Social web & social media, consultancy, training and advice from a flâneur of the internets. Blogger, writer, broadcaster and runner of Birmingham: It's Not Shit. I also do the odd bit of art.
February 13th, 2011

Ask a stupid question…

If there was one central point to remember to make online consultation successful it would be that if the question isn’t a good one the best response you’ll get is none. If the object of the exercise has no real meaning or effect then, while no response would be disappointing, it only takes a tiny meme to make silence seem like a success.

Take the administration in Austin, Texas (home, it must be said to large number of Internet culture savvy people) who probably thought that it was a nice piece of harmless PR through engagement to ask the people to come up with a new identity for the city’s waste dept. No-one sensible could care too much about the outcome, so it becomes open for hijack, open for people to have fun with, and easy fun is a great driver of activity. Activity you may have seen on the web this week:

And so the idea of the ‘Fred Durst Society of the Humanities and Arts‘ was born and attracted much attention, narrowly beating the ‘Ministry of Filth’ (although my personal favourite was ‘The Austin Dept. of Are You Going To Eat That?’).

It’s not going to happen, of course, so the outcome is that the consulters look stupid—drawing attention to both the time wasted of rebranding and their helplessness against the weak ties and satire of the web. What’s worse is it shows problems in engament in that  numbers of votes for this poll in total dwarf  those in other, more well thought through, consultations.

Even worse is when there’s a memetic idea that is simultaneously eligible, fun, and unacceptable to the consulters. That’s what’s has just taken hold in Fort Wayne (who like Austin are using the feedback tool Uservoice—blameless in these instances and a fairly nice solution to the tech aspects of this sort of questioning).  What bad luck for the town to have had a mayor and statesman with a vaguely rude sounding name (the man himself pronounced Baals “balls”):

As you can see the comments here are getting heated, there are legitimate reasons for honouring the man and there’s just no way to come out of this well now. Not every question is a good one.

September 8th, 2010

Subject: Act now to get the best communication from your Elected Representatives

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm writing to you to ask for your support in helping work out how our elected officials can deal with online campaigners. If we don't act soon then the opportunity to create huge grassroots movements will be marked as SPAM.

I’ve been thinking more about the hoo-ha when new Tory MP Dominic Raab was being vilified for his attempts to make sense of his Parliamentary inbox. He claims automated online lobby groups are creating too much correspondence to deal with in a meaningful way—and while attempting to hide his email address wasn’t the right way, he’s got a point.

His big moan was directed at fairly new group 38 Degrees, who were very active during the election, who he claimed at some points were sending 200 “cloned” emails a day. He said:

“Look at why 38 Degrees took on that title – it is the angle at which an avalanche falls. Their aim is to create an avalanche in MPs in-boxes. Others apply the same tactics, so spam filters won’t solve it – that is why I want the right to opt out of them using my email for those purposes”

Subject: Act now to get the best communication from your Elected Representatives

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm writing to you to ask for your support in helping work out how our elected officials can deal with online campaigners. Causes that have most to gain from demonstrating mass support need to makes sure that power isn't diluted.

Tom Watson MP has experience of this, being deluged by emails even when he was on the same side as the lobby group—and that’s part of the problem, the mass campaign tools have quickly worked out how to match you to your MPs email but opinions on policy aren’t easy to automate. Even if they did, that’s not how people work—the nudging actions on the social web mean that people will want to press send to “do their bit” and join in. Clicking on that button is too easy to require much thought.

The emails are a problem because the accepted wisdom is that direct communication requires a response. The problem is no longer establishing the communication, but managing it. These emails are very like a petition, but one with the proposal very so slightly personalised by the signatory so requiring a separate response.

Subject: Act now to get the best communication from your Elected Representatives

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm writing to you to ask for your support in helping work out how our elected officials can deal with online campaigners. We must look for ways to harness that nudge power to produce real actions as well as acts of me-too-ism, or else we're just building complicated petitions.

Maybe we need to mature a little and be realistic—if communication takes minimal effort then it must deserve appropriate effort in response. We can’t expect the same response to an automated email as we would to a bespoke email or conversation—but does that mean we’re back to petitions?

Petitions give a central point of contact and collate strength of feeling, but are binary — you have to agree with everything the petition says, there’s no conversation or discussion. I might think that more research is needed into triage-by-phone services, but petitioning I can either “save” or “shut”.  They can easily be dismissed if the petitionee is of a mind—you can pick holes in the most tightly worded statement, and what then? Do it all again?

