Posts
It can be very daunting for communications professionals to build an understanding of the social media landscape, grasping its scope and diversity and use this knowledge to select the right tools to meet their communications needs.
On occasion I've spoken to other marketers and PR professionals who have said that the sheer diversity and complexity of the social media landscape makes it easier to simply avoid the area, rather than spend the time necessary to make good decisions.
Increasingly organisations will need to take their first steps into this area - social media is in widespread use by internet users and they are talking about you.
The first step to understanding any landscape is to map it - fortunately there have been a few efforts in this regard already.
Possibly the first consolidated attempt was by Robert Scoble, who published the Social Media Starfish last year.
Pictured below, the Starfish provides one way to visualise the different categories of interactions and capabilities of the different social media tools.
A video explanation of the Starfish is also available as below.
A second approach, released more recently, is the Conversation Prism, pictured below.
This was released by Brian Solis, principal of Future Works and author of PR 2.0.
In a report in ZDNet, Brian describes the Conversation Prism as a tool that "helps chart online conversations between the people that populate communities as well as the networks that connect the Social Web." The article, ‘Conversation Prism’ helps corporations visualize social media strategies, provides a good overview of how the tool works.
Of course these maps are only a start. The social media environment is evolving as technology improves and smart people come up with new ways to facilitate human interactions via digital channels.
However now that we do have these maps, we can begin to understand the social media landscape in more detail, and apply the right tools for our communications needs.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Mapping the social media landscape - a guide for understanding | Tweet |
Monday, August 18, 2008
Making website error pages helpful - 404 no more | Tweet |
If you've ever mistyped the name of a webpage, or used a hyperlink to visit a page that has been removed, you've probably seen a website's 404 - page not found 'error' page.
This code is meant to communicate that the web server hosting the website could not find the page you requested.
The default 404 error page for websites, as illustrated below, is generally not very helpful for users.
The default is largely a dead-end page, without clear pathways to the site's homepage, top content, search, sitemap or other navigational aids.
There are no mechanism to provide feedback, alerting the website's owner of the issue, and uses codes and terminology which many internet users would not understand.
If your website error page looks like this, you may want to consider creating a custom error page - one that provides a more effective message, and navigation options to your audience.
My personal preference is to remove all mention of '404' or 'error' - the numerical code can alienate non-technical users, and is largely meaningless to them anyway.
Calling the page an 'error' could be construed as it being the user's fault that they reached this page. This is neither relevant nor helpful. The goal is to get the user to the content they need, not to tell them that they are at fault.
Many government agencies have already made these types of changes to their 404 error pages. Below are several examples of them in action.
- A very helpful page is the ATO site error page, which provides ample navigation to the top sections in the site, plus routes back to the homepage and to leave feedback.
- Another example is the Australia.gov.au error page, which directs the user to the homepage, sitemap and FAQ page, plus provides quicklinks to three of the top current government campaigns.
- Centrelink's error page is also helpful, with links to their homepage, search and A-Z list, plus a way to provide feedback on the site.
- The Attorney General's department error page isn't within the site's usual design template, but still provides an avenue to get back to the home page.
- The CSA website error page (which my team manages), is a simple, but communicative page. We've renamed it from being an error, to simply reporting that the page could not be found, and provide some avenues to get to the correct content via search and sitemap.
Changing an intranet from 'talk at' to 'talk with' | Tweet |
Traditional media tends to talk at consumers rather than talking with them.
This is often due to the one-way mediums used and is also a reflection of the self-centric world view people and organisations tend to develop.
Humans tend to carry over existing ideas, approaches and methods into new mediums, and then figure out how they have to change them. The early days of movies, with stage show-like productions is a classic example.
This tendency has also led to ten years of websites and intranets falling into the same pattern of talking at their audiences, with the new new thing only now being to talk with them.
Our audiences, also used to being talked at, sometimes find it a little confronting to suddenly be asked what they think, though the last ten years have changed this to some degree.
