Research on Invisible Children Post #HONY2012 Scandal

Invisible Children: A Look Inside

Jared Wolf | Karina Wagner | Julia McAvinue | Maddy Clark

Invisible Children – Final Report

2

Introduction

Invisible Children, Inc. is a Non-‐Government Post-‐Conflict Development

organization. This category encompasses not only organizations working towards

education and liberation, but also involves infrastructure development, health

initiatives, human rights advocacy and many other fields in which Non-‐Government

Organizations (NGOs) work during and after a conflict.

As a nonprofit, Invisible Children gained notoriety for its KONY 2012 campaign,

the great success of which was followed by a substantial backlash. 925 Nonprofits saw

Invisible Children as a suitable case study for a nonprofit in crisis and chose the

organization as a client for research.

925 Nonprofits sought to answer the question: how can Invisible Children use a

campaign or program to engage new audiences and improve a damaged reputation? In

order to do this, we conducted secondary research, a focus group, a participant

observation, interviews, and a survey.


3

Background/Secondary Research

Our initial evaluation of Invisible Children was done through secondary

research. We found initial background information on the organization and its

competitors, and then created a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

Strengths) analysis to guide our primary research. The following sections will discuss

our initial findings.

i. Current Business Situation for Category and Client

As the United States continues to rise from the Great Recession, the world of

charitable giving is extremely fluid, and it can be difficult to predict where consumers

will decide to donate their funds. During the recession, donors had pulled back

significantly on support for organizations not addressing basic and urgent needs such

as food and shelter. Today, they are more willing to give to organizations involved in

healthcare, education, the arts, and the environment. Although corporate giving has

seen a slight decrease in 2013, it should be noted that this was preceded by a dramatic

jump of 12.9% in 2012. Current trends see that corporate giving internationally is on

the rise, especially in companies that are already invested in philanthropy.

Invisible Children itself saw its most fiscally impressive year in 2012, bringing in

$26.5 million in donations. This signifies an increase from 2011 of $12.7 million

(“Financial Statements” 2012, “Financial Statements” 2011). This spike can be

attributed to the KONY 2012 Campaign. Unfortunately, in 2013 Invisible Children only

garnered $4.9 million in donations, showing a dramatic decrease in financial support,

forcing them to rely on funds gathered in years prior. This could be the result of a lack

of confidence in the implementation of programs after the KONY 2012 Campaign.

Furthermore, corporate donors base 68% of their decision to recur donations on the

organization’s ability to produce tangible results (“Americans Gave” 2014). With

statistics on impact only available for the amount of LRA combatants in the past three

years and the total amount of child soldiers returned home in 2013, there may not be

sufficient data to foster confidence in lasting results in the twenty programs Invisible


4

Children currently run, making a reliance on corporate sponsorship or philanthropy a

luxury not afforded to the charity.

ii. Relevant Trends: Economic, Societal, Industry-‐Related, etc.

As mentioned previously, the future is looking bright for NGOs in Post-‐Conflict

Development. The trend of social media strategy in social-‐awareness campaigns is

leading away in this new era. Among them are the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and viral

breast cancer awareness Facebook status games. However, defining and quantifying the

impact they have has been challenging. While the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has raised

$112.4 million as of September 12 (“Ice Bucket Challenge” 2014), no real measure of its

social impact or surrounding public opinion exists.

In the NGO industry, there is a trend of shifting from inefficient, ineffective

programs that have been in place for, in some cases, the better part of a century to a

more result-‐oriented stance (MacLeod 2013). Another trend is the role that private-‐

sector firms want to play in building relationships. As the demand for transparency

grows due to social media and other checks and balances, corporate entities are

enhancing their Corporate Social Responsibility programming and their strategies for

sustainable community development (MacLeod 2013). Another trend in the industry is

the impact of individuals in the industry: the new generation of nonprofit employees

and decision makers are characterized by a preference of working on projects with

greater social impact, as opposed to projects with greater professional benefits. The

pressure on Generation Y to sustain a socially conscious professional impact in both the

public and private sector has shaped the way NGOs behave (Rudin 2014).

