paedophile ring. What these amorphous paedophiles stand to gain remains unclear; apparently the mere existence of cartoons is now aphrodisiac enough for them.

Secondly, I find these types of campaigns to be both ineffective and misguided. The fact is, the single biggest threat to children at the moment is the imminent and substantial cuts to social service budgets. Social workers are already stretched to their limit: what happens to their ability to help abused children after a grave loss of resources is anybody’s guess.

But instead of trying to resist these measures, hundreds of Facebook users have uploaded a jpg and then patted themselves on the back for a job well done. This type of ineffectual campaigning, in my mind, trivialises genuine efforts to confront issues like child abuse, not least because it encourages people to think that a kitsch gesture is action enough.

True, we are not all tubthumping activists, but there is a middle ground between shutting down Topshop, and a Topcat avatar. A petition to get the issue discussed in parliament, a money-raising drive, or – better yet – sharing information that helps people understand child abuse a little better, would all be more effective than the current effort.

I don’t doubt that those who have changed their pictures are well-intentioned. I also have no issue with social media-based wackiness per se.

But this is a time where taking action against immoral behaviour is imperative. To that end, a campaign that encourages people to believe they can make a change by doing nothing seems incredibly damaging.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Ellie Mae is an occasional contributor. She is co-editor of New Left Project. She is on Twitter and blogs here.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


The point of the campaign, from a marketing point of view, is to hitch on to the meme type of making a change and then (assuming you missed the memo) to have to ask people why they’ve changed their profile picture. The theory is that having people interact one and one with their peers to find out about the cause is more effective in making people *think* about the problem and solutions than to just stick a facebook message on the NSPCC page.

I agree with much of what you say, but as a way of raising awareness this is an extremely modern and potentially effective way of doing it, and shouldn’t be begrudged as one tool of many in the bag for trying to end child abuse.

I challenged a few people to raise money for the NSPCC on the back of this; http://www.c64glen.com/2010/12/cartoon-facebook-avatars-and-the-nspcc/ and it seemed to work.

I just thought it was a good excuse to have Skeletor as my profile picture.

Seriously though, if this campaign manages to raise some cash then it can be considered a harmless success.

Think you’ll find most people like idea of having a cartoon character from their childhood as a profile picture,

Interesting article and yes there are many people that think a simple upload, status comment and tweet is enough.

However, it got me changing my profile and sending a message to other friends who did the same and raised more awareness about child abuse in the UK and raised more money for the NSPCC even if it wasn’t their campaign.

You also relise how many people believe the mainstream media and become very alarmist in their attitude towards the subject matter of abuse.

People only get involved in campaigns if it’s initially fun and this was. It gets people talking, thinking and debating the issues and that can’t be a bad thing.

Jesus, you whine about this campaign which is harmless but could raise money for charity, and yet you praise the”UK UNKUT” protests which cause harm and do nothing to achieve anything?

“s. It gets people talking, thinking and debating the issues ”

I doubt anyone actually debated child abuse, as nobody would be in favour of it. The cartoon thing is more about people indicating what kind of person they are, signalling, etc. Changing your profile pic is about people trying to indicate that they care about the issue, but costs nothing to do.

This is from the official NSPCC facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/nspcc?v=wall

“A warm welcome to all our cartoon friends! We are incredibly grateful for your support to end cruelty to children in the UK. Although the NSPCC did not originate the childhood cartoon Facebook campaign, we welcome the attention it has brought to the work we do. If you would like to find out more about how you can get involved, please visit our website.”

I am enjoying being Olive Oyl for a few days and if it raises awareness and some money for the NSPCC all the better. There are far more important issues to exercise me.

What I find incredibly sad is the ‘counter-meme’ now infiltrating facebook which is suggesting that the original idea for the cartoon idea was from paedophiles trying to entrap children to ask them to be ‘friends’. According to tweets last night it was journos who started this ‘rumour’ for the sake of a good story – if so shame on them. Also shame on parents who allow young children to take part in facebook and other social networks meant for adults.

