1,400,000,000.
That’s the number of people who live are currently living in extreme
poverty right now, all around the world. Extreme poverty is defined as living
off a mere USD$1.25 per day. This is near incomprehensible to most of us, but
for 1.4 billion people, it is a harsh reality. Although global poverty is by no
means a new issue, the fight against it has been refreshed by the efforts of an
organization called the Global Poverty Project. In this blog I will examine the
communicative efforts of the Global Poverty Project in relation to Jennifer
Aaker and Andy Smith’s 2010 book ‘The Dragonfly Effect’.
The Global
Poverty Project (GPP) is an organization formed in 2008 to help facilitate
an end to Global Poverty. The idea was spawned after the co-founders, Hugh
Evans and Simon Moss, saw the film An Inconvenient Truth.
They were moved by the way in which the documentary used effective
film-making techniques to reignite the issue of global warming. It was on this
basis that Evans and Moss created a refreshed presentation on ending global
poverty, which toured around Australia, then moved abroad to New Zealand, the United
Kingdom, and the United States/Canada. The project grew from being just a
presentation and now offers call-to-action campaigns such as Live
Below the Line, where participants live on USD$1.25 per day to raise
money, and The End of Polio where
participants can ‘join the call’ to help eradicate polio.
When analyzing GPP’s communication efforts, you are able to
see many elements of Aaker and Smith’s The Dragonfly Effect. For
example, from the very start they had a strong focus (p.19). Although a macro goal of sorts, GPP’s vision is a world
without extreme poverty, within a single generation.
This focus follows some elements of the HATCH model (p.32), being humanistic (aiming to improve the lives of 1.4 billion
people), testable (online metrics record the amount of people pledging to take
action), and happiness (the campaign capitalizes on human emotion). The project
could potentially follow the model more closely, by providing more micro goals
and a smaller focus to improve action and clarity. However, I think that in
this case, GPP works because of the
overly ambitious goal, rather than in spite of it.
As well as a strong focus, the Global Poverty Project works
by grabbing attention (p.19).
For example, GPP’s Live Below the Line campaign connects with participants on
a personal level through Facebook
and other social media platforms.
Participants are encouraged to share pictures and recipes of what they are able
to create for USD$1.25 per day. GPP also grab attention by delivering the
unexpected; mixing academic presentations and news articles with lighthearted
memes and humor. Photos uploaded by both GPP and participants offer visual stimulants
to the cause, and the 1.4 billion reasons presentation and related videos evoke
visceral connections with the audience. Celebrity endorsements such as that of
Hugh Jackman and Bill Gates have also done their part to garner attention.
 |
| Hugh Jackman supporting the Global Poverty Project |
Following from grabbing attention is Aaker and Smith’s third
step, engage (p.73). They recommend elements of transparency, interactivity, immediacy,
facilitation, commitment, co-creation, collaboration, experience, and trust
(80). Although not all of these are easily identified in GPP’s communication, a
tour through their social media sites shows a strong theme of interaction (audience participating in discussions through
social media), commitment (extremely
committed participants, such as d’Arcy
Lunn, who is cycling 1500km while living off USD$1.25 per day and spreading
the message through schools and faith groups), experience (similar to the 40 hour famine, GPP’s live below the
line challenge offers a chance to experience the poverty many have to live
with), and trust (exemplified
through board
member and co-founder
having both been ‘Australian of the Year’). These elements all result in a
strong presence of participant involvement with the campaigns. I think this
really shows the effectiveness of GPP’s communicative strategies; establishing
and capitalizing on a relationship with their audience.
The final ‘wing’ of Aaker and Smith’s Dragonfly Effect model
is Take Action (p.107). The Global Poverty Project encourages their audience to do
this through a range of ways, many of which do not require a direct donation of
money or time. For example, their website recommends such activities as reading
books, articles, and blogs on poverty, choosing fair-trade products, or even
just talking to friends and colleges about these issues. There are also suggestions
for more involved actions such as organizing campaigns
in local communities and volunteering to
end poverty, both of which are accompanied by how-to guides. These suggestions
are effective as they follow the model of asking for time before money (120)
and following the design principles of being easy, fun, tailored, and open
(124-141).
On the whole, I think that Global Poverty Project have
established an interesting and convicting presence within the non-profit
sector. They are promoting an important and crowded cause in a way that is
refreshing and attention-grabbing. Their communicative efforts and innovative
campaigns have resulted in a passionate and supportive audience which is the
backbone of any such organization. Many of Aaker and Smith’s Dragonfly Effect elements can be found
throughout GPP’s use of social media and the internet and the aspects they
ignore tend to work more for the
cause than against it. The Global Poverty Project will be an interesting one to
watch as it works to gain more support and (hopefully) achieve its goal of
eradicating extreme poverty within a generation.
References:
Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith’s The Dragonfly Effect.
