U.S. Defense Department Releases Social Media Policy

Your first guess to a social media/new media policy from the U.S. Department of Defense might be that the policy is about as thick as the Senate Health Care bill.  After all, government can be full of legalese and stipulations.  Combine that with the sensitive job of the Defense Department and a social media policy might look messy.

But in reality, the Defense Department’s new social/new media policy is a tiny nine pages long and is incredibly straight forward.  The document demonstrates the DoD is encouraging its three million employees to use social media (safely and responsibly) either on or off duty, or at home or abroad.

To the DoD’s credit, this massive organization gets it.  Media is everywhere.  Access to social network sites is ubiquitous.  Millions of young men and women with smart phones is just too much to control.  And so the Department responded wisely by understanding what I think is the basic principle of any good organization – the best advocates are an entity’s employees.  Yes, more than their customers.  That’s because good organizations make their workplace enjoyable and rewarding.  Employees spread those good feelings to stakeholders outside the organization.

Going back to the Defense Department, if we stop to think of the organizational culture, we probably can begin to realize that this institution is full of dedicated, focused and loyal men and women.  The U.S. government should be facilitating its people to communicate via social/new media.  These employees can be the Defense Department’s best advocates.

And that is the lesson for public affairs organizations of any type or size.  The best capital we have is our people.  Happy, dedicated and loyal employees will make the best advocates.  Instead of walling them in, let them go out and be ambassadors.

Google Buzz a Mixed Bag for Political Communications

Google unveiled its new social networking product, Google Buzz, during the second week of February.  This marks Google’s most direct challenge to social networking sites that have proven to be important tools for communications and multimedia sharing amongst its users.

For political communications, Facebook and then later Twitter, have become important tools in both national and local electoral politics.  These social media sites allow for deeper engagement between campaigns and their supporters, enables increasingly scaled multi-way conversations and are excellent organizing tools.

How will Google Buzz fit in to this mix of social media sites already running and how will Buzz be integrated into political communications?

The buzz about Buzz going around blogosphere is now centered around the lack of sensitivity to Google and Gmail users’ privacy concerns.  Google may have made a huge mistake when it automatically brought users into one’s Buzz network without their permission.  Internet privacy advocates are having a field day with this.  But as with most everything Google, the company is listening and trying to correct its errors.

As a social network, I see the biggest advantage of Google Buzz being its integration into other Google software.  For example, in the last year, I have gotten away from my activity on Facebook and have moved much more heavily into email.  It’s not so much a conscious decision on my part, but simply a reaction to the amount of emails I receive daily necessitates my attention get paid to my inbox.  Therefore, having the Buzz tab next to my Gmail inbox is highly convenient.  Not to mention, Buzz syncs up with YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Google Reader, Google Chat, etc. very seamlessly.  On top of that, Buzz seems to be a pretty clean and easy designed app.

Google Buzz’s downside may be that it’s too connected to one’s email.  I think many Facebook users like the idea of having a personal network on Facebook unconnected to their email.  I can understand that.

As a political tool, we shall see how Google Buzz gets used and if campaigns will utilize it in the 2010 cycle.  I think it will provide a new way to bring in a lot of engagement to a campaign and communicate in a new and possibly easier fashion.  As someone who works on campaigns, the thought of having email and social networking contained in one interface is very attractive.  In fact, I would venture to say at the moment that Google Buzz stands to assist campaigns to communicate with key activists and volunteers in a deeper and more personal way.

For example, beyond non-Google web apps, I see a lot of value in being able to have Google Docs and Google Calendar be a part of Google Buzz and at the fingertips of campaigns and volunteers in a single medium.  That could prove very valuable.  I, for one, would be willing to give it a try.  I believe it will aid in multi-way communication better than Facebook at this point as Facebook has become another broadcasting tool for campaigns.  If the privacy issue can be resolved and users of Google Buzz can have better control of who is able to tap into a given network, Buzz can be a very useful tool.

