In the world of social media, you really do have to pause sometimes. Innovation after innovation, mashable upon widget. They all threaten to re-interpret our world, and question exactly how old-line organizations (and communicators) have been able to get by doling out information by the tablespoon and digesting it by the teaspoon.

Like the twitter channel that updates on the activities on the floor of the House of Representatives. It draws on the information posted to this page by the Office of the Clerk of the House. (Here’s how it’s done.)

Sounds like a great idea. But consider the target market, largely political aides, bureaucrats and lobbyists in and around Washington. That’s an audience of thousands. This twitter is being followed by 18.

More interesting, but also more like drinking water from a firehose, is an application of Yahoo Pipes that attempts to filter legislative tracking feeds and Congressional Record speeches.

There are people, deeply interested in public policy, who are dissecting our work in ways barely imagined by those inside the bureaucracy.

And, despite all the hand wringing about the death of PR in the private sector, the explosion in social media and networking technology offers a real opportunity for a PR or comms person to build experience, value and credibility with their clients - if they’re capable of interpreting the trends online, forecasting their effects on their organization, and applying relevant innovations to their own work.

The U.S State Department has built an extensive wiki-like repository for articles and information for its diplomats, says Federal Computer Week. Over 1400 articles are available, and over 250 wiki authors have been identified, as part of the effort to make more information available to diplomats and workers across the department.

“We do not seek to replicate the information contained within Wikipedia, but rather to answer ‘What are the issues for Embassy Quito?’ or ‘What are the functions of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor?’ A wiki for State is designed to harness the input of the organization to explain what it is and what it does. In an agency that can ill-afford reinvention, the wiki model, one of widely-available, electronically searchable textual information, may serve as a valuable tool is translating corridor knowledge generated slowly over time, to institutional knowledge available via computer.”(abstract of Chris Pronk’s presentation at Wikimania 2006)

The initiative has been underway since early 2006, and works over the unclassified OpenNet network available to State employees.

The project is certainly farther along in implementation than Intellipedia, a similar project aimed at U.S. intelligence analysts, which was described earlier this year as “in Model T stage.”

State’s Office of eDiplomacy seems to be advancing the application of several social media tools in a government environment, even to the point of encouraging internal blogging. The head of the Office told the Foreign Service Journal this spring that, in addition to diplopedia, they have put in place a

“simple blogging software as the basis for our highly successful Communities@State program, with almost 40 Communities of Practice already established or in process. (Foreign Service Journal)”

Little nuggets of information found across the internet indicate some of the elements necessary to implement social media projects in a hierarchical organization:

• hire senior employees with extensive technical experience as well as diplomatic experience
• tie the initiative closely to the information management network in the department
• hire young employees who are already tied into online networks like LinkedIn and others (just google “eDiplomacy and LinkedIn”)

Technorati Tags: eDiplomacy, Government Communications, wiki

Here’s a lesson for government communicators: never be too frank in the observations made in your communications strategies. That’s the take-away from the Telegraph’s coverage of a “Defence Communications Strategy” (pdf) written earlier this year.

Missing: MoD’s army of 1,000 press officers

The key paragraph for this headline:

“We have no clear idea of the number of people involved in defence communications work or their costs. Over 1000 people in MOD have a media/communications job code. This excludes many military personnel involved in communications work. Of this only 107 work to DGMC.”

The rest of the document makes it clear that MOD has a problem with brand identity, publication control, and a rabbit’s warren full of standalone Defence websites (47 of them).

The problem isn’t that MOD has a thousand press officers that are doing nothing: the problem is that uncounted managers and commanders have found a way to sneak photographers, webmasters, newsletter editors, and lord knows what else onto the payroll in that job code.

In fact, the strategy makes the argument that rationalization and centralization of messages, logos, brands and communication efforts is needed.

It talks about making the stories of average soldiers, sailors and airmen - in their voices - available to Britons at home.

The part I found surprising wasn’t even highlighted by the Telegraph: it can be found under the heading Demonstrate real progress on achieving operational success within a wider HMG strategy by:

“Establishing a common truth between briefings in theatre and in MOD so that (a) our corporate channels reflect theatre realities and (b) theatre are aware of corporate priorities.”

This Defence Communications Strategy reads like a high level, bluntly truthful overview of the state of affairs in MOD communications. Without the benefit of inside information or familiarity with the public environment in Britain, it strikes me as a useful attempt to draw a picture of the immediate challenges facing the communications regime in MOD.

And that’s why it’s easy to pick apart and criticize. And the MOD likely expected some reaction of this kind - SINCE THE STRATEGY IS POSTED ON THEIR WEBSITE.

h/t to Strumpette for the link, but a brickbat for jumping on the bandwagon and criticizing the Strategy without any real analysis.

When you run through a staffing exercise to hire a new media analyst, remember two things:

• monitor staff appropriately as they conduct the exercise;
• and teach proper email procedures.

