Photo via Malaria No More

If there's one thing I'm confident about in terms of social persuasion, influence and change, it's that humor (applied appropriately) is a powerful tool that catches attention, increases viral momentum and inspires action.  When we find stories that are funny or poke fun at a situation that seems otherwise mundane or boring, we are more willing to share it with our friends, retain the information, and respond positively to the call to action. 

Below are two great examples of this idea.  The use of coal in the city of LA is about as interesting as root canal, but Greenpeace found a clever way to engage their audience and it certainly compelled me to take action against it.  The second clip, which is even more funny, raises awareness about Malaria in Africa.  Although this is a serious topic, it's hard to get excited about it when there are so many other pressing global issues to address, like the devistation in Japan.  The video (which is hilarious) does a great job of shining a light of awareness on the problem and creates a simple call to action that is hard to ignore.

What do you think?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Photo by Uglyanges

As an expert, projection of confidence is a key component in your level of persuasion, right?  Right.  But not the way you think.

In a recent Stanford Business study, researchers confirmed that experts increase their level of persuasiveness if they express some degree of uncertainty or doubt about a particular opinion.  In doing so, audiences that naturally assume an expert is confident in their perspectives, perk up and begin to pay closer attention to the gap in certainty.  As human’s we’re hardwired to make sense of things, and closing the loop on an expert opinion is no exception.  Once the audience’s attention has been captivated in story details in an effort to arrive at the right conclusion, their minds become more open to persuasive evidence.  To add my own scientific opinion, expressing occasional uncertainty reinforces a sense of authenticity and transparency in the expert, which enhances connectivity and resonance in the audience.

So how does this translate to applied communications?   Zakary Tormala, the brains behind this theory suggests that if you want to capture attention and influence, consider opening your argument with a position of doubt.  In doing so, you have a higher likelihood of increasing focus and getting your audience to process the message more effectively.  However, if you’re a CEO looking to gain confidence in a time of uncertainty, this tactic might not be the way to go.  Confidence and charisma will take you much further when addressing tenuous issues.

What’s the take away here?  Judge your audience, anticipate their level of attention, and determine what you need them to feel (persuaded and engaged or comforted and reassured) and consider the “expert doubt” factor as a tool of persuasion to be used at the appropriate time.

Get the whole story on the HBR website: http://hbr.org/2011/03/defend-your-research-experts-are-more-persuasive-when-theyre-less-certain/ar/1

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Creating Empathy vs. Using Logic 

The key reason that high involvement leads to increased persuasion is the formation of empathy in the minds of the target audience.  As Pink suggests, empathy “is the ability to imagine yourself in someone else’s position and to intuit what that person is feeling”.  Empathy can be an effective form of persuasion, especially when the marketer is targeting their communications towards an affective thinker (someone who reasons through “I feel” rather than “I think”). When communicating with cognitive versus affective oriented thinkers, appropriate use of “I think” verses “I feel” in the context of messaging will increase the likelihood of resonation within each audience. 

How do we determine cognitive versus affective thinkers in our audience? Although gender is not an absolute definition, “on average, women are more affectively oriented than men” (Mayer & Tormala).  So if you can segment gender in a targeted communication, you might increase your likelihood of persuading your audience without changing anything other than “I think” vs. “I feel”. 

Here's a short but very clever story on the art of persasion, told by none other than a fellow Canadian.  The moral of her punchy story - if you want to persuade, a little creativity goes a long way (...and that Canadians are fabulously nice people :)

AllisonHunt_2007.mov Watch on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Image by Intersection Consulting

It’s interesting to me that many of the brands I’ve had the opportunity to explore from the inside, often suffer a disconnect between the external brand, and how the company looks and feels under the hood.  Building brand authenticity starts at the core of the company.  The mission, the values, the personality attributes, should be inspired by a top-down leadership model, and fostered from the bottom up through an internal communication narrative.  For when a brand aligns internal culture and external messaging, employees have a stronger sense of value recognition.  And when values align, good things happen.

