Posts
There's been a recent effort begun to bring AIMIA (the Australian Interactive Media Industry Association) to the ACT.
Coordinated by Reading Room, this is quite important to help improve education and standards in the interactive services being developed by government agencies and their agencies.
To find out more, and to get involved, visit AIMIA in Canberra.
Also the 17th AIMIA awards are now open for entries - including a Government and not-for-profit category.
If you want to improve the recognition of your Gov 2.0 and other online interactive initiatives this is one of the best recognised awards in Australia.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Bringing AIMIA to the ACT - plus AIMIA awards now open for entry | Tweet |
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Adapting to change isn't easy | Tweet |
I thought I'd share this quote. It was sent to me by a colleague who read it on a social networking site:
Isn't email, intranet databases/webs and phones enough? Sounds like bureaucracy to me. Or is it another step toward the "nanny state" - sorry but I don't agree with large organisations/governments using social networking to communicate with their employees where does it stop? Next they will want camera's in the homes of employees! (sounds like a novel we all read once).
I don't condemn or scorn this view. It reflects the mindset of those who are familiar and comfortable with existing paradigms and don't see the need, or value, in change.
Right now, across the world, we are seeing an unprecedentedly large and rapid shift in how people communicate, organise, create and disseminate information.
From a media landscape dominated by a few large content producers with a mass market of consumers, we have shifted to one that is increasingly dominated by a mass market of content producer/sharers/consumers (the people formerly known as the audience).
We are still only in the early stages of this shift. New industries are forming, old ones are being destroyed - new jobs are being created and old ones are being replaced. Today only 25% of the world's population has access to the internet on a regular basis - what happens when this reaches 80%?
This shift scares some people, seems unnecessary to others and empowers and excites many more.
Every change process in every organisation needs to address those who are not convinced that the changes will necessarily be for the better.
The 'internet revolution' is no different. We need to educate, demonstrate, encourage, train and support those who do not see the benefits. Bring them along wherever possible - and move them out whenever it is not.
However given that even the doubters, such as the author of this quote, use social media to share their views about the lack of value in social media, the change is probably already irreversible. All that will vary is the timing.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Australian Senator Kate Lundy wins the International eDemocracy award for 2010 | Tweet |
In Paris, on Thursday 14 October 2010, Senator Kate Lundy became the first Australian and 10th annual winner of the World e.Gov Forum and PoliticsOnline's International eDemocracy award - the equivalent of the Academy awards for eGovernment and Gov 2.0 practitioners.
In an award ceremony at France's Department of Foreign Affairs, in front of more than 250 conference delegates and officials, Senator Lundy was presented with the judge's selection International eDemocracy award by Phil Noble of PoliticsOnline.
The peoples' choice International eDemocracy award, based on over 3,000 votes, was won by Ralph Benko, writer of the Webster Dictionary, a textbook for using the web to transform the world.
Senator Lundy was selected from a global field of 12 nominees including the Top 10 changing the world of internet and politics for 2010, as determined through an online nomination and election process managed by PoliticsOnline, and several French entrants into France's eDemocracy award.
The nominees included another Australian who was selected as one of the Top 10, Craig Thomler (me), for the eGovAU blog.
The judging panel included an international group of eDemocracy luminaries.
Final award selections were based on short presentations and question and answer sessions with the 12 nominees at Issy-les-Moulineaux's Town Hall just south of Paris.
Senator Lundy was nominated for the award based on her work convening three Public Sphere events.
UPDATE 18/10/10: Senator Lundy's media release: Senator Lundy wins International Top 10 People Changing the World of Internet and Politics
Post from the forum organisers: The winners of the e-Democracy Awards 2010
Photos
Here's a link to a set of photos from the event taken by CivicTec: WEGF 2010.
Below are photos of the event taken by Senator Lundy and me
 |
| Senator Kate Lundy and Craig Thomler at the award ceremony, with Senator Lundy holding her International eDemocracy Award. Photo courtesy of Kate Lundy. |
The below photos are taken on my iPhone - better quality ones should be available soon on the World e.Gov Forum site.
 |
| Senator Lundy being presented with the 2010 International eDemocracy award by Phil Noble of PoliticsOnline in the reception hall of France's Department of Foreign Affairs in Paris. |
 |
| All of the winners of the 2010 eDemocracy awards in the reception hall of France's Department of Foreign Affairs in Paris. |
 |
Senator Lundy presenting to the judging panel and assorted guests in the council chamber of Issy-les-Moulineaux's Town Hall |
Thursday, October 14, 2010
World e.Gov Forum Day 1 | Tweet |
I'm in Paris for the World e.Gov Forum due to my selection in PoliticsOnline's Top 10 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics for 2010.
Liveblogging hasn't been possible so far, so keep an eye out for my tweets under the hashtag #wegf
See a program of the forum.
