Anyone looking at the timestamp would be acutely aware of the context for 'positive rate'. As the virus rampages across the country bending the healthcare ecosystem to its will, there is an upsurge of citizen governance with private individuals pooling in resources to help each other. It is a lone graceful sequence of events amid this horrific toll on life and economy.
As always certain sections of the citizenry, companies and parties try to lever the story telling for their own benefit that runs counter to the larger good which are at the best parasitic and at worst pathetic. Unsurprisingly, majority catch the tail of such well spun narratives giving it the momentum to gain traction. One such event prompted me to put down my thoughts here after years!
A startup offered an opportunity for its users to cash in pseudo-currency held in its books against monthly payments to support its initiative in supplying oxygen to the hospitals. At the outset, it was a wonderful initiative, that prompted me to cash in all my chips that I haven't ever used before and share the initiative with a friend who has a similar utilitzation rate for the said app, who judiciously cashed in his too. It gave a sense of gratification that we did a small bit to solve for the ensuing pandemic.
Only to wake up next day to see scrolls of social media feed of people showcasing their certificates, which wasn't wrong as it was also the very intent of the company to achieve brand traction and hopefully some goodwill- which again isn't bad or wrong as they do have a fiduciary responsibility. But here is where it gets interesting. As is with anything in the spotlight, it attracted lots of eyes and resultant envy, jealousy, resentment-call it what you want. Soon, there were analysis of the donation numbers which ridiculed the certificate and the people who shared them.
Yes, the company wasn't transparent in its logic of calculating the actual oxygen supply or the timeline over which that would happen. Yes, people felt good by sharing about their contribution. Yes, the magnitude implied vs realized was significantly different. And yes, the company received huge publicity by democratizing the spend across its users' dopamine and by directing it towards a good cause instead of spending it on a single cricketer or actor.
I believe the last piece gave those who either didn't use the app or those who just wanted to take down people a peg or two an ammunition. It makes me wonder, why? To what end? One of the estimates said, each donation was worth, no more than 50 bucks. So what? if 1 lac people did it, that's 50 lacs! - no measly amount either.
Needless to say, negativity attracts engagement and thanks to the minions of Zuckerberg, majority is tuned to achieve maximum engagement at least cost, sometimes ignoring the price
Why are we so sudden in our response? Is it the affordability due to ultra speed networks and super connected social media that amplifies the Shadow in us? (- couldn't avoid the Shadow & Bone reference ;)..)
Last couple of weeks have been abysmal, with the virus spreading its wings into everyone's inner circle giving the pain of helplessness in its wake. If anything, the martyrdom of front liners and the contributions of the well intended should humble the Shadow in us, rather than enrage it at the slightest trip.
As the friend whom I shared the initiative learnt the logic behind the company's gimmick, he texted me, visibly irritated at the lack of transparency and what not. We chatted and it was a note to ourselves to rein in the Shadow!
Someone said, wisdom is worth sharing, so here it goes!
No comments:
Post a Comment