Establishing the Hoffman for Senate Brand

David Hoffman’s US Senate campaign email last night was probably the best email I’ve seen from a political campaign in the 2010 cycle for sure, and maybe even beyond that.  Why was it so effective?  One word: authenticity.  So many campaigns are trying to copy the Obama-styled emails and communications that propelled him to the presidency.  However, most campaigns fall way short.

From a new media perspective, Hoffman’s campaign is so interesting because I have not seen a federal campaign literally ask voters to contact their offices, promising a real person will return their email or phone call.  Many campaigns pay lip service to “two-way” communications.  Many of these tools are just c0-opted to broadcast messages, unfortunately.

Then there’s the commitment to new media.  That signals the Hoffman campaign is interested in finding and working with online grassroots advocates who will be the campaign’s evangelists.  The online community is commonly the group who starts the buzz and sets the agenda far in advance.  That plan seems to be on solid footing in Illinois too, though it may not take off because for an online community, Illinois is relatively small.  Then again, for a primary a campaign is really speaking to the ardent party supporters.

All of these aforementioned “principles” are setting up the Hoffman brand, it’s promise, that it has nothing to hide.  The email was an invitation for people to come in, sniff around and if you like what you see, then support Hoffman.  It’s a really great effort so far to ensure the campaign is “walking the talk” of its reform and anti-corruption agenda.

Here’s the email:

Dear Valued Constituent:

Now that we have a full campaign team up and running, I wanted to introduce myself, kick off some guidelines for our communications, and give you a look at the fight ahead.

I’m Dan O’Neil, the Director of New Media for Hoffman for Illinois. I’m responsible for the online team, which includes our Web site, email communications, social networking sites, and all other online outreach. I’m aided by Mike Hardy, our Online Content Director, and Lara Sanders, our Director of Online Organizing.

You may have already heard from Lara over the last week. She has been contacting volunteers who have raised their hands and offered to help us turn the page on politics as usual in Illinois. She is also working through all emails sent to the campaign with specific suggestions for events, fundraisers, and other offers and requests. If you haven’t heard from Lara yet, expect to hear from her in the next few days. You can contact her directly at (312) 772-3539 or lara@hoffmanforillinois.com.

A Few Guidelines

We’re running a different campaign for a different candidate.

• We’d like this to be a two-way conversation. If you get a blast email, and would like to respond to us personally, by all means do! Let us know what you think about what we had to say, whether we’re contacting you too much or too little,or anything else
• Our emails are written by real people, and we sign them as our own. You won’t get an email written by a campaign staffer that says it’s from David. You won’t get template pleas written by campaign finance professionals. If we’re going to do this (and we are), we’re going to do it together, and with honesty
• Please feel free to forward on these emails, blog about their content, and tell your friends and family what we have to say
• A good amount of our communication is via Twitter and Facebook. We like it, because it cuts down on inbox clutter, allows you to have greater control over how you get our messages, and keeps us in the context of the rest of your daily life

David on the Issues

Many of you have expressed a need to hear more from David on the issues that matter to you most. While we are getting ready to announce our formal policies on our Web site, David has already spoken out on a number of them:

• Monday morning, Eric Zorn published a post about David’s stance on gay marriage (in favor)
• Last week, David sat down with Carol Marin on Chicago Tonight t o talk about the Wall Street bailout (stronger regulation needed) and the public option for health care legislation (in favor)
• Also last week, David spoke about the Wall Street bailout on the Don Wade & Roma Morning Show on WLS

September 30 Filing Deadline

An important milestone in the campaign is the Federal Election Commission financial reporting deadline of September 30. We need to have a strong showing on that day to prove that we will have the support we need to win in February and beyond. David is a strong candidate, and is capable of beating back the Republican challenge for President Obama’s former Senate seat.

We accept no PAC money or contributions from State or Federal lobbyists, so please consider pledging your support for our campaign.

We’re now less than four and a half months until the Democratic Primary Election on February 2, 2010. There’s a lot of work to do. We are fully
engaged in this battle now, and we’re certain that together, we’ll win.