Quite a large kerfuffle in Toronto about a completely insensitive email mistakenly sent to an applicant for a low-level media analyst position in the provincial government - an email where a contract employee referred to one applicant for the job as the “ghetto dude.” How did Evon Reid, the applicant, find out? The contract employee sent her comment to him instead of her colleague as intended. (Toronto Star, among many)

Not only does this incident reflect poorly on how the hiring process was managed, but it also highlights a shift in attitudes towards winning a job in the civil service.

Back in the old, old days, a civil service position was such a sinecure that applications (or should that be supplicants) approached each qualifying exam and screening interview with a sense of deference or fear. Hiring managers often believed that applicants “should be glad we’re even looking at them, this is such a golden opportunity” - and behaved that way during the hiring process.

Well, the world has changed. Many applicants have no fear in criticizing what they see as a flawed process. Clearly, Mr. Reid was entitled to bring the email to light and highlight the inherent insensitivity of the comment about him.

But other applicants feel no reticence in highlighting unprofessional behaviour in the hiring process. Like this commenter on the Torontoist blog, who applied for the same job as Mr. Reid:

“However, when i was interviewed i was absolutely dumbstruck by Ms. Siu’s lack of professionalism. The interview process was basically Ms. Siu and her colleague, who both seemed to be recent grads themselves, and their supervisor who seemed like d a legitimate government employee of several years. They made it clear that i would have to impress all three in order to get my second interview, and questions were shared equally between the three.

Anyway, the problems came when their supervisor had to leave half way during the interview, and Siu and her colleague began joking around. Hey, i love jokes, initially they were doing a great deal to put me at ease, as i’m generally very tense in an interview. But they just kept going with it to the point where Siu was pretending to collapse drunk on the table and all focus was taken off asking me questions and trying to find out if i was the right person for the job, which was why I was there. When the questions did return to me, at least one of the questions ask was an illegal on as set forth by the ministry of labor, or however if in charge of making such guidelines (see, very under qualified for the job.) The question asked was “How do you plan on getting to work each day?” which as innocent as it sounds, cannot be asked in an interview situation. Now, should not the Ontario Government be following the same rules as its given all other HR departments in the province?”

In the past, most civil services tried to recruit from the same informal network of candidates and applicants - people with similar educational, social and economic backgrounds.

Today, we have tried to cast our net wider, to expand the range of interests, expertise and experience recruited into the civil service.

And, thanks to online technologies, candidates and applicants can continue to share information, caution and criticism about the jobs (and the managers) on offer.

h/t to Accordion Guy

I’ve been doing some thinking about data collection and personal privacy lately, and it’s struck me that a lot of early adopters, online cognoscenti and bandwagoners are rushing headlong into a world framed by the overarching principles of transparency, honesty and personal interaction - without thinking of about how much of their personal information they are leaving exposed.

This isn’t a new development. Without understanding something of how customer relationship marketing, market segmentation and direct marketing works, the average person really doesn’t understand how their personal information swirls in currents and eddies of databases, mail lists, dodgy piles of index cards and thumb keys.

I’ll give you an example: at the right is a set of keys. Attached are the key tags for four loyalty programs: Albertson’s grocery, GNC vitamin shop, Ace Hardware and some Canadian chain. To the key’s owners, those tags are worth 5% off purchases.

To someone with access to one or all those databases, those tags represent a considerable amount of detail about the key owner’s shopping habits, product preferences, fondness for discounts or particular brand names, and even their travelling habits.

With that information, marketers and political strategists can micro-market to increasingly targeted segments of the population - and your neighbourhood. And your group of friends. And members of your family.

But we’re only discussing information consciously handed over to marketers and consumer companies in exchange for quantifiable benefits: I’ll let you track my shopping patterns in exchange for a discount on bulk purchases of panty liners; I’ll sign up for your program so I receive advance emails about Memorial Day sales.

What about the personal information you leave hanging, for all to see, in your online profiles?

• your birthday
• your home address
• your kid’s names
• your vacation schedule

Would you post a picture of your driver’s licence? Considered as individual data points, this information does not seem like much. In total, you are giving out far more information for free - and to everyone - than you would agree to let a marketer collect.

I’ve already posted about the dangers of mistaken or outright stolen identity online. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that social media is evil.

Instead, we all need to get into the habit of maintaining an inventory of our online identity. Nothing complicated, just a personal awareness of how much information you’ve revealed, and to who.

Even on social networks that are password protected and offer tools to restrict access to your profile information, you may end up “friending” people who you barely know. And that increases the risk.
After all, you need to be aware whether some hacker knows more about you than your best friend.

And you better not lose that keychain.

*crossposted from canuckflack.com

“… The old diplomacy was defined by a world of limited information. It was a veritable secret garden of negotiations. And secret negotiation still matters. But we live in a world where the views of a Pashtun herdsman, and the conflict he faces between illegal opium production and legal farming, holds the fate of a critical country in the balance. So the new diplomacy is public as well as private, mass as well as elite, real-time as well as deliberative. And that needs to be reflected in the way we do our business.”

