ZN

Last week, at the instigation of IABC and with some help from ZN, we organized another session of what is now becoming a regular Brussels get-together to talk about social media and the EU.  To get the discussion started, we asked for the contribution of three panellists including Joe Litobarski (Blogactiv, @eurogoblin), Ian Andersen (EU Commission @antusheng) and Steffen Moller (Fleishman-Hillard, @steffenmoller).  My job was to moderate and attempt to stimulate the discussion.  After a relatively slow start, we got off to a very interesting discussion on the role that social media could play in “Saving the EU from itself”.  To spice things up, Steffen and Joe were asked to take a position for and against the motion – I’m not sure who actually ended up defending what point of view.

Soon after this the discussion shifted the the culture and attitude of the EU commission, with frustration expressed by people in and out of the institution about the challenges involved in getting good social media output – let alone good communication – to come out of the institutions.

However, hearing Ian Andersen describe his own experience with a focused, well organised and apparently effective Facebook campaign to recruit interpreters, it seems as the EU has some good stories to tell (or as described by @kosmopolit, “Islands of excellence“).  The debate was followed by some twitter chatter and a few blog pieces, including one by Gellis.

Steffen shared some of the findings from the EP trends survey he’s been involved with, which continued to show how important not only social media but the web as whole is for politicians in getting information and starting to engage. Social networks are now used extensively by 69% of MEPs – up from 31% last year.  This and other trends confirm the importance of the web as an information and communication tool in the EU political landscape.

The key question that was raised about the EU institution’s ability to communicate effectively was whether the culture and structure of the EU are able to take advantage of these new communication tools, or whether they present the real challenge in preventing the organisation from putting its message across before even being able to engage.  There was an almost unanimous feeling that there was a serious problem within the institutions about how communication roles are approached, causing some serious flaws in the way certain campaigns are handled.  What was refreshing, however, was how open those in the room were willing to be about recognising that something needed to change.  Stating that Web2EU can help in this might be a little optimistic, but every little step in the right direction must be a good thing.

Those who want to take part in these discussions and help change things for the better should join us next time.  And even if we see the debate going around in circles a little, perhaps this repetition will help to equip those who want more open communication, more transparency and to make their case a little stronger.

A few weeks ago, for the third time a group of individuals met in Brussels in a small snack place (Le Break de l’Abbaye) to discuss how the EU institutions could and should approach social media and internet communication.

Web2EU in action

The starting point for the event was an open letter written by EU Commission webmasters to try to shape the approach the new Commission was taking to Web 2.0. Tony Lockett and Dick Niewenhuis gave an overview of the origin of the letter, inspired by a similar US initiative, and talked about how this was being viewed by officials. The response to the letter was broadly positive but the key issues facing the institutions remained. Much of the discussion that followed revolved around what the Commission really is (not a government said Dick) and its role in communicating to the public.

From the US initiative I shared some comments made by Beth Noveck in an interview with Tim O’Reilly. The main point of their efforts was to use the web to bring more transparency and openness to the process of policy making in Washington. There was also talk of ‘closing the revolving door to lobbyists’.

An MEP, Wim van de Camp, joined the discussion and announced he was using twitter as his personal PR tool as had just launched his new website.

What seemed to emerge from the discussion is that there is a clear opportunity for the Commission to use the internet as a tool to communicate and share knowledge in more effective ways. The problem however is that they still need to clarify what the communication should be about. The objection made by Wim was that the Commission should not be sharing opinions but should be executing the will of its political masters. However no one objected to the fact that getting ideas on improving policy implementation and communication on its activities was a good thing.

So the discussion continues. Here’s a short video of the event.

I just picked up this recent post from Helen Dunnett (disclaimer: she is a client of ZN and we think she is great) on some feedback she received from various audiences in political communication when approaching the internet as a core communication tool.  Over the past year she has been sharing her experience and enthusiam about the web and it’s power to transform communication with her rapidly growing network. 

Her comments will be very useful for those trying to find the best way to explore the web as a core strategic tool in getting the right message out to the right audience.  We have, in the course of our many meetings with a number of players in the Brussels political scene been confronted by many similar questions so it is great to see them put from a client perspective, from someone who has been able to make the case for this and seen the benefits for her own organisation follow.

After reading the objections she has faced my suggestions to the bold communicators interested in taking this further are the following:

1) Everyone now accepts that the internet is an important and powerful tool in shaping perception on critical issues.  The key problem is they don’t know how to act on this knowledge.

