Training to operate effectively in a new field of maneuver

It’s clear from the Department of Defense’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Directive-Type Memorandum 09-026 about Internet-based Capabilities (IbCs) and the stand-up of CYBERCOM that DoD is committed to the Internet and IbCs.  To successfully navigate this field of maneuver, it’s critical that DoD appropriately train and equip its workforce, on both the responsible (defensive) and the EFFECTIVE (offensive) use of IbCs.

This includes incorporating IbCs into a number of already-existing training programs regarding the safe and secure use of DoD systems and handling of information: OPSEC, IA and Ethics.  It also includes developing and deploying NEW training that educates the DoD workforce about:

1. What are IbCs, social media and other emerging tools and technologies,
2. How to use these and technologies, and
3. How these tools and their FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES, e.g. collaboration, crowdsourcing, information sharing, can improve mission effectiveness and efficiency throughout the Department.

Training the workforce on the RESPONSIBLE use but not the EFFECTIVE use of IbCs would be a tremendous missed opportunity for DoD. Learning to effectively utilize the IbC toolkit and concepts can increase mission effectiveness for public-facing areas like Public Affairs and Recruiting, AND ALSO for myriad other DoD missions which will benefit from internal, cross-component and cross-agency collaboration and information-sharing. It’s not about the tools and technologies; it’s about the behaviors that they enable.

IbCs not only enable people to work differently, they ENCOURAGE people to work differently.  This is a big cultural shift for all of us “digital immigrants”–especially within the command and control structure of DoD.  However, information sharing and collaboration are the behaviors that enable success in this network-based field of maneuver.  We can’t afford to stay in our hierarchical, need-to-know comfort zone.  The safety and security of our nation depends upon successfully leveraging the power of networks.

This is not just about Public Affairs Officers who officially manage DoD’s External Official Presences or senior leaders who officially represent the Department.  IbCs afford all members of the DoD workforce the access and influence previously only available public-facing functions. With anyone as a potential spokesperson for the Department in their professional communities, it’s critical that they are educated on the guidelines for using IbCs for Official Use.

Beyond the scope and substance of their official responsibilities, the DoD workforce and their family members–stakeholders with access to mission critical information–are using IbCs for personal use.  Therefore, responsible use includes extending (requiring?) OPSEC, IA and Ethics training to the entire DoD workforce and their families.

The challenge with moving these concepts forward is three-fold.  First, as a lowly contractor at DoD, I have the vision and ideas, but no authority to affect change, or even to secure the ear of a senior leader who does.  Second, even if I could secure an ear, its another thing to get DoD senior leaders to embrace these concepts and do things differently — not business as usual.  Third, “not my lane syndrome: these are cross-functional approaches which, in and of themselves require collaboration in development and deployment–not a single champion.

Defining the Scope of OpenGov at DoD

The Open Government Directive (OGD), encourages agencies to be more transparent, participatory and collaborative, internally, cross-agency and externally. It requires agencies to have an “open stance” rather than a closed stance regarding information sharing: “share it unless you can’t” rather than “don’t share it unless someone requests it.” This approach is similar to our judiciary stance and mantra “innocent until proven guilty” rather than guilty until proven innocent.

There are two ways to interpret this challenge. First, we can take the “push” approach and assume that information will be released unless there are security or policy reasons why it should not. Alternatively, we can take the “pull” approach and release information as an internal or external strategic need requests or requires the information. This latter approach can be likened to our current policies and practices around release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Open government poses a somewhat unique challenge for DoD, in particular. Last Tuesday, I participated in the fourth Open Government Directive: Lessons from the Playbook workshop. The purpose of this workshop was cross-agency sharing of emerging open government best practices, thinking and challenges. Attendees included representatives from many Federal agencies as well as from think tanks, corporations, non-profits, etc. We broke into smaller groups to discuss challenges including organizing data sets, culture change and measuring success. The wiki from this workshop is available here. I was amazed by the priority the OGD has for many agencies and wondered why it seems like a compliance-driven side project here at DoD…

The next morning, I participated in the National Academy for Public Administration’s Collaboration Project meeting at which representatives from four agencies–HUD, USDA, EPA and NASA–discussed their agencies’ efforts regarding the OGD. So I posed a question to the NAPA panel: openness is one thing for more public-facing agencies for which data transparency and citizen engagement are a part of their missions, but for DoD, openness is diametrically opposed to our core mission: to protect and defend. How do we reconcile this? Should open government become a secondary mission for DoD? Given the primary mission, will it not always be subverted? Or, should open government be seen as a new way to approach our core mission? I–as well as the panel–believe it’s the latter.

If this is the case, the objective of DoD’s Open Government Working Group is to weave the intentions and principles of open government–as well as the tools–into the fabric of DoD so that components ask “why can’t we?” rather than “why should we?” regarding transparency, participation and collaboration. This is a much bigger charge than shepherding the obligatory release of non-threatening data sets or encouraging the use of social networking. This requires a core shift how we think about and execute against our missions.

Networks are the power source. Not social networking tools or technology networks, but, rather, people networks. What would surface if information sharing and access became the rule rather than the exception? What if there were members of the DoD community focused on the white spaces between components and missions rather than dedicated to the missions themselves? What if everyone was–and felt–responsible for contributing not just to their group’s mission, but to the larger DoD mission? We’d see things we don’t currently see. The network effect would exponentially enhance our situational awareness, strengthening it beyond what our current hierarchical structure is capable of.

Open government is not a side project. It’s not a secondary mission. Open Government can be the catalyst, vision and initiative for tying together disparate programs and concepts to strengthen the whole organization. The Open Government Working Group has the opportunity define and drive the cultural shift that is necessary for DoD to continue to successfully meet its core mission in a networked world: to protect and defend our nation.

If it’s not about the tools and technologies, why is there so much push-back?

So, in the Government 2.0 discourse, we’re constantly saying that “it’s not about the tools and technologies.”  Rather, it’s about a shift in the way we do business — a shift to collaboration.  So why is it so tough to get organizations to adopt collaborative tools, mindsets and practices?  Why are so many organizations pushing back on using these crazy social media tools?

In the traditional, 1.0 world, knowledge = power.  Senior leaders and subject matter experts are powerful because they hold unique and specialized knowledge.  Web 2.0 tools and the collaborative approaches upon which they are built undermine the traditional organizational paradigm.  In the Web 2.0 world, knowledge ≠ power.  Rather, knowledge SHARING = power.  This is, obviously, enormously threatening to those who are experts, those currently in powerful leadership positions.