Best,

Dan

Daniel X. O’Neil
Director of New Media
Hoffman for Illinois
www.hoffmanforillinois.com

Jumping into IL-10

This week has been the time politicos have been waiting for – who would run for the seat Mark Kirk vacates as he bids for U.S. Senate?

The safe bet would be to assume the seat will go Democratic.  Two contenders with name recognition and a history have already signaled that they will run: Dan Seals and Julie Hamos.

It will be every interesting to see how each candidate goes about building a campaign for the 10th Congressional seat.  Hamos, the State Rep from Evanston, has been working towards a state-wide run until Lisa Madigan announced she would not vacate her Attorney General seat.  Hamos is looking to turn that disappointment into a victory in the Democratic primary.

Hamos has some built-in advantages for her in the 10th District.  She’s already known in the area from her years as State Rep in Evanston (outside of the 10th District).  She will have unprecedented support from elected officials (especially Jan Schakowsky next door in the 9th), who wants a woman and a progressive in that seat long-held by a Republican.   Hamos has also built up plenty of good-will in the district as the area served as a fundraising hub for her state-wide race.  I believe she has a lot of sympathetic supporters who feel that Lisa Madigan thwarted Hamos’ chances at higher office and now will support Hamos in the Congressional bid.

Seals, I think, faces a really uphill battle.  He does have the advantages when he ran for the seat during the last two election cycles.  He knows the district really well and undoubtedly brings lessons learned and insights to this campaign after losing two previous ones.  But, he won’t have the backing he did when he was an unknown taking on Kirk in 2006 and again in 2008.  From what I’ve heard, many residents in the 10th are hoping that Seals will not run, to open the door for new blood.  That would be Seals’ death knell.  He cannot count on the political kingmakers to bless his run this time around.  He will need an even stronger grassroots campaign than he has had previously.  Can he do it?

I think if he does run a better grassroots campaign, he can beat Hamos in a very tough battle.  But looking at today’s events after Seals announced his candidacy via email, a look at his Facebook page has no announcement to about 500 supporters across several pages that he is running for Congress.  That built-in network will be absolutely key to Seals’ support in the 10th and beyond.  He needs that to be successful.  He cannot rely on the Democratic organizations handing him supporters like they did in previous elections.  Facebook is the start of grassroots outreach, and it’s a good bell-weather of a campaign at a given moment.

Hamos, meanwhile, has to do a good job of channeling her support and momentum from the statewide run into continung to give supporters a piece of the campaign.  The Hamos team has done a great job at that so far.  It has been interesting to see the media speculate about Hamos’ political future plans and the campaign make no announcement or outreach to her supporters (even to tell them to sit tight) since Madigan announcemed she isn’t’ running over a week ago.

Social Media in Electoral Politics is not a Mutually Exclusive Venture

I had a really interesting conversation last night with Jeff Smith, a really sharp Evanston lawyer, activist and candidate for state representative in the 18th District.  Smith is running in a field of other great candidates, including Patrick Keenan-Devlin and Eamon Kelly.  Jeff and I were discussing the value of Facebook in building a support network and reaching voters during an election.

I took the position that Facebook offered an incredibly efficient medium to communicate and organize voters.  Jeff countered that though that is true, most probable voters in his Evanston district probably won’t go on Facebook and would need to be reached the old fashioned way – knocking on doors and shaking hands. 

The truth is, I think, is that we’re both right and we’re both wrong.  From Barack Obama’s campaign down to Daniel Biss’ campaign for state rep in 2008, we learned that a good online strategy was made possible by the hard work candidates and staffs put in on the ground to introduce themselves to voters.  Facebook was just the next logical place to go to continue the conversation and stay engaged in the campaign.  In short, there are synergies between online and offline that are complimentary, rather than mutually exclusive.

Of course, the largest group of Facebook users are in the 18-25 range, but we also know the fastest growing segment of Facebook users is the 45-54 age group.  Ask any teenage kid if their parents are friending them on Facebook and the likely answer is ‘yes.’  I believe that in the Evanston district, Facebook and other new media tools will be crucial to winning the campaign for state representative.

Jeff is right too – nothing replaces shaking hands and talking to voters.  People want to feel listened to and  putting a name with a face is crucial.

