The White House breaks new ground in online communications

I was reading the local newspaper last weekend, and noticed an inspirational article about the Obama administration’s innovative use of the Internet as a public engagement tool.

It’s not so much the technology that’s innovative; but rather, the decision to use the Internet as a key vehicle to maintain a dialogue with America and the world.

The initiative’s called Open for Questions (OQ), and the objective is to create a community-based online town hall where the public submits questions via email through the White House website, which are later answered by the President via Webcast.  While the busy man clearly doesn’t have time to answer all questions submitted, he is able to select the most pertinent ones to frame his video response.

President Obama’s objective is to embrace technology to “open up the White House to the American people”.  What a great initiative, and why on earth wasn’t it done sooner?!  The tools have been available for a little while now, it’s an incredibly cost effective way of mass-communication, and it is – at least for now – still considered groundbreaking in terms of large-scale government communications. 

Whether it be streamed Webcasts or pre-recorded videos, the Obama camp have latched onto a trend that I personally hope will be infectious among other organisations, agencies and administrations – particularly the government sector.

It’s time for the Internet to be appropriately credited as the mega-communications tool that it is.  Unsurprisingly, Internet usage is on the rise globally, and we all know it’s going to continue this way.  According to Nielsen Online, over 1.5 billion people are using the Internet worldwide, and world Internet usage has grown five-fold since 2000.  Of more relevance to President Obama will be the 220 million Internet users in the United States (US), which accounts for over 72% of the US population.

I notice that the Australian Prime Minister has also introduced a new website to educate the public about the government’s economic stimulus package.  A pre-recorded video introduction from Prime Minister Rudd awaits users on the site’s homepage, but I wonder whether he’ll follow Obama’s Webcasting lead?  The world’s current economic challenges – and Australia’s subsequent ‘endurance’ strategy – are certainly worthy of some continuous dialogue with the Australian public…and using the Internet would be a very responsible use of taxpayer money!

Rob

Government web teams need to hang with the communicators rather than the propellerheads

Something which has increasingly concerned me over the years has been the decision by certain government departments to position their web teams and webmasters within the IT section, rather than the communications section.

Before going any further, let me clarify what I mean by ‘web team’.  I’m essentially talking about those working at (or close to) the coalface, usually responsible for:

• managing and governing the department’s site(s)
• ensuring compliance with relevant web standards and guidelines
• carrying out web development work
• maintaining site content, and
• plotting future developments for the department’s site(s)

In addition, for the purposes of this post, I’m including the following people under the banner of ‘communications section’:

• marketing and media staff
• creative staff (i.e. graphic designers, branding specialists)
• corporate affairs and executive staff (probably to a lesser degree)

From my experience, the positioning of web teams in IT environments is a mistake.  The vast majority of government websites share a common set of objectives which usually include – at a simplistic level – the need to:

• project a professional and responsible image of the department/agency
• communicate timely and accurate information to target markets
• provide user contact and feedback mechanisms, and
• where feasible, provide interactive communication mechanisms (e.g. chat rooms, discussion forums, etc)

How are web teams supposed to achieve these objectives when they’re not working in strict harmony with the department’s communicators, marketers, executives and media people?

I’ve seen first-hand how geographic, cultural and bureaucratic barriers between different ‘enabling areas’ can cause both short and long-term problems in the workplace.  While IT and communications sections are both generally regarded as enabling services within government departments, this is about the only similarity they seem to have.  In fact, few would doubt the fundamental differences in thinking, skills and general mindset that exist between the two.

Therefore, I believe it becomes very important to understand which of the two environments is better-suited to hosting a web team, particularly when considering the objectives and purpose of the department’s Internet presence. 

I believe it has to be the communications section. 

Why?

Firstly, this section has the corporate and strategic vision to drive the department’s site(s) forward, ensuring overall consistency and alignment with peripheral communications products and initiatives (e.g. media and advertising campaigns).  In addition, this section – as a commonly centralised and key business unit of the department – will receive clear direction and backing from the senior executive (including the department head), encouraging greater financial and strategic investment in the department’s Internet presence.

Secondly, the communications section has a healthy level of creative potency among its staff, which is beneficial in challenging boundaries and conventions, and conceiving new ideas in relation to the site(s).  It’s this kind of approach which can have a significant impact on site interactivity, usability, and overall appeal.

