Posts
1) Our traditional ad agency tells us so - and as radio, print and television advertising is more profitable for them, they must be right!
2) It's easier to simply build a bells and whistles website, promote it via traditional means for a month and then ignore it. Our audience will find it, really.
3) Our audience doesn't use the internet - unlike the other 90% of the population
4) The internet is unsafe because you don't know what people will say - you can trust print/radio/television journalists to only say what we want them to say
5) If we don't advertise online, people won't say bad things about us online
6) We can more accurately measure the success of our campaigns online and they don't always work - it's better not to know we're wasting money
7) Because our senior executives haven't gotten the hang of email yet, and we know that our executives (who approve our ad design and spend) think and act exactly in the same way as our customers, even though they earn more, are degree-qualified, much older and live in Canberra
8) Because if people don't like our campaign that much, they might say so and our feelings would be hurt
9) Because Australians don't really use the internet as much as the figures say they do, they just leave it turned on in the next room while they are busy watching ads on TV
10) Because radio, print and television have always worked for us in the past, and always will
Thursday, July 03, 2008
10 reasons government agencies should not advertise online | Tweet |
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
The challenge of social media for governments - accepting diverse views | Tweet |
When making major decisions government departments commonly consult broadly to capture the various views of different segments the community.
However when engaging in live or online public discussions, the same departments are often highly concerned about the risk of people expressing strong contrary views.
It's one of the contradictions I've found in government - a desire for consultation, but within a controlled and safe framework defined by the department.
But what happens when government takes a risk and doesn't restrict itself to a framework of its own design?
An interesting experiment in this area is currently occurring in the US presidential election involving the online social tools provided for supporters by Barack Obama's campaign.
Over the last six days a group of his supporters have been upset at Obama's change in stance on spying, to the extent where they created a social networking group within his campaign site to protest.
This group, using the same online social tools as were used to take Obama from 'also ran' to Presidential candidate, is now the largest within the my.barackobama.com site, with more than 8,900 members at last count and growing at up to 100% per day. It is continuing to use his website social networking tools to organise support and his email service to organise and promote the group.
As part of this group's growth, they have also established a Wiki using the free Wetpaint service (a nice little tool I've used myself) as well as across Facebook and other popular social networking sites.
This has led to media coverage across press, radio and television in the US, as reported within this article in The Nation, Surveillance Protest Group Tops Obama Website.
Obama and his staff have not taken any actions to restrict the growth of the group, although it is in their power to shut it down - at least within the campaign site.
Only a few years ago it would have been unheard of for a campaign to allow it's supporters to take this level of control over an agenda.
One view being heard is that by encouraging his supporters to use online social media to self-organise Obama has created a monster that is as likely to turn on him as support him.
With confidence from their success in the Democratic nomination, many of his supporters are now skilled web 2.0 users as well as activists - willing and able to use the plethora of free online social media tools to organise large protests against key positions faster than ever before.
Another view is that with the internet genie out of the bottle, the best approach is to allow and support these groups to organise and have their say. This view acknowledges that Obama no longer controls the dialogue, but is simply one of the players - albeit a major leading one.
Personally I'm very impressed that Obama and his campaign have taken this second view. His supporters have been allowed to freely organise the protest group using his own social network without any restrictions.
While Obama has acknowledged the view of the group, he has not taken any steps to reverse his position at this time, however I expect that he will commit more time to explaining to his supporters why he had taken this position.
I feel extremely encouraged at the willingness of someone standing for a high office to allow open debate without gags. It's an approach I'd love to see more of in Australia - parliamentarians and public sector agencies being more open to unstructured consultation and more willing to acknowledge and engage in citizen discussions, wherever and however they take place.
Who owns government websites? | Tweet |
I have a very strong view on who owns a government agency's website - it's operated by the agency on behalf of the public.
The teams who look after the code, functionality, design and content are custodians and gatekeepers who ensure that the website;
- works (is online 24/7)
- meets all required standards
- uses appropriate current tools and approaches to maximise its effectiveness
- is attractive and interesting, and, most importantly,
- meets the needs of the agency's audiences
Over the years I've heard many individuals make statements such as (actual quotes);
- Public sector Senior IT manager: It's my code
- Private sector Marketing VP: The website is a communications tool, I own it
Ownership is also important for peoples' careers - often people judge their own success by what they 'own' (or control) professionally - staff, resources and businesses.
