In this blog post, we take a balanced look at the positive impact of the Ice Bucket Challenge, as well as its limitations and the controversy surrounding its authenticity.
Do you remember the Ice Bucket Challenge that went viral in the summer of 2014? The Ice Bucket Challenge was a relay donation campaign to raise awareness of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a rare disease, and to help ALS patients. The rules of the campaign were that a participant would post a video of themselves pouring ice water over their head on social media and then nominate three people to continue the relay. Those nominated had to post a video of themselves pouring ice water over their head within 24 hours or donate $100 to the ALS Association in the United States. This campaign started in the United States and spread around the world with the aim of allowing people to experience, even for a moment, the pain of ALS, which causes muscle contraction, when they are doused with ice water. In Korea, many celebrities and politicians participated in the campaign, which became a hot topic and contributed to raising public awareness of ALS.
The Ice Bucket Challenge is considered a prime example of the power of social media. Participants shared their videos on social media to inform their followers about the campaign, which led to more people learning about it. This viral marketing effect turned the Ice Bucket Challenge from a simple donation campaign into a global social phenomenon. In particular, the participation of celebrities played a major role in raising awareness of the campaign. For example, when famous people such as Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Mark Zuckerberg joined the campaign, the Ice Bucket Challenge caused a huge sensation around the world.
However, is the popularity of the Ice Bucket Challenge really positive? First of all, the campaign can be seen as positive in that it raised awareness of ALS and collected donations for ALS patients. In the early stages of the campaign, many people understood its meaning and actively participated, but as time passed, more and more people participated simply to follow the trend. But did the people who participated in this campaign really do so to help ALS patients? For example, some people participated because it looked fun without understanding the purpose of the campaign. Some of the people around me participated simply because they thought it looked fun to pour ice water on themselves, without any awareness of the purpose of the campaign or ALS and its patients. In this case, the people who are nominated feel pressured to pour ice water on themselves and nominate three other people because they have to donate £100 if they don’t. During this process, the people who are nominated nominate others without knowing where the £100 goes or the meaning behind pouring ice water on themselves, and this situation repeats itself. Is participating for fun without any awareness of helping ALS patients really in line with the purpose of the campaign?
There were also cases where people participated with the intention of raising their own profile or improving their image by taking advantage of the popularity of the campaign. This is the case when politicians participate in the campaign to show their spirit of service and generosity, or when unknown celebrities take ice buckets in unique ways to create buzz and raise their own profile.
These are not donation campaigns for patients, but rather campaigns for their own purposes. Can such participation be considered a campaign with the right intentions? And is a donation of $100 an amount that the general public can readily contribute? $100 is approximately 110,000 won, which is a large amount for the general public and students to donate without hesitation.
Therefore, even though the campaign became widely known and was exposed to the media, did its popularity really translate into donations from the general public? I wonder if the large amount of money involved made it seem like a joke or something that celebrities do. In addition, although the Ice Bucket Challenge campaign was popular at the time, it has now almost disappeared from people’s memories. It is therefore regrettable that people’s donations and interest were only temporary and did not continue.
In addition, there are also critical views of the campaign. Some environmental activists pointed out that the Ice Bucket Challenge wasted a lot of water. In particular, there was criticism that the campaign was inappropriate in areas suffering from water shortages. The issue of water waste suggests that not only the Ice Bucket Challenge, but also various other social campaigns should consider their impact on the environment.
Therefore, future donation campaigns need to seek more sustainable and environmentally friendly methods. The intention behind the Ice Bucket Challenge campaign itself was quite good, and the act of pouring ice water over one’s head was quite an interesting activity. However, it is unfortunate that the campaign did not proceed as intended, that it was difficult for the general public to participate, and that it did not last long.
If the Ice Bucket Challenge serves as a model for the development of campaign culture in Korea and around the world, it will be possible to increase participation in donations and raise awareness of various incurable and rare diseases and social issues. It is also necessary to carefully consider how the format and content of campaigns can be harmonised to have a lasting impact. Future donation campaigns should go beyond mere trends and move toward genuine participation and sustainable change.