In January I’m kicking off my thesis research on how organizations can effectively communicate enhanced meaning intervention (aka happiness) through mediated technology.  In laymen’s terms, I’m asking the question of how we can increase value alignment, social connection and a sentiment of meaningful work through social media, internal portals and transmedia storytelling.  Put into practice, the 3-foot stack of research on my desk suggests that companies can enjoy enhanced organizational commitment, increased employee engagement and slurry of other fabulous kickbacks around creativity, innovation and productivity.

Fortunately, the idea of increased happiness in the workforce is not a theory that starts with me.  One of my mentors, a professor of marketing at Stanford University, encouraged me to dive into the growing research and consider how we can disseminate this knowledge into mediated content. 

The end result will no doubt point towards what Nike has done to develop their internal portal to increase employee connection to the brand. Or perhaps what Zappos has created via YouTube to tell the story of how they inject autonomy, fun and weirdness into their workday.

Here’s a clip on Professor Aaker’s ideas about branding from the inside out, as well as a goofy (yet authentic) story from the Zappos workforce. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Now, pulling them all together into a cohesive, powerful and moving message might not be the easiest thing to do, but to run your ideas through this checklist of persuasion points is certainly worth the time and effort.

This is one to print out and refer to often.  Enjoy.

Click here to read 20 Simple Steps to the Perfect Persuasive Message.

Photo by Intersection Consultingy

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This is a great presentation created by Piaras Kelly, capturing the power of cause-related marketing and illustrating a new social purpose business paradigm which bridges the benefits of cause marketing campagins with traditional CSR functions.  Check out slide 34 for more details.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Today I came across this great peice and I just had to share.  Enjoy!

Photo by Mr. Moog via Flickr

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

According to a recent  University of Illinois study,  if you ask yourself if you will do something rather than tell yourself, chances are, you will.  

This research points to the power of unconscious formation of ideas and behavioral outcomes based on self-talk – something we’re all very familiar with.  Based on this research, Professor Albarracin has found evidence that language and self-motivation are interdependent. "The popular idea is that self-affirmations enhance people's ability to meet their goals," Professor Albarracin said. "It seems, however, that when it comes to performing a specific behavior, asking questions is a more promising way of achieving your objectives."

These findings have an interesting implication for cause-related and social marketing campaign development in terms of how we present ideas about pro-social behavior change.  If we can position messages so that individuals ask themselves, “will I?” rather than “I will…quit smoking, eat more veggies, conserve energy”…. the campaign will have a much greater potential for success.  Interestingly, this research supports studies in the area of conformity and commitment that suggests the “extent to which one's commitments are made actively is one powerful determinant of the likelihood of request compliance” (Cialdini & Trost 1998).

So when creating messages around social change (or heck, even writing the next self-help bestseller), rather than providing affirmative statements about behavior change, inspire your audience to ask themselves if they will comply the behavior you’re suggesting.  By creating an opportunity for constituents to ask themselves whether they will vote for a particular candidate or donate to a specific cause, you are inviting active participation in the decision-making process and increasing your odds for a successful outcome.

References

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2010, June 1). Will we succeed? The science of self-motivation. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/05/100528092021.htm

Will we succeed? The science of self-motivation. (n.d.). . Retrieved October 17, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528092021.htm

Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity - Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1):591. (n.d.). . Retrieved October 17, 2010, from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Moms and Millennials are spearheading the enthusiastic emphasis toward cause related marketing campaigns.  According to a recent study conducted by Cone LLC, when quality and price are equal, consumers are 80% more likely to switch to brands that support a cause, rather than sticking with their typical tried and true brand choice.

Conscious consumerism is gaining momentum here in the US, and it’s something that all brands should be taking a closer look at.  If you don’t stand for something, you might be passed up for a similar brand that does.

Download the full study results here.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

So how does one craft a compelling story about their business?  This is where brand identity is vitally important.  You must know who and what your brand stands for, the feelings, values and core purpose it represents, and who the ideal customer is – intimately.  This builds a framework for the brand story, but a solid narrative is the foundation.  Narratives are the structures that great stories are built on. You know, it’s the boy-meets-girl context that gives a story legs.