Because social media and Web 2.0 tools and technologies enable this sharing, many leaders’ instincts are to stop people from using these tools.  If they can stop employees from doing this silly “collaborating,” they can stop the knowledge sharing that’s really the root of the power shift that’s (often subconsciously) seen as a threat to their power positions.

However, the approach (instinct?) of those with collaborative mindsets — “Collaborators” – is to band together with other like-minded individuals (online and offline) to problem-solve…. So, at first, Collaborators try to apply collaborative practices, processes and tools within their organizations.  They know that there are better ways to do whatever business it is that they do.  They see that missions can be accomplished more efficiently and more effectively.

Collaborators self-organize and pursue one or some combination of three approaches:

• Analogy: introduce  external, but industry-related case studies that illustrate the value of collaboration
• Pilot: to the extent possible, do small test cases that actually prove collaboration can work within their own organization
• Convince: just talk the talk, meet with leaders and build bridges throughout the organization to create influence

At some point they either break through and make headway or their effort disbands, just as organically as it came together, because they find themselves banging their heads against a weight-bearing wall.

So, is that the end of the conversation?

I’ve been reading blogs and articles this morning about Squidoo and BzzAgent’s Brands in Public project that launched (and flopped?) back in late September 2009.  Brands in Public aggregates the conversation about a brand that’s going on in real-time across the social web.  It pulls feeds from Twitter, photos from Flickr, blog posts and articles into a central dashboard to display the whole conversation in a single location so that consumers and brand representatitives, alike, can see what’s being said about a brand and chime into the conversation.

All of the discussion that I’ve come across about Brands in Public has been focused on the fact that Squidoo CEO Seth Godin launched the service with a “pay for the keys to your brand’s dashboard” model.  This spurred a major backlash.  The $400/month fee that Squidoo was charging brands to use their own brand’s dashboard was generally viewed by the industry as money-hungry and inappropriate.

Bloggers and journalists, alike, have thrown the baby out with the bath water.  Taking the smart or not-so-smart business model of Brands in Public out of the picture for a moment, let’s explore the more interesting part of this: the concept of publically-accessible aggregated brand conversation.  Let me bottom-line it for you: the conversation about your brand is publically-accessible across the blogosphere and can be aggregated with a quick Google Alert. However, there’s something different about it being accessible and it being aggregated front and center.

A few cutting-edge ad agencies, namely Moderista! and Crispin Porter+ Bogusky, actually display the raw, unscreened conversations about their own brands on their sites.  These agencies are actively embracing the transparency that social media enables….but to a good or a bad end?  Negative comments about their brands are displayed right next to positive comments and, depending upon, the way the conversation is going, it’s conceivable that ALL of the comments on one of these agencies’ sites could be negative.  But they’re betting that the practicing the transparency — that’s currently getting such tremendous kudos in government circles — that they preach will outweigh the sometimes negative comments.

This past February, I began a social media project for an association (undisclosed for now) that is very much the same concept: a site that aggregates the conversation from Twitter, Flickr and blogs about a set of specific environmentally-conscious practices.  We’re now finally set to launch and the client is having serious concerns about the implications of so publicly aggregating the conversation.  Despite the investment, they’re now not sure that they will do much more with this site than utilize it as an interal tool through which to watch and maybe respond to negative comments about their brand and their members’ brands.  

Not launching the site would, obviously, be a waste of time and money spent on this project.  However, is not launching the site ignoring the conversation rather than taking the reigns and influencing the conversation?  Is such a public display of brand dialogue simply too public to be smart brand management or is it public display of brand dialogue critical to capture the real and raw feelings, comments and insights of consumers and to gain their trust and long-term respect?

Social media tools and technologies are surfacing valuable insights – positive and negative – for brands of all types.  Organizations that understand this know that they can neither ignore the conversation, nor control the conversation.  Rather, they have to participate in the conversation. 

Brands: you have the power to set the record straight, to influence the conversation, to change the relationships that you have with your customers.  Engagement is the name of the game.  Whether you are or are not ready to wear your heart on your sleeve and display the conversation on your homepage, find a way to monitor, join and, ultimately, own the conversation about your brand.

Going Dutch

This past Tuesday, Mark Drapeau and I had the honor of meeting with a delegation of new media representatives from the 13 ministries of the government of the Netherlands.  I found it fascinating that the 13 Dutch ministries are so coordinated in their new media efforts.  The group with which we met coordinates efforts and shares information cross-ministries.  They’ve, in fact, recently created a single look, feel and identity for all of their government ministries to use and are in the process of centralizing all government information into a single government-run destination.  

There are a number of impressive new media efforts underway in the Netherlands.  Their presentation will give you a sense of Internet and social media penetration and usage, etc.
Our Dutch friends shared with us a number of social media efforts that have been successful and some that have not been so successful.  One campaign, in particular, struck me as the most cutting edge – and controversial.  It was a recent social media campaign that their Ministry of Justice did regarding cybersecurity. 

Basically, it was a fictitious viral video about a Russian terrorist planning an attack on the recipient of the video.  The video was built for and deployed on Hyves (Facebook equivalent in the Netherlands).  Members who received the video could send it to their friends on Hyves.  The unique thing about the video was that it utilized information from users’ Hyves profiles and incorporated this info – name, age, marital status, PERSONAL PHOTOS (!) , etc. – into the video, itself.  The idea being that personalization of the video would make it more impactful and enable the Ministry of Justice to better get their cybersecurity information communicated.  The video was widely disseminated and was, anecdotally, extremely succesful (I don’t have metrics).

I’m currently involved in the development of an integrated public affairs campaign that the U.S. Department of Defense is putting together for National Cyber Security Awareness Month (October) here in the U.S.   Seeing the Netherlands’ video got me thinking about whether this kind of dissemination and, moreover, active utilization of personal information, could ever be done in the U.S.  My initial take is that this comes way too close to a government agency capturing Personally-Identifyable Information (PII) to be even close to legal.  However, the information was captured was on Hyves, an external and commercial social network, not on a government website, per se.  This, of course, raises one of the key challenges that government agencies are grappling with regarding Web 2.0/social media policy: do all of the same rules that govern federal websites also govern federal presences on independent social networks?

Catalyzing Congressional Collaboration

This morning a colleague of mine forwarded me Nancy Scola’s Personal Democracy Forum post Are Congressional “New Media” Clubs Missing the Point?  In short, Nancy challenges whether Congressional new media caucuses are “simply self-serving clubs dedicated to winning the YouTube-Facebook-Twitter arms race.”  (Just perfectly articulated, I think.) If so, she explains, they are missing the point and losing an opportunity.  Indeed! 