- excerpt from David Miliband’s first speech as Foreign Secretary, speaking to The New Diplomacy (text on FCO site, spotty video on YouTube, and webcast on avaaz.org)

Which signals a greater commitment to online communities and a frank conversation with the general public?

• a blog, or
• co-hosting your first major policy speech with an international and online activist organization?

David Miliband, the British Cabinet Minister formerly known online for his personal blog posts as DEFRA Minister, has been promoted to the post of Foreign Secretary. No new blog yet, but the signs are encouraging.

In fact, Miliband’s first major policy speech was co-hosted by avaaz.org - a relatively new international and online activist organization. In addition to the vague but reassuring words in his speech about non-traditional influences on diplomacy and foreign policy priorities. the new Foreign Secretary fielded some questions submitted online by avaaz’ members.

“…At the end we handed David Miliband his own Book of Global Public Opinion, with all our members’ thousands of questions and pieces of advice, warning and encouragement. Clarion calls for an ethical foreign policy, a new global climate treaty, all-party negotiations and ending occupation in the Middle East, the protection of human rights and decisive action on poverty. I hope he’s reading it now.” (Paul Hilder, in HuffPost)

The talk is even being walked on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.

The FCO is encouraging Britons to “Have Their Say” about the speech and the FCO’s priorities. Unfortunately, the system seems to consist of an HTML form, a formal review process once submitted, and then a static compilation of comments.

The three themes under this section have links to reddit, del.icio.us and digg - but none of the other pages on the FCO site seem to have them.

It’s a first step, isn’t it?

The larger question remains how Miliband’s past experience with online comment and activism will be reflected in the polices and practices developed by the FCO.

Will public diplomacy really change as a result? Or will the process be more incremental, simply as a result of institutional inertia and the greater challenge of shifting the course of a large foreign policy apparatus.

What’s the performance of call-to-action SMS text messages? We can draw some examples from a campaign launched by the John Edwards for President campaign.

Amy Rubin, the campaign’s Deputy Director for New Media, spoke to techPresident about the results and their observations.

• people who responded to SMS option to “call” a recorded message from John Edwards “… is comparable to our average open rate on national emails and almost twice as much as our average click-thru rate.”
• the number of people who opted to continue on to an operator after listening to the message from John Edwards “…was also slightly higher than our national email click-thru rate.”
• nearly all of the people who listened to the recorded message “… listened to the entire message” - even though it was a little long.
• the unsubscribe rate was higher than normal, “… but not by a significant amount and certainly not high enough to suggest that people consider this spam.”

To close, an observation:

“…This is very promising. The message was probably longer than many would have advised but it shows us that people who want to listen, will listen to the whole thing. As opposed to email, where many people may think they want to read it – because of the subject line – but then quickly realize that they should have just hit delete.

… it may also speak to the fact that people understand that they can always go back and look at an old email anytime but listening to a message from the campaign has more of a one-time chance uniqueness to it - if they hang-up they are not sure how to get back.

… the vast majority of people who connected to our phone banks expressed something you rarely hear when being asked for money – excitement. They were psyched about hearing the message and wanted to tell our volunteers how cool it was to have their phone ring with a call from John Edwards.”

h/t to e.politics

To ape Sally Field - you love me! you really, really love me!

Okay. Not me. A skinnier, more British, more Labour version of me. Oh, who was a journalist.

Okay. You love Jimmy Leach. Or at least the New Media Age awards did.

Tony Blair’s head of digital communications, has taken home the award for “The Greatest Individual Contribution to New Media.” Why? Epetitions. Podcasts. A YouTube channel for a Prime Minister. All put in place in less than a year.

Simon Dickson underlines the importance of Leach’s work: it has helped establish a precedent for British government communicators.

“…So Jimmy is free to do all sorts of radical things which most Ministries … would typically strangle at birth.

Standard Whitehall mentality is that it’s only acceptable to do something innovative if someone else has already done it. (Which, of course, is a contradiction in terms, but anyway…) And if the ’someone else’ happens to be the almighty Downing Street, all reticence disappears.

Suddenly there’s no need to fear a call from the most powerful office in the land, asking what the hell you thought you were doing. If you post your Minister’s stuff on YouTube, in the same way that No10 posted theirs, what can go wrong? (And if it does go wrong, at least No10 will probably be stuffed too.)”

And, as WhitehallWebby points out, he’s beat out a worthy slate of opponents.

From Jeremy, a hint of the backroom preparation in government communications units that anticipates a Cabinet shuffle. And the ensuing waiting game.

I have to think that the change-over in Parliamentary governments is a greater challenge for comms shops. In Federal systems, there is usually some process of appointment and confirmation. A process that institutionalizes a time lag and time for fevered work.

In our wonderful Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister can reshuffle half the Cabinet over lunch and expect fully revamped Departmental web sites by dinner time.

On another note - wow - I forgot how much I liked Swing Out Sister’s Waiting Game.