All three candidates have a solid presence on Facebook and all have comparable-sized networks.  It seems as though all candidates believe it’s necessary to have a Facebook page.  But how many will make it a priority?  Who will use it as a strategic tool?  Who will accidentally find it invaluable because of the reach and ease of use?

These are all questions I’ll watching out for in this race!

Web Analyitcs Key to Any Online Communications

If there’s one major takeaway from the Obama Campaign, it’s that good data in public affairs – and knowing how to act on it -  leads to greater efficiencies and conversion success.

I had the pleasure of moderating a talented panel last week at the Politics Online Conference that featured:

Dan Siroker, founder of Carrotsticks, and led the analytics team for the Obama Campaign.  He later served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Change.gov.  He shared some great insights into understanding what users are doing on a campaign website or how they react to to email can assist political campaigns at all levels.

Mark Skidmore, director of advertising and promotion at BlueStateDigital, focuses on search, banner, social media and online advertising for public affairs clients.  During the 2008 election cycle he directed ad strategies for over 10 PACs and 501c3s, including the Presidential Inauguration Committee, Wal Mart Watch and others.

Matt Yalowitz from the Googe Election & Advocacy Team.  He’s a Chicago local campaign veteran now working in Ann Arbor who brought some great insights into search and search advertising.

Siroker led the Obama analytics team of six people who he said “helped to optimize everything,” including emails, donation and MyBarackObama.  He shared five major lessons learned from the campaign:

1. Understand the user funnel – visits, sign-ups, donations and conversions.
2. Focus on the weakest link. Before the Iowa caucus, the weakest link in the campaign was getting email sign-ups.  The analytics team experimented with flash pages that rotated three images, four videos and five sign up buttons.  The team found that images were more effective than videos.  After the tweaking, the campaign received 4.4 million new email submissions.
3. Segment into friends. Split the database into meaningful subsegments.  Depending on who the person on the receiving end of the communications was, they would receive different messages, like “donate and get a gift,” “donate now,” “please donate,” “contribute,” etc.
4. Circumstances matter. When Sarah Palin knocked community organizing in her RNC speech, Campaign Manager David Plouffe’s email that night received the largest one-day donation response in any day during the campaign.  Know when the right circumstances arrive and take advantage of them.
5. Assumptions are wrong. Question them, test them and then test them again.

Mark Skidmore focused his remarks on how to drive people to a public affairs website.  Search, he said, is central to any web strategy.  Eighty percent of new traffic comes through search.  It’s important to conduct a search strategy that puts an organization out in front early and often.  That’s the best way to see results and reach some efficiencies.

When developing web content, it’s also important to have a long-term strategy that organizes content well.  A campaign can adjust by seeing what content gets the most hits and promote that to the front page and see how it does with other content around it.

He concluded with urging people to get outside the data as well.  You have to take a holistic approach to a web strategy that includes looking at data and looking at it from 10,000 feet above ground too.

Yalowtiz discussed the difference between micro and macro conversions.  Macro conversions are voluntary sign-ups or donations.  Micro conversions are more granular data, like how much time a user spends watching a video, time on a site, page views, etc.  He said this distinction is important because otherwise, analysts would be drawing conclusions based on 10-15 percent of conclusions.

Campaigns, Yalowtiz said, should be integrating their web strategy with traditional media.  Unique tracking codes, phone numbers and splash pages can help put the right metric on conversions and see the effectiveness of an integrated campaign.  Furthermore, different splash pages and 800 numbers can be used for different geographies.

I started the Q&A asking about page views because some say that the longer a user stays on a page the better, while others argue it may mean that a user can’t find what they’re looking for.

Siroker said that overall, web users’ attention spans are short.  An analyst has to look at the average time a user spends on the site to get a good idea of what  long or short page views mean.  Overall, multiple pageviews are good.

Skidmore urged people to examine how many clicks before conversion.  That average will give analysts a better understanding of how content effects conversions.  It’s important to strike the balance between poking around a website and conversions.  He argues five steps to conversion is a too high an average.

