Technology has continued to improve the Internet and the Internet continues to change us; the millions of people connected to it. Over the past 10 years we've seen huge improvements in web technology and I'd suggest this has resulted in the rise of people power.

Internet reach

As an early adopter, I had access to the Internet at home long before the work place. Since then, its reach has extended from home, to work (or in some cases the reverse) and now to smartphones and iPads. You can carry the Internet in your pocket! And many do: there's an estimated 1.5 billion 3G handsets out there.

Websites have changed beyond recognition

Ubiquitous broadband, mega-pixel screens, improved browser technologies and sophisticated software developments have all combined to change today's web experience beyond recognition. Here's a couple of examples:

1. Apple's homepage 10 years ago
2. BBC's homepage 10 years ago

The Internet delivers a richer visual environment but it's not a passive broadcast space like TV. Many Internet users expect some degree of 2-way interaction, especially the generation that grew-up with it — Generation-Y. The Internet didn't replace TV in the sense that it gave more of the same, but it has equaled if not replaced the TV as the medium by which Values and Opinions are transmitted. And because it's a 2-way medium, the bigger voice is the audience not the broadcaster. And this simple numerical superiority has led to the rise of People Power.

What fuels People Power?

In a word: ideas. You might have thought I would say: social media! No, it's ideas that resonate and reach millions of readers in near real-time that has promoted People Power to king of the hill. Social Media is the meeting space where ideas are shaped and formed, where they gain inertia and are given momentum. Social media is the catalyst of change.

The new dynamic

Governments and organisations are aware of the power social media can exert upon them. Unlike advertising campaigns which were carefully constructed, impeccably timed and designed to travel in the top-down direction, *ideas* are expressed in the reverse, bottom-up direction. They arrive without notice and packaged in a transparent container labeled *brutally honest*.

To play or not?

Some organisations worry about participating in social media. To not is no longer an option. It would be as absurd as not having a website or phone system but to play brings introduces its own issues. Direct and public feedback has a subtle way of enforcing quality of service and/or product — audiences trust the values and opinions of their peers. If your organisation is trustworthy, open and proudly stakes its reputation to all it says and does online it's likely to do well. If reputation is what you worry about and the idea of playing in the social media space keeps you up at night, your audiences will be talking about you anyway. Sooner or later, you'll have to join the party.

What is the fuel of change?

Ideas that resonate with people get carried on channels such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter. When there's a strong desire to change something, anything from a poor service that's affected thousands to an oppresive regime that's affected millions, these ideas gain momentum and are given velocity.

The fuel of change = problem + idea + social media + will

In August 2009 I wrote Power to the People. And the trend continues: thanks to the power of social media, global power bases continue to slide from top-down to bottom-up. Any government or organisation that hasn't kept pace with popular sentiment, wants and wishes will find themselves on the wrong end of 140 characters and that's proving a dangerous place to be!

The current uprising in Egypt is further evidence: the threat to Mubarak and government being so great that Internet access and mobile networks has been shutdown for days. Social media power houses Google and Twitter have fought back. Protesters can now call these numbers: +16504194196 , +390662207294, +97316199855 and their voice messages can be found here: http://www.twitter.com/#/speak2tweet. All those naysayers that doubted power is shifting to the people may need to reconsider their views.

1. http://xjg.co/gR25Mk — the speak2tweet twitter feed
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12332850
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12331520
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12341554

I've been thinking about this WEM stuff (Web Engagement Management). And I want to know more: what is it? and who's it for? 5 May 2010, Brice Dunwoodie defined WEM this way on CMS Wire's website.

The 5 Pillars of WEM

Web Engagement Management is a composite concept. These are the 5 parts we consider its core:

1. Content Optimization
   This include native or tightly integrated analytics, content and experience personalization, multi-variate testing and optimization and SEO.
2. Multi-channel Management
   Consistency is important and WEM maintains it by delivering the same message/experience to customers across devices and channels both online and offline.
3. Conversational Engagement
   WEM supports this through communities, user generated content, commenting, trackbacks, micro-blogging, social media integration, analytics, social media monitoring and sentiment analysis.
4. Demand Generation
   Targeted marketing is huge. With an overall goal of increasing the number and quality of relationships, WEM comes to the aid of demand generators through need recognition, relevancy enhancements and engagement triggers.
5. Sales Automation
   Love isn't the only two-way street, and as social media analyst Jeremiah Owyang put it, "real-time isn't fast enough." This idea is manifest in WEM in areas like two-way CRM integration, social CRM and e-mail or other campaign integration with the content platform.

Let's do some analysis to better understand if WEM is for Local Government.

Scenario 1

North Somerset Council, my local authority want web-engaged audiences because these audiences can self-serve and therefore reduce contact costs.

