I can understand why some government agencies feel they need to centralize control of “messaging” - particularly if the agency is responsible for wide-ranging issues or fundamental policies, like economic development, unemployment insurance, or fiscal policy.

But a policy of centralization tends to backfire when applied to an organization made up of scientists and researchers. Any attempt to truly restrict communication, whether by limiting the number of spokespeople on  truly technical matters or by boiling messaging down until only a wisp of information remains, will inevitably result in dis-satisfaction among the technical corps.

It’s also reflective of a poor understanding of the way scientists and researchers work. They may spend a lot of time in the lab or at a research station, but they also depend upon a web of publications, seminars, academic conferences and professional consultation to further their work and their careers. Increasingly, universities, businesses and governments are funding multi-disciplinary research projects. By their very nature, these projects encourage cooperation and information sharing.

Communicators earn their bread and butter by working with technically-minded folk to identify the innovative or ground-breaking nature of their work, then develop a theme or storyline appealing to the public and the media. Often, the scientists and researchers have done most of this work.

Which makes the centralization effort by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration unusual. Apparently, the NHTSA Administrator is the principal spokesperson for the agency.

“…I found this out recently when I asked to talk to an N.H.T.S.A. researcher about some technical safety issues in which he had a great deal of expertise. Agency officials told me I could talk to the expert on a background basis, but if I wanted to use any information or quotes from him, that would have to be worked out later with a N.H.T.S.A. official.”

“…Ms. Nason [the Administrator] felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a “central spokesperson” and “we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record,” David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me. He also insisted, after our telephone conversation, that he did not want to be quoted and had intended to speak only on background. (My notes show no such request.)” (NYTimes Wheels blog) 

This sort of policy doesn’t encourage fealty and silence. Just the opposite: scientists and researchers still have to do their work. They just stop telling communications staff and headquarters officials what they’re doing. Want evidence? Try this comment posted in response to the blog post cited above:

“… I’m a mid-level (non-management) lifer at a government agency that sometimes makes the news. I have talked to reporters before and will continue to do so. When I do so I inform my boss and the public affairs people after the fact. (They’re friends, and they deserve not to be blindsided.) I get a good paycheck and in return surrender 40+ hours of my time each week, but they can’t buy my silence … — Posted by Bureaucrat”

We’re public policy experts, right? We’re communications specialists, right? So why can’t we pull together a simple web advocacy app like:

Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?

Technorati Tags: privacy, Facebook, copyright, information protection

Google’s about to add a comment feature to Google news - but with a twist. Only people directly involved with the story, like those quoted in it, can submit a comment to be moderated by the Google News staff.

We’ll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we’ll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as “comments” so readers know it’s the individual’s perspective, rather than part of a journalist’s report. (Google News Blog)

I’m also interested in this part of the FAQ on the new comments policy:

“However, we’ll try to be in touch with you and possibly include your comments in future stories that mention you. “

Future stories? You mean a pre-emptive attack?

This is another avenue for spokespersons, technical experts and plain old communications folk to consider when evaluating their coverage. Why not respond to how your interview, fact sheet or news release were interpreted in the article?

British researchers, working in conjunction with an Ottawa government lab, discovered a rock with the composition sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide - which is the imaginary chemical formula for kryptonite. That’s right - the rock that could defeat Superman.

It was, as one Ottawa communicator called it, “a science writer’s dream.” The Citizen tells us why the trans-Atlantic partnership failed in its attempts to cross-promote the discovery. It’s all in an article called Even with kryptonite, scientists can’t smite red tape.

After nearly six years, I’m back to being an official spokesperson. And I like it. The back room’s a fine place to work, but I also like speaking to researchers, reporters, clients and Canadians in general.

There’s a sense of personal accountability and professional pride that comes with actually explaining and debating your organization’s programs and policies.

In some fashion, the change in jobs has prompted an adrenaline rush, like Hunter S. Thompson’s jackrabbits.

Oh - and there’s the google juice too. Your personal and professional profile benefits from the online media coverage. - unless you really screw up.

That’s one thing that’s changed since we were partying like it was 1999.

Technorati Tags: spokesperson, online media relations

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.

“… 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

New media applications are popping up everywhere. On subway straphangers. Inside elevators. Over the dentist’s chair. Over the urinal.

Normally reserved for beer ads, dating services and condom come-ons, the bathroom has been co opted by one government agency. Mark Anderson, a manager with Workforce Safety & Insurance,  the workers’ compensation agency in North Dakota, has put in place the “Info To-Let” - a clear plastic sleeve mounted on the bathroom walls, over the urinals, and in the stalls themselves.

The sleeves are used to pass along internal communications messages, including soliciting suggestions for employee of the month and announcements about the Christmas party.

“Basically, we just try to keep employees ‘flush’ with the news of the organization so they get a ‘handle’ on everything,” Armstrong laughs …
“We just completed a survey this month, and the vast majority of respondents—89 percent—found ‘Info To-Let’ to be either highly effective, effective, or were neutral in their opinion,” he says. “Only 11 percent of employees found it to be ineffective.” (Ragan)

Applying new technology and social media principles to your work as a government communicator can be a very simple task. Take, for instance, the bio page. Every government department has one, and they all have several common elements:

• 3/4 head shot of the Minister or Secretary
• Four or five paragraph biography
• In the sidebar, links to photographs, video, speeches, and news releases.
• A generic email address that leads to the communications team

These pages are accessed for a variety of reasons:

• A quick career reference when someone’s being reassigned (useful for national and local reporters, as well as civil servants doing a recce on their new boss)
• An easy source for a headshot to accompany a news story (once again, national and local reporters)
• A simple printout for an organization sponsoring an event with your Minister or Secretary (any number of stakeholder groups or political associations)

The traditional bio page is designed with one goal in mind: to give the Minister or Secretary an anchor on your institutional website. A quick stop that says “look! we know you’re the boss!”

It doesn’t, however, present information in a form that is useful to potential readers. Looking for the Minister’s comments on a particular specialist topic? You’re going to have to search each speech individually. Want an action photo to accompany your story about the Secretary’s visit to your AGM? You’ll have to search for that as well.

And chances are, nothing on the site is tagged appropriately or topically.

Luckily, some people are experimenting with new approaches to presenting biographical information. Not only does Rohit Bhargava’s Social Media Bio serve up several different forms of his bio (one-liner, 100 word and full bio), but it provides serious and amusing portraits. Importantly, it links to the basic elements of his online identity:

• profiles on social networking sites like LinkedIn
• authority rankings on blog indexes and ratings sites
• white papers and other publications
• interviews on well-regarded podcasts and specialty sites

I’m not suggesting that all these components are suitable for a Minister or Secretary’s bio page. Still, there are elements that can be easily adopted:

• multiple formats of the official biography
• official portraits in a variety of poses and settings
• links to guest editorials, columns and private-life work in relevant fields
• well-designed video and photo banks - tagged, searchable and with clearly defined copyright terms

It almost goes without saying that the same principles could be easily applied to the more technical specialists in your organization. They suffer from the same dispersion of relevant and valuable information:

• academic papers isolated on proprietary Journal sites
• Data and research results distributed only at professional conferences
• past media coverage of theirs that provides a balanced view of issues
• professional associations

The biggest hurdle to implementing this new bio page is effort. It will take effort to collect the information; to verify it; to develop and apply a folksonomy relevant to organizational AND public audiences; and effort to maintain the bio page.

After all, a stale bio page is worse than a thin one.

h/t to Strategic Public Relations.