Those of you that know me personally, know that I like to be blunt, no beating around the bush. This isn’t always easy when dealing with clients, but is often necessary nonetheless. One issue I have run into on a few occasions now is organizations thinking that social media engagement is the be-it-end-all solution to all of their marketing problems. Usually the mentality behind this is that social media engagement will allow them to drastically increase awareness of their product/service at very little cost and have more people using it as a result.

Here’s a little wake-up call folks: “If your service and/or product sucks to begin with, engagement on the web is only going to amplify this”.

There are 4 P’s in strategic marketing: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion. All of which should be based on solid research and should be relevant to your target audience, especially your product/service. In many cases, public sector and non-profit organizations have a service or product that is simply not based on anything other than a mandate. For more on this you may want to read a post I wrote a while back entitled,  “How social media can bring strategic thinking back into government“.

Along comes the new and exciting world of social media and suddenly people think that everyone will want to talk about their offering if only they practice 2-way engagement. While I am a huge proponent of digital engagement, keep in mind that I also actively preach a strategic approach to it, not a “jump in the fire and see what happens” approach. Part of this approach includes understanding audience needs and modifying your 4P’s accordingly if need be. If you do decide to engage right a way, then instead of intercepting your audience with information about your service/product, try asking them what they think, and whether or not they have suggestions for improvement. Otherwise, key influencers in your audience may see your engagement as an opportunity to vent.

That being said, if jumping in the fire is the approach you are currently taking, don’t be surprised if you get backlash, instead embrace it with all your might. This could be the best piece of business intelligence that you will get for a long time (especially given what’s happening with the Census).

What do I usually suggest as a first step to organizations in a position to strategically approach social media?

Conduct a social media audit and gauge the tone and level of conversation surrounding your brand, product/service and your industry. You should then use this business intelligence to improve your 4P’s, especially your product/service.

What is the issue?

The Conservative Government decided that it would kill the mandatory long- form census it normally sends out to thousands of Canadians every five years. Instead, a mandatory short form will go out to everyone for next year’s census, with basic questions about how many people live in the household and their ages and genders.

Having just returned from my 100% digitally disconnected cottage vacation, I’ve had quite a bit of catching up to do on this whole situation. Rather than re-stating what has already been written, I want to point you to my colleagues David Eaves (from eaves.ca) and Tracey Lauriault (from datalibre.ca) who are both still providing some quality insight and analysis of this issue on their blogs as it evolves.

Why is this a really bad decision and why should you care?

I’d rather you read the reasons from this rapidly growing list of opposing organizations because the reasons are endless. In short, the government is getting rid of the primary source for evidence-based decision making, and thus will have an excuse to rely on hunch based decisions that conveniently fit the current government’s agenda. This is quite possibly one the most poorly thought out moves ever made by our government. There will be implications for every person in every line of business in the public, private and non-profit sectors. Here are three posts I strongly advise you read:

• Why you should care about the sudden demise of the mandatory long census form – David Eaves
• Uses of long-form data – question justification – Tracey Lauriault
• Research Has Become a Dirty Word: Part Two – Jim Mintz

What about the Scandinavian model in which countries have successfully gotten rid of the census?

Here is quote from Gustave Goldmann, formerly a senior official at Statistics Canada:

“The critics often cite examples of countries that have done away with the census as evidence Canada should do the same in the name of privacy. What they fail to acknowledge is that the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and other European states have extensive administrative data bases that contain the same information that Canada gathers in the census. These data include registration numbers that are used to create linked data bases for all individuals living in these countries. The residents (citizens and non-citizens alike) in these countries are obliged to provide this information. All interactions with the state (health, education, taxation, the justice system, migration) are recorded in these data bases.”

What about the argument that this is to protect our privacy?

Read this post: It was never about privacy

What can you do?

You can sign this massive petition to reverse the decision on canceling the long-form census.

Now that various public sector organizations are slowly starting to realize that social media engagement is not really an option but rather an imminent requirement, numerous “Request for Proposals” (RFP’s) have been coming out of government with “social media” as part of their titles. Unfortunately, in most cases the RFP dictates required elements which are predominantly tactical in nature:

• We want to build a social network
• We want to create a blog
• We want 5000 friends/followers on channel X

I always double check to see if I missed something, something like a page which states “objectives”, or “purpose” or answers the question “why?” Really, any of those will do. To my dismay, no such page is missing, it’s just never thought of.