Furthermore, Skidmore urged people not to use Flash because that is not read by search engines and therefore hurts a web page’s SEO.  Google only reads HTML.  Building a site map is important to helping SEO, on the other hand.

Yalowitz talked about creating a pattern that users can go through that will lead to conversions.

Finally, here’s some great pointers from the panel.

• Questions to ask SEO experts:
  • Where are visitors coming from?
  • What does my architccture look like?
  • Are the incoming links to my website quality?  How can I improve the quality?
• Make issues work against each other on the site
  • Silo them and find out which works better.  Promote that to the top of your page
• Worried about investing in a good website and analytics?
  • Focus on ROI – $x will bring a return of $x donations, emails, etc.
  • Look at the most successful month(s) what were you doing during those months?
• Geo-Target Message
  • Not everyone receives the same message.  Talk to people about issues that matter to them.

“Connected Conversation” at e-Democracy Camp

I totally geeked out today at the e-democracy barcamp, preceding the Politics Online Conference here in DC. This was really a great crowd who came with ideas and a willingness to share and explain in a collaborative group setting. There were many great minds here leading the field in how to bring direct democracy closer to a reality through technology. In fact, the “connected conversation” title of this post came from a presenter at one of the sessions I attended. Some of the efforts represented at the e-democracy camp were: advocatehope.org, debategraph.org, AmericaSpeaks, the League of Technical Voters, CitizenJanePolitics, NPR, PBS, Free Range Studios and many more.

The session I suggested was accepted, which discussed best practices in engaging constituents/voters online. As a campaign manager in a local campaign, I thought the insights of this group could really help inspire new directions.

Sean Hackbarth, who directed blogging and online communities for Fred Thompson‘s 2008 Presidential Campaign provided a lot of good commentary. Sean talked about his experience in dealing with commenters and negative commenters. The lesson there was that negative commenters are ok, if you can use detracting comments as an opportunity to educate others and make a point. Also, the Thompson supporters came out in a big way to defend the campaign when it was under attack. In a way, the community self-moderated itself.

a spirited discussion at e-democracy barcamp

Hackbarth talked about moving the online supporters offline. A blogger once came up with the idea that supporters should donate $10 at 10:00 PM. Sean sent out an email to the small dollar donors, giving the blogger who came up with the idea credit, and people responded in a big way.

Sean and I then shared a conclusion that today’s electoral campaigns must have a staffer dedicated to online communications (integrated with the rest of the campaign).  In other words, today’s communications director has to deal with online (mainstream bloggers, etc.) in the media mix.  Yet, a wholly different person is dedicated to online organizing, engaging communities, etc.

The next session was a little above my technical understanding.  What I did walk away with though, was the understanding that attaching an identifier to information a user places online is really important.  It makes information searchable.  But when communicating with a member of congress, a unique identifier can help a congressional office sort through the “noise” and go directly to valuable comments from a constituent.

The other idea to come out of this session is what Alan Rosenblatt termed reverse engineering communications with members of congress.  If today, an advocacy group tells its members to send emails to a member of congress and that member receives 10,000 emails, maybe a few of these emails are read or responded to.  But, in a “digg” style system where a member of congress could gravitate to a conversation because constituents from their own districts voted up another constituent’s opinion 10,000 times, that would have much more impact on that member of congress.  Plus, it would be a more efficient way of communicating.

Check back tomorrow for the first day of the Politics Online Conference.

Headed to the Politics Online Conference

I’ll be back at the Politics Online Conference in Washington, DC this weekend and early next week.  The conference is put on by the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University and is being co-sponsored this year by Campaigns & Elections magazine.

I found out about the conference last year, after I interviewed the Institute’s Director Julie Germany, for a research project I was doing on the confluence of the social web and public affairs for my master’s program.  Julie encouraged me to nominate some work I had done for Daniel Biss’ campaign for state assembly and sure enough we won two awards, known as the Golden Dot Awards, at the conference.  By the way, Julie is the most consistently funny and entertaining Twitter user I have ever seen.  Anyone looking to do Twitter right, should see how she does it.

