Ending Poverty in China, One Loan at a Time

Wokai is a non-profit organization operating in China under a similar model to Kiva’s (May, 2009, para. 3). It was founded by two Americans Casey Wilson and Courtney McColgan after they met at Tsinghua University in China (Flanagan, 2009, para. 3). Wokai has been devoted to poverty reduction since its birth. Over the years, Wokai has drawn increasing attention and funds to its cause, and has helped fund a number of income families in China. In this blog, I seek to match Wokai’s success to the criteria given out by Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith in the book the Dragonfly’s Effect (2010) because the book provides a comprehensive and compelling guideline for harnessing social media technology in promoting a worthy project.

According to the book, four wings of the dragonfly need to operate well and in harmony before the bug can take off. Wing 1 is Focus. Wing 2 is Grab Attention. Wing 3 is Engage. Wing 4 is Take Action. Let’s examine two aspects Wokai is extremely good at.

Wing 1: Focus. What Wokai’s goal is? It is clear on its website’s homepage: “Ending Poverty in China, One Loan at a Time”. Wokai has never changed its goal of poverty reduction in China and has always strived hard to achieve it. Obviously, the goal to alleviate poverty in China sounds intimidating given China is such a huge country with not a small percentage of its rural population under the poverty line (Flanagan, 2009, para. 2). How can we achieve this goal? Wokai divides this “impossible” project into numerous small actions: “one loan at a time”. This strategy is extremely important in attracting people to and keeping people around Wokai’s long term project. According to the Dragonfly’s Effect, “goals that are too easy to reach will not satisfy participants and will underdeliver for your cause. Goals that feel out of reach can discourage people, leading them to quit easily or not to try at all” (Aaker & Smith, 2010, p. 26). Wokai has done a good job to set its “macro goal” (Aaker& Smith, 2010, p. 26) of poverty reduction along with achievable “micro goals” (Aaker& Smith, 2010, p. 26) of making small loans.

Moreover, Wokai further divides its project into making loan contributions as small as 20 dollars to a group loan typically no bigger than 800 dollars. Hence, only 40 people are required to fill a group loan and a 20 bucks contribution is manageable for many people.

Wing 3: Engage. One principle used to engage people is to tell them a story, because we have a basic human need for stories (Aaker & Smith, 2010, p. 82). Wokai follows this guideline well and its website features numerous different stories.

In this loan request, the borrower Tunumula shares her story that last year she was not able to restock her clothes business before the Chinese New Year and failed to make money from the opportunity. As a result, she wants to pledge a loan to restock her clothes shop this year. This story is short but has achieved several goals. First of all, it’s straightforward and authentic. You probably get it the first time. Second, the background information about a five year old daughter might hook a lot of audience members who love children. Moreover, this women described in the story is confident and ambitious, trying to “expand my business” and “make more money”. Instead of showing lenders how miserable the borrowers are, Wokai typically use stories like this to confirm borrowers’ status as grassroots entrepreneurs and try to earn them lenders’ respect (Aaker& Smith, 2010, p. 94). In the end, the picture next to the story enables lenders to see the borrower as a fellow human being instead of another set of computer data, which increases empathy greatly and enhances her chance of getting the loan.

The story about how Wokai was founded is another one that enjoys a great amount of attention. Wokai’s founders, Casey Wilson and Courtney McColgan met in a language program in China and both were inspired to empower poor Chinese people to liberate themselves from the poverty cycle. Anecdotes went that, one of the founders had a migrant worker friend in Beijing, whom the founder wanted to help by teaching her migrant worker friend English for free. However, after several classes, the founder’s friend told her that she could not take her classes any longer because the migrant worker had to go back home to get married as a result of her parents pressure. Making a living in the capital is too hard especially because the migrant worker did not have any start money. Although she appreciated the Wokai founder’ efforts in teaching her English, learning English did not really improve her life. The founder was shocked and since then has been inspired to help low-income people in China. Although this story is only an anecdote, it is highly memorable and sticky (Aaker & Smith, 2010, p. 50). It resonates with many people’s experience especially when more and more college students get a chance to study abroad. Its plot is unexpected but authentic and compelling. Most of all, this story is so personal that many of us only share its kind with good friends; thus, a feeling of closeness is established as the story unfolds.