Totally harmless, non paedophile piece of fun that gets people considering the underlying issue and demonstrating that they support the cause. The fact that the NSPCC didn’t instigate the campaign is irrelevant, I bet they wish they had now, as it has added to their coffers with very little effort. How can that be a bad thing?

This is not about debating social resources, funding, cuts or anything else of that nature, it’s about your average Joe getting involved, albeit maybe only slightly, and albeit very simply. Social media is about engagement and sharing, Facebook is the epitome of that sharing experience. Let’s not get too deep about something that only does good. Oh and if the paedophile thing was started by journos then that speaks volumes about them and may go some way to explain the death of printed newspapers. People own brands, consensus now has some power…

I think there’s been a frankly amusing & also annoying over-reaction to all this- yes, the mere changing of profile pictures isn’t going to stop child abuse on it’s own, but I suppose it is also about awareness. If you can plant the seed of thought about the cause in people’s heads then it’s probably more likely that they’ll donate time &/or money to that cause in the near future (I don’t know exactly how successful this kind of approach is as I don’t know a great deal about how charities operate etc).

I also changed my profile pic because it was a good excuse to put up a picture of Ivor The Engine, in a salute to 2 of the greatest British childrens TV creators, Oliver Postgate & Peter Firmin!

I note that on the NSPCC Facebook page they state:

“A warm welcome to all our cartoon friends! We are incredibly grateful for your support to end cruelty to children in the
UK. Although the NSPCC did not originate the childhood cartoon Facebook
campaign, we welcome the attention it has brought to the work we do. If
you would like to find out more about how you can get involved,
please visit our website.”

But hey, what do they know?

Should I change mine back then??

I promote awareness of the utterly taboo subject of stillbirth and neonatal death. If I launched a similar campaign, would you write derogatory and deprecating things about me and my motives/methods too? If it has made some people stop and think for two seconds, then job well done. If it has let a kid who thinks they are suffering on their own know they are NOT ALONE, job well done. If it makes people, at a time of year when childhood and charity are prevalent donate, job well done. Instead of lambasting and sneering, why not get into the spirit of what is, essentially, a well meaning, good-will, wonderful gesture by many thousands of people. Your glass looks half empty, but to me it is half full. Thank God you most definitely DO NOT speak for the majority.

I think this OP is mean-spirited. It IS a harmless bit of consciousness-raising and should not be scorned. It would be better to take the action as read and build upon it if you are that concerned.

NB child abuse =/= paedophilia. There’s much more to it.

15. Hatchet-face

It’s just a good excuse to have a Pokemon picture up..I think most people have done it for that reason.

I’m going to do a terrible job of debating today as I’m really busy, but a few quick points.

1. Raising awareness? What a crock. Who isn’t aware of child abuse? And who *doesn’t* think it’s bad? I didn’t realise disapproving of child abuse was something people had to make explicit.

I totally refute the ‘it gets people thinking’ argument. It encourages people not to think, in my view, by implying the answer is straightforward and simple. Something so complex should not be treated in such a reductive way.

The evidence of people debating the issue as a result of this campaign is far outweighed by the angry anti-paedo mob from what I can see, and that’s what happens when you reduce a sensitive issue to such simple terms.

I have no idea who started the subsequent rumour but the fact that so many immediately believed it speaks volumes.

The fight against child abuse doesn’t need a Facebook campaign, it needs professionals with the proper training and skills to help families. I highly doubt any children will be better off as a result of this, but I’m pretty sure the sentimentality will muddy the issue.

2. Nspcc website – well what did you expect them to say?! They have no choice but to support it, and it’s clear from their message they’re already trying to provide some much needed context. Given that the campaign is already descending into an anti-paedo pitchfork fest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were actually shitting themselves.

17. Cynical/Realist?

How much money have NSPCC raised? This is the work of someone starting a trend then watching it rocket. People changed their picture because having a childhood memory brought back is fun*. Paint me extreamely surprised (nay, shocked) if NSPCC notice any increase in funds from this.