As I’ve said many times before, “Web 2.0 is not about the tools and technologies; it’s about the cultural shift that they are catalyzing.”  It sounds like the new Congressional Caucus on Blogging and New Media, and the Republican New Media Caucus that Nancy mentions in her post get this a little bit and should be commended for venturing into this area.  However, her point is well taken that there isn’t an Openness and Participation Caucus… right now it’s all about understanding and utilizing the tools and technologies.

Congress’ participation in social media mirrors the phenomenon that I’ve seen over and over again: when individuals or organizations are at the beginning of the Social Media Adoption Curve, they focus on the tools and believe that the Web 2.0 Holy Grail is mastery of these technologies.  Once they’ve reached a point of general technology proficiency and comfort, though, they realize that understanding the tools is just a stepping stone and that the path is about communicating and working differently — more collaboratively.  Where the path of collaboration takes an individual…a corporation…a government agency…Congress…is for them to create.

I’ve been noticing rumblings atop the Hill.  With some terrific early leadership (small “l”)  in the Gov 2.0 discourse  and grassroots events by early evangelists such as Rob Pierson, Congress is starting up the Curve.  Perhaps they’re starting to notice the Gov 2.0 innovation and leadership so prevalent in the Executive Branch (even despite Agencies’ bureaucratic structures).

Congress has the unique challenge of fragmentation: each Congressional office operates as a separate “small business,” for lack of a better analogy.  Each Representative and Senator has his/her own budget to allocate as he/she sees fit: more staffers, higher salaries, etc.  So, though we lump them all together as “Congress” it’s a bit like thinking of the businesses in a local town as a single entity.  The reality is that there are many, many nodes with unique constituents and key issues.  Each office is at a different point of awareness, education, participation, relationships and collaboration.

Coming up October 12 & 13  is the inaugural Congress Camp unconference.  As one of the organizers of Government 2.0 Campback in March, I, of course, am a biased proponent of unconferences as an ideal way to introduce participation and collaboration to public and private sector organizations and interest groups, by SHOWING — as opposed to telling — them what this whole Web 2.0 (for an ongoing lack of a better term) movement is all about.  It is certainly my hope that Congress Camp exposes the Hill to new, more collaborative ways of thinking about citizen engagement.

As Nancy so succinctly states at the end of her post, “An Openness Caucus would be a recognition that, from the public’s perspective, the issue isn’t new media. The issue is new politics, whether it happens through the web or telephone or carrier pigeon.”

On C-SPAN Today

This afternoon I was fortunate enough to moderate the Engaging the Public in Conversation panel at the Potomac Forum& GovCollab.org’s Gov 2.0 Leadership, Collaboration and Public Engagement Best Practices Symposium at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center in DC.

All four panelists were really outstanding in both the content of the case studies they presented and their delivery and presentating capabilities.  Here’s the schedule and line-up.

Engaging the Public in Conversation: Learn from some of the best and newest examples of how the federal government can more successfully dialogue with the public through the use of social media tools and techniques. This session addresses of one of the core commitments of the President to have a more participatory and collaborative government.
1:15	Leading in the Public Commons: Promoting the Public Good through Engagement	Jack Holt, Sr. Strategist, DoD
2:00	NARA: Virtual Community for Educators	Stephanie Greenhut, Education Technology Specialist, NARA
2:45	Break
3:00	Enabling Government Data to be a National Asset through Gov 2.0	Carolyn Brubaker, Chief Transition Officer, Microsoft
3.45	Regulations.gov Exchange	Shanita Brackett, Program Analyst, Environmental Protection Agency
4:15	Panel on Best Practices to Engage the Public in Conversation	Moderator: Maxine Teller, Consultant, MiXT Media Strategies LLC

Equally exciting was that the entire session (1:15pm – 5:00pm) was aired LIVE on C-SPAN!  I just found out yesterday that C-SPAN would be carrying the event and it didn’t really hit me until this evening when I pulled up the archived video on the C-SPAN site and saw the difference that broadcast-quality video makes.  We’re so used to watching home videos on YouTube that we sometimes forget…

I couldn ‘t figure out how to embed the video here on my blog, but you can view it here at C-SPAN’s archives.  The presentations are first and then the panel portion starts at 1:05:10 on the video.  I was relieved to be having a good hair day!

Engaging a Community to Solve Its Own Acute Needs

MiXT Media Strategies — in conjunction with iStrategyLabs and MindFarm — is currently working on a client project with a group in Alexandria, VA that is interested in utilizing social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to more efficiently and effectively solve the acute needs — think: hunger, homelessness, etc. — of its community by increasing the breadth and depth of citizen participation.

We’ve interviewed non-profits, citizen groups and social entrepreneurs in Alexandria and researched innovative ways in which other communities around the country and around the world are utilizing social media to engage citizens.

From our research, we’ve learned that we’re really at the forefront of building successful Web 2.0 models for geographically-based community engagement.  In the spirit of crowdsourcing, we wanted to throw our ”strawman” out to you — the myriad social media experts — for feedback, suggestions and ideas.   We look forward to your comments. Thanks!

Concept

Build a compelling online community engagement platform that is comprised of:

• news and information pulled from traditional news sources
• user-generated content: blogs, photos, wikis entries, etc.
• local event listings
• a directory of local non-profits
• social networking components
• best practices knowledge repository
• idea-sourcing functionality — **this is really the key to the whole thing…. read on…..

1. A traditional and social media marketing campaign encourages individuals, non-profits and corporations to submit community problems through the idea-sourcing tool
2. Citizens vote on the problems to create community priorities
3. The platform’s Community Manager pulls out specific problems to be solved by contest: he/she provides timeframe, requirements and prize information
4. The Community Manager builds buzz and excitement through online community engagement as well as by hosting live, in-person “meetups” that encourage the community’s brightest thinkers and most savvy “do-ers” to connect
5. Individuals come together and form groups that submit their best solutions to win the contest
6. Solutions can either be voted upon by the community or winners can be selected by Community Manager, the platforms’ “Board of Directors,” etc.
7. Winning team executes its solution — another community problem is solved!
8. Solution is well documented and included in the “best practices knowledge repository” that can be leveraged to solve future problems in this and in other communities

Hashtags: bridges between communities

I had an interesting brief chat this morning at eDemocracyCamp with Peter Corbett.  We were talking about the power of hashtags.

Most people don’t yet understand that hashtags are an extremely strategic, powerful and valuable way to inform targeted communities about related concepts, events and topics.

