By Sree Sreenivasan
DNAinfo Contributing Editor
My first thought was, "What a terrible idea."
Student representatives from Columbia Journalism School’s chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists (the school’s student government), wanted to see if I would help them raise $1,000 for scholarships and Japan relief by staying off Twitter and Facebook for a day.
It reminded me of the failed "Digital Death" campaign that celebrities such as Lady Gaga, Kim Kardashian, Usher, etc., launched for World AIDS Day last December. In that well-intentioned, but badly-executed initiative, celebrities would stay off social media until their fans gave $1 million in one day to charity. As explained in this post by Rania Eldekki, things went awry:
Since the stars all have millions of fans online, it seems as if they overestimated their social media power, basically expecting fans to donate 1 million in a day, to help bring them back to life. When the $500k mark wasn't met a week into the campaign, the celebrities began getting frustrated, claiming that they were "more than a little let down by their followers" and complaining that this charitable cause was taking "longer than expected". So the Internet deprived stars decided to go a different route; they convinced billionaire, Stewart Rahr, to donate the rest of the money so that they could get back online - therefore, cheating their way back to life.
My students’ idea, however was the opposite of the Digital Death campaign. Their Silence Sree campaign (#silencesree, of course, was the hashtag), wasn’t about asking for money so that I could share my thoughts on social media. It was about asking for money to keep me off social media.
We settled on 200 donors as a goal, and the percentage of that number who gave would keep me off Facebook and Twitter for that same percentage. Therefore, if 20 people gave, that would mean I’d be off social media for 10 percent of a day, or 2.4 hours. The actual amount raised was less important than getting people to give something (because they were using Paypal, the online minimum donation was $5; but the in-person minimum was just $1).
The students and I tweeted and Facebooked about the fundraiser and the word spread, especially after a humorous post in PBS Mediashift by Carla Baranauckas, which included several digs at me by friends and even my wife. Everyone, it turns out, is a closet comedian, but the best line belonged to my best friend, Andrew Lih of USC: "Asking Sree to step away from social media communication? You'd have better luck getting TMZ to ignore Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen for 24 hours."
The campaign, which lasted just a week and ended with Silence Sree Day last Thursday, raised $1,172.25 (minus $41.32 in Paypal fees) to be split between scholarships (85 percent) and Japan relief (15 percent). More importantly, 104 people donated to the cause. Originally, they’d raised enough money to keep me off for eight hours, starting at 9 am but donors stepped up throughout the day, so I stayed off for 9 hours and 15 minutes.
Here's what I learned:
1. Staying off Facebook and Twitter wasn’t easy. Not because I was dying to talk, but because I wanted to listen. In the midst of a busy news week, I was afraid about what I was missing. Turned out that my friends who were joking about my addiction were right — I was addicted and showing withdrawal symptoms. I had gotten so used to checking Twitter at every chance I get — it’s my main source of breaking news throughout the day — that not being able to check the feed and my @mentions was frustrating.
And Facebook posed a different challenge. I don’t usually check it as often, but I get email alerts every time someone comments on something I’ve posted and every time someone posts on my wall. I made it a point to avoid reading those, but their constant appearance in my inbox made it tougher. Foursquare was also part of my social-media silence, but I’m still getting used to it (see my article, 10 things I learned during two months on Foursquare).
2. The email and web loophole saved me. Fortunately, I was allowed to use email and the web, so I could get my work done and generally keep in touch. If they had wanted my silence in those areas, too, a thousand bucks would not have been enough — I’d want $10,000 to be the goal. Maybe $100,000.
3. Interesting ideas get attention. In a world filled with so many worthy online fundraising efforts of all kinds, the fact that 100-plus people gave money is wonderful. Some were students and alumni, but many were strangers who heard about the project and decided to contribute.
4. A menu of beneficiaries works. Another lesson for fundraising is that giving people options for beneficiaries makes them more likely to contribute. Some folks gave because of their interest in supporting scholarships, while others gave to help Japan. While most fundraising will be for a single cause, it might be possible to have money split between two or more initiatives at a particular charity.
5. Can’t give money? There’s still plenty you can do. A lot of us are suffering from fundraising fatigue. Bombarded as we are by charity requests, events and more in a tough economy, it’s easy to tune out. If you can’t give money, there’s still plenty you can do, especially using social media. Hitting that share or like button or retweeting a request is a simple action that helps get the word out and someone who might be able to help is more likely to see the request. So if you encounter a worthy cause and can’t give, don’t worry. Give the gift of the RT or share/like buttons instead.
A big thank you to students LaToya Tooles (@latooles) and Andew Seaman (@andrewmseaman) — and their adviser, Rebecca Castillo (@rebeccacastillo) — for coming up with the idea and cajoling me into taking part.
Post your comments below using your Facebook account or on Twitter @sree.
Every week, DNAinfo contributing editor Sree Sreenivasan, a Columbia journalism professor, shares his observations about the changing media landscape.
