When faced with new technology and innovative communications strategies, senior government officials will naturally be cautious and risk-averse. I’ve discussed this before. The challenge for communications advisors is to slowly shift the mindset of these officials - to open their minds and adapt our strategies to account for risk … and for ridicule.

Most communicators are well prepared to deal with risk, and they know how to account for risk in their communications strategies, preparatory materials, and in their briefings for officials.

The greater challenge is ridicule and its companions, embarrassment, chagrin and schadenfreude. Officials can prepare for opposition, confrontation or happenstance, but they have a hard time dealing with open mockery or a casual disregard for their hard work.

This, naturally, makes officials more cautious to experiment in an environment they don’t understand, and with technologies and communities that have humbled large and small corporations before them.

Which makes the British Government’s E-Petition site an interesting pilot project in the application of concepts like transparency, community participation and stakeholder involvement. (More about the site at the bottom of this post)

It would be very easy for the British Government to weed through the petitions submitted online, removing the obviously sarcastic, the obviously unattainable, or the simply laughable.

Instead, E-Petition seems to be allowing petitions the time to build a following. Even those that are obviously written as a lark or with a jaundiced eye.

• Make Spandau Ballet’s Gold the National Anthem (Youtube)
• Enter ultimate frisbee as a sport in the 2012 Olympics. (an actual goal of the sport)
• Force the government to take these petitions seriously if they have enough support

Those three petitions have been accepted. Here are some that have been rejected:

• Make our MD buy an Aston Martin and make it available as a pool car
• Impose a maximum weight limit for women wearing stiletto heels as they pose a massive threat to other members of the public on dance floors and in crowded bars nationwide
• Declare that the Beatles are better than Metallica
• Officially recognise Pete’s mum an official public resource
• Insist that Mr. Mark Gary Banham of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, wash more frequently than once a year
• Rid Our Streets of Chavs Once and for All

There is a longstanding tradition of delivering petitions to the Prime Minster, so the E-Petitions effort is building on precedent. That most likely made the decision to launch the site slightly easier.

We also have to take into account that there doesn’t seem to be a firm commitment to take action on petitions delivered to the Prime Minister - whether in print or online - and this allows officials some flexibility when reacting to submissions.

———-

“There is a long-established tradition of members of the public presenting petitions at the door of No 10 Downing Street. The e-Petitions [http://petitions.pm.gov.uk] service has been designed to offer a modern parallel, which is more convenient for the petitioner. Unlike paper-based petitions, this new service also provides an opportunity for No 10 to respond to petitioners via email.

Since its launch in November the ePetitions site has proved to be a highly popular innovation in the way that people communicate with government and with the Prime Minister’s Office in particular.

The service allows anyone (who is a UK citizen) to create a petition and to collect signatures via the website. Petitioners are asked to meet basic criteria, set out in an acceptance policy, but we aim to accept most petitions. The principal reasons for rejecting petitions so far have been obscenity, potential to cause offence, libel or duplication.” (E-Petitions - Facts, Figures and Progress)

Technorati Tags: Egovernment, Online Petition, Civil Society

The U.K. Government has commissioned a report on how social media and collaborative tools can be used to build stronger relationships and share information with community groups and civil society in general. The Power of Information Review is expected later this summer.

This work comes fresh on the heels of continuing policy work with government and NGO representatives on the implications of social media for community and stakeholder relations.

An online conversation about the review has already begun to develop, and one comment in particular hits directly to the heart of the problem in most government organizations:

“… Sophia - who is Producer at I’m a councillor, adds:

“I get the impression posting on forums is regarded with deep suspicion by older/more senior civil servants and the younger ones who get it aren’t in a position to challenge that idea.

This creates a very artificial barrier between citizens and government. It must also create a strange disjunct for the staff concerned - who would use sites in a personal capacity, but have to pretend they can’t see them at work.“

That quote comes from David Wilcox’ Designing for Civil Society, who links to more conversation about the project.