Thirdly, it is the communications section which hosts dedicated editorial, creative and publishing expertise which has much to offer the department’s site(s).  While the editorial and publishing expertise is obviously useful for content development, the section’s graphic designers could also offer their expertise on some visual enhancements to the front-end (interface).

Finally – and following on from my first point – the communications section is responsible for carrying out a broad, holistic array of marketing and communications initiatives; many of which rely on the use of the Internet due to its superiority in terms of market reach, cost and speed.  Therefore, this section must have a high level of influence over the web team, to ensure these initiatives can be successful. 

Now, having said all of that, it’s important to acknowledge that government IT and communications sections can work together.  Of course they can, and I’m not trying to challenge this.  My point is that too much ‘communications value’ is at risk of being lost when the web team – who are meant to be driving the department’s Internet presence – are nestled-in amongst IT geeks instead of living alongside the department’s central communicators and corporate visionaries.   

Just because web teams comprise technical staff, doesn’t mean they should automatically live in the IT section.

Rob

Social networking in government – we know it’s possible

It’s certainly encouraging to see the American government turning its attention to social networking culture with projects like govloop.  It provides me with hope that the Australian government may begin to forge a more sophisticated culture of sharing and collaboration, underpinned by sound social networking practices.

The U.S. government’s Government Star profile on YouTube also makes for impressive viewing.  Surely, this new shift in thinking will have a positive impact down under – and it won’t be a day too soon, either.

Needless to say, such an approach from our government will require a good amount of work, including a sizable group of inter-departmental believers who are passionate and committed to the cause.

Web 2.0 University comes to town

Steve Collins from Acidlabs has just announced a new partnership with Hinchcliffe & Company in an arrangement that will see Acidlabs deliver Web 2.0 University’s courses in Australia and New Zealand. Partnering also with Web Directions, who will provide event hosting and publicity, Web 2.0 University is a first in the region.

Courses will be offered several times a year through hosting partner Web Directions, including at Web Directions South, where the very first Web 2.0 University Executive Bootcamp in the southern hemisphere will be offered as a pre-conference workshop on 23 September 2008.

You can register now for Web 2.0 University at https://secure.webdirections.org/wds08. Further information on Web 2.0 University can be found at http://web20university.com.

This looks like a very valuable initiative and comes highly regarded by many, so please get amongst it! 

Rob

Reality check: face time or Facebook?

In a recent opinion piece in The Canberra Times, ABC TV Journalist and author Virginia Haussegger talks about the Facebook craze and the concept of ‘Facebook friends’.

Virginia expresses her views about the site’s use of the term ‘friend’, and how Facebook could be potentially devaluing what it means to have, and be, a real and sincere friend.

“Facebook has contorted the meaning of ‘friend’. And it has butchered the value of friendship,” she says.

“Now everyone can have plenty of cheap and easy friends, where the friendship requires no more effort than a ‘click to confirm’.”

I take Virginia’s point, and this is essentially true on the surface; but I’d like to think that a good percentage of Facebookers approach the issue with a healthy dose of perspective and common sense.

I certainly agree that there are several ‘hardcore’ Facebook junkies who live and die by the cyber-identities they’ve cultivated on Facebook and similar sites like MySpace. Similarly, I agree that some Facebookers – perhaps the more cyber-dependent Generation Y population - would carry a somewhat distorted view of what true friendship really means, through their continual and feverish acquisition of ’Facebook friends’.

However, speaking for myself and most of the people I interact with online, Facebook represents a quick and easy way to interact with a variety of people at once, and locate old friends and work colleagues. And, the more popular Facebook becomes around the world, the more effective it will be to expedite these functions.

In terms of the ‘Facebook friends’ convention, I can’t say I agree with Virginia that Facebook has “butchered” the ideal of friendship. In the end, it’s obviously a matter for users to ascertain whether the people listed in their Facebook friends catalogue are real friends or not. While Facebook is guilty of providing the platform for interaction, it ultimately can’t be held accountable for people’s own delusions or misconceptions about who their real friends are.

I’ve no doubt that some folks can become misguided in cyber-space when it comes to what’s real and what’s not. Surely, though, most of us can appreciate that sites like Facebook aim to make life a little easier from a social networking perspective, and that they are still an eternity way from being a holistic substitute for conventional face-to-face interaction in the physical world.

So, which is more real – face time, or Facebook? 

For me, both are real. I think the key is understanding the limitations and defining characteristics of each, in order to keep everything in perspective and maintain useful and effective communication with others. 

Rob