For example, if I am attending eDemocracyCamp and hear or share something that may also be a valuable insight to those currently attending FooCamp, I can co-tag my “#edemcamp” tweet with “#foocamp” to share my comment with Foo Camp attendees.  This not only exposes another entire community to this information nugget, but potentially catalyzes discussion around this topic within that community.  This type of cross-pollination can yield unique and innovative solutions because it infuses a discussion with input from a tangentially-related community who have different assumptions, education and perspectives.

This also, however, brings up the interesting line between using hashtags for good and not for evil.  There is a fine line between informing and marketing.  Misuse of the power of hashtags = spam. Informing and enlightening with hashtags is valuable.  Marketing with hashtags dilutes their value.

The “unorganization” phenomenon

Over the past few weeks I have come across a number of projects and initiatives being led by “unorganizations” — groups of people who come together for a common cause, but who are independent agents and not a formal corporation, organization or association of any sort. 

The first was, of course, the recent unconference that I co-organized, Government 2.0 Camp.  It was important to me from the event’s inception to make sure that it was owned by the people.  By design, the largest sponsorship was $1,000–just 1/20th of the total funds raised–so that no single organization owned the gathering. 

But how do you do business as a non-entity?  Duke Ellington School of the Arts (DESA) required Government 2.0 Camp to sign a standard  contract for use of the venue.The contract was between DESA and Government 2.0 Camp.  I signed the contract, but felt soft of silly doing so, as Government 2.0 Camp wasn’t a formal organization. 

One interesting idea that was suggested by Nancy Faget, an attendee of Government 2.0 Camp, was selling the proceedings from Government 2.0 Camp to a book publisher.  In fact, she claims that two are already interested!  Session leaders and other attendees could author the chapters and the proceeds could fund Government 2.0 Club.  How do you fund a non-entity?  To whom would the publisher write the check? (Yes, in reality, I know we’d form a 501C3 or similar, but the philosophy of this is still a rather intersting conundrum.)

The closing session of Government 2.0 Camp was a brainstorming discussion about creating and formalizing Government 2.0 Club–the and official creator of Government 2.0 Camp.  We were lucky enough to have Chris Heuer, founder of Social Media Club, to guide our discussion and ideas with his experiences from creating and growing Social Media Club.  The difference, however, is that Social Media Club is owned and operated by founders Heuer and Katie Wells.  Our vision for Government 2.0 Club is the embodiment Government 2.0, itself: owned and operated of the people, for the people, by the people.  

A few days after the unconference, my co-organizer, Peter Corbettsent out an summary and wrap-up e-mail to all attendees that directed interested parties to the Government 2.0 Club website for session summaries and other unconference proceedings.  He signed his message “the unmanagement.” 

The “unorganization” phenomenon extends beyond Government 2.0 Camp and Club, however.  I have been working over the past two weeks on a proposal for a community organizing project for a local municipality that is being created, driven and funded by “concerned citizens.”  It’s quite a legitimate initiative led by a number of impressive for-profit and non-profit organizations as well as philanthropic individuals.  I frankly don’t know who will sign the contract or write the checks.  Those are details that someone or some organization will shoulder for the sake of the cause, just as I signed the venue contract for Government 2.0 Camp. 

Another example of “unorganization” made its way across my computer screen earlier this evening and prompted this blog entry: TEA Party Tax Day.  Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the politics of Tax Tea Parties, it’s interesting to note that there is no Organization behind this tremendous grassroots organization.  When you click the About or Contact buttons on the site, you are just brought back to a page that says ”Please see the Help Organize area for the most commonly asked questions and the answers” and enables you to fill out a form for more information or to organize a “tea party” in your area.  I asked a top Hill staffer for more information about this and learned that this initiative really is being run as a collective effort of like-minded tax opponents and is not “owned” by any single organization. 

The challenges of the “unorganization” also remind me a lot of what’s going on right now in the Government 2.0 movement.  Government agencies–especially the General Services Administration–are successfully working through barriers, like Terms of Service challenges, that prohibit them from signing agreements with third party social media service providers, e.g. YouTube.  Issues of indemnification and defense are two barriers cited by the Federal Web Managers’ Council in its December 23, 2008 paper Social Media and the Federal Government: Perceived and Real Barriers and Potential Solutions.  In cryptic non-legal simplification: because the government is owned by the people, it cannot be sued and thus, cannot agree to indemnifya third party.

Why are all of these “unorganizations” popping up?  Collaboration.  As I’ve written about in many previous blog posts, we are in the midst of a major cultural shift from the Broadcast Era in which large media organizations intermediated our information, to the Collaboration Era in which we can have influence that rivals the most watched Superbowl ads.  Individuals + collaboration = game changing ideas.

How will the legal, organizational and philosophical challenges be resolved for and by the increasing number of “unorganizations” that are emerging in the Collaboration Era?

I talked about Government 2.0 Camp on Federal News Radio today

I was honored to be interviewed by Chris Dorobek on Federal News Radio this afternoon. Here’s the clip:

Social Media 101 Presentation

Here is the Social Media 101 presentation that I gave this morning as part of the the Advanced Learning Institute’s Social Media for Government Social Media 101 Pre-Conference Workshop.

Ken Fischer and I then co-led the workshop and he did a great presentation on Information for the Greatest Good. 

I am looking forward to seeing presentations from some of my colleagues and friends over the next two days.  For more conference information, check out the conference site.

A Few Valuable Social Media & Government 2.0 Resources

I just finished up at SXSX in Austin, TX. There was so much amazing content and conversation that it was truly overwhelming. A few sessions that I found particularly noteworthy were: Charlene Li’s talk about The Future of Social Media Networks (Twitter #sxswfsn) and her assertion that social networks will be like air — everywhere and all around us; the Shift Happens: Moving from Words to Pictures panel about the increasing importance data visualization (Twitter #shift); and Guy Kawasaki’s interview of Chris Anderson about Anderson’s new book Free! (Twitter #free).

Last night, in the middle of a SXSW party, I stepped into a quiet backroom at Six Lounge to participate in Adriel Hampton’s first Government 2.0 BlogTalkRadio show.  Despite having to pull myself away from the partying rooftop, it was a great deal of fun to banter with Ari Herzog, Andrea Baker, Jeffrey Levy, Steve Ressler and many others. I think that this show is going to be a great addition to the Government 2.0 discourse.  I encourage you to tune in to the Gov 2.0 show on Sundays at 2 p.m. PST/5 p.m. EST.

