@Nate Berg, over at the Atlantic Cities wrote a great piece detailing the growth in usage of social media in the public sector. I highly recommend it
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2011/12/social-media-avalanche-mayors-office/780/
Interesting enough though this article ties into yesterday's post regarding the City of LA's new shoddy website.
The biggest problem cities have regarding real engagement and social platforms, is that people can turn negative really quickly. Rather than address the negative criticism with vigor and tact like any other brand (See Apple iPhone 4 AntennaGate, the Jawbone UP, etc.) cities think they can just shut down the account and all the problems will go away. Fact is, they can't. Cities need to understand they are a BRAND and Social Media works only when its an input and output. Hate to break it to Stu Loeser, but twitter and Facebook aren't just another version of a 311 line.
In New York, the city’s 311 information hotline receives 30,000 to 60,000 calls a day, according to Stu Loeser, press secretary for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. By analyzing these calls, Loeser and the mayor’s staff of about 50 are able to identify the biggest issues and focus on addressing them. A huge screen in city hall keeps real-time information on the calls coming in, and ranks the top complaints. Bloomberg also receives some of these sorts of complaints and service requests on his Twitter account (201,000 followers) and an official Mayor’s Office account (58,000 followers). Loeser says that legitimate requests or complaints through these media are given the same attention. “If it’s a different version of everyone calling 311 or the mayor’s press office to voice displeasure on a piece of legislation, it’s treated in the same way,” Loeser says.
Sorry Stu Loeser, this attitude doesn't work and won't cut it. Social platforms work because they actively promote their message and brand to audiences all day long. Cities need to realize that they are no longer just competing with other cities for attention, they are competing against big brands like Nike, Apple, Zappos, Amazon, and even Lady Gaga. Speaking of Lady Gaga, this is her social media strategy; http://www.mindjumpers.com/blog/2011/06/edge-of-glory/, which is all about trying to actively engage audiences and create a brand that consumers and customers want to engage with.
Cities, need to realize they need to do the same, and that filtering through comments and lumping it together with other traditional input methods (311, letters to the mayor, etc.) is not only wrong but its an injustice to taxpayers. This begs the question, why do cities use this lazy and passive method for dealing with social media rather than using these platforms to elevate existing services?
While the article makes it easy for us to applaud cities like Newark, which realize the content provided through social platforms are invaluable;
The City of Newark’s Twitter account has about 5,000 followers, and Torres says the comments and questions from people are split about 50/50 between complaints and praise. What’s becoming more common, she says, is people tweeting pictures of graffiti or vacant properties in hopes of getting the city to take action. “That to us is extremely useful. You can’t pay for that,” Torres says.
it's still not good enough, because the City of Newark still misses the concept;
But while some of these issues can be solved relatively quickly – a tree down or a street that hasn’t had its snow plowed – others, like a derelict house breeding crime, can’t be handled right away. The instant gratification of online communication doesn’t really line up with these sorts of longer-term problems.
instant gratification is not what people want. Residents and people want ENGAGEMENT! Engagement is the most important component for Cities to utilize when trying to leverage social platforms. But instead, cities are still using the same old excuse of;
“I just don’t have the time to monitor all this stuff,” Piper says.
which is code in Oakland for, "I don't have enough resources, because I'm only one person (who is getting paid higher wages than most social media community managers at marketing firms) to do my job correctly between 7am and 5pm." Or cities can also follower Piper's example and just shut down the communication channel because they're seeing criticism.
As the Occupy protests heated up in late October, Piper says the tide of communication reached “tsunami proportions.” Staying up-to-date on every wall post and tweet – and responding or deleting particularly offensive comments – was becoming unrealistic for one person. The easy option was to simply close the Facebook fan page that had been the main target of much of the negative commenting.
Maybe Piper should learn how to actually engage rather than just try to make sure only favorable comments appear on the Mayor's wall. Either way, the tides are turning, people in general are expecting better feedback and response from brands that have an online presence (especially taxpayers who deserve it, because they're forced to pay for it). Whether cities are willing to due their part and serve their constituents adequately or still just try to hide behind the old excuses of resources is still to be seen.
Seeing chop jobs like this is very upsetting. Seeing it from a government agency that is funded by taxpayer money makes it even more infuriating, because it begs the question…who is this website for? Is it for the residents, because if it is they don't do a great job making it easily accessible thru mobile browsers. Is it for the consultant that has been hired to design this shoddy piece of work? Or is it for the Mayor of LA and his Staff so that he is highlighted and looks great? From the looks of it we can eliminate the goal of creating a useful website for residents.
