Less words, more pictures = better government

One of the biggest issues I've seen in government websites is excessive use of words.

Government agencies often treat each website page as a stand-alone fact sheet. This means they err on the side on completeness, leading to wordiness.

Most of us have seen the research. People don't read wordy, jargon-filled pages - they skim.

People prefer web pages with fewer words, with the option of drilling down to more depth if they need it.

The web is good at this. It's called linking.

All of us have good reasons for our websites being wordy,

• The communications team doesn't understand how to write for the web
• The legal team made us put in those extra (really big) words
• The concept is very complex and people may not understand without details
• My SES made me do it!

It's time to face the music

Why are government websites wordy?

Because website content managers let them become wordy.

As website content managers we are the custodians of what appears on the pages of our websites.

When people want to write long and involved content, it's our responsibility to advise and support them in making the text accessible, readable and effective for the online channel.

We should advise them when other approaches would work better than words - images, animations, audio or video.

They don't need to learn how to write for the web - we do.

Read full post...

View summary...

10 reasons government agencies should not advertise online

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

Read full post...

View summary...

The challenge of social media for governments - accepting diverse views

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.

Read full post...

View summary...

Who owns government websites?

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

However I've found in practice, and not just in government, that collective ownership is a hard concept for many to grasp.

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

I know that humans love to own stuff - it's the basis of our consumer society.

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?

Read full post...

View summary...

Social media in government - the five stages of acceptance

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 each case the benefits have vastly outweighed the risks or downsides, and there have been a variety of approaches available to ensure staff made appropriate use of these tools - from codes of conduct to filtering and reporting tools - even the approach of placing greater trust in staff.

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.

Read full post...

View summary...