The New York Times published an article announcing the Participant Index, framing it as a way to determine ‘"Why One Film Inspires Activism and Others Falter"
The Index should be great news for those concerned with, and working in, social impact media. We need tools and measurements to help shape our work, and to report back to funders and supporters.
But, the idea that a film that scores
high or low on the Participant Index (which has clearly been well-researched
and carefully constructed) seems to presume that the impact of a film can be
measured via one small group of internet-savvy Americans within a relatively
short-time frame. If so, then it risks failing to capture the beautiful
complexity of storytelling and social change.
Yes, there is a utility to mapping the pattern of human response to
different types of media, such an index is a welcome addition to the field
of media impact assessment. We need easy to use and affordable ways
to capture audience response across multiple platforms and levels of engagement.
If the Participant Index provides a shared framework so that lots of folks can
reference the same set of numbers, then it is truly a service to the entire
field of media makers, social justice organizations and funders working
together to advance positive social change. A kind of Nielsen rating for
social change media is awfully appealing, it reflects a valid desire for
simple, easy to share and understand assessment tools.
But let's not confuse media impact in the form of audience
response––especially the highly measurable clicks, shares, likes and even
donations–– with long-term impact and real social change. Measuring
the impact of social change media requires multiple tools, often customized to
the issue, the type of change that is sought, and the intended audience of
change-makers (which may not be the general film-going public.)
What is lost when the both storytellers and the social sector start
working towards quarterly results reporting, echoing mega-corporations earnings
reports? Will outcome measurement trump nuanced understanding of the
human experience? Facing the reality that social change is often
excruciatingly slow, will media impact funders focus resources where we they
can most easily score high, and achieve a big short-term impact?
For example, Jehane Nouajaim’s The Square captures a specific
set of people at a moment in time akin to our own 4th of July. The
long-term impact of the Arab spring is impossible to know, and the white men
that signed the Declaration of Independence could not have foreseen the diverse
and enduring American democracy of today. More pointedly the film resists
judgment tied to social action here in the US: there are few obvious
social actions to take in support of democracy and human rights in Egypt.
The majority of Americans don't know Mubarek from Morsi, so simply seeing
the film has a value in terms of raising global awareness. If those
viewers were to share their interest via social media, all the better.
But the most important audience for the film is on the streets of Egypt,
are they included in the survey?
Comparing a film about food, about which the vast majority of
Americans make daily choices, with The Square, seems a precarious
framework. Obviously film subjects that affect us personally are more likely to
elicit a response. We know intuitively that stories that affect us
emotionally are more likely to generate an action.
To add to the complexity, consider that media both reflects and
affects social change. Consider the following scenario: a wrongly
convicted man avoids the death penalty and is set free. That's a victory for
human rights. The action reflects years of work on the part organizations
such as the Innocence Project that advocated for change. That
organization and its allies have contributed to social change. If the
story goes unreported, it still happened. When a film such as Deadline
(Chevigny and Johnson, 2004) is shown on national television and raises
awareness about shortcomings in our judicial system and the reality of capital
punishment, that's media impact. The film may have empowered activists
and advocates that lead to improvements in the justice system, that would be be
major media impact and social change.
In looking at media impact and social impact, we must acknowledge
that stories which elicit an audience response in the short term are not
necessarily those that will lead to the most significant impact. Let’s be
careful not to focus resources on short-term gains in lieu of long-term tough
challenges.
If indeed the Participant Index accurately reflect audience response
to audiovisual media, and it is widely available, it will prove a valuable
tool.
But in the end, we need to recognize that the impact of films such
asThe Square may not be felt for decades. A single numerical
figure does not reflect the value of a cultural artifact that may inspire
others who dream of democracy, and one that will help ensure that history is
not forgotten.
Patricia Finneran
9 July 2014
Patricia Finneran
9 July 2014