Another important aspect of engagement is facilitation (Aaker & Smith, 2010, p. 80). Companies or NGOs need to “act[…] as a caretaker of brand development rather than attempting to control it” (Aaker & Smith, 2010, p. 80). Wokai allows anyone to set up a team on its website and team members have great flexibility with regards to the design of their team’s webpage. Teams have their own front page, their location, and their own team descriptions. New Wokai supporters can request to join existing teams or start their own teams as they wish.

And this is my chapter. My friend Kaiyan started it last semester and we only have two members right now. I did not choose to use my photo for privacy reasons. But it’s weird that our impact point is still zero because I have made two loans and received at least 130 point.

Besides these could-be-random teams, Wokai have a bunch of formal chapters featuring the orthodox hierarchy of presidents and VPs. In some very active chapters, members hold a variety of different events. In addition to these teams and chapters, Wokai also utilizes Facebook, Twitter, and owns a Youtube channel as means of engaging a larger audience. Theoretically, according to the Dragonfly Effect, matching different media to different people will draw a broader audience and encourage a greater number of people to act (Aaker & Smith, 2010, p. 97). However, Wokai is kind of lame with these social websites. It has only a little short of 2000 friends on Facebook, around 1500 followers on Twitter, and its Youtube channel only has 15,000 views in total. The strategy Wokai seems to use is more about fostering community-based teams and chapters (although they can be as small as two people) than to build a huge Facebook and Twitter follower group.

In conclusion, Wokai demonstrates its mastery of the techniques illustrated in Jennifer Aaker and Andy Smith’s book the Dragonfly Effect and has successfully attracted considerable support for its project of poverty reduction in China. If you are interested in Wokai, you might want to check out its website http://en.wokai.org/—and you are more than welcome to join our Wokai Berkeley Team!     

References

Aaker, J., & Smith, A. (2010). The Dragonfly Effect. San Francisco, CA: A Wiley Imprint.

Flanagan, E. (2009, July 28). Role-reversal: Americans provide loans to Chinese. In NBC News. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://goo.gl/4aBqy

May, M. (2009, April 13). Tiny loans, big difference at Bay Area Web site. In SFGate. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://goo.gl/QWxNn

Social Media News in Mainstream Media Reports

Social Media News in Mainstream Media Reports

            Social media have long been considered an alternative media source representing a deviation from the mainstream media. However, mainstream media have been using social media for news for a long time. How do mainstream media incorporate “rebellious” social media in their reports on major news events? We might get a sense of this by looking at how mainstream news agencies used tweets in reporting the Jan. 28^th Occupy Oakland Protest.

On Jan. 28^th, Occupy Oakland called for a Move-In day Action to occupy an unidentified vacant building and to turn it into a community center. It was the largest event for Occupy Oakland since last November’s eviction and more than 1000 people participated according to NBC Bay Area (Anderson, 2012, para. 1). Although the action day ended with more than 400 arrests and Oakland occupiers failed to claim any vacant building, they revitalized the fading Occupy Wall Street movement. A variety of news agencies covered this protest and many of their reports incorporated tweet updates of the event. In this blog, I look at different ways the mainstream media use tweets.