So what should your narrative look like?  Well that depends largely on the context and purpose of your business but according to HBS professor Anat Keinan, the Underdog Narrative is widely appealing to the hearts and minds of today’s consumer.  In a recent HBS article, Keinan talked about the appeal of this narrative given the timely struggles of many American consumers today.  He defines the context of this narrative as

1.  a disadvantaged position in the marketplace versus a "top dog," a well-endowed competitor with superior resources or market dominance, and

2.  tremendous passion and determination to succeed despite the odds.

He cites Avis Car Rental’s slogan of “we’re number 2” and the every popular Oprah Winfrey as perfect examples of palpable struggle to succeed against all odds.  It’s the sort of gritty, American dream stardust that makes you want to get behind the main character (or brand) and do what you can to help them get a leg up.  This context is not necessarily one-size-fits-all, but for a small, scrappy brand that’s working it’s tail off to prove itself in an overcrowded market place, it might just be the “secret sauce” that elevates a “little engine that could” narrative to an “overnight success” reality.

Read the HBR article here.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In media psychology, we often look under the hood of brand identities to examine the narrative that unconsciously communicates to its audience.  People aren’t drawn to logos and pretty labels, it’s the story these things represent about what the product is, and how that product tells the story about the consumer that makes it so appealing.  We all want to tell our story and Lululemon, Pantene and Prada help us to do that.  Politicians use the same tactics to win elections – they pick a narrative that will resonate to the majority of their audience, and then ask for the vote based on being a representation of what you believe to be true about the world.  

But narratives aren’t always unconscious.  In social marketing, a clear narrative that brings the audience into the story with a compelling, positive solution that accompanies the light shed on a social problem can be a very powerful game changer.  Free Range Studios, a production/media company with a socially driven mission provides an incredibly tangible and salient example of a narrative well told, and a solution that leaves the audience feeling engaged, empowered and in control.

Take the next 8 minutes or so to watch a story well told.  You will be glad you did.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Jennifer Aaker, Professor of Marketing at Stanford University, talks about the power of authenticity in connecting brands with their audiences.  She claims that the key to building authenticity is to combine what you believe in with your business model and communicate it organically and consistently in order to accrue goodwill.  She cites an example of a Whirlpool campaign where the company donated a large sum of money, internal resources and appliances to the Habitat for Humanity organization.  The result was a 47% increase in sales over the 4-week period following the release of the campaign.  That’s a pretty stellar ROI.

Whirlpool increased their brand equity and sales by aligning their corporate goals with a prosocial initiative that added to their story.  And so it goes, the opposite effect will happen when brands align themselves with initiatives that dilute their story.  A perfect example of this is the recent partnership between the Susan G. Komen Foundation and Kentcky Fried Chicken.  The “Buckets for the Cure” Campaign sends a very clear message from the Komen Foundation that they don’t care who creates the problem, as long as they’ll pay up to help solve it.  I wonder if the American Lung Association would be as equally open to sponsored campaigns by the major cigarette manufacturers?

From KFC’s perspective, the message is a tad more convoluted.  Do they win from this initiative to help save women’s lives from breast cancer while killing them with obesity and heart disease?  Although there are no clear numbers to point to yet, media sentiment and public mockery of the campaign would suggest that it certainly hasn’t helped them.  While health hazardous companies have often aligned with prohealth brands in the past (such as McDonald’s sponsoring the Olympics), there seems to be a very tangible and visceral connection between buying a bucket of deep fried chicken with the intention of preventing breast cancer that’s highly inauthentic and an insult to consumer intelligence.

Maya Angelou suggested that people my not remember what you say or what you do, but they will remember how you make them feel.  So if you were to buy a bucket of chicken (weighing in at almost 1800 calories and 100 grams of fat) with a side of fries and potato salad for dinner, would you feel better about it if there was a pink breast cancer label on it?

**

Note:  The calories listed are approximations based on the nutritional guidelines on the KFC website for fried chicken which represents approximately 70% of their sales.  Although the pick buckets are promoted with “grilled chicken”, donations are based on the buckets sold, and not the type of chicken ordered.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The author summarizes her points with the following:

• Be relevant, targeted, and usable
• Be offered in multiple formats
• Use stories and sequencing to appeal to emotions and logic
• Be consistently delivered
• Guide your visitors to make the best decisions for them
• Focus on building your true base of fans
• Move people to personally positive results

 

When you use these principles in your social media marketing, you’ll be benefiting from the convergence of neuroscience, human psychology and group dynamics, which will call attention to your content. And getting attention is the first step to making anything happen.