Finally, I was so excited to see the launch of the Government Web Content Managers’ Social Media Subcouncil’s social media presence yesterday. Follow them on Twitter at @GovSocMed, check out their wiki and find them on GovLoop.  I remember participating in the Web Content Managers’ quarterly conference call back in October (following a GovDelivery panel) when the Social Media subcouncil was first formed and announced.  I was tweeting to Jeffrey Levy, one of the Subcouncil’s co-chairs, how I was so disappointed that I could not participate on the subcouncil, as I am not a government employee.  He vowed to find ways to get members of the broader Government 2.0 community involved, and it’s wonderful to see that coming to fruition.

The Catch-22 of Collaboration & Social Media

I Need Social Media!
Clients regularly approach MiXT Media Strategies requesting social media help:

• Can you help me set up a Facebook page?   
• How do I “do” Twitter? 
• I want to “use” bloggers to broaden the reach of my marketing campaign—where do I find them?  

These are the wrong questions for two reasons. First, these are the wrong questions because social media is not about the tools and technologies.

“Huh?  What about all of the blogs, social networks, RSS feeds, video-sharing sites, etc.?”

Nope.  Those are tools.  Social media is about the capabilities that these tools enable.  Successful social media starts not with the tools and technologies, but with good, old-fashioned business planning: mission, vision, goals, objectives, strategies. 

Second, these are the wrong questions because they are selfish.  The behaviors and capabilities that social media tools enable are engaging, participatory, relational—social.  They are not something that you “do” to your customers to elicit click-throughs, response rates or sales.

To create a successful social media strategy for your organization, you must first understand social media in context.

What’s Going on Out There
There are two world-changing dynamics in action right now.  First, the proliferation of social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies is fragmenting the communications landscape.  Not only are there now simply more communication choices, but these new tools and technologies enable us to further fine-tune our communications by speed, formality, time and place.  We have myriad choices never before possible.  How we communicate is now as complex as what we communicate. 

Second, we as a culture are emerging from the Broadcast Era and entering the Collaboration Era.  This means a marked change in the way we communicate.  In the Broadcast Era, we pushed information AT our audiences through traditional, one-way media vehicles.  The Collaboration Era brings about a whole new set of capabilities that change our communication expectations.  No longer are people satisfied receiving information, they expect to be able to jump in, engage and be a part of the two-way conversation.  The opportunity to participate in new and meaningful ways is changing us from content consumers to creators, participants, collaborators…communities.

The Opportunity: a Case for Collaboration
Collaboration makes organizations more efficient and more effective.  Organizations that embrace collaborative practices—supported by innovative social media tools and technologies—will decrease costs and increase sales by increasing satisfaction and retention of employees, customers, vendors and partners.

The Challenge: a Catch-22 of Catch-22s
What complicates things is that each of these dynamics, in and of itself, is a Catch-22.

• We can’t understand the benefits of collaboration until we collaborate; and yet we can’t truly collaborate until we understand the benefits of doing so.
• We want to understand the value of social media tools before we invest our time and energy in using them; and yet, we can’t truly understand the value of social media tools until we use them.

What further complicates things is that collaboration and social media tools together create a Catch-22.

• We can’t truly understand the benefits and possibilities of social media tools until we use them to collaborate; and yet we can’t truly understand the benefits of and possibilities for collaboration until we utilize social media tools collaboratively.

collaboration                   social media

The confluence of these two separate but connected Catch-22s presents a solution: the Confluence Process.  Teaching organizations to use social media tools and catalyzing a cultural shift towards collaboration requires a process that manages the interplay between these two dynamics.

The Confluence Process that MiXT Media Strategies has developed enables organizations to use social media tools to learn the value of collaboration while simultaneously engaging in collaboration to understand the full extent of social media tools’ value.

ATK: real-world AFK (away from keyboard)

AFK (away from keyboard) is “in-world” speak for the state of your SecondLife avatar when you’re not operating him/her.  I’ve also heard this state referred to as “asleep” or ”latent.” 

I sought out this terminology a week or so ago when I noticed the opposite phenomenon.  I was with a group of social media cronies  at a conference or happy hour or breakfast and realized that we were the opposite of AFK–ATK: attached to keyboard. 

There was a lull in conversation while we all hung our heads–like sleeping avatars–to tweet, text or type.  We had checked out of the real world and were only existing in the virtual/online world.  In this group, this ATK behavior was completely socially acceptable.  In the technology, social media and web communities, there is an unspoken understanding when you step out of the in-person conversation and go ATK.  It’s almost like we live in a hybrid online-offline world.

However, in the non-tech, regular offline world, going ATK is NOT acceptable.  To your family, colleagues and friends, you may appear as exciting and conversation an avatar that’s AFK.

One point for the newspapers…maybe

I just saw a TV commercial for The New York Times “Weekender” package: Friday, Saturday & Sunday delivery of the newspaper.  The commercial is full of young, hip, professional Gen Xers talking about The New York Times as “the best in journalism” and how excited they were to receive it in the morning.

What I found interesting was the theme and copy of the commercial: “join the conversation.” I found this almost ironic: newspapers are the opidome of the Broadcast Era and about as far from collaborative as I can imagine.  And yet, it made me stop and think. 

In the 20th century, newspapers started conversations: articles you read in the morning were what you talked about at the cocktail party that evening.  Newspapers, indeed, were the conversation catalysts and the organizers of what was “important.”

In the information overload world in which we currently exist, we’re all seeking tools that will help us sift through all of the information.  Many people have told me that they wish there was a service that would just sort through the mess and tell them what they need to know.  

On a side note, my friend Jeremy Brosowsky founded a subscription service called Brijit that did just this: humans read top publications (think The Economist) and created short summaries that subscribers could skim and get the important nuggets. 

Another irony: we want the freedom to identify that which WE deem important, not that which The Media deems important, and yet, we crave authoritative help in sorting through information. We read the articles recommended by those whom we follow on Twitter or that which is blogged about by our colleagues. We are organically identifying our own, personal “editors” of information.  Perhaps this is the difference: we want editorial authority over our list of editors.

So, are Digital Natives craving editors or is this just a vestige for those of us–Digital Immigrants–raised in the Broadcast era?  The answer to this is really the answer to the future of the newspaper industry.  Will the next generation seek information editors or will their user habits throw The New York Times into the recycling bin?

Rethinking community management

I’m at TransparencyCamp today. It’s phenomenal, exciting and overwhelming.  I participated in a great session this afternoon before lunch called “Drinking from the fire hose: how is a community manager to handle citizen participation in the Web 2.0 age?’  Here are some of my thoughts inspired by this session.