So, I’m headed back to the Politics Online Conference this year.  I will be moderating a panel for one of the conference’s many interesting breakout sessions, called:

Tinkering Your Web Strategy: Using Analytics to Understand Your Traffic and Making Adjustments

April 21, 3:30 p.m., Meridian D & E

Description: Who is coming to your candidate’s website? What do users do when they get there? How did they find you in the first place? Where are users who visit your site coming from?

Web analytics can open doors to a political or public affairs campaign to understand their web traffic and adjust their communications strategy accordingly. Having a great website with all the bells and whistles looks great on the surface. But, how do we read a web analytics report and what indicators do we look for? How do we make adjustments? Answers to these questions are vital for campaigns at any level.

·        Ben Weisberg (Account Manager on the Elections and Issue Adcocacy Team at Google)

·        Mark Skidmore (Blue State Digital)

·        Dan Siroker (Founder of CarrotSticks)

·        Jesse Greenberg (independent strategic communications and public affairs consultant)

I’ll be blogging on conference highlights next week and at the conclusion of Sunday’s e-democracy unconference.

Google News and PR

I read a great article this morning that all PR and strategic communication pros need to be aware of.

Rachelle Money interviewing Greg Jarboe makes the case that good content takes into account key words.  Why key words?  Because all media ends up online today and for online users to be able to find your article, they must contain the right key words.

Greg Jarboe, President and co-founder of SEO-PR

Essentially, folks in the public relations field must take a step back from their work of creating what they believe is the most compelling copy and actually think what readers and therefore journalists want to know and want to publish.  This means as PR pros, it is up to us to create compelling content utilizing the right keywords and understanding the reference points in which content is read.  Without these considerations, it is likely that published content just won’t ever be found.

Jarboe talks about using Google News, which aggregates news from just about every online source imaginable, and starting a strategic PR effort by searching the site.  The lesson is to try a variety of searches on the topic and find out what returns the most relevant and impactful results.  That’s where you want to be.

Jarboe explains good keyword use is the starting point for creating the right pitch and the right content.

This is great advice.  I know I could mix keyword searches better in the work I do and help my clients manage their repuations and messaging more effectively.  I’ll start now.

April 7 Election Day, Looking to Fill Quigley’s Seat

I just returned from a trip to Israel and I’ve certainly come back at an interesting time!  The awaited culmination to the IL-5 race to replace Rahm Emanuel is here (along with many interesting local races).  Plus, it’s the start of baseball season, which during the week of Passover and Easter, is truly the sign that spring and rebirth is upon us.

Source: Chicago Tribune

Thanks to Progress Illinois, and other local bloggers, I’ve been kept in the loop on what is happening in the IL-5 race and who might replace Mike Quigley on the Cook County Board assuming he wins today.

Greg Hinz at Crain’s goes down the list of potential appointees, who local Democratic Committeemen will be choosing among as Quigley’s successor this coming weekend.

While there are some very good candidates on that list, I’m struck at the centralized authority given to the local Democratic Machine to choose who they want on the County Board.  The Board’s reputation is not exactly squeaky clean, with reformers, independents and good governance board members few and far between.  That being said, I hardly see the committeemen choosing who they want to fill the Board opening with someone that will be best for the Board and County residents and not best for local committeemen’s interests.

I know this is the process and to change the process will be a herculean task unto itself.  But, we may be able to start somewhere.  If not in this appointment, then in similar situations arising in the future.  We can start by simply having a member of the community create a poll or website where residents can register their name and zip code and select amongst a list of known contenders.  People’s identities can be protected and only the results could be published.  This would provide a benchmark to measure local residents’ sentiment as to who they want to see in open government seats and to at least begin to start holding those tasked with appointments accountable.

I think this will be a good basis to not only let committeemen know who voters want to see appointed, but for voters to see that when committeemen are placing people in office who will do what they say at the detriment to what voters want, they have the first step in holding them accountable.  Hopefully, that accountability will be a good starting point to getting local voters agitated enough to create a more transparent process than leaving filling vacant seats up to the local Machine.