One of my challenges for my agency's intranet is to influence the approach of our content publishers and consumers from talk at to talk with.
It's a tiny change in words, but can be life-changing for an organisation or individual.
Our latest initiative in this area has been to add a page rating/feedback system, which allows any staff member, on most pages of our intranet, to tell us whether the contents met their needs fully, partially or not at all.
They can then leave feedback as to why the content didn't meet their needs, to allow the content owner to consider and reassess the page and make any necessary changes.
We allow staff to make comments as frequently as they like, and do not protect any pages from commentary (although certain pages are excluded as they are either transitory news stories or purely navigational pages).
The only restriction on staff is that they are identified when submitting a rating and/or feedback. This is to ensure the system is used responsibly and prevents any anonymous biasing of page content - either to the positive or negative.
Content authors can view the ratings and feedback for their pages, and centrally we can view all ratings and feedback, to help identify areas of improvement.
Since introducing the system in the second week of August, we've received an average of more than 30 ratings per day, with feedback on over 100 pages in the intranet. There's a good spread of 'yes', 'partially' and 'no' ratings, indicating that our staff are willing to tell content owners when they've provided exactly what was needed, as well as when they have not.
We're now working with content owners to help them take full advantage of the system in adjusting content, where required, to more fully support our staff and thereby help them in their jobs.
Centrally my team is using the system to identify areas where our intranet currently lacks content important to staff and support our other measures of staff satisfaction.
This type of feedback system isn't particularly new or leading edge in itself, but the impact it can have on the organisation is profound.
In the short-term we are forming a better understanding of staff needs and building towards more of a two-way interaction with them to support them in their roles.
Over the longer-term we're creating greater engagement and participation in the intranet as a staff support tool.
We're also supporting the success of content authors and owners. While we have a fantastic group of authors now, who are committed to ensuring our staff have what is needful, the page rating/feedback tool adds a layer of accountability to their actions. They can more rapidly identify how successful they have been and make their content even better targeted.
This type of interaction system is a lot of work to run and manage. It requires more effort to interact with others and continually improve than it does to write content, tick the box and move on - never to review it again.
However the rewards for the organisation are immense.
- Improved staff morale - as they are heard and supported
- Better customer service - as staff can access appropriate content and support
- Greater intranet engagement - allowing the system to become a strong staff support tool
- More effective organisational management - the system increases managerial understanding of staff needs
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Managing a cross-agency/government project online | Tweet |
I believe that one of the keys to successful projects is to maximise time spent on the project goals and minimise time spent dealing with project tools.
In the past I've seen projects fail or delayed due to the difficulty in managing project teams across different areas of a single organisation or, worse yet, across organisations.
The tools used to manage project teams often do not translate across organisational silos.
Fortunately, in a connected world, we can do better. Below is one vision of how to run a major project (at low cost) using secure and well established online tools.
You'll see most of them in my Top Tools list - and, yes, I've eaten my own dogfood.
- Create a secure Govdex group to centralise project information and allow project team members to collaboratively develop project documents (as wiki pages)
- Use a Yahoo group or Google group to manage an email discussion list and calendar
- Use Mindjet to brainstorm the project
- Use Google docs to collaboratively work on project tasks and formal documents such as a risk register and issues list
- Use Basecamp or Copperproject for project timelining and gantt charting
- Use Webex for video conferencing across the team, or free voice conferences via Skype
- Use Flickr or Photodump to store photos and images
- Create and manage a project blog/diary via Blogger (public or private)
- Share PowerPoint presentations via Slideshare
- Share project videos via YouTube
Saturday, August 16, 2008
How should intranet teams spend their time? | Tweet |
Catherine Grenfell of Step Two Designs has written an excellent article on how intranet teams should spend their time, divided between day-to-day maintenance, new projects and initiatives and relationship management with internal stakeholders.
She left out one small area - networking with peers for fresh ideas and approaches to common issues.
For this, the Intranet Peers in government group is well worth a look (it's operated by Step Two as well).