2) A personal and direct exposures to the tools and the social networks that are driving this change is key to enable communicators to form the correct strategy.  So like or not, you need to sign up to a number of online networks (linkedin.com – which most people do passively, facebook.com, and others that you find interesting) and actively use the tools (by posting on forums in linkedin for instance). 

3) The right tools for you and your organisaton keep on evolving so it is best to do some background reading of ebooks and follow some blogs (Helen’s own called learning curve or the one written by my colleague Steffen could be a good starting point). 

4) Meet regularly with people (agencies, consultants, colleagues) so you can learn about what works and gain insights from other people who have faced similar situations than you.

5) Get started.  Take some small, below the radar, steps with some online initiatives to get comfortable with the territory.  Start a blog, take it personally and see for yourself how it can help to get your message accross.

6) Get help.  Once you have decided to move forward in this space, surround yourself with a strong team with the right advice and experience as well as technology, create a plan and sell this to your management.  Then go forward and start learning.

This is a cross-post from Steffen’s blog.

Much has been said of how the Obama campaign mastered the web. The fact that three million people donated online, helping to make his campaign the best funded of all time, meant that money was no object. Having an endless supply of cash was obviously pretty handy, but what’s perhaps even more salient is that the Obama campaign was funded by citizens. Parties, corporations and corporate interest groups are usually candidates’ main donors, and these will at some point expect payback in some shape or form. How will citizens expect payback from Obama? By fulfilling his campaign promises. This is of course no guarantee that he can or will, but it’s a good starting point.

What’s been most revolutionary has been the campaign’s ability to use the web to not just inform people, but to mobilise them. Massive followings on various public social networking platforms has kept people informed and excited, and enabled them to easily spread information and urge their friends and acquaintances to join the conversation or register to vote and so on – the viral effect at play.

Even more important was my.barackobama.com, which became an offline facilitator for people wanting to help in some way – make calls, arrange meets, knock on doors, put up placards and so on. It’s somewhat ironic, but the ability to mobilise people offline was arguably the most important element of Obama’s online campaign: sort of a return to a bygone age when citizens would congregate for hours in town-halls and other meeting places to debate, organise, and delegate in support of their preferred candidate. The web has shown itself to be the enabler and integrator that has resurrected this phenomenon. So much for people being politically apathetic – it was a question of time or the means (and let’s not forget: an inspirational candidate).

A few recommendations on the topic of Obama and the web:

• Seth Godin writes about online viral videos trumping TV ads and how Democrats used permission to grow their support base and interact with them more effectively than the Republicans.
• EurActiv have interviewed Brian Fetherstonhaugh, chairman and CEO of OgilvyOne Worldwide, about Obama’s use of “new media”.
• A good post by Colin at ePolitics who claims that Obama would not have won without the Internet and explains why.
• Last but not least, concerns that Obama and his team would put their web efforts on hold following their win have proved to be without merit. The website of the President-elect, Change.gov, was launched last week, with some decent elements, like a “submit your story” feature and a blog. There’s some way to go before it matches my.barackobama.com in terms of interactive features and so on, but I’m sure that’s coming.
• And a tangent: the UK Conservatives are the latest to have hijacked “change” on their new, admittedly impressive, website.

While their efforts to remain in the communications stone age and withstand the onslaught of digital have been valiant – MEPs don’t use the web, they’ve often claimed – Public Affairs professionals in Brussels are slowly coming around to the fact that digital can work for their clients too. Next up is the clients themselves and convincing them to invest in online activities, which is no mean task. First, although their ability to radiate expertise on topics they’ve first heard about over lunch an hour before a meeting should never be underestimated, with limited experience of digital themselves, PA professionals might struggle to explain its full scope. Second, old-school clients who barely use the web and think no one other than their teenage grandchild does either will really take some convincing.

Here’s a few things that might, combined, win them over.

Read more

Fleishman-Hillard, one of Brussels’ premier Public Affairs agencies, publish a blog entitled Public Affairs 2.0 which recently carried an interview with our client, Helen Dunnett of ECPA. She is described here as “perhaps Brussels’ foremost trade association blogger” for her work on pesticideinformation.eu, which is part of our ongoing work with her on social media outreach initiatives for ECPA.

There’s a good article on the BBC describing how the web has played a crucial part in Obama’s (dare we say it?) successful Democratic primary campaign. It highlights the power of the web as a mobilisation tool, and rightly so: although plenty of focus always remains on the web as a fundraising tool, or a one-way communications tool to a younger audience, it’s the grassroots mobilisation potential that’s most revolutionary! student loan