BBC research shows that 77% of the UK's online population is now actively participating in some way. We have been aware for some time that the 1-9-90 percent rule (or 1% rule) of interaction is too simplistic and this research adds more insight in understanding this dynamic. The BBC's model of Participation Choice identifies four key forms: passive, easy reaction, easy initiation and intense participation.
Thousands of derailed Sydney-siders took to the airwaves and Twitter last Thursday, not just to moan about having their travel plans hi-jacked by the delays, track closures and diversions – but to complain that train operator RailCorp was slow to let them know what was going on.
RailCorp responded to some customers' Tweets about the problems but in a follow-up interview with ABC Radio Sydney chief operating officer Tony Eid admitted the medium had been used "reactively"...
Partner at social media consultancy SR7 James Griffin said a whole-of-government strategy was well overdue.
RailCorp's communications problems last week illustrated one of the ways in which social media was not being used correctly by the public sector, Griffin said.
NSW agencies currently had over 100 different Facebook pages – some of them set up incorrectly as profiles and others with questionable purpose, he claimed.
...
"I can't understand why they haven't started already – it's a quick win and would generate political capital."
There is definitely more that many organisations could be doing in terms of delivering better customer service online - and its not just government agencies that ignore or fail to engage their "customers" well through social media.
But I disagree that this is something that can be easily fixed in complex service delivery environments like public transport, as James Griffin from SR7 appears to be suggesting.
Even Queensland Rail who are a leading example of good social customer service using Twitter, only operate during business hours.
Sure, you can tidy up all your Facebook accounts and plaster a veneer of social customer service over your organisation, but if the staff, systems and processes aren't able to support it then eventually you are going to fail.
It is important that delivering social customer service is scalable and maintainable over the long term - I mean, what happens when your internal social media expert goes on holiday, is sick or simply moves on to a new role? And as customer expectations rise, do you have the tools to track and respond to questions, meet information needs at the speed social media demands and also track individual issues to completion? Do you have processes for collecting and taking action on broader feedback gathered through social media monitoring?
This doesn't mean I don't also detect a hint of hesitation by Transport for NSW to utilise social media more effectively, but I understand in part why this is the case. I suspect like many large organisations, Transport for NSW need to focus internally before it can really deliver outstanding customer service online. Because if they then fail, the SMEGs are going to have a real field day with Transport for NSW.
YouTube, YouTube, YouTube. If you want to upload a video on the Internet, pretty much anyone will default to the web’s standard. And why shouldn’t they? YouTube has been the platform for viral sensations, from huge brands (Old Spice) to kid musicians (Justin Bieber).
The wisdom: “Go where the people are.” It makes YouTube tempting, especially as it continues to expand its features and reach. But there are some things that YouTube can’t do, or doesn’t do so well. There are plenty of other high-quality video platforms with competitive features or specialized markets.
Last night on Twitter I was talking to Craig and Greg Lexiphanic about YouTube, particularly in the context of Government 2.0. Mashable offer seven alternatives to YouTube - from Blip.tv to yfrog. One of the benefits of some of the suggestions is that there is less spam and trolling, which is one of the problems of YouTube. (Craig actually suggests government departments switch off comments on YouTube, because of the moderation overhead.)
This doesn't mean YouTube isn't the right place for some content. Such as Zombies...
Personally, I think the choice of YouTube should be based on the kind of engagement you expect. Content that is of interest to niche audiences, controversial or wasn't designed to be sharable or engaging (i.e. reposted public education TV adverts) may mean that YouTube isn't the right place or it shouldn't be the only place.
I thought this comment on the Mashable post was interesting:
It’s important to place your videos in multiple places, especially if you want to reach a broader audience. You never really know where people are going to discover your content. I’ve put short videos on YouTube that got very few views, but got significantly more on Flickr.Interesting that the article didn’t mention Facebook as a place for videos. I get tons of activity when I post a video to Facebook.
BTW To Mashable's list I'd also suggest 23video, which offers a complete video site service.
Mumbrella report that the Say Yes Australia campaign is shifting to a grass roots approach, which I think is code for targeting the members of supporting organisations (including GetUp!) with direct email.
Anyway, this is a good reminder for me to check the Twitter and Facebook stats on both this campaign and also the government's Clean Energy Future site, which I've been tracking.
In the period 28th July to 6th September:
Clean Energy Future
SayYesAustralia
According to Mumbrella the nine groups supporting SayYesAustralia have 3 million members, so based on these numbers it would make sense for them to engage more directly rather than waiting for a viral approach to take hold.
