Are you being an askhole by using online polls as clickbait?
After attending #SRCCON recently in Minneapolis, I’ve been following the discussion around an ethical framework for engagement put forth by Jennifer Brandel and Andrew Haeg.
The conference itself was comprised entirely of workshop sessions that provided an ideal forum for this kind of conversation amongst industry peers. Take a read of Jennifer Brandel’s Medium post to get a deeper insight into the outcomes.
The topic got me thinking about how ethics play into the work I’ve been doing in community engagement using online polls and surveys.
The public opinion research industry has their own Code of Ethics, however, the rise in popularity of online polls and quizzes placed on news publisher websites means the ethics of engagement should also be applied.
Particularly because when online polls and surveys are used unethically, it negatively impacts the engagement industry as a whole.
Unlike the Code of Ethics for public opinion research, the key points raised during the #SRCCON workshop focused on the ethics around the right way to treat the people engaging.
If we don’t get that right, and don’t respect the intelligence and privacy of the audience, then their willingness to participate will decline.
During the last seven years of working for government organizations, I’ve heard “survey fatigue” mentioned many times. The community engagement teams receive many complaints that there are “too many surveys that lead nowhere.”
The most important thing to consider before you start a poll or survey is the compensation you are going to provide for those taking part.
When a poll asks someone for their email address in order to participate, it’s a red flag to most people.
If the “thank you” they receive is an inbox full of promotional messages, that’s a dreadful user experience. Would you ever risk participating again?
As you can see from the following comments, the audience were not fooled about the real intent of this poll.
The same thing happens with some e-petition providers, causing a reluctance by some people to sign a petition in the fear they will be bombarded with fundraising emails.
The second askhole action is not closing the loop or giving some kind of feedback as a payback for their efforts. Can you make it clear what you are doing with the information? If the results matter, what might transpire from their participation? Let them know.
Imagine the difference if this message was posted in front of the poll. “The gay marriage bill is being presented on August 19th. We want to show what the people of Star City think about the issue. Tell us your opinion and we’ll take the insights to the legislators.”
An ideal user experience would include explaining to people why you’re asking the question, then share the results so they understand who is thinking what on the issue.
If the poll is just to carry an advertising message, either around or after the poll, then how long do you think it will take for the reader to grasp what’s really happening?
We need to understand that clickbait polls do nothing to enhance the industry. The short-term gain of a few more seconds on the site is forfeiting the potential value of genuine and ongoing engagement.
IMHO the editorial space in a media publication is like a virtual town square. It is the midwife for knowledge being delivered to a community. It should be a place where trust and respect are beyond question.
Polls that are done without a basic methodology, that result in meaningless numbers, will not be treated seriously by an intelligent audience, especially if they are designed to capture emails or display advertising.
If you are genuinely interested in knowing what your audience think, then start asking important questions and sharing out the results. Make it worthwhile, or people are going to be reluctant to share their opinion again.
We need to provide genuine opportunities for engagement to make democracy work better.
Bravo to the instigators of the framework. If you have a suggestion to add, please register your interest here.