Content Optimisation

— Web analytics will confirm what the council knows to be the busy, useful, frequently-used parts of the site.
— Personalisation won't be terribly helpful as assumptions made about my visit could be wildly inaccurate.
— Multi-variate testing? Well this ain't no Tesco or ASDA website and anyway, MV testing is seen as an ongoing exercise, not just a project. And budgets won't stretch even if the benefits were proven.
— SEO? Well North Somerset doesn't have any competitors so SEO, though important, isn't going to get the lion's share of budget.
— UX is not listed under content optimisation, yet it can be treated as a project cost and will yield useful results even if the study is heuristic.

Multi-channel Management

I take issue with the assertion that WEM delivers consistency of message/experience both on- and off-line. Please tell me how that's going to happen? Unless organisations adopt a web-first publishing model I cannot understand how WEM will orchestrate offline publishing or say, an above the line campaign.

Conversational Engagement

The statement: WEM supports this through communities is woolly. Would a WEM solution involve building a community? Or, is this a Facebook connector for example? Put this issue of community definition to oneside and I have to say the remainder of the list is bang-on. For me, conversation is the central pillar of Engagement. The term engagement should as much about conversation as it is about conversion if WEM is to benefit an organisation as much as its audiences. I'd like to think of this pillar as *real conversations between real people* and I hope they occur where the people choose.

Demand Generation

Don't know about this one. Anyone from local government care to comment?

Sales Automation

In a local authority context, Sales Automation could be renamed integration. Systems such as WCM, CRM, Email and Analytics need present a dash board of information about the #topics being discussed, about the citizens involved in discussion and the sentiments of conversations.

Conclusion

WEM is relevant to local authorities in part. These organisations don't sell and neither do they compete for your business. But they do provide vital services funded by tax payers and they are accountable for the services they provide. A joined-up engagement strategy, under-pined by a sensible collection of joined-up systems will help local government engage with its citizens.

Further scenarios to follow…

The software world has built a long and successful track record by selling *the next thing*. It's a practice designed to keep buyers and shareholders interested in the otherwise tedious and rather expensive business of software development. And it reminds me of this amusing clip from Spaceballs the movie.

There's so much excited chatter about Web Engagement Management (WEM) at the moment and I wonder if it's vapor-ware? Is WEM a realisable promise? Web Content Management (WCM) vendors are all banging the WEM drum while analysts and pundits write reams, describing the features and benefits of WEM solutions and the technology-pillars required to realise the WEM-dream.

Vendors view of WEM

Most of what is written about WEM is framed in a marketing context. And an old world one at that. Old world marketing spends most of its time *telling and selling* and its idea of modern one-to-one marketing is to know (read: smoke and mirrors calculation) its audiences' preferences and to then tailor propositions and push these to individuals and tighly defined groups in a targetted fashion. Engaged audiences in this context amount to segmented audiences that can be monitored (Social Media Monitoring and Web Analytics), measured (LTV) and generally sold to.

What others say about WEM

— Ian Truscott of Gilbane wrote: Into the Engagement Tier... and Introducing the Web Engagement Capability Model
— Brice Dunwoodie of CMSWire wrote: What is Web Engagement Management (WEM)?
— Irina Guseva wrote: WEM Market: WCM + Ricotta

These well informed folks base their discussions around technology and what marketing wants. Perhaps we could look at WEM from the audience point-of-view? Switch this discussion around and look at what people want. I know…commercially naive…. Well, perhaps some further reading on this subject will help:

— Cluetrain Manifesto by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger
— Inbound Marketing: Get Found Using Google, Social Media and Blogs by Guy Kawasaki

The Cluetrain Manifesto states "markets are conversations." Guy Kawasaki says outbound marketing is old-expensive-style marketing, while inbound marketing is more efficient and aligns with audiences expectations. Hold those thoughts for a minute. You see, over here we have vendors promising one-to-one marketing with engaged audiences, while over here (many foots steps tailing off into distance) we understand that one-to-one conversations are useful and are wanted by audiences wishing to participate in sharing values, opinions and ideas. Are they not the same thing? No. The former is old-push, the latter is new-pull.

People want conversations with people. They want organisations to respond to them and they want responses from people that are empowered to discuss *stuff* without being bound to a script. These conversations will traverse organisational strata and structure because people want to talk about more than just what's on offer. People want to converse with other people and organisations with whom they identify. This is significant!

Generation-Y expectations

An organisation maybe able to personalise its offers but it cannot personalise its values and opinions to match those of its audiences. Generation-Y is heavily influenced by company type: good, bad and ugly. Organisations have felt little of this effect to date but Gen-Y is becoming more significant in numbers and therefore importance. And Gen-Y's approach is spreading to the rest of us. Audiences now want to know what organisations stand for? what's their customer service record? are they green? are they lean? is their pay-structure fair? Audiences want to identify with organisations' values and opinions before they friend them or buy from them. And people now expect to do this with large organisations as well as small.