Some bumpf from the news release:

“Minister for the Cabinet Office Hilary Armstrong wants Government to harness the phenomenon of internet advice sharing sites and empower people with information that could help improve their lives.

… Websites like Rightsnet and NetMums are examples of how people are using the internet to share information, advice and help. Now, a review will look at the benefits such online communities are creating for their members, how they relate to major areas of government policy or focus, and whether there is a case for involvement at any level by Government.

…It will look at how non–personal public sector information can be re–used and reinvigorated outside of government to generate public and economic value.

The Review will explore new developments in the use and communication of citizen and state–generated public information in the UK. It will present an analysis and recommendations to Cabinet Office Ministers before summer.” (Cabinet Office news release)

via lgnewmedia and David Wilcox (who has links to more conversation on the report)

Technorati Tags: Power of Information Review, government communications, public information

There’s that word again - risk. How much risk is a government organization willing to take on while experimenting with social media and other online applications? By risk, I mean a willingness to hear dissenting voices as well as supporting commentary. How high up in the organization are there leaders willing to engage in open discussion and debate with stakeholders, activists and community leaders?

Or maybe we’d just be satisfied with some indication that senior people are considering how to react to the two-way conversations that are developing as online vehicles and Web 2.0 apps grow in popularity?

There is logic in the cautious approach undertaken by most government bodies. Large hierarchical organizations and agencies may need to take an incremental approach to integrating social media in their communications activities.

Uncertainty about the quantity, volume and acidity of an unmoderated comment flow may keep decision makers from embracing new technologies unreservedly - unless they can be convinced of the practical benefits for their existing work.

Michael Sommermeyer touches upon one possible pilot project in a post largely about the need to enable comment and feedback mechanisms on the social media news release:

“However, government agencies might consider the template, especially as they seek input on ordinances, procedures and laws; they have more of a reason to generate a conversation.”

That is exactly the type of conversation that can be enabled and enhanced by social media and online apps: a regulatory proposal, a health or safety issue, or even a zoning proposal.

Normally, this sort of initiative wouldn’t float to the surface of an organization’s website. There are dedicated consultations portals for these sorts of exchanges: portals usually frequented by traditional stakeholder groups. Otherwise, these initiatives are featured on focused sub-sites, like the zoning office’s web page.

A social media news release may provide just the right format to direct people towards a more detailed policy or regulatory proposal - and encourage debate and discussion at the same time!

I’ve volunteered to write a chapter - okay, a one page note - on how government communicators will have to adjust to dealing with the the members and issues embodied by new online networks and affinity groups for the new e-book being corralled by Gavin Heaton and Drew Mclellan:

… And out of that blogging conversation and a few e-mails, Gavin & I concocted the idea for an e-book about this new era of communications we’ve all entered together. But not just any book. It has to be a quick book. Exciting. Sharp. Inclusive. It had to be a book about community and conversation that came from that community and spoke the same vernacular. The title — The Conversation Age.

I’ll post my contribution when possible, I promise!

David Armano has been building out an argument for the role of a “community architect” at his Logic + Emotion blog. BusinessWeek has given him a chance to speak to a more general audience this week, and many of Armano’s clear and informative graphics accompany the piece.

The image above is taken from a presentation, Emerging Media’s Impact on the Customer Experience, that Armano prepared for a MarketingProfs webinar last week.

Bob Glaza posted some observations after participating in the webinar:

“The obvious - and foremost - thing for us to remember is we serve people. Whatever our vocation, calling, job, gig - call it what you will - if we are not putting people first - it won’t work. We might call them customer, consumers, readers…but cut to the chase…and its people. And people want good experiences. Part of a good experience is good design. In order to help create good experiences, we need to be good designers. Design is not about making something look good - thought that is part of it - but its more about creating an experience that is pleasurable. “

While Glaza was referring to marketers and more consumer-oriented marketers, his comments apply equally well to the role of government communicators.

As well, Armano’s emphasis on conversation architects, instead of conversation managers, points to a weakness of many of the plans developed by government communicators: a belief that we can manage a conversation at all. Or even manage the environment around messaging and interaction with our stakeholders.