iii. Client’s Current Positioning in the Marketplace

Invisible Children is beginning to face some increasing risk that may harm them

in the near future. These risks stem from their campaign, KONY 2012. Though KONY

2012 raised awareness of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), it also received a lot of


5

negative feedback. The audience was wondering where their money was going, some

called the campaign exploitative, and others were concerned that Joseph Kony was not

the main issue facing Africa at the time. As mentioned on National Public Radio’s “The

‘Kony 2012’ Effect: Recovering from a Viral Sensation,” Invisible Children will need to

redefine itself in order to survive and become successful. CEO Ben Kessey mentioned

they have not yet begun to work on this redefinition. This is an issue Invisible Children

will need to address immediately in order to prepare for a successful future. (Sanders

2014)

iv. Relevant Past Strategic Communications Efforts

1. Films

Invisible Children was established as an action-‐based organization after the

production of their film Invisible Children: Discover the Unseen in 2004. The

organization has since released 11 awareness films.

2. KONY 2012

Released on YouTube, Kony 2012 was the start of an experiment in a new

generation of media. Described as the “fastest-‐growing viral video in history,” it

demonstrated the degree to which a video can spread awareness and begin a

conversation.

Initially, the campaign received positive feedback, as it raised individual and

global awareness of an issue with which many were unfamiliar. Kony 2012 had over

120 million views within five days of its release, and led to $32 million in donations to

Invisible Children. NPR However, in a swift backlash, Kony 2012 began receiving

negative feedback: the video was accused of taking a racist viewpoint and confusion as

to where donations were actually going led some to label the campaign a “scam.” In the

aftermath of Kony 2012, Invisible Children faced a severe deficit and half of their staff

was laid off. Invisible Children will need to redefine their image in order to survive its

damaged reputation and single-‐minded focus. (Sanders 2014).

3. Global Summit on the LRA-‐ Fourth Estate Summit


6

Hosted in 2011 and 2013, the leadership conference for young adults intending

to empower creative individuals to promote change is an effort to jumpstart youth

activism. The summit uses many media channels to appeal to the millennials including

music, movies, and dynamic speakers. Its mission is to promote change by encouraging

the future leaders of the world in an interactive and engaging way. The third Fourth

Estate Summit will be held in August 2014.

v. Competitive Analysis

Three very similar not-‐for-‐profit organizations can be seen as Invisible

Children’s primary competitors. The first, The Resolve, also works in Uganda to end the

violence of the LRA and similarly seeks action from national government. It differs from

Invisible Children in that it its efforts in the United States are not youth-‐oriented. A

second primary competitor, One, focuses on ending extreme poverty as well as

preventable disease primarily in Africa. Finally, The Child Soldiers Initiative is directly

related to Invisible Children in the respect that they focus on the eradication of child

soldiers globally.

NGOs in general are the secondary competitors of Invisible Children -‐ Funding

and attention that goes to other nonprofit organizations is funding and attention that is

not going to Invisible Children. Though NGOs work for societal change, they still must

operate as businesses competing in a marketplace. Recently, the “Ice Bucket Challenge”

that caused a boom in awareness for the ALS Association was criticized for harming

other non-‐profit organizations, as those giving to the ALSA would be less inclined to

give elsewhere (Source). Nonprofits working for human rights, health & wellness

research, animal rights, and environmental issues are all secondary competitors of

Invisible Children.


7

vii. SWOT Analysis

STRENGTHS: -‐ Experience in video engagement -‐ Sense of identity -‐ Pathos -‐ Devoted membership -‐ HS Programs

OPPORTUNITIES: -‐ New social media channels -‐ Collaboration with other orgs -‐ Giving to education is popular -‐ National economy is better

WEAKNESSES: -‐ Internal financial reporting -‐ Passive engagement emphasis -‐ Program efficiency data -‐ Monitoring & evaluation -‐ Lack of social campaigns -‐ Narrow focus -‐ Niche audience

THREATS: -‐ Supporters are more skeptical and savvy -‐ Large scale campaigns by other organizations -‐ 24/7 media -‐ Reputation damage -‐ Competitors may be more successful

viii. Conclusion of Background Research

Initially, 925 Nonprofit Solutions sought to learn more about the poor reputation

of Invisible Children. After familiarizing itself with the internal and external

communications of Invisible Children, we defined its core challenge as insufficient

communication strategy in developing campaigns that both foster loyalty in current

supporters and target new audiences. We believed primary research would allow for

detailed first-‐hand information regarding public perception of Invisible Children. It

would also help to determine how public opinion defines effective strategic and crisis

communication for a nonprofit and allow for the development of examples of effective

implementation and execution of such communication.