I saw yesterday one Facebooker change their picture, then change it back when the pedo version did the rounds, claiming, ‘when I realised changing your picture did nothing for the charity I changed it back’. Lord, people actually thought changing their picture did something. They never thought to donate a pound or two to NSPCC. And then when people point out the stupidity they get defensive, ‘well, at least its Awareness’.

Bloody hell. If you want a cartoon picture, knock yourself out. That is genuinely fun and stirs good memories and starts conversations. But falsely attaching it to a charity and assuming this does some good in-and-of-itself? Blimey charlie.

*For the record, Mysterious Cities of Gold is the best cartoon ever. A pure and simple fact not even worth debating surely?

18. Cynical/Realist?

@14 – “NB child abuse =/= paedophilia. There’s much more to it.”

No? You don’t say? There are other forms of hurting children that paedophilia? Well, I take it all back. Seeing a He-Man picture really has been a glorious revolution for Awareness as I never knew that.

@13 – Tackling child abuse (or any other subject) takes more than cartoon pictures. If you were to campain on stillbirth I would salute you – but not using these ridiculous methods. And I say that advisably, having had very recent experience of this trauma.

Facebook can (and should) be a tool in any charities fundraising box. But this cartoon campaign is a viral nostaligia fest (again, all good if its done just for itself). It does nothing for child abuse – campaign for donations.

I promote awareness of the utterly taboo subject of stillbirth and neonatal death. If I launched a similar campaign, would you write derogatory and deprecating things about me and my motives/methods too?

That’s an issue that needs more awareness raising of!

Jesus Christ. Pick your battles.

I’ve changed my facebook profile pic to the childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Children: Know your enemy!

22. Cynical/Realist?

@21 Ha ha! Reminds me of a conversation I had a while back with someone (who now has a cartoon avatar – not Mysterious Cities of Gold though), who honestly and truthful believes she can ‘spot a paedophile’. There are people she has swung her kids away from on the basis of their looks (i.e. they probably look a bit like the childcatcher). Others whose looks ring no alarm bells are not treated with this degree of contempt. I doubt the cartoon-Awareness-raising has helped her see how idiotic this policy is.

I must just add this little Ps. I like – lots of others who changed their profile pics to cartoons – donated online to the NSPCC. Within 5 minutes our Credit Card company rang Other Half [as the main card holder] to ask him if he had donated to NSPCC as it is apparently a well know scam for those who have stolen credit cards to ‘try them out’ by donating to charity. So in a roundabout way it is nice to know that charities are benefiting from our ‘Broken Society’!

Sunny’s right, but more than that – stillbirth is most often the result of a tragic twist of fate; child abuse is the result of complex social and personal issues. As I keep saying, it is damaging to reduce it to such simple terms.

I find this all very ‘won’t somebody think of the children’ and I think @20 proves the point I am trying to make, in that she (I presume) is horrified by the mere criticism of the campaign because of its subject matter. I hate the idea that anything other than instant condemnation is condonation – an idea I believe to be precipitated by simplistic campaigns such as this.

Hehe a lot of people are calling me a miser. I accept that criticism. I enjoy the music of Justin Bieber, would you believe!

@16 Ellie Mae:
You said
“1. ……The fight against child abuse doesn’t need a Facebook campaign, it needs professionals with the proper training and skills to help families. I highly doubt any children will be better off as a result of this, but I’m pretty sure the sentimentality will muddy the issue.”

If you read the NSPCC website thoroughly it does suggest that Facebook campaigns are good idea for raising funds and awareness. This predates the recent cartoon craze.

Personally I have used facebook for campaigning on other issues, charitable and political. It certainly has helped me to raise awareness of issues generally unreported in the press.

You also said:
“2. Nspcc website – well what did you expect them to say?! They have no choice but to support it, and it’s clear from their message they’re already trying to provide some much needed context. Given that the campaign is already descending into an anti-paedo pitchfork fest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were actually shitting themselves.”

I can’t help feeling that this comment is neither helpful or a good reading of their message.

