Ending up in conversation: what should you do if your organization can’t really use social media?

For the record, I like Speak Up Wpg’s use of social media. The opportunity it presents to speak to policymakers makes me feel like I come from a very with-it city. Their case study provides a jumping off point for talking about transparency. Go Peg.

Speak Up Winnipeg, a social media-driven public consultation city planning initiative here in the Peg, has just released its first report along with participation numbers. The blog/vlog-driven site boasts 535 registered users with over 1,600 posted comments. For a city of three quarters of a million, 535 users sounds low, but the quantity of comments of this vocal few speaks of passionate participation. The subject matter—the future of our city—is one of those contentious cans of worms that can make for great, if heated, public discourse, seemingly perfect for the social media milieu. More on that later.

On the participation side of things, I was dismayed initially that the the site required registration to comment, and indeed found login laziness to be an insurmountable barrier when I later lost my password. I’d recommend opening up comments; metrics could still be obtained from IP addresses. I realize misbehaviour rises in direct proportion with anonymity, but all conversational roadblocks should be removed if Speak Up is to “grow the number of people involved” as Mayor Sam Katz requests.

Speaking of “conversation”, the initiative takes some heat over on their 637-fans-strong Facebook page for not, in fact, being very two-way. In response to a fan’s comments about city regulations at public pools, Speak Up replied by quoting the exact policy and saying it was in place to protect swimmers. Another fan took umbrage, beefing:

SpeakUpWinnipeg.com, that was not a “response”. That was dismissive and actually doesn’t take the form of a response at all…You respond with the formal text that defines her complaint?…What exactly was your intended outcome in giving such a dismissive answer? You’re not going to encourage people to get speaking if the most you give is this. The whole idea behind being critical is to give way to changes.

Quoting policy (especially when it brings no new facts to the table) does not constitute a “response”. I don’t think SpeakUpWinnipeg.com is going to deliver on any hopes or promises at this point. But of course, this is the point where they come out saying “we haven’t promised anything” and then the wheels finish falling off the bus…

The general consensus on Speak Up’s wall was that it was more of a PR exercise than a conversation, and that they don’t ‘get’ social media.

It would almost be less inflamatory not to answer complaints like the public pool issue (just allowing users to discuss), deciding in the social media policy that governs the initiative that attacks on current policy aren’t going to be addressed and only forward-looking issues be discussed. Curtailed conversation, anyone? Speak Up is between the rock of bureaucracy and the hard place of a public forum, though, and I think to criticize them for being unable to comment on the usefulness of various extant policies is to a) deny the very real challenges the engagement team faces in terms of speaking for an entity that is by necessity slow moving, comprised as it is of many policymakers b) overlook the opportunity to speak directly to those policymakers through social media channels, whether they are free to answer you or not. At least the venue to speak exists, and the city is attempting to make the best use possible of new communication channels.

Speak Up Winnipeg could have addressed the pool policy issue with information on when or how that policy would be reviewed, and how the citizen could get involved in changing it. Making that connection would enable the person with a complaint to pursue the issue to its conclusion, without Speak Up having to comment on the policy.

This brings us to the sticky question of voice in social media. Who speaks for your organization and what are they allowed to say? The best social media use in terms of engagement is one where the voices are at liberty to be themselves and solve problems as customer service superheros, real time with a free washer & dryer to make it all better. But government and non-profits have a more nuanced product than major appliances. Organizations that are responsible to the public—those funded by tax dollars, who must both appear to be and actually be impartial—don’t have the freedom to interact like that. No one person can speak for them, except perhaps their CEOs, and even then there is likely little they can do to affect instant change. It would be nice to have the Mayor say “I hear you don’t like potholes! They’ll be fixed by the morning!”, but that’s asking a little much. I think the value of the data being collected is aggregate; if potholes turn out to be the one thing preventing Winnipeg from becoming a city of 1m+, then I’m sure pothole reduction will be worked into the plan.

So is there value in using social media channels when you’re hindered from having a real conversation? When you can’t promise to act on complaints, does it seem like you’re giving lip service instead of customer service? People seem to be able to tell when you’re not really answering them. To organizations struggling with transparency in new media channels, I’d say:

1. State up front what you’re able to do and why. Let users know what the forum is for (feedback, ideas, venting) and what they can expect from you (to listen, to take the info to decision makers, diddly squat. Whatever’s true, be transparent. I don’t recommend “diddly squat”; if that turns out to be your strategy, rethink using the channel).
2. Act on feedback whenever possible and demonstrate the results, both to the person who called attention to an issue and to the rest of the world.
3. Connect the people who have problems with the people who have solutions. If you can’t be seen to be involved in an issue, provide a link to the person who can. This absolves you of taking a position, but provides a next step that can actually affect change.
4. Escalate unsolvable constituent complaints as high as you can go within your org. These may be the fundamental problems between your organization and public engagement that your CEO would love to hear about.

When your organization has its hands tied in terms of public conversation, is it because the org is not genuinely transparent? Is it wary of the public’s input, and the slowdown that would happen as people become educated through dialogue? If so, talk about it. Don’t make the mistake of saying “social media’s not for us”, because you’ll miss out on a real chance to talk to people. Besides the fact that this endless focus group every marketer’s dream, what you get back for really talking to people might just be an improved product or service. It’s a huge commitment to involve the public in complex issues, but if your focus is serving the public, then perhaps hashing things out with the people who best understand the issues is a conversation that needs to happen to turn an uneasy truce into a passionate collaboration.