#CharityFad: The long-term fallout of the Ice Bucket Challenge (Opinion)

Bayonne Mayor Jimmy Davis takes the ALS ice bucket challange

Bayonne Mayor Jimmy Davis takes the ALS ice bucket challenge on Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014, in front of city hall.

(Mary Beth Golden)

By Gregory Bordelon

We've all heard of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Subject to substantial variation, a person is challenged to pour ice-cold water over himself or donate $100 to ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease), then challenge three others to do the same. The logic is that dousing yourself with ice water is more pleasant than paying $100 to charity. We've likely also heard the backlash to the challenge — from religious objections to the nature of ALS research to the relationship between the challenge and the charity.

The phenomenon is a fad and, like any fad, will wane with time. But the idea of funding an important charity through fad behavior (and broadcasting that behavior to millions) may have long-term implications to both the ethics of social media and funding for charities.

The selfie, the “like,” the tweet — social media is driven by the individual. Popularity in the social media era is tabulated by how many friends, followers and shares you have. Posting a video of yourself getting doused by (presumably) freezing water is this summer’s pop darling; what Iggy Izalea’s “Fancy” is to radio, the Ice Bucket Challenge is to your mobile device’s favorite social media app. Your video got 100 likes, a couple of shares and about 25 comments; you’re the “in” thing — for at least the next 37 seconds.

But what does the attention and the need for more attention cause? The celebrity side of the challenge has escalated exponentially, from Bill Gates’ water-pouring, mechanical engineering “how-to” feat (from Mark Zuckerberg’s challenge) to the Foo Fighters’ remake of Stephen King’s pig-blood-prom scene from “Carrie” (with the sly challenge to Stephen King thereto). As more people join the fray, the ante will have to be upped for the next big challenge. If pouring cold water on yourself really is not that uncomfortable, how about scalding water? What if the water is contaminated and you didn’t know? Heck, how about your own homemade knife-throwing spectacular?

It’s not to say it is the charity’s fault that social media is being used this way; that’s hardly the case when the charities didn’t know the challenges would go viral. However, in our society’s constant rush for stimulation and attention, posting a video of an unconventional stunt in the name of charity seems much more socially acceptable than just doing it for fun’s sake.

The copy-cat movements are beginning. Charities may face the difficult decision of whether they wish to affiliate themselves with the more extreme challenges. If the most shocking online video raises awareness for charity, but then a person is harmed (in some way) by posting the video, where (if anywhere) does liability fall in a possible lawsuit? Far-fetched yes, but in the age of instant information and permanency of the internet, when the fad falls away, the individual is still there, wanting more, wanting attention.

We’ve seen the record numbers. Research for ALS will benefit from this increase this fiscal cycle, but then what? If the funding stream is an isolated event, which many predict, ALS donations will never return to pre-ice bucket levels. That’s a good thing, to be sure, but the ALS Association cannot know what the long-term charitable donations will be. They may elect not to invest in long-term, expensive research solutions to move toward curing the disease, and instead opt for something more relevant in the short term. Would such a precipitous spike and residual fall off next year drive how the 2014 donations are used (e.g., “We won’t be getting this much money again, likely, so let’s spend it all on one or two big short-term projects”)?

The Ice Bucket Challenge has raised incredible awareness for ALS and a record amount of money, and these are good things, but it has done something to our use of social media. It has validated an individual’s desire to be “liked” (in whatever format), and it is endorsing exhibitionist characteristics. Moreover, there are the implications to the relationship between our collective short-term attention span and the long-term needs of many charitable organizations. Whatever the answer may be, for better or worse, the use of the hashtag for charity will have long-term implications.

Gregory R. Bordelon is a lecturer in the Political Science and Sociology Department at Monmouth University.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.