Clicks and Compassion. Communicating Development in the Content Economy.

But while “Kony 2012” was a more traditional type of video – one made by an organization promoting their cause via new media – Mr. Beast (and similar channels) are a new breed of player in the global development game. For them, views are the primary goal. And while they are probably acting with good intentions, they seem to be making the newest versions of classic old mistakes as digital saviors, by reinforcing “existing colonial hierarchies between the savior and the saved.” (Bhakti, 2020).

NGO Communication in a Digitized World

Communicating development can be traced back to early ethnographic films, but for this blogpost, I will define the traditional way of communicating social development issues as those, that existed before the onset of web 2.0 and user generated content: Photographs and videos, often produced by established photographers, distributed via mass media. Despite organizations now running their own social media channels, producing their own content, tailored to these channels, I would argue that this “classic” way of communicating development is still alive and well, as can be seen e.g. in (black and white) images taken aboard an MSF rescue ship in the mediterranean by Magnum photographer Paolo Pellegrin.
However, aid organizations have long been open to innovative storytelling techniques. e.g. 360° video, taken after the Haiti earthquake in 2010 or using animated gifs as a storytelling tool, as done by the ICRC in Lebanon. In that sense, content creators are not necessarily by default innovative in their use of technology. What is new, is the distribution via channels, that oftentimes rely on a lead persona, even though they developed into sizeable media corporations behind the camera.

What is also new in this media landscape, is what Ølgaard (2022) calls, a commodification of compassion:

“ compassion’ has more recently also become a marketable commodity that is branded and ‘sold’ on and through media in order to attract donations.”

(Ølgaard, 2022)

But while humanitarian (and other kinds of) organizations deal with this commodified compassion in order to gain donations and fund their operations, this might not be primarily the case for content creators. Donaldson states in several interviews, that his goal in creating content is “making the best video possible“. And while he does mention videos needing to be interesting, he often names different metrics as desirable (views, retention, subscribers etc.). And to improve these metrics he uses all means available.

He also uses these tactics in the 100 wells video: e.g. fast cuts, frequent scene changes, a counter showing wells built as the video goes on, engaging music etc. Besides these rather recent tricks that YouTubers use to keep the audience watching, he also uses classic stylistic elements that have been used in NGO communications in the past: showing the before and after, where he shows children walking long distance fetching water from a dirty river with emotional music and a desaturated image, contrasted with a normal colored image and laughing, dancing children when after the well is built.

Adapting to a Changing Landscape

NGOs adapted social media early on. My first encounter with an NGO online was through the IFRC Flickr account (registered in 2007). But compared to the competition over funding, where well established organizations have easier access to the big funding pots of governments and charitable foundations, competing about attention is happening on a more level playing field, with an ever growing number of players. And on YouTube, Jimmy Donaldson is the nr. 1 player, with 216 million followers on his primary channel. A quick comparison of numbers shows that no NGO comes remotely close to that:

Doomscrolling through the Pain of distant Others

“[…] global humanitarianism is incomprehensible without a detailed understanding of digital media technologies in, and through which, the distant elsewheres of humanitarian disasters in the Global South are increasingly made visible and actionable to caring publics in the Global North.”

(Ølgaard, 2022)

Mark Zuckerberg has been quoted saying “A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa.” (quoted here, and here). And while he might have been right in a way, he also seems to have underestimated the ways in wich social networks would be used for activism (and all the problems this brings with it). After a period of people sharing personal moments in the early yeras of Facebook, we seem to have entered a period of self-staging (on image platforms like instagram) and an influx of spam and the formation of radical opinions (on platforms like Twitter/X).
Very often, content of human suffering is accompanied by a simple call to action: to donate. On his philantropy-focused sub-channel, also Mr. Beast has a “donate” button, next to every video that’s uploaded. But what’s way more prominent is his appeal, to subscribe, to keep watching and to buy merchandize, because “every dollar goes back into making more videos and helping more people”.

There has been critique at each of Donaldson’s bigger saviorist endeavors, but also critiquing is a game played differently in the age of content. While it does seems to follow the 10 steps of white saviour communication rituals, (Denskus, 2019) it plays out a little differently in the case of big content creators. In this case, the donor, the executing Organization and the celebrity ambassador are the same person and that person doesn’t have to write a press release to justify their actions. In the case of Mr. Beast’s “100 wells” video, he just preemptively tweeted that:

“I already know I’m gonna get canceled because I uploaded a video helping people, and to be 100% clear, I don’t care. I’m always going to use my channel to help people and try to inspire my audience to do the same “

He immediately takes the position of the victim and diverts any critique by pointing out his doing good. Users who rush to his defense usually go the route of arguing that what he does is good (and it can hardly be argued that it isn’t). But what is justifiably critizised is not drilling wells, but the video he made around it.

Another point that makes critiquing his videos difficult, is that he is not expected to do them. Mr. Beast is a channel that provides entertainment, not charity. Any money he doesn’t spend on charity is just his normal daily business.
Compare this to the regular (and sometimes justified) critique of NGOs and having large overheads.