We initially developed the following aims for our primary research based on this

secondary research:

• Focus group -‐ provide further insight into the public’s feelings about Invisible

Children and the organization’s past communication, in addition to levels of


8

awareness. Video clips of Kony 2012 will be used as tools in facilitating the

group.

• Survey -‐ comprised of questions about personal awareness and perceived

effectiveness past social campaigns.

Purposes for interviews and participant observation were developed later in the

research process.


9

Methods

Throughout this research project we conducted four primary methods of

research: focus groups, individual interviews, participant observation, and a survey.

These allowed us to gather as much data to answer our research question as we could.

Our primary question with the focus groups was to discover ways Invisible Children

could use a campaign or program to engage new audiences and repair a damaged

reputation. With the individual interviews we looked to gain a deeper understanding of

what constitutes a trustworthy nonprofit and/or an effective awareness/fundraising

campaign. In the participant observation we hoped to gain insights into the reactions by

participants to the initial KONY 2012 video to gage any gut reaction and opinions

formed throughout the video. Through the survey we were looking to identify some sort

of relationship between different behaviors or past engagement that we hypothesized

would inform active engagement in the future.

Interviews

Eight interviews were conducted: two by each researcher. We did not select

interviewees; rather, interviewees were assigned at random from among the class of

eligible participants in the focus group and participant observation.

Each interview lasted about 15 minutes, and we were conversely interviewed by their

interviewees for unrelated research. 925 Nonprofit Research interviews were recorded

either by using the software Extra Voice Recorder Lite, run on a laptop or the Sound

Recorder app on a phone, while notes were taken directly on the printed copy of the

interview protocol.

The basis for the interview protocol was the question, "What do people think of

when asked about successful nonprofit campaigns?" This key research question was

expanded into two categories, pertaining to awareness campaigns and fundraising

campaigns. Interviewees are referred to as Participant 1 and Participant 2.


10

The interviews were extremely helpful in gather in-‐depth information and data

relating to how an individual passes judgments on the validity of organizations, and

what deems a trustworthy organization. By the nature of the method, we were able to

gather in-‐depth information and inform more widespread methods like surveys. We

were also able to ask probing questions the interviewees for further information.

We did find that by the nature of the method it took quite some time to gather

multiple interviews. We also found that participants were more likely to stray off course

or be hesitant to talk, all of which could have been informed by interviewer bias. The

lack of group synergy also made it difficult for the interview to gain momentum.

Participant Observation

The researchers screened the film KONY 2012 for participants and noted their

verbal and non-‐verbal responses to the film.

For the Invisible Children case, most types of participant observation were not

possible to conduct in their purest form, as Invisible Children is not a brand with which

the public interacts on a regular basis in natural settings, and observation of most forms

of interaction, including donation and viewing the organization website, would provide

very little information if not accompanied by an extensive interview.

Researchers took two roles in the procedure: complete observer and, for a brief

period, interviewer. Observation took place in Park 270 at approximately 10:00am, so

participants were in the same place at the same time, as their regular schedule would

stipulate. Park 270 is a classroom and computer lab in which seats are arranged in a

horseshoe pattern around the room, with a projector screen on the wall not occupied by

seats.

Observation took place for 30 minutes, the length of the film KONY 2012. The three

"observed" were seated in a row in the front half of the room, directly facing the

projector, to which they were seated parallel. Researchers were seated approximately

perpendicularly to the observed in a segment of the "horseshoe" very close to the front


11

of the room and on the right side of the room, as viewed from behind the observed. All

researchers took notes on their computers for greater speed.