Irregardless of which area or executive manages or funds a website, who writes the content or cuts the code, if it doesn't meet the needs of the organisation's customers - does it have any value at all?
As professionals, don't we have an obligation to consider the big picture?
Social media in government - the five stages of acceptance | Tweet |
My experience in both the public and private sectors has been that organisations often face enormous resistance against the introduction of social media channels for staff.
Given how new social media tools are, this, in my view, reflects similar resistance to other new innovations, such as the introduction of:
- phones on every desk (staff could waste time and money making personal / long distance calls),
- desktop computers (may not deliver any real benefits to the organisation and would be hard to manage - why would an organisation needs more than one computer?),
- email (staff could distribute confidential and/or inappropriate material), and
- universal internet access (staff could waste time and access inappropriate material).
In thinking about the adoption patterns for all of these technologies, I see behaviour reflecting the model of the five stages of grief.
Based on this I've come up with the five stages of acceptance for social media detailed below.
Let me know how well these fit the experience of your organisation.
Stage 1: Ignorance
"We need a collaboration tool - let's build one"
Organisations begin with no knowledge of online social media - particularly at senior levels. When they need new communication, engagement and/or collaboration tools they design and develop them, or buy from a major IT vendor.
Stage 2: Denial
"That would never work here", "We're already investing in a solution that will be better"
When the organisation discovers online social media tools, either the value of the tools is denied, or decision makers (particularly in IT) do not believe that a free public system could be as good as their quadrillion-dollar homemade or off-the-shelf solution.
Potential security issues, system incompatibilities, staff misuse of resources and time wasting are commonly raised as reasons why external social media tools won't deliver what an organisation needs.
Stage 3: Bargaining
"We should own this tool because it relates to our area", "We'll need budget for it"
Once the organisation accepts the value in social media tools, bargaining for ownership begins;
- IT calculates that social media tools are technology-based, delivered via IT infrastructure,
- HR points out that social media connects people and builds positive workplaces,
- The Communications group tells everyone that social media is about communication,
- Strategy, finance and/or efficiency teams strategise that social media is a channel management and efficiency tool.
Stage 4: Depression
"We need a strict usage policy", "No you can't use it that way, someone might...."
By this stage no-one who really wanted to use social media is happy with the organisation's solution for how the tools will be introduced and managed.
Complex usage policies are developed that restrict effective usage in the name of risk mitigation and the tools begin to be used in a basic and haphazard way that meets the rules.
Stage 5: Acceptance
"It's there - use it however you like"
One the social media tools have been in place for sometime and there have been no major issues or breaches, groups in the organisation loosen their grip on how the tools may be used and their true value begins emerging.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
In action: Training.gov.au Project Blog | Tweet |
This is a fantastic example of how blogs and other Web 2.0 tools can be used to support government initiatives and help reduce project costs.
First I should note that I know Nathanael Boehm, one of the members of the project team. He's an early adopter of web technologies, with a great deal of experience in social media and user design areas.
What is Training.gov.au?
In the words of the project blog:
Training.gov.au is the name of the new system that the Australian, State and
Territory Governments are developing to ensure people can get the information
they need to make informed decisions about training.
What are they using?
To manage the development of training.gov.au the project team are using an open-source blogging product to provide an online communications and collaboration space for the various stakeholders involved.
The Training.gov.au Project Blog is very clean, simple to use and flexible. It currently contains some information on the project objectives, governance and deliverables and has been set up to also manage the project timetable and provide a central communications platform for the project.
It's very easy - and cheap - to set up this type of system and it has surprised me how little these types of tools have been used by government in Australia to support the management of complex projects with multiple stakeholders.
I'm going to keep a close eye on the development of the project blog - and on the project itself - and, with the agreeance of the project team, may provide a post-mortem of how well the blog worked to facilitate project governance, communication and cost management.