As I’m finishing this post, I’ve realized that Armano’s The End of Thought of Leadership, posted today, provides a perfect capstone to this observation:

“In the conversation economy, dialogue rules. Monologue, and rehearsed presentations play second fiddle. An academic or corporate pedigree is nice—but really doesn’t matter. If you have something valuable to say and you are willing to listen, share and participate—then you have the opportunity to “submit” your ideas and be heard.

These are the new rules of the conversation age, or economy or whatever you want to call it. This is why, if you have adverse reactions when you hear strange words like “blogging” or “twittering”—then you are a fool. I’m sorry but it’s true. I’m not saying that we should all jump on the bandwagon of the latest buzzword or technology that gets thrown out there. I’m actually saying the opposite. We need to investigate the latest tools to the best of our abilities and decide how they impact our own worlds. The blogging movement was never about blogging in the first place—it’s about a new way to share, connect, collaborate, discuss, debate, and ideate.” (Logic + Emotion)

Government communicators have a lot of experience in playing within the ” traditional thought leadership model”: the model that emphasizes formal relationships, detailed policy documents and carefully choreographed private and public dialogues.

Our challenge is to learn how to play within both this traditional model and as participants in a newer, looser, more reactive online environment.

We’re no longer the refs in the conversation game: we’re not even linesmen. We either learn how to dribble, pass, lateral or shoot - or we go home.

Michael Sommermeyer over at wordy mouth posted about his experience with a social media release, Social Media Release Unwinds, and more specifically about the less than stellar reception that it received from some of the media.

As an example of an SMR, it looks pretty pretty much like the original template put forward by Todd Defren. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, as Michael says, one of the media he pitched it to didn’t necessarily appreciate it:

my implementation was too disjointed, didn’t help him understand the message, left him hunting for the story. In short, he didn’t like it.

As (public sector) communicators, we have to listen and, where necessary, adapt.

Michael’s experimental subject obviously has the tech skills, and is a journalist so pretty much constitutes the target demographic, but still found the SMR wanting. How can we fix this?

I posted here recently about the different requirements for government communicators and how the SMR, or more specifically hRelease, can support them.

Essentially, my argument is to focus on the (semantic) markup of the release, not the presentational format. The audience for government releases is not just tech-savvy media and bloggers, so it has to be discoverable and usable by all comers. For technical details, see this post on a NZ government SMR.

Michael’s release is actually a tremendous step forward in terms of its markup, and for that he should be applauded. It is not buried in nested tables, the elements are marked up semantically and it would be accessible to pretty much anyone, or anything. (A doctype and cleaning up some of the markup so that it validates would be my only quibble).

And as Michael notes in his post, there is no harm in using the more traditional format, at least as a transition strategy:

In any case, it may be more useful to sneak some of the elements of the SMNR into our usual inverted pyramid-styled press releases. A few links to relevant information mixed in with the text. A sidebar pointing to our Digg or del.icio.us tags…

That would make the release usable for the majority of the audience (including all non-media interested parties) and the improved markup would make it more discoverable, accessible and re-usable.

Technorati Tags: social media, SMR, hRelease, microformats, government, public servants.

Ian Ketcheson has written a detailed discussion of why government bodies should consider ditching expensive and poorly watched webcasts for a more accessible YouTube model.

“The webcast pitch is a tough one: “Please be at your computer on Tuesday at 11:00 Eastern time for 30 minutes to watch a broadcast about our program. We’ll be in front of an audience of 50 people in Sudbury, and webcasting to the rest of the country. You can ask questions through a moderator. We’ll take 10 questions. You need to test your browser ahead of time. You and your colleagues will need to crowd around a PC, or all sit at your own PC. We hope your connection is fast. Don’t spill your coffee. You can watch it in the archives after, but won’t be able to ask questions.”