Approximately ten additional students were present in the classroom at the time of

the observation. Though they were not the subjects of observation, notes were taken on

their actions and reactions to supplement findings. These students were made aware

that a participant observation was taken place and were given the opportunity to leave

the room.

The limitations to the study can be seen in the realm of this study alone and in

participant observation on the whole. In this study, the use of a room with other

individuals created a somewhat unfocused environment, while the pace of the video and

reactions made it difficult to create a rich image in field notes of what was going on in

the room. There was also a technical difficulty in the beginning of the study, causing

some distraction and interruption to the flow of the study. Participant observations on

the whole experience limitations including a lack of control and difficulty to replicate to

corroborate data, only giving a snapshot without regard to other factors and subjective

interpretations of meanings. These limitations create an extremely gray area in regards

to what is found in these observations, so some data must be taken with a grain of salt.

Focus Group

The focus group began with a brief introduction that explained what the purpose

and content of the discussion: “Welcome! This focus group discussion is to learn how

you think and feel about Invisible Children and the Kony 2012 campaign. We really

appreciate your willingness to participate!” The ground rules were then established,

letting the participants know it was acceptable to ask any questions but that the

moderator was independent of the discussion. Participants were encouraged to give

their unbiased opinions, and consent to record was granted.

Through these actions, a culture of comfort and openness was established.

After the ground rules were communicated, the moderator asked the initial engagement

questions:


12

Engagement Questions

Q1: Please state your name, major, and favorite nonprofit.

Q2: What do you look for when supporting a nonprofit?

The purpose of these questions was to help the participants open up and become more

comfortable answering the rest of the focus group questions. The next set of questions

was more specific to Invisible Children. Their purpose was to find out initial

impressions and awareness of the organization:

Exploration Questions:

Category 1: Pre-‐Video Impressions/Past Communications/Awareness

Q1: Have you heard of Invisible Children? What is your opinion of the organization?

Q1.1: If yes, how did you hear about Invisible Children?

Q2: Have you ever heard of KONY 2012? Do you think this was an effective campaign?

After answering the exploration questions, the focus group participants were curious

about the actual descriptions of both Invisible Children and the KONY 2012 campaign as

well as the efforts of Invisible Children following the scandal.

Throughout this method we found that the existence of group synergy created a

great momentum that lent itself to easier conversation between participants. We also

found that having peers interact gave us insight into the role of social conscious in

engagement as well as desirability. We found that it was difficult to keep participants on

track if they got sidetracked and that we assumed a deeper knowledge of the subject

matter than existed. These caused an influx of researcher bias that makes the results of

the focus group not unusable, but definitely needs to be taken into consideration.


13

Survey

The final primary research method we engaged in was a survey. The purpose of the

survey was to gain insights into what informs more active forms of engagement with

supporters of nonprofits. This was examined through the following questions:

1. What is your gender? Select one: Male, Female, Other

2. What is your age in years?

3. What level of education have you completed? Some high school, High school diploma or GED, some college, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, some graduate school, Master’s degree, Ph.D. or other doctoral degree, Other

4. What is your career field or current field of study?

Please complete the following statements using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “much less likely to give,” 5 meaning “much more likely to give” and 3 meaning “my decision to give is not influenced by this factor.”

5. When someone I know is affected by a nonprofit organization’s cause, I am… to that organization or one with a similar cause.

6. When I am affected by a nonprofit organization’s cause, I am… to that organization or one with a similar cause.

7. When I have previous involvement/work experience with a cause, I am... to an organization with a similar cause.

8. When I have previous involvement/work experience with an organization, I am... to that organization.

9. When a nonprofit’s work takes place in my country of residence, I am… to that organization.

Please complete the following statements using a scale of 1 to 5, 1 meaning “much less likely to have a conversation with a friend,” 5 meaning “much more likely to have a conversation with a friend,” and 3 meaning “my decision to have a conversation with a friend is not influenced by this factor.”

10. When someone I know is affected by a nonprofit organization’s cause, I am… about that organization or one with a similar cause.

