Technorati Tags: engagement, consultation, Civil Society

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

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.

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.

It seems to me that we are at a crossroads with the social media release and the decisions and actions that we make now, especially in a government context, will have important consequences in the coming years. This is not unexpected in the early phases of the development of any emergent media, however, it does mean we should be paying attention to what transpires and engaging where we have either an obligation or believe that we can add some perspective to the issue.

Let me begin by saying that I think that the idea of a social media news release is a terrific one. Kudos to Tom Foremski for initiating the concept with his influential post and to Todd Defren for actually sitting down and producing the alpha version. Similarly, the work of Chris Heuer and co. in this space is exemplary.

Should we adopt it in government? My answer is an unequivocal yes. Who will it benefit? Are there tangible benefits? As a rough indication – and I assume my experience is fairly standard – in the period after a press release, I may typically get calls/emails from the following (in addition to journalists):

• Parliamentary staffers
• researchers, academics and students
• vendors and industry groups
• NGOs and non-profits
• other governments
• the general public

Anything that makes it easier for all of these people to discover, access and re-use the information that we publish has to be considered as beneficial. Our responsibility as communicators to improve the way we promulgate government information is both a key professional obligation and a fundamental support for the democratic process.

Government news is not ‘pitched’ to journalists (at least not in New Zealand). It is the definitive statement of a department/agencies position on a given topic at a specific time. It is of interest to more than just the media, and should be made available in a format that reflects this wide range of potentially interested parties. Importantly, this format should not exclude anyone.

This is the reason that I am so excited by the prospect of microfomatting the SMR. The semantic markup benefits all users, whether people or machines and makes the information more discoverable, more usable and more re-usable.

Unfortunately, hRelease (the proposed microformat) hasn’t made it to draft yet and the real world examples of the SMR have not delivered quality markup.

While I welcome all the effort to get this off the ground, it is both perplexing and frustrating to see much of this effort going into the style and not the substance of the format. Edelman’s StoryCrafter is a good example (and I pick them because, more than any other organization, they have the resources and the intelligence to deal to this): their SMRs are woefully inadequate in terms of the markup. Escher-like recursions of nested tables, font tags and other deprecated markup. Completely at odds with the first principle of the SMR: democratize the access.

Does this matter? If you are in government then you are probably required by law to publish your information in an accessible format. Most jurisdictions have some form of mandated web standards.

Additionally it seems to me that, as government communicators, we have an obligation to advise our agencies about the most effective way to take advantage of technological developments for communications. As public affairs practitioners, we represent the interests of all those people who want to know what their government is spending their tax dollars on. And as professionals we want to embrace new techniques and best practice to enhance the services we deliver. Understanding social media seems to be pretty important across all of these facets of our job.

Now, while the SMR is still in its infancy, is the time to engage and support the original principle. Get involved in the process, ensure that your peers are aware of these developments and of their implications for their agencies. Government communicators have something to add to this conversation: make sure your voice gets heard.

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

Coming off the interactive sessions at SXSW and Community 2.0, Lee LeFever highlights some of the best points made about building online communities. The two extracts that follow will resonate with government communicators considering how to integrate (or expand) their community and stakeholder outreach to include online communities.

 ”Don’t start with technology: This is true with almost any web site. Keep the technology options open while you define what you’re trying to accomplish with the community. Talk to future members, understand their goals, figure out what goals your site will accomplish and then how you can use technology and features to facilitate the accomplishment of those goals.”

 ”Know your pain threshold: Organizations are often not used to seeing negative comments from customers on their web site. In online communities this is inevitable. Your organization will have to learn your level of tolerance for negativity and criticism (each one will be different). In many cases, it is a bad idea to remove critical or negative comments (unless they violate the terms). Often, negative comments will be balanced by the community itself who can become stronger through building consensus and debate.”

That last point will be the most difficult for government communicators: how do you take an effective measure of the pain threshold in our context? It differs from organization to organization, and bureaucratic sensitivity differs greatly from political sensitivity.