What is WEM?

It's more than a technology or collection of technologies. It's bigger than marketing and the CMO.

It starts with an organisation defining its values and opinions, what it stands for and what it does to make the world a better place. (Shareholder value has to take a backseat but ultimately will be bettered by this approach). Engaged audiences will not remain engaged when they sense their *one-to-one* conversations are being driven by machines with repositories of pre-built replies and pre-baked propositions.

WEM is the process by which conversations are conducted, whether across Twitter, blogosphere, Facebook it's of no consequence. The machines behind WEM help organisations by allowing joined-up conversation to be converted into joined-up audience information. Who are our advocates? where do people complain about our products or services? what do they say about us? and how do we engage with them to fix their issues? and how do we improve our organisation in the process?

WEM is therefore underpinned by a collection of software-building-blocks: CRM, analytics, Content Management and Social Media Monitoring. It doesn't have to be big expensive blocks either, nimble open source technologies can be just as effective. The point is, no one supplier will deliver the whole solution.

As ever, don't buy a technology and expect it to deliver the end game of its own accord. Engagement is something that happens between people, the technology is merely the delivery layer.

WEM is a collection of ground-breaking strategies and sets of actions:

— empowered staff; *thinking* replaces scripts
— V&O established and understood by all
— conversations are allowed between audiences and customer representatives of the deepest darkest recesses of an organisation
— people from across the organisation Tweet and Blog — not just the C-level directors and the marketing folk

In the past big companies had the advantage of money to invest in technology. WEM swings the advantage to small to medium sized businesses. Small budgets don't limit the possibilities because it doesn't cost lots to build social media channels with friends and followers and it's far simpler to orchestrate across an SMB.

When will this new future be here? A long time after the technological capability has arrived. Why? Because WEM is all about organisations being social, and not even the purveyors of WEM know how to implement/practice all that that means!

Related blog post: http://johngoode.com/open-for-business

Postscript:
Social commerce in 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/dec/30/facebook-2011-sophy-silver

The Influence Metric

Some local authorities have opted to focus on Twitter rather than Facebook, others have managed to develop both. This analysis concentrates Twitter activities exclusively. I've used klout.com to produce this set of numbers. It offers another useful insight into how local authorities use social media to engage with citizens.

Read how to understand the Klout Influence Metric here: klout.com/kscore. Influence is determined by a variety of factors including retweets, @messages, follows, and lists. The Klout score is highly correlated to clicks, comments and retweets.

My previous analysis can be found here:

1. How social is your Local Authority?

2. Local Authorities on Facebook

Observations:

Some Twitter @names are indicative of the perceived need for a Twitter channel but may become a limiting factor as the purpose of Local Authority Twitter streams becomes clearer. For example, my hometown, Southampton, has named it's stream "sccevents". It's not memorable and its scope in future will become more about citizen engagement, going beyond an events listing service.

@camdentalking <-- demonstrates the need to be an early adopter. (@camden and @camdencc already taken)

General note:

1. I'm not sure why local authorities choose not to follow-back? It's a kind of arrogance in my view. If you're worried about being overwhelmed by tweets; use lists to categorise your followed folk.
2. Use Twitter to engage, discuss, win-over. The announcements about bins, road closures etc are all good but there's so much more to be achieved. Set-up and stick to #hashtags. Exampe: #bypass, #bins, #abandonedcar, #citizenpraised.

Table key:

T = true reach: is the size of your engaged audience and is based on the followers and friends who actively listen and react to your messages.
A = amplification: is the likelihood that your messages will generate actions (retweets, @messages, likes and comments) and is on a scale of 1 to 100.
N = network: indicates how influential your engaged audience is, also on a scale of 1 to 100.
S = style: there are 16 Klout communication types, typically local authorities fall into 3 styles: Thought Leader, Specialist, Explorer. Lewisham is a notable exception, it's listed as a Feeder. For further explanations of these styles, see below the table or visit www.klout.com.

*Apologies to East Renfrewshire for missing you off the list. If your local authority outperforms any of those listed above, please contact me.

Klout Twitter styles (from klout.com)

Thought Leader

You are a thought leader in your industry. Your followers rely on you, not only to share the relevant news, but to give your opinion on the issues. People look to you to help them understand the day's developments. You understand what's important and what your audience values.

Specialist

You may not be a celebrity, but within your area of expertise your opinion is second to none. Your content is likely focused around a specific topic or industry with a focused, highly-engaged audience.

Feeder

Your audience relies on you for a steady flow of information about your industry or topic. Your audience is hooked on your updates and secretly can't live without them.

Explorer

You actively engage in the social web, constantly trying out new ways to interact and network. You're exploring the ecosystem and making it work for you. Your level of activity and engagement shows that you "get it", we predict you'll be moving up.