11. When I am affected by a nonprofit organization’s cause, I am… about that organization or one with a similar cause.


14

12. When I have previous involvement/work experience with a cause, I am... about an organization with a similar cause.

13. When I have previous involvement/work experience with an organization, I am... about that organization.

14. When a nonprofit’s work takes place in my country of residence, I am … about that organization.

Information

Please rate the following statements on a scale of 1 of 5, 1 meaning, “strongly disagree,” 5 meaning “strongly agree,” and 3 meaning “neutral.”

15. I have at least a basic understanding of many different nonprofit organization causes.

16. I have a very thorough understanding of many different nonprofit organization causes.

17. I have a very thorough understanding of at least one nonprofit organization cause.

18. I consider myself very aware regarding the activities of various nonprofit organizations.

19. The topic of nonprofit organizations interests me? 20. Do you see information about nonprofit organizations without seeking it out?

1. Yes (please list sources) 2. No

21. When seeking out information on a topic of interest to me, I tend to (select all that apply):

1. Ask my friends or peers 2. Use Google or other search engines 3. Use other sources (please explain)

Why do people not have awareness of nonprofits?

22. Of the nonprofits you listed above, how many of them I could describe X of their missions.

23. How many of the missions of the nonprofits you named above can you describe?

Thinking about the nonprofits you listed above, rate the following statements on a scale of 1 of 5:


15

24. I can describe the missions of this (these) organization(s). 25. I have been involved with this (these) organization(s). 26. I know what actions this (these) organization(s) take to meet their goals.

The survey was extremely helpful in observing certain behavioral patterns in

engagement, as we could not observe those readily that we needed to. We also found

that we were able to gather data from different demographics, as it was not limited by

geography to the students in the classroom. These two things combined allowed us to

have a larger amount of data and a little bit more freedom to generalize results,

although we did not have enough respondents to generalize all results.

Although we did find that the survey gave us some great insights into the

behavior relating to engagement, we also found that due to the structure of the method

we were unable to identify causality, had concerns about the clarity of questions and

limited bias, and a difficult time getting multiple respondents from different

demographics. We also found that as we were new to building surveys, it was difficult to

analyze our data initially and we resorted to coding all of our data by hand. While this

made it easier in the long run to analyze the data more effectively, it left more room for

human error despite all precautions taken.

All in all, we found that the survey was beneficial to our research and gave us

more insight into any correlations that may exist between active engagement and the

behaviors that inform it.


16

Results

Focus Group

Through the focus group process, 925 Nonprofits was able to observe

meaningful opinions held by multiple members of the focus group relating to non-‐profit

credibility, uniqueness of a nonprofit’s mission, the residual effects of the KONY

campaign and how an organization’s marketing style reflects on the organization on the

whole. Our most prominent finding was the importance of transparency in nonprofit

endorsement. Members of the group cited the tangible benefits of an organization as

important, while also mentioning that knowing the importance of knowing how funds

are allocated is vital. This common thread notes not only an ideal that should be upheld

in an organization’s marketing, but lends insight into how the target market of a

nonprofit can become more engaged in an organization’s efforts by channeling

consumer priorities into ethical codes and standards of practice. Also shown is an

interest in having transparency around the exact allocation of funds. This is a relatively

new trend in the nonprofit category, as was noted in the initial background research.

This trend calls for a change in business and ethical models.

When focus group members were reminded of Invisible Children’s unique

history, interest and curiosity were clear reactions. All four participants expressed

plans to further research Invisible Children after learning more in the focus group

process. The expression of the desire to conduct their own research into the

organization shows a unique quality to Invisible Children that calls for action even in

the smallest of forms in people.

925 Nonprofits also found that The KONY backlash has residual effects, even in

those who don’t remember its details. One member said that the “scandal” left a “bad

taste in her mouth” and wouldn’t donate. Another said that Invisible Children was in a

“been there, done that” situation, and would need to distance itself from its past with a

new name.


17

Related to the KONY 2012 campaign, focus group participants claimed they

wanted more than “flashiness” from a non-‐profit campaign video. The clip was

described as a “soda commercial,” that didn’t go beyond its “cool music,” and two

members thought the call to action was unclear.