It’s an ethical challenge to even bid on these for us, since the underlying theme of everything we do at CEPSM is “strategy before tactics”. How can we write a proposal to create a blog for you if a blog might not be the right channel for your audience, your initiative, your objectives, etc…? It’d be different if a strategy was already in place, however 99% of the time, it’s not. We therefore go in only to find out through our research that an organization would be much better off on channel X doing tactic Z and yet we can’t do anything about it since the required tactic was already stated in the RFP.

I’m thinking of creating some strategic social media engagement RFP templates for government departments to start sharing. All you #w2p ‘ers out there, let me know if these already exist, in which case I will help spread the existing ones.

Here’s the scoop: In the 17th annual report to the Prime Minister published a few weeks ago, Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters states “government departments have to embrace the Web 2.0 tools and technology that rest of the world uses that allow more collaboration among workers, levels of government and Canadians”. While his predecessor included similar phrases in the last report, Wayne clearly makes a point to emphasize how Canada has fallen behind in terms of e-government, not just from a technological standpoint, but much more importantly from an organizational culture standpoint.A grassroots movement of proactive public servants has been brewing for years now trying to push this to the front of our government’s agenda. Just take a look at the Canadian examples on the Gov 2.0 wiki or the conversations going on under the #w2p, #goc, #gov20 and #gc20 hashtags.

So this begs the question, who’s left to convince? Why aren’t the majority of departments jumping on collaborative platforms, 2-way engagement tools, and data sharing programs?

My simple answer:

1. Extremely risk -averse middle management (not everyone, but the majority)
2. Political culture of centralized-control (enough said)

I sincerely hope that representatives from these two groups (not just their junior staff!) start attending events such as the Gov 2.0 Expo taking place in Washington D.C this year in May. The Government 2.0 movement is revolutionizing the role of the public service in numerous countries. It’s time for a wake-up call. This latest Privy Council Clerk report is a great chance for proactive public servants surrounded by a stagnant culture to piggy-back on and lead the change within their departments.

Here’s my take on the brief history of demand for social media expertise:

• Back in late 2007, proactive organizations started frantically searching for someone to help them with all this social media “stuff”. They searched for the first thing that came to their mind, “social media expert“. “Surely, there must be an expert out there” , they though.
• Then in early 2008, the real rush came in as the field became more legitimate and the term “social media consultant” emerged.
• Mid-2009 saw a sharp rise in search for the term “social media guru” as certain powerful personal brands emerged that apparently knew everything at an almost enlightening level.
• Late 2009 witnessed a demand in search for “social media strategist” , as certain people realized that the preceding three terms were often being used (with a few exceptions) by hobbyists capitalizing on this trend.

Personally, I like to use “social media strategist”, even though it’s a less popular term in terms of volume. In fact I throw in “marketing & social media strategist” for additional context and to leverage my background in traditional strategic marketing.  The problem with the other terms is that they are too broad.  What are you an expert, guru or consultant in exactly? Technical social media channel setup? Guideline creation? Overall strategy? Tactical promotion?

I’ve witnessed plenty of these “so-called” experts come into organizations (based on poorly written RFP’s asking for “experts”) armed with nothing except the knowledge of how to setup a blog, Twitter account and maybe even a Facebook page as they proudly give out their new “social media expert” business cards.

This is why I use “strategist”. Essentially, I help guide organizations on the most efficient and effective way to get from A to B using a strategic framework. I always start by asking the question, “what is B?”, followed by, “why do you want to achieve B?” You would be shocked to find out how many people don’t have a clear answer for either one. Often, my job involves determining a realistic B for them that ties into their overall organizational strategy.

If your B is flawed to begin with (e.g. if it’s a tactic instead of a strategic outcome), then you’re in trouble. Common examples of flawed social media initiative B’s include:

• “to create a Facebook page”
• “to start a blog”
• “to be on Twitter”
• “to start a YouTube channel

So what are some examples of good B’s for social media initiatives? These depend on your organizational strategy of course (they need to be in-line with it). Here are some examples:

• “to become a more proactive organization” why? : so that we are seen as leaders, not followers – as is the current case.
• “to build relationships with online influencers in our industry” why? : so that we have a community to help us should a crisis occur
• “to share our existing rich media content on new channels” why? : so that content creators can easily embed and share our content so that it is seen by more people
• “to equip online content creators within our industry with facts” why? : so that we can help reduce the amount of incorrect information floating around the social web

Only once these are in place (and you’ve completed thorough macro and micro environmental scans), can you make the appropriate tactical decisions and set corresponding specific goals.

Long story short, just do your due diligence before selecting someone and make sure that whatever they call themselves, they understand this basic premise.