Social media is not about joining THE conversation, it’s about joining the conversationSSSSSS.  Today’s social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies make communications so easy and quick that there are an infinite number of conversations about an infinite number of topics going on within, outside and about any given organization.  No ONE spokesperson or team of spokespeople can handle this fire hose. 

It’s not so much about changing or even more efficiently using communication  tools as it is about changing the architecture of organizational communication.  We are used to a broadcast communication model in which organizations speak AT people.  We need to change this to a collaborative model in which the people within organizations speak WITH one another and WITH people outside the organization.

The only way to really manage this fire hose, then, is to empower everyone within an organization to participate and communicate.  If we do this right, the “community manager” role ultimately becomes obsolete because communication and public affairs becomes a decentralized.  Community relations/public affairs/customer service needs to move from being a vertical department to being a horizontal function within an organization.

In this collaborative communications model, organizations would deputize everyone to be conversationalists–a.k.a spokespeople–for the organization.  This is preferable because:

1. It enables the content experts to speak for themselves rather than having public affairs or customer service mouthpieces speaking on their behalf. 
2. It empowers people to participate in the conversation and, by doing so, catalyze innovation and new thinking

This raises a number of challenges, of course.  Here are a few:

1. Not all content experts are comfortable with or good at creating conversations, collaborating and participating in dialogue. 
2. This changes the role of public affairs/communications leaders from spokespeople to trainers–this requires a different skill set and interest set. 
3. This fragments the conversation, thereby increasing the potential for toe-stepping as there are increased areas of overlap.

Changing the community management paradigm has an equally-important counterpart.  Not only do we need to reinvent how the organization engages with its communities, but we also need to change the model and expectations of constituent involvement. 

In the case of government, citizen engagement would ultimately be a little part of everyone’s responsibility and civic life, driven not by coercion, but rather by personal interest and motivation.  To make this real and valuable we’d need to change people’s expectations from people asking questions to receive an answer, to people asking questions as a way to engage, participate and problem solve.

Which is the Cause, Which the Effect?

I’m here at the WeMedia conference today and tomorrow in Miami, FL. You can check out the Twitterfeed for #wemedia.

There are great discussions going on here about the future of our country and world, communications, collaboration and media.  I’ll share with you some of the concepts and thoughts here.  Not the most coherent blog post I’ve done, but I just wanted to get down some of the ideas.

————–

One concept that’s been presented is that it’s now the “end of apathy” thanks to emerging social media tools and technologies.  However, as I think about this, I’m not sure which is the cause and which is the effect, so here’s what I’ve come up with:

• chicken : egg :: apathy : tools that enable action

Tools that enable collaboration and innovation would not be created with out the desire to collaborate and innovate.  And yet, without the tools and platforms for collaboration and innovation across time & place, these behaviors are not maximized.

—————

In the morning sessions, Dale Peskin presented an Agenda for Smart Capitalism:

• outcomes not income
• connections not transactions
• people not products
• creativity not productivity

At lunchtime, I had an interesting discussion with some folks who were slightly rubbed the wrong way by the political agenda of this conference/conference organizers.  Their assertion: most everything presented this morning supported a liberal agenda.  Objectively, when you look at the case studies presented, this is pretty much true. 

My question, however: is this a cause or effect?  Is it that the innovative application of social media tools & collaborative concepts are primarily coming out of organizations with liberal agendas OR that liberal agendas are more likely to think differently and therefore embrace collaborative and innovative tools to solve their problems?

Have you seen the Government 2.0 Camp Field Guide?

We had a great Government 2.0 Camp volunteers meeting this past Sunday.  Everyone left with lots of motivation and excitement that yielded great tweets, blog posts and….the Government 2.0 Camp Field Guide!

This video, recorded by my co-organizer, Peter Corbett, explains what an unconference is, how an unconference works and what you need to do to come prepared and get the most out of your participation.

Less Ironic

Per my post below entitled Government Irony, Transition 2009 reduced their ticket price today to $495… getting closer….

Government Irony

So, back in October 2008, I received a “save the date” e-mail from my alma mater, Georgetown University, about Transition 2009, a conference by The School of Continuing Studies that would be taking place soon after the inauguration of now President Barack Obama.  I selected the “learn more” option and signed up to receive e-mail updates as more information became available. 

Sure enough, a few weeks ago, I received the official conference announcement and invitation.  Transition 2009 will held at the National Press Club, February 12 & 13.  I clicked the” “register now” button which took me to the conference website.  I entered my name and other contact information and then stopped short: the cost for Transition 2009 is $895 — despite the fact that it’s sponsored by Georgetown, Politico and the Press Club (?).  Too much for me to justify to myself or to my government clients. 

So, I e-mailed the conference to find out if they were offering any unpublicized government rates.  I received a simple and polite e-mail in response:

Maxine,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Transition 2009 Conference presented to you by Georgetown University. 

Unfortunately, we are not offering a government rate on tickets to attend the event.  However, we do hope that you will strongly consider registering for this exciting conference. 

Please visit www.guconferences.com to register.

Regards,

The Transition 2009 Conference Team

Bummer.  A conference about our government’s transition to a new administration and no special rates are being offered to encourage attendance by those whom this will affect the most, those who will be implementing the new policies, those who understand and can speak to the challenges of old and new processes –those IN the government.

This is too often the case for conference producers.  Thank goodness Government 2.0 Camp is an option…

Government 2.0 Camp is happening!

Per a conversation that started here on my blog, I am pleased to announce that I (in partnership with Mark Drapeau and Peter Corbett and in cooperation with Jeffrey Levy) have, indeed, decided to move forward and initiate a Government 2.0 Camp unconference.  It will take place in DC, March 27-28, 2009. 

This is a 100% participant-planned, not-for-profit event that will bring together the leading thinkers from government, academia and industry to share Government 2.0 initiatives that are already in process and to collaborate about leveraging social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more efficient and effective government-Government 2.0.

The unconference format embodies these same collaborative principles as our nation’s democracy-of the people, by the people, for the people-and thus, is the ideal structure for the topic of Government 2.0.  This event is a tremendous opportunity to practice what we preach and create something better collectively than we could individually

Your interest in social media and understanding of government 2.0 principles would be a tremendous asset to this event.  Please get involved in planning Government 2.0 Camp.

To learn more, sign up for Government 2.0 Camp, and help to plan this event, visit the event wiki.