Interviews

925 Nonprofits researchers found many common themes while conducting

individual interviews. The top three elements interviewees found important when

assessing the credibility and willingness to give to a nonprofit were organizational

transparency, financial transparency, and having a personal connection to the cause.

Organizational transparency is defined as the willingness and effectiveness of an

organization in making its details of its operations available to the public. Similarly

interviewees found financial transparency, or having clarity of the product goals,

purposes, and financial pathways, important when giving to a nonprofit. Finally, our

researchers found that all interviewees were more likely to give when they had a

personal connection to the cause i.e., they have volunteered with the organization, and

the mission personally affects them, and/or have a friend or family connection to the

cause.

Participant Observation

All 925 Nonprofit researchers observed similar reactions given by the

participants, resulting in four common receptions; participant reactions were strongest

when the video showed children, real human emotion, used strong language, and

showed clips of Uganda. When Ugandan children were shown, specifically Jacob’s story,

participants showed body language resembling sympathy. There were changes in facial

expression, nervous fidgeting, attentive watching, and one participant had tears in her

eyes. When any sort of real human emotion was being portrayed such as crying, yelling,

worry, etc., participants immediately became attentive and interested in what was

happening on the screen.


18

Our researchers also noticed these reactions in non-‐participants in the room,

specifically when strong language such as “mutilation” and “sex slaves,” was used. Most

in the room seemed intrigued when intense terms and phrases were used, even though

these individuals were not directly involved with watching the film. The same reactions

occurred from both our participant pool as well as non-‐participants when scenes of

Uganda were shown.

Survey

We had a couple findings of non-‐statistical importance through our survey and they are

as follows:

• Respondents who have prior experience with an organization will be more likely to give to that organization.

• Respondents who have prior experience with an organization will be more likely to have a conversation with a friend about that organization.

These two findings had strong evidence in the survey, but also need to be taken into

account with the notion of social desirability. With this in mind, we can still confidently

say that if a person becomes involved with a non-‐profit they are more likely to

contribute to the furthering of that organization’s work.

Null hypotheses H30, H40 and H60 were rejected, as the correlations yielded

statistically significant relationships in the direction predicted. The data supported the

hypothesis H3, that respondents who had been involved in more nonprofit

organizations would be more able to describe the missions of those organizations. An r-‐

value of 0.340 indicated a moderately strong relationship. Hypothesis H4, that

respondents who had been involved with more organizations would be more familiar

with the actions of those organizations, was also supported. The r-‐value, 0.547,

quantified the relationship as very strong, while a P-‐value of less than 0.001 indicated

very statistically significant results. Finally, H6, predicting that people who see

information about nonprofits without seeking it out are able to name more nonprofit


19

organizations, was corroborated by the data, with an r-‐value of 0.334 showing a

moderate positive relationship between the two variables.

Hypotheses H1, H2, and H5 did not yield statistically significant P-‐values, so the

corresponding null hypotheses were not rejected. It should be noted that the small

sample size might have been a factor in the results. For example, the P-‐value from the

correlation testing H1, 0.134, was indicative of statistically insignificant results.


20

Discussion

Based on the research conducted, 925 Nonprofits is able to make a few major

strategic recommendations to Invisible Children, Inc. These include monitoring and

evaluation standards, a grassroots social media campaign, corporate sponsorship, and

transparent reporting of financial information.

Monitoring and Evaluation Standards

When participants in research throughout the study were asked about validity of

non-‐profit organizations, a common theme of program efficiency was noted. Essentially,

almost all data was consistent with the notion that clear and up-‐to-‐date reports on the

effectiveness of programs that are being funded are crucial.

By instating new monitoring and evaluation standards for the programs they are

currently running, Invisible Children will most likely find more support, or at the very

least respect, among savvy-‐supporters in the nonprofit realm. In addition, clearer and

more timely data on program effectiveness and fund direction will give Invisible

Children a great starting point for developing a new marketing strategy and garner

renewed support from those alienated by the KONY 2012 campaign.