The most intuitive way in which mainstream media treat twitter is to use it just as another news source, maybe a more convenient one. For example, on January 30, CNN journalist Chelsea J. Carter reported that after Saturday Occupy Oakland’s action, “statements of solidarity were issued by Occupy groups in Olso, Norway, and in Vancouver, British Columbia, according to Twitter and website posts late Sunday” (Carter, 2012, p. 1). Without bothering to interview any of these Occupy groups, the CNN journalist was able to report solidarity for Occupy Oakland simply by scanning Occupy groups’ twitter updates. Moreover, tweets along with authority’s statements are perfect for the “Wire Staff” to reconstruct an event remotely. In CNN January 28^th’s report on the Occupy Oakland protest written by its wire staff, the narration started with “police said” in the fifth paragraph, and moved on with “the statement said”, “twitter feed”, “the group’s twitter feed”, “the group tweeted”, and “posts on Occupy Oakland’s Twitter claim” (the CNN Wire Staff, 2012, p. 1). After another round of “police said”, the report of the event wound up with “Occupy Oakland’s Twitter feed indicated” (the CNN Wire Staff, 2012, p. 2). With all these second-hand or twitter-based reports, the CNN wire staff quite successfully reconstructed the event, although the report’s accuracy might not stand up to scrutiny. It seems when the details of news events are not clear yet and a great number of readers are eager to know what happened, tweets serve as an important news source for mainstream media to retell the stories remotely and quickly. In this sense, mainstream media and social media benefit from each other: the latter provide valuable news for the former while the former amplify the voice of the latter.     

            In addition to using the news value of tweets, mainstream media also dramatize their reports with tweets’ emotions and feelings. It is well known that mainstream media honor a tradition of being objective and unbiased, which materializes in their fact-reporting style and their practice of taking no (explicit) stance. However, not many people crave a cold, dry and emotion-free report of an otherwise exciting and interesting news event. In contrast to mainstream media reports, tweets tend to be extremely personal and are usually packed with tremendous emotion. One reason is that twitter users do not have to take responsibility for what they say. Their business is just to write a tweet, and it is up to you to believe or not. No identity disclosure. No follow up questions. No need to prove what they say. Twitter users tweet anything they are concerned about at the moment and take off the next second. As a result, tweets are much more radical and more likely to take a stance. The nature of Twitter is another reason. Most people do not use twitter as a more detailed diary that they write secretly; far from that, they tweet because they want to draw other people’s attention. Hence, Twitter users try their best to dramatize their tweets and appeal to their followers as emotionally as possible. Packed with tremendous emotion, tweets are the perfect match for mainstream media to strike a balance between (supposed) objectivity and vividness.

For example, one BBC News report on the Saturday Occupy Oakland action incorporated a tweet in such a way:

Demonstrators also broke into City Hall and a nearby YMCA building in the centre of Oakland, police said.

One post on Occupy Oakland's Twitter feed later read: "We didn't get in the building, but fought like our future depended on it."

Oakland police said in a statement that, while the city "welcomes peaceful forms of assembly and freedom of speech... acts of violence, property destruction and overnight lodging will not be tolerated". (BBC, 2012, para. 10-12)

Both before and after the Occupy Oakland’s tweet, the reporter used the police’s statements, which are dry and boring. However, the tweet in the middle effectively invigorates this report. First of all, this tweet uses first person voice, “we” (BBC, 2012, para. 11), instead of narrating from a cold third person voice, which reduces the distance between occupiers and readers and elicits great amount of empathy. Furthermore, although Oakland occupiers were just protesting as they had done two months ago and probably would protest again in the future, by saying “[we] fought like our future depended on it” (BBC, 2012, para. 11), occupiers lifted this specific protest to the level of a revolution and conveyed a feeling of heroism, which makes their tweet idealistic and emotional. Incorporated in the BBC report, the tweet helps dramatize the news and makes it more appealing to demanding readers.

Another such example is from CNN. Its report on Saturday’s Occupy Oakland protest features a tweet from Oakland occupiers who “claim that police met the protesters ‘with munitions and violence’” (the CNN Wire Staff, 2012, p. 1). The connotation in the word “munitions” reminds us of a battle field in which fearless protesters are gunned down by the brutal police—and we know no live bullets were ever fired in Saturday’s protest (the CNN Wire Staff, 2012, p. 1). Hence, the drama in this tweet gives the CNN report a little warzone feeling.

Interestingly, this emotional feature of tweets also applies to Oakland Police Department’s twitter: “Area of Oakland Museum and Kaiser Center severely impacted. Persons cutting and tearing fences for entry. Bottles and objects thrown at OPD” (Anderson, 2012, subtitle). In this tweet incorporated in NBC Bay Area’s report, OPD depicts the protesters as wild monsters “cutting and tearing fences” (Lam, 2012, para. 4), while making the police seem victimized. Follow OPD’s plot, with little effort we can come up with a picture where violent mobs are beating up the police. Overall, both OPD’s and Oakland occupiers’ tweets are used to enliven the mainstream media’s boring reports.

