Posts
I'm beginning to see more and more organisations and their various advertising and PR agencies look seriously at social media as a core communications channel for their campaigns and other customer, client and citizen engagement activities.
This is beginning to make me wonder how communications professionals who know little or nothing about social media will continue to be able to give good communications advice to their employers into the future.
If you don't use social media, how can you critically assess its comparative worth as a communications tool? How can you help your employer avoid and rebound from embarrassing social media mistakes?
Of course there's an argument that you needn't be hands-on with a medium to know a good strategy from a bad one, however this doesn't stand up. Today's communications professionals have grown up consuming traditional mass media from an early age - radio, television and print. While they mightn't be hands-on as in running a TV channel, radio station or newspaper, they have 20+ years experience, starting from early childhood, of normalising their use of these mediums.
This level of immersion, together with theoretical and practical experience, goes a long way to help long-time communications professionals make good decisions and critically assess communications options.
However if these communications professionals aren't using social media they aren't developing the same level of familiarity with new communications channels.
Where will this leave them in ten years time, when we have university educated communications professionals who have been using social media for up to fifteen years seeking more senior roles?
Some of today's experienced communicators will move far enough up the chain so that they can rely on their subordinates to exercise this judgement. Others will leave communications altogether for other pursuits. However most will potentially find themselves unable to function effectively as communications professionals - and may face more limited career options.
If you're a communications professional aged 40-50 and expect to be working when you're 50-60, it is probably worth considering whether you should step out of your media comfort zone and start building expertise in social media - by getting hands on.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
If you are a communications professional who chooses not to use social media, will you have a job in ten years? | Tweet |
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Using Twitter to correct and shape government news stories | Tweet |
The White House has begun using Twitter as a tool to correct journalistic mistakes and understand the reaction of journalists to news stories, as reported in the article, W.H. messaging in 140 characters.
Over the past few months, particularly during and following the change in Federal Liberal leadership, I've been finding some of the commentary published on Twitter by Australian journalist very useful in providing insight into how they plan to spin stories.
This tempo is likely to increase this year with the various elections that will be taking place.
Given there's now over 500 Australian journalists and news commentators using Twitter (according to the Earley Edition), I wonder how soon we'll see politicians and government departments using Twitter to release or correct news stories.
Then again, given some of the tweets from certain politicians, viewable over in TweetMP, maybe they are doing it already.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Judging the quality of a Gov 2.0 / social media event | Tweet |
In the last week four separate Gov 2.0/social media conferences have crossed my desk. All claimed to provide a line-up of star speakers with important insights into these topics.
Clearly all events vary in quality, but when looking at relatively new areas, like social media and Government 2.0 how do you select those that will give you value for money. Teach you useful material and provide practical examples?
Here's how I judge them....
First I look at the topic covered throughout the event.
If there is emphasis on areas like 'Email marketing', 'Search Engine Optimisation (SEO)' or similar non-social media/Gov 2.0 topics it is likely that the organisers don't understand these topics or are pushing a different agenda.
Next I check the social media support
If the brochure doesn't specify whether there will be wi-fi available, if there's a Twitter tag, liveblog or a social media group for participants to discuss topics before, during and after the event, check with the organisers. If they don't understand what you mean, they probably don't have the knowledge to consistently select good speakers.
Finally I look at the speaker list.
I look for speakers who either practice Gov 2.0/social media in their day-to-day role, or who are active participants in social media - with their own blog, twitter account, profiles on Facebook, LinkedIn or other services or participate in forums. I also check for indicators that they regularly use these channels in effective ways, via looking at the frequency they publish, how long they've been publishing for and how interesting their comments are.
If a Google search doesn't turn up their name with a link to any social media site it is quite possible they don't 'do' social media - they simply talk about it. You wouldn't take your car to a mechanic with clean nails, don't expect to learn much about Gov 2.0 or social media from someone who doesn't practice what they preach.
I also look for speakers from social media companies themselves - but carefully. It pays to check that they are going to give practical examples and suggestions rather than simply advertise their service. This can be hard to judge from briefs in event brochures.