As it happens, I also noticed that a case study was presented today about the Clean Energy Future digital engagement campaign, most of which was managed in-house by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The total budget for the campaign overall (not just the digital part) was $13.7 million.
One of the highlights from this summary of the case study was emphasis on the videos, so that has also prompted me to look again their popularity.
Clean Energy Future's most popular video (How does carbon pricing work?) has received 17,434 views (30% of all their views). Unfortunately, adding comments is disabled on their videos so they missed the chance to get feedback that way. Meanwhile, GetUp's most popular Carbon Tax video (A Price on Carbon - In Five Easy Steps) attracted 90,887 views - however, another non-Carbon Tax video reached 423,870 views. It is interesting to note that both videos address the same topic.
On reflection, I'm still not entirely clear about the purpose of the social media channels for both campaigns. Clearly, involving an agency in SayYesAustralia hasn't helped their Twitter stats. However, based on numbers their Facebook and YouTube channels have been more successful than the government.
Looking at the actual engagement on Facebook in particular, I'm also not sure either campaign has been particularly good at creating a groundswell of support. The approach of both campaigns appears to be one of post interesting links and then letting the community argue amongst itself (I couldn't find any examples of the moderators from Clean Energy Future joining the conversation). SayYesAustalia's Facebook page gives supporters the ability to add a badge to their profile pic, but other than this there is nothing for people to do for either campaign. Of course, the argument is that you just have to be on Facebook - but without any clear purpose, my question is would anyone have really noticed if they weren't?
Hopefully SayYesAustralia have finally realised this and they are going to finally give people something to do.
It’s clear that the once clear distinctions between intranets, internet sites and extranets are blurring somewhat as the technology evolves and business needs develop. Traditional distinctions between internal and external communication teams (and outputs) will also likely diminish, mirroring this application of technology. This merger though will bring some clear advantages.
- A single design with a single user experience for all places, giving a clarity of corporate identity with smaller overall design bills
- Publicly listed companies are obliged to publicly reveal some materials to the markets before telling employees (see our intranetizen post on laws and intranets). A single merged space could limits the chances of a mis-timed publishing.
- Employees read the corporate site too! Merging ensures that there is no chance of mixed messaging especially if the former intranet and internet materials were managed by different teams. Consistency of content is critical when information consumers can compare and contrast.
- Reduced licensing and support costs as to you move to using a single technology foundation.
We are definitely heading down this path - I'm seeing this issue come all the time during the planning stages for social intranets.
However, in practice right now it doesn't necessarily deliver all these benefits - e.g. licensing models for external and inward facing versions of the same platform can throw a spanner in the works. In some companies, the public internet site is also a more reliable source of information than the intranet - so some users might not see this as an improvement.
But there is not doubt that in the medium term, the intranet is definitely going to be a victim of extranet-isation; meanwhile organisations are also building external facing spaces where staff and customers will mingle. Just a question of if and when these will merge.
Google+ has stirred up interest in the issue of online identity and the use of 'real names' - I'm seeing support for and against this policy being expressed. Of course people have always been concerned about online identity and the privacy issues around social networks, particularly massive networks like Facebook. So why is this an issue now?
Google+ simply came about at the right time - it presents the oppourtunity to do things differently. Or as I like to think about it, we are re-evaluating the promise, tool, and bargain offered by these services.
For those arguing for real names, the basic argument I'm hearing is that people like the idea of creating a social network based on those real identities because it will create a better, safer and more friendly environment. And of course, why do you need to hide behind a pseudonyms anyway? A more blatently commerical view, but worthy of consideration, is the argument that if you want the benefits of transacting online in interesting and social ways then the network needs to know who you are.
Focusing on the arguments against real names:
The way I think about is that if this is to work, then people are really asking for the creation of an online identity card. This presents a useful way to engage with the issue of 'real names' - as a primer Wikipedia has an introduction to the pros and cons of identity cards, which I won't repeat here. Not only would we need to enforce the use of real names, we should also consider systems to create compliance and trust in other aspects of how people present themselves online, including their profile picture and profile information.
Personally, I wouldn't rely on that 'real name' that appears on the screen. Social systems (online and physical world) can be gamed and identity is only one element of trust. What we actually need to think about are circles of trust and building systems that allow us different levels of freedom and interaction using degrees of identity, just as we do in the physical world.