            Although we generally think the social media is firmly in the hands of ordinary people, authorities from President Barack Obama to Oakland Police Department have wiggled their way in the social media world. And it is not surprising that in the January 28^th Occupy Oakland’s protest, OPD instant updated the protest through their twitter account @OaklandPoliceCA. While both ordinary people’s tweets and the authority’s tweets are taken into account, mainstream media impose their frame of interpretation on news generated from social media. In a CNN report on the protest, CNN wire staff wrote that: “aerial video footage showed them later on the move and a post on Occupy Oakland’s Twitter feed indicated they were planning to march to a second building—an apparent reference to the YMCA” (2012, p. 2). In this case, occupiers’ tweet is not assigned great weight and is used to double check the “fact” showed by the aerial video. In contrast, Oakland Police Department’s tweets are treated much more seriously—one of its tweets made the subtitle of NBC Bay Area’s news report—

Occupy Oakland Protesters Clash with Police During Building Takeover Attempt

'Area of Oakland Museum and Kaiser Center severely impacted. Persons cutting and tearing fences for entry. Bottles and objects thrown at OPD,' OPD tweeted.

—despite the fact that Oakland Police Department is no less inclined to be biased against Oakland occupiers than the other way around (Anderson, 2012, subtitle).

            Sometimes, it is baffling to see how the mainstream media use tweets to highlight their tradition of evenhandedness. Still use the example from BBC:

Demonstrators also broke into City Hall and a nearby YMCA building in the centre of Oakland, police said.

One post on Occupy Oakland's Twitter feed later read: "We didn't get in the building, but fought like our future depended on it."

Oakland police said in a statement that, while the city "welcomes peaceful forms of assembly and freedom of speech... acts of violence, property destruction and overnight lodging will not be tolerated". (BBC, 2012, para. 10-12)

In this report, BBC News follows the journalist routine of giving out two sides of the story and hence features both the police statement and an occupier’s tweet. I can imagine how the editor handpicked this tweet out of numerous tweet updates in order to contradict the police statement. Tweets not only allow the media to show both sides of the story but also to show the same story from both sides as differently as possible! While readers are puzzled about whether or not the occupiers broke into the City Hall, the editor is ready to credit himself for being more evenhanded. As usual, the media is not willing to put more efforts into figuring out what happened exactly.

            Overall, mainstream media are utilizing social media to make their reports much more interesting and lively, but social media are far from revolutionizing the mainstream media. What do you think?

References

Anderson, M. (2012, January 29). Occupy Oakland Protesters Clash with Police During Building Takeover Attempt. In NBC BAY AREA. Retrieved March 19, 2012, from http://goo.gl/K6nMQ

Carter, C. (2012, January 30). Occupy Oakland demonstrations, arrests inject new life into movement. In CNN U.S. Retrieved March 19, 2012, from http://goo.gl/lwNIY

Occupy Protests: Clashes at march in US city of Oakland. (2012, January 29). In BBC News US & Canada. Retrieved March 19, 2012, from http://goo.gl/Je5MP

the CNN Wire Staff. (2012, January 28). More than 100 Occupy activists arrested in Oakland after clashing with police. In CNN U.S. Retrieved March 19, 2012, from http://goo.gl/k6pTD

The Whole World Is Watching?

Last Thursday, I went to the Defend Public Education Protest in Cal, and I was looking for a big turnout. However, Cal administration conspired with Homeland Security and created the artificial rainfall in the morning, which deterred a lot of potential protesters. One of my friends promised to go the day before and scratched that because he hated rain. 

Well, although the turnout in Bay Area was not that that big, I still find it arrogant for The Times not to cover the National Day of Action to Defend Education at all. It reminds me of how long it took The Times to cover the baton wielding police in Cal last semester. I do not know if it is The Times’ contempt for hippie heaven Cal or it is caused by The Times' severe financial crisis. However, Fox News also showed its ignorance for Thursday’s Protest, wasting an opportunity to condemn public education and its secret backer Obama. 