The Youtube pitch is much easier: “This video is the first in a series of videos that will talk about our program. Just click the link to watch it. Got comments? Post them in the comments field. Embed the video in your blog and talk about it. Heck, do your own video response if you want. We are listening, and we will come back with another video addressing some of the issues we hear. We’ve saved so much money by not webcasting that we are actually going to do a whole series of videos. This is the first of ten videos we plan.”

Stakeholder relations. Consultations. Public outreach. Town hall meetings. There are countless ways that government organizations claim they are building a dialogue with their citizens and partners. With the growth of online tools and communities, though, the opportunities for contact and feedback have exploded.

The tech community has recognized the challenge this poses to the normal pattern of interaction with customers/clients/citizens. Many of these companies are exploring the idea of a “community manager” to help their organization build effective relationships with these groups.

This is a concept and role that will become vitally important to government communicators (and others) as we grapple with the same changes in our relationship with our citizens and partners. I hope to discuss the implications, the application, and the complications of this technological and societal change in future posts.

For the moment, I’d like to point to several resources that help introduce the role of community manager:

• Jeremiah Owyang’s discussion of the “Customer/Community + Evangelist/Advocate/Manager/Guy/Girl“
• Tara Hunt’s presentation on community marketing at ETech. (make sure to view the slideshow)
• Jake McKee’s Customer Interaction Manifesto.
• Christopher Salazar’s “Who can be a community evangelist.”

One recurring theme to note in all of these materials:

Sometimes, a community manager must push against institutional lethargy, traditionalist obstinance or stubborn pig-headedness in the name of the client/customer/citizen.

How can a government communicator help convince traditional bureaucracies to adopt social media tools - even as part of a pilot project? The key lays in the preparation of arguments and counterarguments, to be used as part of a pitch to senior management.

We are not all naturally risk adverse, but we can work to anticipate the points that will prompt questions from our Undersecretaries, Assistant Deputy Ministers and Directors-General. Building from that analysis, we can make sure our presentations and white papers address concerns about IT infrastructure security, information retention and workplace productivity that are sure to come up as a proposal makes its way through a department or ministry.

Some of this data is being pulled together already. As corporate consultancies begin to play in the arena, they are beginning to address the implications of social media adoption from the point of view of a corporate manager: what about the risk?

For example, Clearswift recently conducted surveys in Britain and the United States to examine use of social media and “Web 2.0″ sites in the workplace. Their news release highlighted the term “data leakage,” and the U.S. news release emphasized that the “Growing popularity of Web 2.0 sites put corporate information at risk and drains productivity.”

The data points being fed to corporate clients, as a result, emphasize three points:

• without a plan to deal with social media use, corporations risk the loss of valuable corporate information, either intentionally or inadvertently;
• employees, especially the younger generation, are already online A LOT during work hours; and
• use of “Web 2.0″ sites can significantly affect productivity in the workplace.

Key to these arguments are two separate sets of findings:

United States

• 46 percent of office workers have discussed work-related issues on social media websites;
• 71 percent of office workers use Web-based email at work for personal reasons;

Britain

• 42 per cent of office workers aged 18-29 have discussed work-related issues on social media websites
• 59 per cent of office workers aged 18-29 believed that employees should be entitled to access Web 2.0 Internet content from their work computer for personal reasons, compared to 38 per cent of employees aged 30+.

It’s hard to compare the two sets of surveys, as their methodology is different in each country. Still, the results are similar and reinforce the message being driven by Clearswift:

“More than half of the people we surveyed feel that they are entitled to access the Internet and social media sites at work, and 27 percent of them work at organizations that don’t have an acceptable use policy or don’t know if one exists,” added Ian Bowles. “We have become way too casual with the Internet; this despite the propagation of viruses, bugs, spam and scams that plague the Internet and can harm an organization. We urge businesses to take a sensible approach to the risks posed by the Internet and social media sites.”

Does that voice sound familiar? Can you visualize having that conversation with a senior manager in your organization? Have you already lived through that type of exchange?

h/t to the Melcrum Blog, and cross-posted to canuckflack.com