Without a Yard

So here’s the Facebook‘ed cut’n'paste from the cut’n'thrust from the demo-discussion (name removed to protect the innocent).  Some interesting ideas incubating this week, probably as a result of last week’s blowout.  Thinking more about the public consultation process, using digital tools to drive grassroots participation, citizen engagement & how to build better public consultation forums.  But I digress - this is pure politics below.  Comments welcome

Subject: Twitter
Between You and JohnD’Oh

JohnD’Oh
December 5 at 5:31pm

I tried d replying on Twitter, but you’re not following me!

My $0.02:
- I disagree with the coalition. When I cast my ballot for the NDP, it was precisely because I didn’t want to vote for Stephan Dion. Their “62% majority” is counting me as though I support the coalition.

- I disagree with the GG’s decision to suspend parliament. Her role is to let parliament fight it out, and not interfere.

- I think it’s irresponsible and somewhat childish to be doing this at a time when we all need parliament to actually do some real work.

- I’m a little sick of the endless chatter on the news and radio. More talk isn’t going to get things moving

… and if an election were to be called right now, I’d switch from the NDP to the Conservatives.

So whats this event you’re organizing? Sounds interesting.

JohnD’Oh
—-
Meghan Warby
December 7 at 11:16am

Hey! I just clicked follow yesterday - sorry about that! Can I blog about this? May I use your email with or without attribution - it’s a great jumping off point….

I see your point of view on how the coalition was not an ideal governance path for many Canadians, however I respectfully point out that if you disagree with the GG choosing prorogation over a vote (’fight it out’), which would inevitably lead to a coalition-led non confidence motion/dissolution, that you are now entering cake having & eating mode. We elected a parliament, not a president & that parliament, if left to ‘fight it out’ was prepared to execute a plan they negotiated among three parties to govern.

As for ‘childish’ actions - that’s an at-times-fair but trite & over-used accusation dismissing politicians’ motivations. It is childish (or naive) to believe that you can affect change aligning yourself with an organization anchored in a set of values, policies & actions - these politicos should be duke-ing it out mano-a-mano on Bay Street, right? Or putting aside their differences & working to solve a stalemate through a coalition, oh, wait, that’s what was proposed. I’ve never joined a political party, but I was a card-carrying member of innumerable crunchy-granola-eating-hackey-sack-playing organizations when I was a teenager - I mailed hundreds of dollars to NGOs in mini-increments to contribute to causes in which I believed, wrote letters, organized events - pretty childish to think that I could make a difference, huh?

However, I feel that childish is a fair description of two policy pronouncements - taunting political parties by threatening to remove public funding ($30M per year= a lot of rubber chicken) & an additional jab with a threat to remove the right to strike from public sector workers (why should someone’s employer determine their labour rights so long as they are not providing emergency services or other classifications that have already been laid out provincially?). Outside of the blissfully ignorant economic statement, with conveniently oblivious assertions that we will not run a deficit, these two policies were too much to stomach & assaulted the core beliefs of left-leaning parties, and also a natural (some say crass…) self-preservation instinct for the parties’ administration.

& THIS is what really, really bothers me about blase political critics - feigned exhaustion.

I’m NOT sick of the chatter because it serves to refresh, remind & re-educate Canadians of the machinery - the basics - of our political system. People toss off phrases like ‘plead the fifth’ mindlessly without knowing that in OUR COUNTRY this means that Parliament sets out the MPs’ powers & immunities & it in no way relates to keeping mum after an arrest! Rallies, web campaigns, blogs - this is not just ’static’ - people have woken from a paralyzing coma that engulfed them during an (admittedly) tepid political campaign & (thanks to ‘chatter’) recognize the power of Parliament. This is empowering, should be encouraged & fuels more ‘chatter’ - it is incumbent upon citizen journalists & mass media outlets to air divergent opinions on the future of our government, because it directly impacts our quality of life & reputation abroad.

I will not even TOUCH the logic(?) behind your threat to ‘punish’ the NDP by voting Tory in the next election.

I will, however, buy you a beverage of your choice (maybe this deserves 2) at an upcoming event, since I’ve unloaded my nerdy enthusiasm for all things political on your unsuspecting inbox.

Your fan,
Meegs

Rediscovering CBC Radio3 couldn’t have come at a better time…mentally & work-ily preparing for the trek back to Canuckistan.  Like a good little borderline OCD nerd, I’ve got a zillion notes & links & half-finished thoughts & nutty schemes that I’m eager to launch.  Need to take a step back & synthesise all the thoughtful answers, interesting case studies & inspiring organizations I’ve encountered over the past two weeks & puree that into some coherent thematically-linked presentation.  Yeah.  Easy.

Well, my colleague Boyd makes it LOOK easy - he has a lovely post on his Intangibles Blog here after attending a lecture by Rahaf Harfoush (Obama social networking/new media strategist) at U of T’s Rotman School of Management.