I am recording notes and will publishing them as soon as I can.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Mind the Gap - rebranding in the social media age | Tweet |
Last Monday (4 October) one of the US's most loved brands tried to introduce its new logo.
The company went about it in the traditional, time-honoured way.
Marketing staff had consulted internal stakeholders (who thought after twenty years the logo looked a little tired), considered the research and wrote a brief. Working with a creative agency they tested new concepts and finally publicly unveiled their new logo to the public in a soft launch via their website on 4 October.
This is about the time they realised that the world had changed.
The company had been very successful at marketing its brand online, using Facebook (721,000 fans), Twitter (35,000 fans) and other social media channels to engage customers and build their loyalty.
So naturally the company announced its brand online first to its fans - its most loyal and engaged customers.
Within hours of the announcement criticism began pouring in. Not from a few scattered individuals, but from a massive group of people.
Customers began rallying around the old logo, self-organising their own groups in protest to the new one. A website, Crap Logo Yourself was created to mock the brand (give it a try!)
The company did what any socially aware organisation would do. It listened to its most important stakeholders - its customers.
Within three days (on Thursday 7 October) the company's President blogged publicly about what they would do to address customer concerns.
"We chose this design as it's more contemporary and current. It honors our heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward.The company looked at ways to engage its customers - seeking their views and designs to help bring their customers with them on a new brand journey.
Now, given the passionate outpouring from customers that followed, we've decided to engage in the dialogue, take their feedback on board and work together as we move ahead and evolve to the next phase..."
However it was too late in the process for this. Customers had rallied around the old brand and were not in the mood to consider a new look.
A few hours ago (on Monday 11 October), the company announced it would keep its old brand, stating in a media release that:
Last week, we moved to address the feedback and began exploring how we could tap into all of the passion. Ultimately, we’ve learned just how much energy there is around our brand...
... our customers have always come first. We’ve been listening to and watching all of the comments this past week. We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue box logo, and they want it back. So we’ve made the decision to do just that – we will bring it back across all channels.
And on Twitter:
We’ve heard you. We only want what’s best for Gap. No crowd sourcing, but the Blue Box is back. http://bit.ly/9xvtvJ
Yes, the company was the clothes brand, Gap.
An embarrassing backdown? No - it has been lauded as a social media success story for the company.
Executives put their egos in their pockets, listened to customer sentiment and gave customers what they wanted. They did this before the company suffered sales losses, downward profit corrections, shareholder anger and an expensive and time consuming process of rebuilding customer trust.
Of course if the company had embedded social media into its branding process - as it had its marketing - the story may have been different. By engaging customers in a dialogue about what the brand stood for, crowdsourcing branding concepts and taking customers on the journey throughout the creative processes it could have reimagined the brand successfully.
However regardless of this, the company has retained its customer loyalty, created enormous positive publicity about its existing brand and learn the valuable lesson that successful organisations are the custodians, not owners, of their brands. Their brands are owned by their customers.
And it has achieved this in a week, where before social media it would have taken months or even years for a company to recognise, accept and address mistakes (with corresponding greater damage).
How does this relate to the public sector?
We too have brands. We too have customers (also called clients and citizens). We too have processes for introducing new logos, services and products (and policies).
Our customers are as capable as those of Gap at using social media to organise and make their views known.
And we too can engage our customers online in ways which bring them with us - or in way which cut them out of decision loops, leaving them feeling betrayed and angry.
When attempting to design and then sell new policies, in areas including climate change, taxation, education and so on, are we really engaging our end 'customers' - citizens?
When we rebrand a Department, rethink a service or redesign a website, do we put our citizens at the middle of the design and decision making process?
Are we using cheap and fast engagement channels - such as social media - to engage, listen and bring our citizens with us?
Or are we falling back on traditional and time-honoured approaches, as Gap did?
Defending a 'traditional' approach as 'process-driven' and 'proven' may protect a few egos, but can fail to achieve public good, desired outcomes and even damage the reputation and credibility of agencies and governments.
No good public servant wants that.
Gap case study
Gap sources:
- Gap's Facebook page
- Gap's Twitter account
- Media release (11/10): GAP LISTENS TO CUSTOMERS AND WILL KEEP CLASSIC BLUE BOX LOGO
- Gap President Marka Hansen's blog post on the Huffington Post (8/10): The Gap's New Logo
- Advertising Age (12/10): Gap to Scrap New Logo, Return to Old Design
- SmartCompany (12/10): Gap does back to old logo after social media users attack redesign
- Harvard Business Review (8/10): The Gap Logo Debacle: A Half-Brained Mistake
- SmartCompany (8/10): How Gap turned its logo disaster into a social media opportunity
- Crap Logo Yourself
- Twitter account: @GapLogo
- Twitter account: @OldGapLogo
- Twitter account: @NewGapLogo
- Tweets about the incident: New gap logo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