Since my last post on this subject I thought it worth revisiting the data. Why today? Today (13 December 2010) was the day English Councils discovered just how much they had to save as the waves of cuts begin to hit. Local government is required to deliver services, some funded by central government, others through community initiatives. And it's the latter a.k.a, Big Society or pay-for-it-yourself that means these organisations need to engage with citizens to:

— sell ideas
— explain choices, cuts and options
— ask for input and help
— gain commitment

Today was the day some lost their jobs while others had budgets cut to such an extent it will make tomorrow's challenge a whole new ball game. An interesting side effect of hard times is that strategic intelligence is driven up as hardships increase. This is the age of austerity, the age of doing more with less. And it's the age where councils seem to be engaging with their citizens using with social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Will it enable them to do more with less? Only time will tell…meantime, some have joined the race to be liked.

In this post I've refreshed the date and concentrated on PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FACEBOOK LIKES since my last post. Coventry County Council is still the notable leader in terms of Facebook success with more that 16,000 Likes!

This is more of a discussion document than a social version of the Sitemorse league table. There are 2 comments to make immediately:

1. The data is out of date already
2. The calculation method needs much refinement

For now it's a bit of fun and may get conversations going.

SF = Social Factor
FB = Facebook
TW = Twitter
YT = YouTube

Method:   ((Facebook Likes + Tweets) * 1.1)
[10% added to fan+tweet if YouTube channel present]

Read the rest of this post »

Over the past few years there’s been a gentle shift from top-down to bottom-up power bases. So imperceptible you may not have noticed. The 1980’s ushered a new era of public ownership: British Gas, British Telecom, British Rail, British Steel and a slew of other manufacturers. We the public cherished our slice of BT, for many it was their first taste of owning a publicly traded morsel. And as shares climbed, the new public ownership culture proved popular. It was the new smart money.

[Shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/silenus81/4307175681/]

The transition from state-owned company to the private sector saw the birth of a new animal: the pin-stripe adorned “fat-cat”. The french say of us Brits: “They love their maker. Britain is full of self-made men!” The fat-cats multiplied; pandemic fat-cat! They had special cars made for themselves with retractable steering wheels to accommodate their newly acquired fat-paunches. The fatter cats dispensed with their cars; in a single evolutionary step; they took to the air in their shiny new bisjets. I worked with a director in the late 90s; he was based in Manhattan but used to visit *England*. He was mildly miffed with his photograph in an annual report. And it had to go to print in the next 3 days. What would he do? He climbed aboard his Falcon, flew to Heathrow, was chauffeured to Hook, had his pic taken then went home; presumably with ego safely in tact. Shortly after, the dot-com bubble burst. Fat-cats were snapped into sobriety as they saw dividends slashed, bonuses cut and promising careers abruptly halted.

By 2002, the recovery was well underway. Banks had created shady businesses which, in hindsight, looked more at home in Vegas than high-street settings. Build societies demutualised, preferring to serve the greed of shareholders than the modest small time investors, they even went a step further by securing funding through markets rather than the more traditional route of good old fashioned savers. Inflation was the number one indicator and it indicated no problems whatsoever.

In early 2009, politicians embarked on public witch hunts, chasing-down errant bankers only to discover they knew nothing about banking at all! By mid 2009 politicians themselves became the target of much finger-wagging as their fiscal excesses were exposed to an angry public. Crowds gathered to demonstrate in London and other major cities and we were introduced to another new phenomena: kettling! A technique used by the Police to coral and trap protestors.

The past 30 years have been interesting. The past 5 years even more so because of two distinct and disconnected things which took place simultaneously and on a global scale.

1. Governments poured billions of public money into banks and big business in an effort to prop them up and secure jobs and homes, and in the process have in all but name nationalised many of these once powerful institutions. The free market will never be the same again.

2. Twitter happened; traditional news channels will give way to new ways of broadcasting breaking news. Iran elections trended for weeks signaling the global take-up of social media. The informed global general public start to pull the levers of government, businesses and public-sector services by means of Twitter. Issues are pounced upon and opinion pronounced with deliberate ease, ultimately power is being transferred to the twitterati with followers. [Read more here: Twitter Is a Player In Iran's Drama]

Fat-cats and free markets are all being chased out of town by pay-caps, pay-freezes and stricter regulation. It’s my speculation that power is sliding from the few to the many. Public ownership by default.

Oh sure, banks, royal colleges, government will all remain but the ground rules are changing. Accountability is the new kid on the block along with corporate social responsibility. How are public and private organisations responding? By means of digital engagement. A new dynamic that will see roles reversed. And one in which ordinary folk tell bosses, banks, manufacturers and governments what they want, how they want it and when they want it by.

This is the entitlement generation, it understands the power of social media and it’s not frightened to use it!