For a lot of people, it is easy to say “yes” to our question. Yes, celebrities are, more often than not, enough reason for people to support social media for social good campaigns. After all, these celebrities add credibility and pomp to the whole thing. Take the case of Water.org – it’s a campaign backed by Oscar Award winner Matt Damon. Leonardo DiCaprio, on the other hand, likes to support projects that have something to do with environmental stability and ecosystem protection. These big wig celebrities can easily use their star power to lure in not only generous donors but willing volunteers as well. With just a flash of their million watt smile, they can likely also lure in financial donations to the tune of millions of dollars.
However, going back to our original question, is celebrity power the only draw in order for people to support a cause? We’re tempted to say no. And here are our arguments: First off, people still tend to support social media for social good campaigns if the campaign has a really good purpose and objective. Sure, a celebrity endorser might help, but really, this is just icing on the cake. At the end of the day, what still matters is the vision, mission and goal of the campaign. Everything will still boil down to what the campaign wants to do, create and perhaps change.
Secondly, by the name alone, social media for social good campaigns attract the web-savvy, gadget-crazy netizens of today. Ergo, there is a distinct target audience for these types of campaigns. So unless the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio or Matt Damon are really adept with social media or social networking websites and can speak tags, links, “Plus 1,” “retweet” or “DM,” then social media for social good campaigns basically attract the netizens who pretty much would rather see Steve Jobs or a talking Angry Bird as spokesperson or endorser.