Comments on: Government and Social Networks: Care Less About Policies and More About Relevance

By: Twittering Against Drink Driving: Not Such A Great Idea

Twittering Against Drink Driving: Not Such A Great Idea — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:50:33 +0000

[...] like. First of all, I doubt people would be following the Victoria Police’s Twitter page (see my earlier post about relevance). If they did, they would probably do so to understand if and where drivers are being tested, which [...]

By: Sandor Zans

Sandor Zans — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:28:49 +0000

Relevance is indeed the word: but the question is also how can public administrations capture the sense of joy and fun that bring people to facebook and twitter. If governments and agencies shouldn’t approach social networking sites for the sake of it (or, as you say, for the sake of branding), they shouldn’t expect neither that people participate in their relevant 2.0 endeavours for the sake of it. Having clear objectives is not enough: there must be something else, a change of philosophy that combines ‘relevance’ joyful incentives for participation.

By: Andrea Di Maio

Andrea Di Maio — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:50:28 +0000

@Linda
This is exactly what I’d like most our clients to think. Often the problem is that interest in Web 2.0 is somewhat accelerated or even skewed by elected officials who have been using this for campaigning (which is a very different game, pretty much like marketing and sales differ from service delivery and support).
I made similar points many years ago about government web sites and portals, inviting people to think twice before spending money on those (I mean, the web 1.0 ones) before having a clear purpose in mind. Of course reality is that you need to have a web site as part of your brand identity, and the same applies to those “official” pages on Facebook etc. What’s important is to set expectations (low enough) on how much they’ll help engage people.
And thanks for proving my point that blurring personal and professional networks is where we all find most value.

By: Linda Cureton

Linda Cureton — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:41:55 +0000

Relevance is the keyword. For example, I found this post very relevant to my duties as a CIO and saw the link on my Facebook page.

People play games on personal computers, but that does not mean that personal computers have no relevance in the workplace or in government. Nevertheless, getting a personal computer just to get one, is irrelevant.

Similarly, agencies who use social media just for the sake of, say, having a Twitter presence, should strive to see how the particular Web 2.0 technology can be applied to help them perform their mission in unique or innovative ways (e.g. SF’s 311 service).

By: SmithWill

SmithWill — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:18:07 +0000

The notion of government presenting a social media face is disgusting. Most bureaucracies have become so overbearing and impersonal to warrant overthrow. Social media simply puts an electronic smiley face on the beast.

Social media oversight? For crying out loud, most IT departments and executive management can’t even get their arms around basic IT management processes let alone try to govern social media use and content. All one need to do to verify this claim is examine a DLP implementation. If “well-defined confidential data is tough to coral then the social media crowd are absolutely impossible.

Lastly, the idea of social media in government at it’s core is corrupt. Working versus play doesn’t seem to enter into this silly smedia discussion. It’s all about all the fuzzy benefits and whatnot. The analysts should start looking at the productivity-killing implications before advocating that governments embrace social media. If you think services are poor and taxes are too high now, just wait until they start issuing their tax increases and fines via Twitter.