Read the full article here.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The main portal for the campaign has a great deal of nutritional information including breakdowns of caloric values, saturated fat grams, and total fat per serving.  In their nutritional information, they state:

“Beef is an excellent source of protein. In fact, it’s one of the best natural sources of protein in the supermarket! While your customers often associate beef with protein, they may not know about its other nutritional benefits and how those nutrients can contribute to a healthy, well-balanced diet. Beef is also an excellent source of zinc, vitamin B12, selenium and phosphorous; and a good source of iron and other B-vitamins.” (Beefretail.org)

While there is no argument that beef contains vitamin B12, zinc, selenium and phosphorous, is their message entirely accurate and ethical?

The ethics of advocacy addresses the “practices of persuasion that operate only on the basis of what is effective in the quest to achieve advocacy objectives, without sufficient regard for the basic moral principles that might be violated, or the people and interests that might be harmed in the process” (Baker, 2009, p. 115).  When we examine the  “29 lean cuts” campaign through this lens, we might first consider the motivation of the message, before moving on to determine its accuracy, truthfulness and social responsibility.

The first indication of the moral fogginess of this campaign is the self-serving motivation of the advocates (a group made up of cattle ranchers and livestock farmers that have a vested interest in the promotion of beef in the US).  According the 5 Baseline model for assessing motivations of advocacy (Baker, 2009, adapted from Baker, 1999b), this campaign would fall under the guise of the Entitlement Model which suggests that “professional persuaders have a right to advocate for legal products and causes, even if they are harmful; that caveat emptor [let the buyer beware] is a morally acceptable position” (Baker, 2009, p. 121).  But is the buyer aware?

There are very opposing views on the overall morality of positioning beef as a healthy food, but based solely on their advertising, it’s clear they have bypassed some ethical steps to advocate their message. For example, their  “model T-Bone steak” which appears in their ads is clearly no less than an 8 oz portion of steak. According to CalorieKing.com, this caloric size represents less than a 4 oz portion – at least half the size of the steak they show in their photo. Ironically, they suggest a T-bone steak has only 150 calories and 8.2 grams of fat, but this is over 50% calories from fat, so hardly a choice for a low-fat dieter.

Kim Essex, SVP of Marketing for the National Cattlemen’s Association was quoted in Brandweek noting the campaign “stemmed from research that showed consumer interest in leaner meats, but most being unaware that there are 29 such options that meet government standards” (Brandweek).  However, the USDA suggests Americans “Keep total fat intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories, with most fats coming from sources of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, such as fish, nuts, and vegetable oils. (Health.gov).  It’s unclear then, which government standards they are aiming to withhold.

Is this campaign truthful and authentic?  Apparently not.  Does it have respect for the persuadee or does it take advantage of the audience?  I would argue for the ladder.  Is it a socially responsible message?  This might be debatable, although certainly a diet focused on T-bone steaks might well be considered harmful.   These are the questions we would evaluate this campaign on base on the TARES Test, a five principle based model for addressing the “basic and moral duties of advocates” (Baker, 2009, p. 122).

In my opinion, the campaign failed the test.  Miserably.

References

Baker, S. (2009). The ethics of advocacy: Moral reasoning in the practice of public relations. In L. Wilkins & C. G. Christians (Eds.), The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics. New York: Routledge.

Beef Producers Go Lean in New Campaign. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3i8f1f42046a622bdab369305cf8550d24

Beef Retail - Nutrition Central. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://beefretail.org/nutritioncentral.aspx

Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board - MyBeefCheckoff.com. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.beefboard.org/

Key Recommendations for the General Population, Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 13, 2010, from http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/recommendations.htm

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Social media is a tool for conversation and connection.  It's not a promotional vehicle and it likely won't convert potentials into payers.  It can however, give your market, your brand, and your products or service some credibility and mindshare.  If you're really good, you can use storytelling and narrative to weave a call-to-action without anyone ever feeling sold-to.  You can do this by marketing "for" your client, not "to" them.  Be educational, entertaining, inspiring or funny, but never be "salesy". 