Officially register for Government 2.0 Camp on Eventbrite

Participate in Government 2.0 Camp on Facebook

Follow Government 2.0 Camp on Twitter

 ——————————————————————-

Government 2.0 Camp is the inaugural event of Government 2.0 Club, a newly-launched national organization that creates opportunities for government, academia and industry to share ideas and solutions for leveraging social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies to create a more collaborate, efficient and effective government. 

To participate in the ongoing discussion about Government 2.0 and to find out about future Government 2.0 events, visit Government 2.0 Club.

Join Government 2.0 Club on Facebook

Join Government 2.0 Club on GovLoop     

I look forward to working on this with you and other influential members of the Government 2.0 community.  Please pass the word onto others whom you believe should be involved. Thanks so much.

Peter Kim Calls it Social Business

Per my last blog post, I’ve been grappling with the contradiction between “marketing” and “social media.”  Though usually viewed as a progression from old to new, the terms more often seem like opposites to me.

Today I read and commented on Peter Kim’s blog post, “It’s Time to Transform.” I couldn’t agree more with his assessment of the need to change the way we do business and think about our organizations. I really like the term “social business” as a way to explain the critical cultural shift that organizations must embrace. Read Peter’s post (and my comments!).

Becoming a Truth Organization

What we refer to as “social media” really has very little to do with media.  Media –from cameras to demographics–is a set of filters.  Filters obscure the truth by focus as well as by omission.

Social media strips away the filters upon which content shops–news organizations, marketing consultancies, ad agencies and PR firms–have relied over the past century, and brings us Truth.  Sure, sometimes social media yields too much information and sometimes it’s the cold, hard truth, but its products and processes are raw and authentic, nonetheless.

So, it’s interesting then, that traditional marketers, advertisers and PR folks, are jockeying to stake claim as social media stewards.  From my perspective social media and marketing are not so much the same as they are different.  In fact, I’d posit that social media marketing is truly the opposite of traditional marketing. 

When I speak to clients and audiences about the importance of social media, I first talk about the cultural shift that social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies are catalyzing.  Our culture is shifting from one of facades–advertising, messaging, “spin”–to one of Truth.  The first rule of the blogosphere is “HATs off”: honest, authenticity and transparency.  LonelyGirl15 and the Walmarting Across America were early examples of misuse of social media and why Truth is paramount.

But a good portion of traditional marketers still don’t view social media this way.  Rather, they view it as another set of rich distribution channels through which to send carefully crafted messages.   (It’s not a surprise that social media has gotten all tangled up with marketing.  This likely stems from “social media” being a misnomer.)  Successful social media strategies must start not with marketing, but with introspection. 

The cultural shift towards Truth and collaboration must be felt, understood and embraced by an organization before it can truly sucessfully leverage social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies.  The organization that understands social media first as cultural shift will see why social media is more akin to business strategy, organizational change and strategic partnerships than to marketing. PR and advertising.  That, is the Truth.

Is Twitter replacing your RSS?

More and more, I find myself  checking Twitter when I’m waiting at traffic lights, in line at the grocery store or killing time when a meeting begins five minutes late. 

I realized that though Google Reader is technically just as accessible via my PDA, checking it while on-the-go is not my user habit.  It feels cumbersome and too complicated (in depth?) for those quick on-the-go moments. I am not sure, however, whether this is a function of the interface or of the content, itself.

I wondered if others have the same user habit, so I threw out a tweet this morning asking:

 mixtmedia: When you’re out & about, do you check your RSS reader or Twitter more regularly? Is it a function of the interface or the content? 

 

I received some interesting and surprisingly consistent responses, with two main summary points:

1. Twitter content is the mobile news of preference; RSS requires more time, focus and pixels
2. iPhone and other mobile apps make Twitter an easier on-the-go resource than RSS readers 

Thanks Twitter friends (below) for your responses!

 

 guyma: @mixtmediadepends on situation – if waiting for something or someone, I’ll pull out iPhone to check RSS or Twitter. Helps me stay aware.

 biznickman: @mixtmediaI check my Twitter when I’m out … not my RSS feed since it’s unreadble on my phone and I can’t save pages I liked 

   mrscarpediem: @mixtmedia- I check more when I’m out. It’s an app on my iPhone so it gives me something to do standing in lines, etc.  

  gregcangialosi: @mixtmediaI definitely check twitter more often on the go using Twitterific, over my RSS. Its quicker, easier, and often interesting   

girluninterrupt: @mixtmediaI check Twitter, Brightkite, loopt and Facebook constantly. Thanks to iPhone apps!

ericaholt: @mixtmediaOn the go? I check Twitter more often from my smartphone than G Reader, which I mostly read when I’ve got more than a minute  

 EndTheRoboCalls: @mixtmediaI seem to spend more time on Twitter these days. It is substituting for RSS readers…. without me realizing it.  

 Marc_Meyer: @mixtmediaits more a function of the moment and the opprtunity.. rss when its major downtime versus twitter on the go

 

 

The Fallacy of Opacity

Do you remember the game show “Let’s Make a Deal“ from the ’70s?

Basically contestants had to choose between the “deal” that was presented to them by the emcee and what was behind “curtain #1,” or #2 or #3…

Now even though they knew they could end up with 150 jars of peanut butter or a gaggle of geese, most of the time, the contestants went for it and took the “deal.”

For some reason what was behind curtain #1 seemed more valuable because it was hidden.  This is what I call the Fallacy of Opacity: we tend to believe that what is hidden is more valuable. 

However, this is, in fact, not a truth, but a fallacy.  Though we’ve seen it disproved millions of times on Let’s Make a Deal and in real life, alike, we continue to believe that what’s hidden is more valuable.

Why? Because we confuse it with its inverse which IS actually true: what’s valuable tends to be hidden, protected, locked in a vault.

Social media tools and technologies are challenging this assumption and encouraging us to share that which is most valuable. To those of us who are not Digital Natives, this mindshift is tough to make and even tougher to put into practice.  

Remember, sharing information enables collaboration and collaboration yields better solutions.  Hidden information is not, in fact, more valuable — that’s just the Fallacy of Opacity.

Will Twitter Kill the Holiday Card?

I spent way too much time this weekend gathering snail mail addresses for the 250 (!) family photo holiday cards that we ordered and obligated ourselves to send.  As I e-mailed address requests to a few friends and contacts for whom I didn’t have up-to-date info, I wondered why the heck we were doing this in the first place.  Why is it, in this day and age of digital communications, are holiday cards still the cultural norm?