I am very cautious about speakers from management consultants, web developers and advertising agencies. All of these organisations have begun to step into social media and Gov 2.0 spaces, however from the evidence I've seen to-date, most approach it from the perspective of their other work ('creative messages', 'quality control processes' or 'building cool tools'). In my experience not that many of them really know what they are doing in social media and very few understand Gov 2.0 (though some are very very good).
So when you receive your next invite to a Gov 2.0 or social media event, take a good long look at whether the event organisers and the speakers walk the talk.
If they do you'll probably learn something valuable during the event - and you might even see me in the room :)
Any questions for me at the National Public Sector Communications Officers' Forum next week? | Tweet |
I am speaking next Tuesday at the National Public Sector Communications Officers' Forum, giving a Gov 2.0 case study about yourHealth and discussing citizen engagement on behalf of my employer.
If anyone attending the Forum has any questions they'd particularly like me to answer about these topics, please let me know in the comments below and I will try to address them during my presentation.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What does the White Pages ruling mean for Australian government data? | Tweet |
There is a trend towards greater openness in the licensing of Australian government data. Queensland's government a few years ago put in place a framework (GILF) for Creative Commons licensing and Victoria's government recently committing to using Creative Commons as its default copyright licensing system.
Some steps have taken place at a federal level, with both the ABS and Geosciences (see their footer) moving in the same direction.
However the recent court case where Telstra sued the publishers of Local Directories over the republishing of Yellow and White pages information - and lost - marks a further step in the process.
In the case, Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 44 (8 February 2010), the judge found that Yellow and White Pages listings were not covered under copyright law as they were not original and that (requoting from the news.com.au article Telstra loses copyright case over Yellow Pages and White Pages,
"None of the people said to be authors of the Works exercised 'independent intellectual effort' or 'sufficient effort of a literary nature' in creating the (directories)."This case follows a related decision in the IceTV case in 2007, where Channel Nine claimed that its TV Guide was a literary work and IceTV could not create a copy of it through independent effort.
"Further, if necessary, the creation of the Works did not involve some 'creative spark' or the exercise of the requisite 'skill and judgment'."
So what does this mean for similar forms of government information released under Crown Copyright such as transport timetables, budget accounts, lists of elected officials, statements of interests and other lists and statistics which did not require 'creative spark', 'independent intellectual effort' or 'sufficient effort of a literary nature'?
I am not a lawyer and don't trawl all the legal cases reported online on a regular basis, however to my knowledge no Australian state or federal government department has recently gone to court against individuals or corporations replicating and reusing statistical data of these types. So there is no actual ruling I am aware of to test whether this government data remains legally protectable under Crown Copyright.
In at lease one case, involving NSW RailCorp in early 2009, cease and desist letters were sent by RailCorp's lawyers (to three iPhone application developers). This didn't end up in court as the resulting publicity brought the situation to the attention of the then NSW Premier who ordered RailCorp to negotiate arrangements to share timetable data with less stringent copyright provisions.
I believe that a reasonable supposition at this time is that where publicly released government data does not meet the required tests in the copyright case, it would be difficult to prove why it should be protected under Crown Copyright.
This would make copyright over lists of names and figures very hard to justify.
I do appreciate that government departments have concerns over information being used in inaccurate or misleading ways, or that people may rely on out-of-date information through third party sources (a particular concern for transport networks). However Crown Copyright may not be the most appropriate tool to mitigate these risks anymore.
Maybe we need to look at other approaches, such as making it easier for third parties to use data in the way intended - such as providing data feeds at consistent URLs for reuse (which means third-party applications will be as accurate as the government figures), ensuring that data labels are human readable and clear (to reduce misinterpretations) and including date stamps in data so it is clear when it is current from and to.
In cases where data is used inappropriately, government still has recourse through Creative Commons type licensing and other aspects of Australia's legal system to restrain this usage while supporting appropriate use.
Further comments and legal views by lawyers and interested parties are heartily welcome!