Are you up for the challenge? 

Here's a great example of a call-to-action that' educational and entertaining.  It's worth the watch.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Today things are different. Now media – both social and traditional, is interactive. Its context spans across one to many, many to many, many to one and one to one. We consume media and we create it. We can support messages, virally spread them, or speak out against them. The playing field is very different.

How does this effect media literacy? When I was young, this included parents explaining that gory scenes on TV are not real, but rather “just a movie” or advising vulnerable teens on the magic of airbrushing so as not to give them all physical complexes. But today, the landscape has changed. Kids create media in addition to consuming it. They are far savvier about airbrushing and other media manipulations than kids 30 years ago. But media extends much further than our TV’s these days, and rarely are younger people consuming media with an adult who is monitoring the appropriateness of the messages they are receiving.

Henry Jenkins, (2006) has defined the new role of media literacy within the context of a participatory culture which

“shifts the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement. The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking. These skills build on the foundation of traditional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom.” (p. 4)

The role of education in creating this participatory culture, as I see it, is more about building consciousness rather than literacy, as often the student is savvier about the medium (not necessarily the content) then the teacher. Educating students to be conscious of the impacts of social media will go much further in developing critical thought about how young people will shape their own digital selves, and interact with others.

In her article Social Network Sites: Public, Private or What? Danah Boyd (2006) suggests educators focus on defining “mediated publics” and develop awareness around how the content people create is persistent, searchable, replicable and invisible (uncontrollable) (Pg 2 &3). Awareness and consciousness about these crucial elements will protect young citizen journalists and digital creatives who still lack the mature perspective of consequence.

Social media can and should play a critical role in reinforcing these messages to students. Using case studies of young (perhaps fictitious) individuals who have irreparably damaged their own or other’s reputation and cyber bullying can encourage kids to think responsibility about the content they create, replicate or share with others in their peer group and beyond.

• Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21-41.
• Gecas, V. (1989). The Social Psychology of Self-Efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1), 291-316. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001451
• Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robinson, A. J. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved September, 12, 2009 from http://newmedialiteracies.org/. Read the summary, not all of it unless you want to.
• MIT. (2006). New Media Literacies. (Video) Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://newmedialiteracies.org/.

boyd, d. (2007). Social Network Sites: Public, Private, or What? Knowledge Tree, 13 (May). Retrieved December 12, 2009 http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/?page_id=28

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Is social media more persuasive than mass media? Do we spend social capital when we persuade?

I’ve been thinking a lot about social proof, defined as the tendency for people to adopt the behaviors of everyone else when the appropriate thing to do seems ambiguous. (wikipedia)

Social media has a unique advantage over traditional media in garnering persuasive positioning though social proof because the audience has an immediate understanding of how fast an idea is moving or how many people are willing to get behind it through numbers of Fans, Followers or viewers listed beside the media piece. As Fogg (2008) suggests, “when an experience gains momentum, people take notice and are more likely to join in, even without an explicit invitation from friends.” (p. 9) This viral momentum is much harder to understand in traditional media where one can’t immediately determine how many people consumed and reacted either positively or negatively to a situation, unless the media outlet initiates feedback from the audience through call-ins, letters to the editor or polls.

However there are some interesting examples where traditional media is able to get their arms around social proof, quite eloquently, specifically with respect to political campaigns.

An eloquent example of social proof in action with traditional media is the coverage of live electoral polls, indicating which candidate has the most voter support in specific regions. In swing states such as Ohio, with a large number of independent voters, it would be interesting to see how much social proof dictated their final votes.

Do we run the risk of spending social capital if we use it to persuade? Possibly, depending on the context. If persuasion is defined as the act of trying to get someone to do something, it’s very possible to push your social capital to the point of tuning you out. Wellman et. al (2001) suggest that people who are online a great deal have greater exposure to annoying behavior (such has repeated messages of persuasion) and therefore “[e]xperiencing such distasteful computer-mediated communication will weaken commitment to online community”. (p. 448) This is situation is ramped in the small business community where people join groups to
“sell their stuff” rather than to contribute to the conversation. It’s amazing to see how quickly they loose their social capital as well as any credibility they may have come with.