“The fight against child abuse doesn’t need a Facebook campaign, it needs professionals with the proper training and skills to help families. I highly doubt any children will be better off as a result of this, but I’m pretty sure the sentimentality will muddy the issue.”

This paragraph alone shows how little you understand of what this sort of meme achieves, and what good it can bring. You see things in far too simplistic terms if you feel everything that people do has to either directly fight abuse or not. It’s naive beyond words.

I doubt many people that changed their profile picture felt it’d change the world, though some have clearly donated to help out those that are fighting against child abuse, so I’m not exactly sure why you disrespect those that took part in it unless you have a decent level of contempt for people in general.

27. Shatterface

I normally use Hong Kong Phooey but I’ve changed it to Freddy Kruger in protest.

This continues the trend if bloggers here forgetting that not everyone sees everything as a political statement or a campaigning issue.

I changed my picture to Dogtanian.

Did I think that I had combatted child abuse? Have I made a powerful statement of opposition to cruelty? No. I’ve got a cute profile picture that inspired a moment of childhood nostalgia.

I don’t think the issue is trivialised by the campaign. I DO think a lot of people engaged because it was a fun thing to do. I DO believe the NSPCC has made extra money it otherwise may not have had. Ergo what harm has really been done? The campaign isn’t misguided, those commenting negatively or criticising the lack of depth are misguided and have seriously missed the point. Find a real battle instead of trying to create one out of nothing….

“As I keep saying, it is damaging to reduce it to such simple terms.”

Please explain what is damaging about people showing over facebook that they are thinking about those that suffer abuse as a child? What is damaging to any children that may be using facebook that see it and can use that…however they wish…to take some level of comfort or solace? What is damaging about those people that feel guilty about having a good life compared to these children then donating out of the ordinary cycle to charities like the NSPCC that provide support and help that actually matters to these children? What is damaging about people being intrigued in a meme to the extent that they get on board with it at a peer-to-peer level and talk about this issue with their peers and providing the ground work for potential increase in the support base for the services offered to children, or for campaigns that make a real difference?

Tell me, given you’re so knowledgeable about how simplistic things like this can be, what is the damaging factor in all of this?

@13 Kitty

I hope that you are aware of http://www.uk-sands.org/ a marvellous organisation for whom I used to do couselling. If you would like to contact me via my blog please do. I would be more than willing to help you – and you Sunny! – raise awareness of this very under discussed subject

@ 16 Ellie Mae – spot on

And as it happens the donating idea only came about due to a few people suggesting that cartoons won’t do anything for child abuse, but donating a quid or two to children’s charities might. Only when *that* was suggested and links to NSPCC posted, did money trickle in. And of course NSPCC is going to support that…. it’s good PR for them!

The original meme was simply about not seeing human faces on FB over the weekend and then as a JOKE, a group added on the fight against child abuse to see how many people would jump on the bandwagon… I dont see what’s funny about it myself… but this reveals more about the people who jumped on the latest social consciousness meme bandwagon than it does the people who saw through it. With all the crap about child abuse cases reported on a daily basis in the media, I find it astounding that people can seriously propose that this raising awareness. Participants that I observed cared more about the childhood connection than the abuse angle.

33. Cynical/Realist?

@28 – thats the point. It actually does nothing productive for preventing child abuse – its just fun to have a cartoon picture. It is. I agree. But there’s no point in the NSPCC thing. Facebook can be used to stimulate much better debate and funding for charities than people swapping their profile pic to something fun. I haven’t seen any debate on how to stop child abuse on Facebook. Just loads of people going, ‘oh I remember Button Moon too’.

@26 – yes, NSPCC probably do think Facebook can be a great tool to generate funds and awareness of their campaigns. But that doesn’t mean the cartoon craze is a good example of that at all. This is an example of a nostaligia crazy which some seem to have the vanity to think they have contributed to eradicating child abuse by putting Thomas The Tank Engine on their profile.

It’s interesting to see the debate this has kick started. You could argue that putting a ‘twibbon’ on your profile picture has the same effect but I didnt see any of the hype around World AIDS Day when people changed their profile pics to red ribbons. I’m sure those people were well aware that changing their picture wouldn’t cure HIV in the same way this cartoon saga won’t stop child cruelty or abuse but it may encourage one person to donate or do more research or even just think about their own child’s safety while online.

Interestingly I first saw this trend amongst my teenage sisters friends on facebook. Teenagers can also be victims of child abuse and exploitation by older people as well as peers, awareness amongst this group can only be a good thing. Rather than scaremongering, it would be nice for an agencies, journos and bloggers to follow this up positively, for example, signpostint such teenagers to the CEOP website http://www.thinkuknow.co.uk

This article has prompted me to donate a few quid to the NSPCC, thereby refuting itself.

This article has prompted me to donate a few quid to the NSPCC, thereby refuting itself.

You see? NSPCC wanted us to do this all along so people would give them more money in rage!
Job done….

I can’t really see the harm in it, really.

IMO, talking of issues such as the “contemporaneous narrative of the press” is massively overthinking something which is essentially a small, harmless exercise on a social networking site which may raise a little money from one or two people.

It’s all just a bit daft innit? Let’s stop pretending to ourselves that posturing on a social networking site about an ‘issue’ is really going to change anything. The points the article makes are spot on. If it makes you feel like you’re actually going to make a difference to kids getting hurt by ‘raising the issue’ (thanks Hong Kong Phooey…I never knew people were cruel to kids, before) then good luck. It reminds me of the trend for wearing those rubber wrist bands that told everyone which causes you were into. You could buy one for a pound from Next. With Next on it.
The ‘raising debate’ point is mute as a force for change on facebook. Post ‘Old Mother Riley was a bad mother’ or ‘Norman Wisdom wasn’t funny’ and debate will be.
Good article.

Whoever thought of the counter meme is an absolute genius, it’s almost as great a trolling idea as the Finland duck.

I am just going to change my picture profile on facebook. Not for any other reason than today is the Feast of St Nicholas which we celebrate in our family. So greetings to one and all!

36

I hear the NSPCC don’t accept donations unless they’re done in rage.

39 – Finland duck? Do tell…

I couldn’t disagree more! This kind of Facebook meme can get a lot of people involved and engaged very quickly – it gets them asking “Why are people changing their profile picture?” and encourages people to check out the group, which can contain important information or links. It’s not a substitute for full-blown activism or petition-writing, but it can be a very simple step-up for people to get involved. The problem in this case may have been one of execution if the campaign’s page didn’t provide opportunities for further action.

Whatever the motive of this campaign it has evoked a reaction and brought the issue to the forefront.

This article is point in case. Without the campaign the views expressed here would not have been aired or, even if they had, would not have received so much attention.

It doesn’t mater what side of a debate you are on. What matters is being heard. Therefore there is no place to gripe.

A simple question.

Where is the harm?

If there is none (and I can’t for the life of me see any) then what is the problem – it is either neutral or benevolent in its effect.

And most beautifully of all, it shows how the chaos of the internet works – an idea emerges, it links to a cause, it gets attacked by others, and now someone decides something must be done (albeit that something seem to be moaning, which is probably the thing the internet does already…). And the really great thing – none of this was controlled, selected or determined by anyone.

@42 http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Play_Conservatroll
It’s the highest scoring technique when playing conservatroll, aka treating conservapedia with the contempt it deserves.

@32

Oh crap! Should I cancel the direct debit I was prompted to set up then? If only I’d realised that my actions arose from “a JOKE… to see how many people would jump on the bandwagon”. If only I’d known that donating to the NSPCC “reveals more about the people who jumped on the latest social consciousness meme bandwagon than it does the people who saw through it.”

I’ve learned my lesson. I’ll never jump on a charitable giving bandwagon again.

48. Matt Wardman

(General: looks like a good day on LC for good articles, including this one 🙂

>‘cartoon character’ campaign

Should I have heard of it? Oops.

>Totally harmless, non paedophile piece of fun that gets people considering the underlying issue and demonstrating that they support the cause. The fact that the NSPCC didn’t instigate the campaign is irrelevant, I bet they wish they had now, as it has added to their coffers with very little effort. How can that be a bad thing?

To me a campaign, however whacky, is no good whatsoever unless it is clear what it is about, who it is promoted by, and that the objectives are useful. Facebook icons, like twibbons, can whip up easy support – which may be useful, or not.

And the area of child abuse is the last place I’d want to see easy support whipped up. Fund-raising for the NSPCC – yes. Fund-raising for the NSPCC on the back of “oppose child abuse” – no. Far too “Daily Mail” for me.

The questions are far too complex, and grey areas far too many.

Completely agree. I posted something similar to what you have written and whilst I got a lot of shit for it, I also got a lot of support.

I didn’t change my profile picture but I DID post a link to the NSPCC. Still doing very little, but it’s slightly more than what most did.

Slacktivism at its worst.

OMG! Get over it! No harm done! Know when to pick your battles!

I think this is a very churlish article. This can do not harm in my opinion – it is like the rumour that it was started by child abusers – well what could they hope to gain – I can think of nothing. OK, so it may not have done much good either but if it has raised it in the consciousness of one person, or raised £20 for the NSPCC, then this, coupled with the fact it is harmless, makes it worthwhile.

Comment number 20 is wonderfully said.

53. Brown Eyed Girl

As a public campaigner I’ve used social networks and I can see how they can be used effectively but I’ve also seen some bad examples. I know I’m about to be crucified for this but I don’t think this campaign really is that affective.

I don’t think it matters that it wasnt organised by NSPCC, some of the best campaigns are organic. I also think that some people might feel that Sunny is critising them for taking this action, he’s not he is just pointing out that there isn’t actually a quantifiable action.

As a campaigner when we write our yearly and quarterly plans we set targets that aim to achieve a real change. Yes we aim to raise awareness but only so that it then leads to more people taking action. One fault with this campaign is that it doesn’t tell you what else you can do or what the impact of this action will be.

If this campaign had been on behalf of the NSPCC the status update would have included a shortlink which would have taken you to a page on their website giving you two choices 1) Donate 2)Take a campaign action. It would also tell you why and what your action/donation was going towards – this information is a huge reason why people actually do something. Charities put a lot of effort and research into this as they know with out it most people won’t bother.

Having seen plenty of web traffic stats I can confidently say that the amount of people who would click that link would be a fraction of those that have changed their facebook profile. There would then be another huge drop off of those clicking through to either donate or to take action – before a final smaller drop off of those that don’t complete subsequient form.

Even when you make it as simplisitic as possible you’ll only get a tiny fraction of people who take either of the two options – we are talking percentages in the single figures.

So as a campaign that doesn’t actually ask you to do anything, doesn’t tell you what it aims to achueve and doesn’t make it easy for you to take further action – I doubt how many people have actually gone to the website or made a donation on the back of this.

This isn’t to say that facebook or even twitter campaigns don’t can’t work even when they aren’t asking you to take further action but they are rare. In fact the only one that comes to mind was when people turned their twitter avatars green to show people in iran just how many of us were supporting their protests. That was because twitter was one of the few ways they could send and receive uncensored news.

I’m not critising anyone for changing their avatar and status but just be aware it won’t lead on to anything quantifiable. In a few days nothing will have changed.. Appart from probably your profile pic back to what it was before.

If you really think its important, go on to their website and take their priority campaign action (or even donate if you can but an action is free) then get the short link for that action and put that in your status. It’ll do a lot more for child abuse than turning yourself into bugs bunny.

Very good article. I agree.

I can see the ‘pick your battles’ argument cropping up on Sunny’s piece too, and I find it totally fatuous to be quite honest.

Yes there’s a lot of issues afoot at the moment, but normal service is still continuing. This campaign…fad…action…or whatever you want to call it was getting debated a lot on Facebook. I thought it was an issue worth raising and discussing – after all, why are you doing it if you’re not interested in the reasons for it?

Not everything has to be about spending cuts, but if that’s all you’re interested, feel free to read my blog as I’ve done a lot on that.

“As a campaigner when we write our yearly and quarterly plans we set targets that aim to achieve a real change. ”

This is because it’s the time honoured and accepted way of doing things. It’s trackable. It’s target driven. It let’s people be commended or fired on the basis of results.

New campaigns like this are harder to gauge and measure, focused more on a more intrinsic change or awareness in people rather than a single organisation quarterly result, and I imagine that worries people like you in the sector.

I really enjoyed this campaign and because of it made a donation to NSPCC and encouraged a number of my friends to do the same. It was rather fun to be represented by my favourite cartoon character for a week. I hope they do it again next year. The campaign encouraged me to think about my childhood and how important childhood is and how we need to protect others childhood. That is a simple message that everyone can understand. Clearly if it went Viral it worked. Seems very simple minded to diss it … most good social media users altered the message to say “if you changed your profile pic then you should make a donation”. Will be interested to hear if donation went up on down… imagine they will be substantially up. Maybe for the first time the NSPCC will do better than the RSPCA here in the UK!


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  2. Sara Teresa

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  3. Hannah Roberts

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  4. Mike Green

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  5. Axis of Elvis

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy: http://bit.ly/fOF8AM

  6. Elly W

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/s4DPQxx via @libcon

  7. Youssef

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  8. Tej Singh Chaggar

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  9. Lee Griffin

    Moany person begrudges any kind of awareness-raising that doesn't directly lead to saving a child http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ via @libcon

  10. carrie JS

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  11. Sharon Lawler

    Mostly agree , tho take point re:awareness and funds RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  12. Cai Wingfield

    @willwybrow RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  13. Richard A Brooks

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1OLb7q1 via @libcon

  14. Mark Jones

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  15. Danny Huber

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  16. Ellie Mae

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  17. Lav Moot

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  18. Lee Durbin

    "[T]here is a middle ground between shutting down Topshop, and a Topcat avatar" http://is.gd/ihLbT

  19. Stephanie Davies

    And @mannygetthewine's tole-rant: http://bit.ly/eVUaud @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  20. Andy Bean

    Valid points made on bigger picture, but also read comments RT @libcon Why FBcampaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  21. Mr Pepworth

    Patronising Millie Tant style rant >> RT @libcon Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  22. Darren Swee Kong Lee

    The author sounds a bit po-faced, but hard to disagree RT @libcon Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  23. socialworkuk

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  24. Broken OfBritain

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  25. Philippa

    .@lorriehearts RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  26. Jikan

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  27. Juke de Haan

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  28. Mairi Sharratt

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ph3D8Nt via @libcon

  29. Nevs Coleman

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hCwz5MX via @libcon

  30. Jim Jam

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  31. Shelley Woo!

    RT @incurablehippie: .@lorriehearts RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  32. Shelley Woo!

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  33. The Daily Quail

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://t.co/OVc6IEp < Um, could it because it's not a campaign?

  34. Jack Watkins

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  35. Jack Watkins

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ a good piece on that.

  36. Jack Watkins

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  37. James Baker

    RT @DailyQuail: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://t.co/OVc6IEp < Um, could it because it's not a campaign?

  38. Naadir Jeewa

    Reading: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided: Nothing quite brings out my more miserly and ran… http://bit.ly/g3qzNn

  39. elgan

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  40. Gregg Eyman

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  41. Jim McSporran

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/PO0nSa6 via @libcon Couldn't agree more.

  42. NK

    Did you change yours? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/06/why-the-facebook-campaign-on-child-abuse-is-misguided/

  43. Lee Griffin

    I find it funny that @misselliemae can write this (correctly) http://bit.ly/hGMd8M after writing this (facetiously) http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  44. Alexis Harakis

    RT @wexxie: Did you change yours? http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/06/why-the-facebook-campaign-on-child-abuse-is-misguided/

  45. Laura

    RT @libcon: Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided http://bit.ly/gpOqHQ

  46. crystal marshall

    Why the Facebook campaign on child abuse is misguided | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LY6n9uc via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.