“humanitarian organizations and non-profits spend a significant portion of funds on public communication and fundraising”
(Ølgaard, 2022)

With humanitarian organizations, it is expected that most, (if not all) the money donated goes directly to the beneficiaries. From a donor-perspective, this is a an understandable wish, but it is just not possible in reality.
At the same time, Donaldson can switch effortlessly from buying shoes for the shoeless, to spending money on luxury food, boats, or hotels.

Donaldson’s Youtube Channel has evolved from a one-man show – him uploading videos from his childhood bedroom – to a multi million dollar corporation. His videos feature more and more expensive challenges with large amounts of money given away to contestants. The production value has gotten a lot bigger, yet he still choses to stylistically fly low (Sontag 2003, p27) and maintain the look of an approachable creator. Videos are filmed mostly with shaky handheld cameras.

In his 2012 piece on Kony 2012, Teju Cole describes his work as a novelist as follows:

“I traffic in subtleties, and my goal in writing a novel is to leave the reader not knowing what to think”

(Cole, 2012)

This lyrical approach to storytelling seems to be the exact opposite of how Donaldson sets up his videos. From the thumbnail to the credits, they are made for maximum impact. There’s no subtlety. And that recipe is followed through on his philanthropic content too.

Donaldson is also running a food bank that might well have emerged as a solution in how to keep a more sensitized audience. Many Mr. Beast videos feature excessive consumerism like “buying everything in a store”. The question where the products go is inevitable, and a food bank is a very emphatic solution, that might also offer tax-write-offs and generate new content on top of that.

Compassion as Commodity, Attention as Scarcity

“marketing and branding strategies of humanitarian NGOs have become increasingly reflexive with regard to the perceived threat of compassion fatigue to global humanitarianism.” (Ølgaard, 2022, p48) They react to this fatigue of their audience, by reducing their display of spectacular, shocking imagery. They have to do this, for a sustainable “use” of their donor base. But what does this dilemma mean for a YouTube operation, like Mr. Beast? On the one hand, there is a certain expectation of the type of content that is published on his channel. On the other hand, his viewers will undoubtedly feel a certain fatigue of watching it, with the algorithm’s video suggestions only a click away. .His philosophy seems to be based on growth: more subscribers, more clicks, more watchtime. And since philanthropic stunts are part of his content offering, it is no surprise that also those have escalated over the course of time.
Mr. Beast is keeping his audience invested, by continuously increasing the stakes. Challenges have become longer, with more players, and longer durations. The same is true for the amount of money that is being paid out. For Mr. Beast, there is no way back to smaller acts of giving. His first philantropic video shows him giving away 10.000$ to a homeless person. His motivation for doing this (and continuing to do it) seems to be a mix of wanting to help people and wanting to generate views. He also describes the sheer fun of owerwhelming people with large amounts of money and his wish to create interest not via controversy, but with positive “feel-good” content (see this interview). In that sense, his giveaways are often indiscrimate and random. Since also his finances and possibilities are limited, instead of raising the amount of money donated, the way to keep users engaged seems to be a change of scenery, adding the “Spectacle of the Other” (Hall, 2013).

Reflection and Outlook

Susan Sontag (2003) refers to journalists as ”those professional, specialized tourists“. I believe there is an advantage in a level of professionalization of any kind of work and professional, experienced journalists will always be necessary to tell a story. But repeatedly doing a task also means that the ones doing them might fall into patterns of how they do them. We are living in a time when attention has shifted away from traditional news media, towards digital channels, that are open to everybody. Media outlets had (and continue to have) to adapt to these new channels and present their stories in new forms.

[…] there is much more to doing good work than “making adifference.” There is the principle of first do no harm.

(Cole, 2012)

In our age of platforms an algorithm based content selection, a creator like Mr.Beast offers development communication a chance to break out through the filter bubble, and approach a new subset of users with humanitarian content. It can reach users that are not potentially saturated by distant suffering. And this is where Mr. Beast lacks awareness of his own impact. Creators like him could be the ones to shape the narrative of vulnerable communities, by not once more telling us the story of the savior and the saved.

References

Videos

MrBeast – I Built 100 Wells In Africa (4.11.2023)
JerryRigEverything – The truth about drilling for water in Africa… (13.03.2023)
Casey Neistat – what would you do with $25,000? (16.12.2013)

Literature

Bhakti Shringarpure (2020) Africa and the Digital Savior Complex, Journal of African Cultural Studies, 32:2, 178-194, DOI: 10.1080/13696815.2018.1555749

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of Seeing. Penguin.

Cole, T. (2012). The white-savior industrial complex. The Atlantic, 21(March).

Denskus, T., 2019: White saviour communication rituals in 10 easy steps Links to an external site., Aidnography, 5 March.

Hall S. (2013). The Spectacle of the “Other”.
In Hall, S.(Editor), Representation (2. ed.) (pp. 215-263s). Los Angeles: Sage.

Ølgaard, D.M. 2022: The Technopolitics of Compassion: A Postphenomenological Analysis of the Digital Mediation of Global Humanitarianism. Doctoral thesis, Department of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden.

Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. New York, NY: Picador.