My husband and I philosophized about this as we stamped and licked, with our kids zooming around us playing “roar” — a chasing game in which they simply run after one another and “roar.”  In our grandparents’ generation, people “visited” one another at this time of year. They’d stop by one another’s houses on a Saturday or Sunday, have tea and cake and spend time with friends and extended family.  This practice is frowned upon today in our busy culture where time is sometimes more valued that family…. 

Holiday cards are the mid-20th century’s vestige of the previous era’s “visiting” custom. They are a once-a-year opportunity to show off our families, and thus ourselves, to our geographically scattered friends.  Holiday cards, to some extent, satiate our needs for holidayconnection, family showcasing and sharing our holiday spirit.

But, we’re now in the increasingly-digital 21st century.  When will the 20th century holiday card custom become extinct and what will replace it? 

E-cards are starting to gain traction for birthdays, especially when Plaxo reminds us to send them.  Evites are quickly overtaking invites for parties and events.  But, nonetheless, the hard-copy holiday card prevails. Its  digital counterpart still seems cheesy and lacks authenticity, even in an era when our hands ache when we have to write a four-sentence handwritten thank you note but when we “Blackberry” and “text” like player pianos. 

Then in the midst of pasting, sticking and stamping, I got a Twitter direct message, or “DM,” from blogger and social media consultant extraordinaire, Craig Stoltz (@craigstoltz), informing me about a post he’d just written entitled, “New Use for Twitter: End-of-Year Family Update Letters.”  I encourage you to read Craig’s post yourself, but the basic premise is that tweeting our year-in-review letters might be a better tact for both sender and recipient. 

I love his idea and encourage you all to use the hashtag that I’ve created based on Craig’s post: #YIR (stands for Year-In-Review) and tweet YOUR year-in-review. 

Despite the 250 hard copy holiday cards for 2008, here’s my #YIR:

What if Obama’s Work Progress projects were digital?

“The country demands bold, persistent experimentation. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something!”

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

There have been a number of news articles over the past week, e.g. CBS News’ FDR’s New Deal Blueprint For Obama, that liken Obama’s economic recovery plan to the Work Progress Administration (WPA) founded as part of FDR’s New Deal in 1933. 

Some details and background about WPA from Chip Reid’s piece for CBS News:

The WPA lasted 8 years, from 1935 to 1943, and left a mark on America that is still visible today. It spent $11 billion dollars, employed eight and a half million people.

New roads were built – 650,000 miles of them. And new airports, including New York City’s Laguardia Airport.

But it wasn’t just about things. The public school lunch program got its start with WPA dollars.

“Attendance increased,” Taylor said. “It was something that raised the health of the country.”

FDR thought people needed places for recreation. So, the WPA repaired and enlarged the national park system, but Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins, the man who headed the WPA, knew there was more to life than bricks and mortar.

“The great thing that Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins recognized was that it made no sense whatsoever to take an excellent violin player and put him to work building a road,” Taylor said. “He could provide, or she could provide, entertainment to people. And enlightenment! And that’s why the WPA had an umbrella over arts projects as well as construction.”

In 1941, Woody Guthrie was paid to write songs for a month as he visited the new dams under construction along the Columbia River in Washington State.

The WPA financed 225,000 concerts, with audiences of 150 million Americans. Actors appeared in stage productions all over the country. Artists painted murals on countless public buildings, like those at LaGuardia’s Marine Air Terminal in New York.

The WPA financed almost a half-million pieces of art. Some are on display at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington.

Much of what Obama is proposing–building infrastructure, roads, bridges, schools, transportation systems, green technologies, etc.–replicates FDR’s infrastructure improvements (not sure about the arts expansion…).  I’m not bringing this up to start a political discussion about whether there should be a New Deal 2 or how large a stimulus package Congress should actually agree to–that’s a completely different debate for a different set of bloggers or politicians.  My interest here is in why Obama wants to allocate these funds–75 years later–just as FDR did in 1933?

Today’s world is dramatically different, namely, we are a connected society that has all information available at our fingertips.  Expanding and improving brick and mortar infrastructure and access to traditional entertainment–though truly necessary in many parts of our nation–at the same time sounds a bit like a throwback from a previous era. 

So the question that I have for Obama is this: what are and should be today’s, 21st century, Work Progress project equivalents?  What capabilities and skill sets could Obama leverage to simultaneously strengthen morale, our economy, and our American culture for today,  just as Roosevelt attempted to do in the 30′s and into the 40′s?  What does digital work progress look like?

Social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies are enabling innovation in ways and scale never before possible.  Connected individuals and organizations are collaboratively solving problems and creating products, services and processes that are transforming our country in awe-inspiring ways.

Though improvements and construction of physical roads and bridges are certainly still critical for our country, Obama might find that investing in virtual roads, bridges, educational solutions and information transportation systems that leverage the tremendous power of social networking can have exponential return-on-investment.

New eMarketer Social Network Marketing Report

eMarketer just released a new report entitled, “Social Network Marketing: Slow Growth Ahead for Ad Spending.”  It’s an expensive for-pay report ($695), so I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing, but I just wanted to share with you the synopsis.   I agree with the overall premise that impactful social network marketing is not going to be about banner advertising.

The Social Network Marketing report analyzes why marketers have been unable to crack the code of social network advertising.

The declining US economy and slower-than-expected revenue growth at MySpace are two reasons for the lowered near-term social network ad forecasts.

Advertising is not the only way for marketers to participate in social networks, however.

Although social network advertising—banners, search ads and new ad formats—is not growing as expected, other forms of social network marketing—encompassing tactics such as customer communities and influencer outreach—are proliferating.

Marketers still need to be where their customers are, and consumers remain heavily involved in social networks.

It’s good to see that marketers are realizing that traditional advertising on social nets is not the way that social marketing works.  However, the last line, “Marketers still need to be where their customers are, and consumers remain heavily involved in social networks” keeps me wondering . . .

Showing up and being there is not only not enough, it misses the point: social networks are about engagement, participation  and collaboration.  Being where your customers are is like trying to pick up a gal at a bar through just by standing  in the corner and hoping she notices you.  Come on Romeo, roll up your sleeves, slick back your hair and buy the gal a drink!

U.S. Premiere Screening of Government 2.0 Film — update

So, I heard back promptly from Hugh Hartford at Banyak Films.  They are very interested in and open to having the U.S. premiere of Us Now at the Government 2.0 unconference–yay!  This will be a great addition.

Related to this, but not dependent upon this, I AM planning move forward with the Government 2.0 unconference idea.  I really appreciate all of the positive feedback that I’ve received and look forward to working with you all to create an unforgetable collaborative event.  I plan to have a wiki up by early January.