The group psychology influence is the overwhelming driving force behind the success of charity wristbands. Let's say I don a yellow "Live Strong" wristband. What does that say about me? Not only may it imply that I support research to eradicate cancer (I say may, because I don't think that most people wear the wristbands primarily for that purpose), but it also says: I'm like Lance Armstrong. I'm athletic. I'm outdoors-y. I'm cool.
While it may be disconcerting to some that the philanthropic purpose of the wristbands is lost on many who wear them, I still believe that it is an effective way to increase awareness of a cause. Inevitably, it will become (it is already becoming) passe to wear charity wristbands, though; the masses of Regular Joes (not Lance Armstrong, not athletic and not cool) wearing wristbands for every cause under the sun don't have quite the same appeal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting points. Those who employ charity wristbands to promote a cause or idea sacrifice control of that message when they allow anyone with $2 the chance to carry that message. If Armstrong's message is "be fit" and "live strong," is it undermined by someone who is clearly not living fit?
Possibly. If I, personally, saw a morbidly obese person wearing the signature yellow wristband, I would actually have a positive reaction, like: "that person is looking to make a change in their life and is embracing good health." I have a negative reaction to bandwagon charities who dilute the effectiveness of the wristband campaign by employing it themselves. For example, a blue "anti-bullying" wristband. While I condemn bullying, I don't necessarily want to wear a wristband that says, "I'm with the bullying victims... you know, the weak and socially awkward kids."
Post a Comment