I mean, imagine if each and every conversation or transaction in the physical world required you to identify yourself explicitly. Even worse - if you refused to show that ID card for each conversation or transaction, you would be excluded from the community you live in.
We actually need to find a balance between the promise, tools and bargin made with social networks so that it benefits both individuals and the other users and stakeholders of the network. I'm not sure a blanket real name policy achieves that.
Credits for images used in the fake identity card: Social media icons by Nicolas Gallagher (CC BY-SA) and face by Roger Braunstein (CC BY)
THE anonymity afforded by the internet makes it hard to know for sure who is driving online public opinion. But one thing can be said about this surfing, tweeting, blogging community busy putting links and comments up on their Facebook pages: it is made up of people with nothing better to do.
An interesting argument to discredit the value of online opinion: most people are participating online in company time because they are bored and cranky, so their opinion is skewed and unrepresentative (and clearly, they are of bad character by slacking off).
Curiously, no mention of the online popularity of the ABC's #qanda and SBS's refugee 'reality' documentary. I'm pretty sure those shows play outside of normal business hours - perhaps they were only popular with shift workers?
And there is plenty of other local research that challenges the mythology of cyberslacking too.
But based on the overall negatively I often see coming from the traditional Australian media about anything to do with the Web (e.g. social media, the National Broadband Network) I can only conclude its the result of widespread boredom in the industry itself.
What do you think? (Comments to be submitted outside working hours only, please)
One of the standout differences are in the:
- Engagement provides a measure of the type of interaction the user has in Twitter by examining the ratio of people referenced by the user to the number of people referencing them.
- Influence is the likelihood that a Twitter user will either A) retweet something the user has written or B) reference the user.
PeerIndex's score is described as follows:
Your overall PeerIndex score is a relative measure of your online authority. This score reflects the impact of your online activities, and the extent to which you have built up social and reputational capital on the web.
At its heart PeerIndex addresses the fact that merely being popular (or having gamed the system) doesn't indicate authority. Instead we build up your authority finger print on a category-by-category level using eight benchmark topics.
Someone, however, cannot be authority without a receptive audience. We don't simply mean a large audience but one that listens and is receptive. To capture this aspect PeerIndex Rank includes the audience score we calculate for each profile.
Finally, we include the activity score so account for someone who is active has a greater share of attention of people interested in the topics they are interested in.
Back on the 19th July I looked at the Facebook "Likes" and Twitter followers of some of the pro- and anti-Carbon Tax sites, here in Australia.
Checking back today and looking at the bigger 2 of the 4 sites I looked at...
The Federal Government's Clean Energy Future site:
Meanwhile, Say Yes Australia:
Neither site has grown particularly since I last checked, although Clean Energy Future has managed to maintain its lead over Say Yes Australia in terms of Twitter followers, but continues to lag a great deal in terms of Facebook. This is probably significant, because this is where Clean Energy Future is pushing people to debate and discuss.
Just to put these number in perspective, I like to use the Hamish and Andy index - right now:
I'm not suggesting that the Carbon Tax sites should expect the same levels of followers as this popular Australian comedy duo, its just that I've often used their social media stats to help set the context for our expectations. That is, it is possible to gain this kind of following online in Australia.
BTW If you are reading this, you might find this post over on the Headshift | Dachis Group blog of interest, Why should I follow or like you?
UPDATE: Also of interest, the Dept. of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency are seeking submissions on the Clean Energy Legislative Package legislation here, completely seperate to the Clean Energy Future site. There are no social media tools on this site (not even simple social sharing buttons) or options for discussion.
At this stage the SayYesAustralia coalition, with the most visually appealing site of the bunch, appears to have captured the lion's share of attention on Facebook.
Twitter has been active, but generally speaking it doesn't look like people are interested in following these organisations/groups. I did notice that in Geoff's opinion, Twitter just isn't the right space for this kind of debate.
I'm not sure if the government's own site is meeting expectations, but at least on the Facebook and Twitter front it isn't doing much better than the apparently less resourced efforts of the anti-carbon tax groups. Bear in mind, there is a multi-million dollar ad and public education campaign running along side the social media channels.
Looking at YouTube separately, the government's most popular video (which is quite good) has been viewed over 6,700 times - but SayYesAustralia's most popular video has been viewed nearly 80,000 times. Both these initiatives are of course supporting the carbon tax policy.
The government's channel may well be doing much better on simple Website stats of course.