Grassroots Social Media Campaign

A consistent topic of discussion in the dialogue about nonprofit campaigns,

especially during the interview stage of research, was the success of ALS’ Ice Bucket

Challenge, which thrived on the strength of its grassroots nature and its interactivity.

While the challenge itself was a one-‐time phenomenon, there is much to learn from the

reaction it earned. The incentive to participate, peer influence, was built into the

concept of the campaign itself, as were promotion and publicity.

Invisible Children’s current social media suffers from a lack of call-‐to-‐action or

personalization, and users may feel disconnected from the content. While KONY 2012


21

intended to make participants feel as though they were part of a movement, its poor

clarity of purpose had the opposite effect.

The survey results demonstrated that people who see information about

nonprofits without seeking it out are more familiar with the nonprofit sector. While a

causal relationship cannot be drawn from these results, it does stand to reason that

bringing Invisible Children to the social media feeds of the general population would be

very beneficial to awareness of and willingness to give to the organization.

A grassroots campaign that encourages social media followers to participate and

spread involvement to others in a fun and accessible way would be an extremely

effective outreach method for Invisible Children.

Corporate Sponsorship

The interview stage of research also revealed that corporate sponsorship was

beneficial to both awareness and interest in nonprofit campaigns. The most frequent

example was Yoplait’s support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Another example that

was given was that of the NFL with breast cancer awareness.

Corporate sponsorship is not only a quick way to validate an organization with

new audiences but also a great way to validate the organization with skeptics of their

mission. With a corporate sponsorship Invisible Children would be able to access new

markets and strengthen their reliability and reputation.

Transparent Reporting of Financial Information

While Invisible Children has their gross receipts and allocation of funds listed on

their website, it is very cryptic. The site lists all programs under the same category, and

does not break down how much went to each. This is problematic because the range of

their programs is from high school assemblies and video production to sponsoring

students in Uganda.


22

In order to give potential supporters a robust and clear picture of the

organization and foster trust, we recommend that Invisible Children look into re-‐

evaluating the financial reporting standards they hold themselves to. By evolving in this

manner, they will not only foster trust but also increase the chance of a corporate entity

sponsoring the organization.


23

Conclusion

Our research aims shifted throughout our research process. We defined only one

overarching research question: how can Invisible Children use a campaign or program

to engage new audiences and improve a damaged reputation? As time went on, we

approached each new method of research individually and sequentially. We assessed

what we knew at the time and what we still wanted to know for the future, and

developed these knowledge gaps into new purposes for the research method. For

example, our group did not initially see any value in holding individual interviews. This

changed after our focus group, when we realized that individual interviews might be a

useful tool to assess what may constitute an adequate reparative campaign or

successful rebranding campaign for Invisible Children. We also initially struggled to find

a purpose for participant observations in the context of our research. We were

concerned about their feasibility, since our topic was relatively abstract. We struggled

to find a way in which our participants could remain ignorant to our intentions. After

much deliberation, we decided to have a showing of the KONY 2012 video, with the goal

being to gain insights into participant reactions and gage any resulting reactions or

opinions.

Through carrying out these different research projects, our team has learned the

value of both quantitative and qualitative research. We were able to be flexible on our

goals for each method, and the varying method types allowed us to learn the same

things in different ways. It was also helpful to start with three qualitative methods, as

we were able to narrow down our specific hypotheses in our survey. This enabled us to

have clear aims for our quantitative research, which provided strong causational (not

just correlational) results.

We now recognize the importance of research for strategic communications

professionals. If Invisible Children had performed a similar study before their video’s

release, they would have likely made major changes to their campaign’s approach.

Hopefully, the organization will examine our findings, conduct further research to

improve their damaged reputation, and take new steps toward a positive future. It is

imperative for communications professionals, including those in the nonprofit industry,


24

to regularly assess their actions and the public’s potential reactions. This is the only way

they may be most strategic in their future plans and actions.

Research on Invisible Children Post #HONY2012 Scandal

Data & Analytics

Transcript of Research on Invisible Children Post #HONY2012 Scandal