We’ve fallen out of love with petitions, local authorities were obliged to build online petition sites just over a year ago and in Birmingham at least nothing much has happened. The site cost £7,500 to set up followed by an expected annual running cost of £1,332 but it’s not exactly been inundated by petitions or signatures. In a year, in an authority area of over a million people there have been only 29 petitions submitted, of which a tiny 19 made it to the website (from this FOI request)— only two seem to have got responses (both of which say ‘thanks but no thanks’ pretty much). At the time of writing there are just four live petitions, none of which have any hope of affecting policy.

Subject: Act now to get the best communication from your Elected Representatives

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm writing to you to ask for your support in helping work out how our elected officials can deal with online campaigners. Because they've got to learn that it isn't working too.

I’ve lost count of the number of emails I’ve received during the Labour leadership campaign, I’ve checked it wasn’t a real email from an Ed, or a Miliband or one of the others (unlikely, but possible— the giveaway is that only auto databases ever use my full name), skimmed and deleted. In some cases I’ve thought “I’ll read that later”, but I don’t think I have—because email isn’t a persuasive medium, particularity at scale. When the size of your email mailing list is important it’s because you have a list of supporters, some of whom will respond to requests or calls to action. Hitting the unconverted just blends into the SEO emails and the random, bizarrely rich, Nigerians.

Subject: Act now to get the best communication from your Elected Representatives

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm writing to you to ask for your support in helping work out how our elected officials can deal with online campaigners. Your heart pretty much always sinks on the receiving of another email doesn't it?

Think before you hit send, are you contributing or SPAMming?

by Jon Bounds | Posted in social media | Tags: , ,
August 9th, 2010

Where consultation and campaigning break

We’re in need of new era in how people consult with authority — campaigning and lobby groups have gotten so good at getting people to use e-mail or other messaging systems that anyone soliciting input needs to have a large staff and a good process for dealing with the deluge. MPs are cracking under the strain of response.

I commented on a post on Michael Grimes’s blog (about an direct-MP-connection iPhone app) recently (8/7/10):

“the problem with online consultation exercises isn’t the collecting but the bottleneck at the place where the comments are directed. Patient Opinion [for example] has a very different form of consultation — wide, ongoing, informal — to direct contact with MPs or any public figure. It’s much harder to see how they [MPs] can scale without the burden of feedback or any contact back becoming too much.

In more conversational consultation those receiving the comments need to have the skills to be able to deal with comments that are possibly not responses to direct questions, but may also be part of a wider conversation. There also need to be feedback mechanisms in place.

We’re already seeing MPs particularly complaining of being buried under the weight of campaigning emails — something will snap if we (they, someone!) don’t think about how to deal and respond with mass communication.”

The problem is no longer establishing communication, but managing it. Maybe we need to mature a little and be realistic (much in the same way the media need to) — if communication takes minimal effort then it must deserve minimal effort in response. Maybe we can’t expect the same response to an automated email (or a Tweet, or joining a Facebook group or signing a petition) as we would to a bespoke email or conversation — but how to make sure response is proportionate?

Petitions try to give a central point of contact and collate strength of feeling, but they are binary — you have to agree with everything the petition says, there’s no conversation or discussion.  And they can easily be dismissed, as we’ve seen on the Number 10 petition sheet.

How does someone in authority really gauge strength of feeling, how do they  respond — is conversation even possible at this scale? It may be, but new mechanisms and a rethinking of expectation are needed.

by Jon Bounds | Posted in twitter | Tags: , , ,
August 3rd, 2010

Chaos

When chaos runs slowly enough it can look like calm. But it’s still chaos.

There has been chaos within the methods of communication used between authority and those it claims authority over for hundreds of years — but until recently you could only see it with the scale of hindsight. There hasn’t been a transition from calm to chaos, merely a speeding up of that chaos.

Stop thinking that it’s about to calm down any time soon, or ever.

by Jon Bounds | Posted in future web, social media | Tags: , ,
July 5th, 2010

Jon Bounds is not impressed by Nick Clegg’s Your Freedom « Labour Uncut

There are blog posts pulling apart the new Your Freedom website, but this is mine. [link]

by Jon Bounds | Posted in del.icio.us | Tags: , , ,













Powered by Wordpress using the theme bbv1 Content © Jon Bounds