· Fogg, B. J. (2008). Mass Interpersonal Persuasion: An Early View of a New Phenomenon. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Persuasion, Berlin.

· Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook ‘‘Friends:’’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12 (4), 1143-1168.

· Steinfield, C. (2009). Bowling Online: Social Networking and Social Capital within the Organization. Paper presented at the C&T, University Park, PA.

· Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Keith, H. (2001). Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436-455. doi:

· Social proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

“Dear Lord, this year you took my favorite actor, Patrick Swayzie (sic). You took my favorite actress, Farah (sic) Fawcett. You took my favorite singer, Michael Jackson. I just wanted to let you know, my favorite president is Barack Obama. Amen.”

Sadly, this mantra has garnered close to 1.2 million “likes” since the time of it’s posting on April 10^th.  When CNN asked if they will remove the highly offensive fan page, Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said, "while it may be considered distasteful and objectionable to some, the page doesn't violate the company's content policies.”  He went on to say that Facebook is “sensitive to content that includes pornography, bullying, hate speech, and actionable threats of violence, and we react quickly to remove content that violates our policies when it is reported to us"  (CNN, 2010).

Is Facebook wrong to refuse to pull this page?   It depends.

If we are to look at this situation purely from an ethical standpoint, one could argue that it would be unethical to remove the page.  To do so would create a precedence for censorship on a website that is considered to be self-regulating and a representation of public opinion.  If they were to take down a page that exhibits distain for one politician, certainly they would have to do so for all, then Facebook would become censored media rather than social media.

But if we look at this from a standpoint of collective morals, values and beliefs, we can argue quite differently.  To oppose or even disparage a politician on a website is one thing, but to gently suggest a prayer for one’s death, would be considered immoral by our cultural standards.  As a democratic nation, we value freedom of speech, yet most of us believe words that promote hate (or death in this case), should not be given a platform, or at least fall on deaf ears. 

So here we have a situation that hinders on ethics, morals, beliefs and values.  What’s the best course of action in this situation?  I believe that since American political and cultural ideals have become so polarized in the last 20 years, it would seem reasonable to take values and beliefs off the table.  Morality and ethics can often stand alone as a reasonable measurement of appropriate action.

In the case of the “Obama Prayer” Facebook page, we have already determined that ethics would suggest it should not be censored, however morals might lead us toward a different conclusion.   Wikipedia defines morality as “personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society”.  Within our own American society, with the exception of a small fringe group of individuals, it’s fair to say that most people within this country would not hope for the death of the President, even though they may oppose his position in office.  Even the creator of the page himself suggested "We are not really praying for the death of Obama. It is just some humor to show our disapproval of our current president" (CNN, 2010).

As author Daniel Solove points out in his book The Future Of Reputation, “[c]rowds can be impulsive and excitable”.  He describes the term “group polarization effect” as masses of people who crowd behind a particular issue.  As he suggests, “they tend to polarize in their opinions, resulting in more extreme points of view” (2007, p. 101). With this said, given that we can understand how the 1.2 million supporters of this page may not actually wish death upon the President, but rather they feel compelled to communicate their political position in a highly reactive way, it would seem morally reasonable to remove the page, as it reaches beyond the boundaries of appropriate expression of honest opinion, and suggests an immoral statement that is counter to our cultural norms.

What do you think?

Does Facebook user pray for Obama's death? - CNN.com. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/obama.facebook.prayer/index.html

Facebook | DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://www.facebook.com/pages/DEAR-LORD-THIS-YEAR-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-ACTOR-PATRICK-SWAYZIE-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-ACTRESS-FARAH-FAWCETT-YOU-TOOK-MY-FAVORITE-SINGER-MICHAEL-JACKSON-I-JUST-WANTED-TO-LET-YOU-KNOW-MY-FAVORITE-PRESIDENT-IS-BARACK-OBAMA-AMEN/111712585523370?ref=ts

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). . Retrieved May 5, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Solove, D., (2007) The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy On The Internet. Caravan Books.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »