Skip to main content

Social. Same, but different.

I don't write about social media a lot these days. As far as Facebook and Twitter goes much of the conversation has been said. Online discussion usually follows the circular argument:

"Isn't social media great?"
"Yes, governments should do more with it"
"That's right, because isn't social media great"

That's not to say governments and their agencies could and should do more, but talking is easy, hence the success and some of the great fails of social media. Putting ideas into action is harder.

There's still room for innovation in social, for example the trial of What's App at Shropshire Council, or the number of councils looking at using Meerkat and Periscope for election coverage, although this does feel like a bit of a fad as video streaming apps like Bambuser and Hangouts on Air have been around for a couple of years now. Anything that pushes governments in the right direction must be a good thing though.

I'm still very much an advocate of social media. I use it in my professional life and I set up the Twitter account and main Facebook page for the organisation I work for, in 2009. Since then I've handed it over to others to manage and this is what I'm really what covering in this post. What happens when social moves from innovation to business as usual?

This great post on Comms2Point0 was the catalyst for me wanting to write about social again. I recognise and sympathise many of the issues here, having been in the same position a few years ago. And I've split my response up into two parts.


Social is another channel of contact and engagement. It's as valid as the telephone or email, perhaps more some argue, given its ability to reach so many people, so quickly. Some organisations don't get this, and that's why it's not taken seriously and used as best as it could.

Given this, those managing it need to apply some of the same professional disciplines they do with other channels. You probably wouldn't take a phone call or reply to an email from a member of the public about at pothole, unpaid on a Sunday afternoon, so why is social different?

Monitoring a social account on behalf of an organisation in your own time creates a false expectation from those using the service. There are always going to be times when this is necessary, in emergencies for example, but I'm talking about on a run of the mill, Sunday afternoon.

Replying to people out of your paid hours means that this is a service people will come to expect, and that afternoon you're at a wedding, or out in the sticks and haven't got a mobile signal so can't reply, people are going to be disappointed that you haven't.

Do the people doing a great job of running the First Great Western or Nationwide Twitter accounts at weekends do so for the love of their organisation? No, they're getting paid for doing it, and quite rightly so. If doing this for free, you're masking the lack of investment in this channel and preventing it from being taken as seriously as it should.

My advice? Add the hours you'll respond to the account's profile and stick to them. If people complain, you've got a case for more investment. If they don't, you probably never needed to monitor it at the weekend.

But different.

I've said how social should be taken seriously. That a professional approach should manage expectation and give social the profile it deserves in an organisation.

Social is, well, social however. It's been likened to a conversation down the pub and whilst you'd rarely run a corporate account with that level of informality this doesn't mean that those use social to interact with your organisation might not take that approach.

This isn't always the case, as O2 demonstrated here. Be careful if you're thinking of doing this though. You're more likely to come across as Richard Madeley being Ali G than authentic, if you're unfamiliar with a particular style of language, init.

So here's the thing. Some people swear. Some people swear a lot. For example, here's Happy Mondays and Black Grape front man Sean Ryder trying his best not to swear and failing in under a minute. Don't take it personally. They're not swearing at you, they're swearing at the online presence of an organisation they're legally obliged to give money to, using social language in the manner they're used to.

Just remember that the "f*cking sh*t council" might become the "f*cking brilliant council" in their mind and online after you've engaged with them, and to have an advocate saying your organisation is "f*cking brilliant" is pretty powerful.

So that's my first and last post on social for a while. Written on a Sunday, unpaid, this once again highlights difference between professional and personal opinion, this being very much the latter.

I'm off for a roast dinner now. If you'd need my services professionally, I'll be around from 8am tomorrow.


Popular posts from this blog

Digital best practice checklist

This week I finished the draft of a digital best practice check-list. It's not digital strategy, in fact I'm increasingly thinking organisations don't need a digital strategy, they need a delivery strategy.

My draft has check-list of seven questions and recommendations, with one overall recommendation regarding best practice for delivering digital. Ideally it would be incorporated into a wider service and information delivery strategy.

Below I've omitted the bulk of the content, the reasoning behind arriving at the recommendation from the question because it's still in draft, but here are the seven questions and eight recommendations:

1. Is the council properly promoting its digital services and content, to reduce avoidable contact?

Recommendation: Establish a “digital first” ethos to the promotion of services and better targeting what, when and where they're promoted.

2. Are the digital services the council offers, especially where the design and development ha…

Pipeline Alpha

In September 2014, officers from 25 councils met in Guildford to discuss a platform to enable collaboration across Local Government. A "Kickstarter for local government" is the missing part to Makers Project Teams, a concept to enable collaborative working across different organisations put forward by LGMakers the design and development strand of LocalGov Digital.

Based on the user needs captured at the event, LGMakers created collaboration platform Pipeline and by October people from over 50 councils had signed up. Pipeline is an Alpha, a prototype set up to evaluate how a Kickstarter for councils might work. It is a working site though, and is being used as the platform it is eventually intended to be, at present without some of finer features a live offer might have.

So what have I've learnt in the eight months since we launched Pipeline?

There's a strong desire to collaborate 

LocalGov Digital isn't a funded programme. I wrote about how much it LocalGov Digita…

Defining transformation to a wider audience

For the past month I've been putting together a paper on the next steps of digital transformation, for the organisation I work for. I'm proposing we look at two capabilities and two business areas, and if approved I'll be writing more about it.

It's been a great exercise in gathering my thoughts and helping me to define digital transformation to a wider audience and how it fits into the bigger picture of service improvement.

Here's some of the stuff I've learnt or had affirmed:
Transformation, digital or not, starts with understanding the needs of the user through research. This should be obvious, but in local government too often I've seen "build it and they will come" approach applied.

It's unlikely a commercial operation would launch a new product without first researching the market, so why would a digital service be any difference?
A couple of years ago I wrote how the phrase "digital transformation" was hindering digital transf…

Superfast highways

You may have seen this slide I put together to help explain digital transformation

This week we launched a new beta service to report speeding traffic. It looks fairly simple but to give you an idea of what's happening in the background I thought it might be useful to show you the before and after.

So here's the before

and as you can see it's completely a manual process. Stuff might be recorded electronically but it takes someone to do something seven time to make the process work and send it to the parish or the district.

Here's the after

What this doesn't tell you is that it's basing whether the request is for the parish or district on three questions. It's also doing a spatial look up to find the parish and returning the parish clerk details using the Modern.Gov API.

Because these are already part of our platform this is data that we currently maintain, so there's no additional work to keep this up to date and we've reduced the human interactio…

Carl's Conundrum of Internal Influence

I'm writing this partly as a reply to an excellent piece that Carl Haggerty published about the disconnect between internal and external influence and partly due to various conversations over the past month about how to make using tools like collaboration platform Pipeline common practice.

This isn't really about Carl though, or Devon County Council, or any other council specifically, it's more a comment on the influence of digital teams in local governments, or lack of, and how to resolve this.

So here's the question that prompted this piece. How can someone who's been recognised nationally for their work, first by winning the Guardian's Leadership Excellent Award and who has more recently been placed in the top 100 of the Local Government Chronicle's most influential people in local government, "sometimes feel rather isolated and disconnected to the power and influence internally".

First, let's consider whether is this a problem to unique t…