Boyd’s takeaways beyond Rahaf’s presentation - in brief:
1.  SocMedia platform should improve intimacy among your audience
2.  Integrate, integrate, integrate
3. No off-the-shelf social media solutions
4.  Find the digital sweet spot but prize agility

Would like to add my 2-cents/4-points after a two-week-pre-inauguration-navel-gazing-immersion-course (parantheses-&-hyphens-a-plenty, of course…):

1.  If you build it, they won’t all come, so deal with it - MyBO.com had significant membership (2M, & whether it was a ‘true’ social network prompted a cool debate during a meeting in DC…), but the BO team wasn’t so arrogant as to think that MyBO would supplant a robust presence on existing, popular social networks.  BlackPlanet, MiGente, Hi5, MySpace, Twitter, Eons, Facebook (Esp. ‘Facebook Connect’ w/ MyBO.com application broadcasting actions into NewsFeed), you name it, BO was there (16 sites total, over 5M external site ‘friends’).  (Bitter aside: If the Dean crew had a YouTube channel to leverage in 2004 & hadn’t been, essentially, forced to create DeanTV, it would have been a different ballgame…)

2.  ‘Social Objects’ are more relevant than the networks themselves.  To blatantly rip off TX’n transplant-guru Hugh, our intentions online isn’t to have a solitary experience - it’s to find a human, collaborative, shared space.  BO was successful because *he* became a social object - AntiBushites/Progressives/DeclaredDems/Disaffected*InsertGroupHere* name-dropped BO, & later co-opted his name, image, video clips, iPod playlists, history, narrative, quotes, & everything he represented/touched to coalesce as a group.

3. ( or 2.a)?) Build a digital infrastructure rooted in #1 & #2 - which means developing easy, slick, compelling prompts, apps, sites & materials to grow your audience, on all platforms.  Ex-1. BO’s iPhone app had a two-front visceral halo effect - physically people gather around someone as they demo it on their phone & are then compelled to ask its owner to email them (or vice-versa - people receive content from the app & want to watch it ‘in person/at work’).  Ex-2. Self-starting enthusiasts didn’t wait for permission to help/advocate/volunteer from campaign HQ via MySpace & Facebook - this is unprecedented from a political standpoint & generally with overall advocacy work via NGOs, etc.

4.  And Then? To defy assertions made in this seminal film, there must be an ‘and then.’  BO supporters were happy to take on the campaign gruntwork - logistically & organizationally - now they’re eager to share ideas. How can we use online collaborative tools to improve contact with government officials, link like-minded organizations, create more effective/efficient coalitions & crowd-source solutions?  How can we take advantage of the innumerable free tools, enthusiastic & skilled users eager to contribute?  First step - embrace transparency, design cleaner interfaces for data accessibility & farm-out raw data to organizations that can better organize/mashup/display what is public information.

Shrapnel

• Facebook sprawls:  10M of its 30M users are 30+ years old, 3.3M are 40+ (FB Ads Data) - BO had 3.2M fans & there were 5.4M ‘I Voted’ Americans on E-Day
• Hugh is true: “People respond to genuine social gestures instead of being bombarded with messages.”
• This was the first election cycle where *boomers* were comfortable passing on political information online.  Even if a boomer wasn’t on Facebook, their email list makes them ’21st century political pamphleteers’ - (phrase h/t to Andrew Rasiej, Personal Democracy Forum)
• To quote the first TV Pres, JFK, “Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.” Successful online strategies require the equivalent of successful field strategies - research, manpower, accurate demographics, compelling content and a charismatic leader (or social object).
  

Feeling like Eloise holed up in a nice hotel for this long.  Due to scheduling conflicts & miscellaneous foils, two of today’s interviews (eHealth comms pioneer & architect of major NGO’s digital strategy/re-weblaunch) were over the phone.  Produced very enlightening conversations nonetheless (made for easier note taking/furious non-eye-contact-typing, too).  Wrapped the day chatting in SoHo, visiting a collaborate social network for artists that’s taking community management/user engagement to the next level, growing exponentially & moving forward with innovative & useful (not just bright’n’shiny) tools for their ‘uber-users’ to beta test before full rollout.

One theme tied these very diverse chats together - know your user.  SurprisingEx. Mobile platform adaptation/adoption was not a huge concern for 2/3 interviewees because: 1) they’ve got bigger fish to fry; 2) their pool of users aren’t online via mobile devices & 3) it doesn’t serve the fundamental goals of the org.

All three organizations invested time tracking metrics, studying demographics and soliciting feedback to develop a very good sense of who they were/needed to reach.

The three organizations varied in size, scope & shape bigtime.  The largest, a more advocacy-focused NGO that’s registered over 300K members in its 70 years, is challenged by numerous offices mounting different campaigns & de-bureaucratizing/un-siloing an old-school site.  Engaging staff at all levels to adopt/accept a new web philosophy is a work in progress.  Shared colleague Collin’s phrase ‘Return on Intention’ to echo the interviewee’s explaining to colleagues that “the ‘front page’ is not nearly as important as you think it is in terms of findability or navigation.”  No doubt it’ll take many eAdvocates awhile, especially if they’re in older organizations with massive press-release-filled sites, to successfully proselytize the virtues of caring about the other ROI.

Will be publishing a white-paper-style presentation after the meetings this month, leaning against developing one-post write ups for each interview, too, it already lives in GoogleDocs, couldn’t hurt to publish mini vignettes, I just don’t want to create a siloed monolitic brutal web1.0 site of my own…

Hm.  What do you think I should do?