In comparison, San Francisco Chronicle cared much more about bay area as a local newspaper. It used a series of 10 photos taken across the bay to illustrate the event. Although the first photo only featured 5 protesters in San Francisco State University, the second photo captured a much bigger crowd in Cal. 

It seems that if we want to learn more about the Defend Education day turnout countrywide, we have to resort to independent media, like The Nation. In The Nation, a much longer article not only detailed the National Day’s events but also explained why students and faculty members had a good reason to go out and protest. However, there is still a problem with this article--it’s too long and it has no photo at all.   

San Francisco Chronicle

The Nation

Seeing Human Nature through the Lens of Youtube

January 28^th, last Saturday, I went to Occupy Oakland partaking in the Move-in day protest, during which time I shot some videos of the confrontation between the protesters and the police. These videos featured drum beating, fire bombs and chaos. It occurred to me to post the videos on Youtube. As a result, I had done nothing for the last three days but monitor my Youtube videos. When the number of my Youtube views flattened, I started to reflect on my experience during these three days. And here are some findings I want to share. 

 

We crave violence and there are numerous suppliers. When I first uploaded one seven-minute video of the clash between the protesters and the police, there were only a few views. I found the video title I had selected “Occupy Oakland Protest 1/28/2012” not attractive enough. Thus, I changed it to “Occupy Oakland Police Brutality”, betting that a provocative title would attract more views. The number of views increased a little but I was not satisfied. In search for a “better” title, I browsed some news on the Move-in day clash. The words “smoke bombs”, “tear gas”, and “canisters” struck my eyes. So, I changed the title to “Occupy Oakland 1/28/2012 Teargas”. Within minutes, I got 30 views and the next morning, I had 720. After that, I kept editing other features of my video, adding tags like “clashes”, “tensions”, and “fire bombs” to attract more eyeballs. This experience tells that if viewers crave violence, editors (like me) are more than willing to appeal to their desires.

In addition to our instinct for violence, we thirst for ego expansion at some expense to ourselves and others. Marxists reduce us to nothing but material seekers—they are probably wrong. I believe we all have a strong desire to get others’ attention and praise, often without material gain. In the last three days, I first updated my roommate about my video views and which channel or news used my footage. Then, I “@”ed several friends on Facebook and called my best friend to share my excitement. The next day, I briefed half of my karate club, and emailed video links to my GSIs and some familiar instructors. I was showing off and wanted everyone to know that my Youtube video had gotten 7,000 views.

However, what really disturbed me was that Oakland occupiers tweeted requests for putting down online videos because the police were using public footage to arrest protesters. I called one friend in law school and emailed a well-known legal consulting agency. My law school friend told me it was lawful for the police to use footage to arrest people, but she and the people she asked thought that Youtube videos would not be used against protesters. The agency’s lawyer replied that “from a purely legal standpoint, I'd advise against that [keeping the video public] until the chance of prosecution passes, but I understand there are competing interests here”. My video is still on Youtube and is still public. The competing interest here is probably my ego.

The day after I uploaded the videos, I got a Youtube inbox message from one guy who praised me for my courage and photography skills. Soon I discovered that he was trying to sell me a service from a website which helps uploaders boost their video views. I ignored him, but realized just how easily our passion can be exploited commercially. Moreover, I was really tired of the comments on my video. At the beginning, I had hoped to get 10 comments and now I ended up with more than 100. No enlightening thoughts about the roots of our crisis. No reflections and mutual understandings on the protest. Most of the comments were cursing words against the protesters such as “OccuScum” and “unbathed rats”. Someone even suggested that the police should use machine guns instead of tear gas. Incendiary comments between Occupy supporters and haters filled several pages.

After all is said and done, are we really changing anything by documenting protests and circulating footage on Youtube? Do people find these videos entertaining or disturbing? Do they crave more violent videos or strive to understand why protests are happening? Are we just perpetuating the status quo or moving forward progressively? I have no answer. What do you think?

               (My footage contributed to this RT video)