Better websites or social media: a false dilemma?
May 21, 2010
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
I was inspired by Dick Nieuwenhuis’ recent post on this blog tracing the history of the European Union’s web communication. It is remarkable how much a bunch of mavericks have been able to achieve over the last fifteen years, flying to a large extent under the political and administrative radar!
But what should our vision be for the next five, ten or fifteen years …? And how can we bring the internet into the mainstream of the European Commission’s policy-making and communication strategy? A recent exchange of letters between the Commission’s network of internet editors and Vice-President Reding provides some encouraging signs that web communication is rising up the agenda.
The European Commission faces two main challenges as it tries to modernise its on-line communication:
1. How can we better serve people who come to us looking for information?
The European Commission’s EUROPA domain websites have developed into a remarkable resource. They provide information, much of it in all 23 of the EU’s official languages, that is consulted by half a million people every day.
But, for too many people, finding what they are looking for on EUROPA is like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. There is a lot more that we could do to improve the experience for users of our websites:
- Streamline content (currently a staggering 6 million web pages) by reducing duplication and cutting outdated information
- Make it easier to search and navigate through the content
- Structure information according to users’ needs rather than our organisational structure
- Use everyday language, rather than EU jargon (just try googling ‘enlargement’ and you’ll see what I mean …)
2. How can we connect with new audiences that we are not currently reaching?
The internet has moved on since the mid-1990s, when the EU became one of the first international organisations to establish an on-line presence. In the Web 2.0 era, it is no longer enough to have a good website. You also need to get out there where people are, and provide them with opportunities to interact rather than just passively consume information.
It is no coincidence that politicians, businesses and organisations around the world are increasingly turning to social media like Facebook and Twitter to communicate and connect with new audiences. In the EU context, the European Parliament led the way by establishing a social media presence in the run-up to the 2009 elections and consolidating this after the new MEPs took office. The Commission has also made constructive use of social media, particularly Facebook, for several specific projects:
- Encouraging young people to consider a career as an interpreter
- Publicising and explaining the EU’s new recruitment exams
- Providing real-life examples of the impact of EU policies, including social policy and humanitarian aid
So what should we prioritise? Should we make sure that the overhaul of our EUROPA websites is complete before taking on new challenges? Or should we seize the opportunity to reach new audiences by making targeted use of social media? Of course, the obvious answer is that we should be doing both. But, with finite resources, you can’t necessarily do everything at the same time. What would you start with?
Tony Lockett,
European Commission
DG Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion
Number of views: 2385
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
May 21st, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Good question! My 0.02c:
Social media offers the EU enormous benefits for communicating with both specialised and non-specialised audiences. For the former, jump in, as the common, shared understanding you need to have fruitful conversations is already there.
But to engage a wider, non-specialist audience, I think you need to underpin the conversation with a comprehensible web presence that explains:
What the EU does,
Why it does it (i.e., address subsidiarity, or EU added value)
How it does it (e.g., regulations, programmes, plus success stories)
all in non-organisational (“thematic”) terms, so readers don’t need to understand EU institutional structure, let alone navigate 20+DGs looking for relevant stuff. Which They Won’t Ever Do.
In other words, for wider audiences, prioritise solving the problems you note EUROPA still has, particularly “making it easier to search and navigate” and “structuring information according to users’ needs rather than our organisational structure“.
By definition, that means DGs need to work together.
Mathew
PS Disclosure: I helped develop <a href = “http://mathew.blogactiv.eu/2009/09/06/so-farewell-thematic-portals-on-europa/”>an approach</a> to this and other issues 5-10 years ago.
May 21st, 2010 at 11:15 pm
For me it’s clearly first websites then social media. In other words: you need the content before you spread the word.
But I think the 15 years history also shows another thing: you cannot “do” a website. Or at least in the majority of cases this is not true. When thinking about the web work, it’s more the process that is important than the product. Already the question about the archiving of pages is showing exactly the need for ongoing processes, not ad-hoc actions.
This obviously has an impact on the resources needed.
May 24th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
This may be controversial, but why not learn from Facebook? The EU could benefit from becoming a little more open to being driven by its citizens (their interest and their criticisms) rather than trying to drive its citizens. User-driven social platforms like Facebook tends to have better organised information that is more frequently accessed and better yet understood by users, and these platforms manage to accomplish this with fewer pages and cheaper overhead than the EU. This would mean opening up a lot of EU legislation for more public debate and discussion by the European public on Europa. However, such discussion might show the DGs where their interests, policies and initiatives overlap in real life for real Europeans versus within the EU structure.
May 25th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Lida, saw your blog http://www.euforus.blogspot.com/ but I tend to disagree that Facebook is the solution for all our problems as your blog seems to suggest. And that apart from all the serious security issues that are raised the last weeks. There is plenty of stuff that one can throw out on Facebook and discuss and share (Tony’s social forum, our Shanghai expo fanpage, etc.). But I don’t see how we as civil servants can run a facebook fanpage on let’s say the middle east peace process. Lots of such policies are in the hands of our political masters, the member countries. And in fact we don’t need to do that. There are plenty of fora, blogs, etc. around where each and every citizen can share his/her thoughts (good or bad) on this.
What we can do more & better is join those fora and contribute, within the limits of what can be expected from non-elected bureaucrats.
I think what Europe needs more is that our politicans (government, national and European parliaments) engage in such discussions rather than the usual blame game hidden behind occult language about “Brussels” or “Europe”.
May 26th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
I never meant to imply that Facebook is a cure-all. However, it is a good example of how going to where the discussion is and setting up the appropriate tools to allow users to inform and moderate themselves – with limited input from a knowledgeable and competent administrator and application developer – can be beneficial to constructing community around an idea or concept, like passenger rights. There will be future moments like passenger rights (maybe passenger rights again, given this volcano’s constant eruptions) where the EU can really help to show what its done for Europeans and how to access the rights and policies that it has created. Think something like the EDCC only instead of a call centre passing questions on to the EU, it would be a crisis centre posting practical information in clear language online. The EU could benefit from setting up a communication structure and guidelines that fills this need. It would give the EU great visibility and EU citizens better facility in certain situations.
May 28th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Me again, and this time I’ll ignore the commenting window’s non-functional toolbar…
I think Benedictus and lindamargaret are both right, and aren’t actually that far apart on this.
In many cases, as Benedictus points out, the EC should join existing groups on FB and other platforms and contribute to the debate already going on.
Avoiding the generic ‘follow me, I’m the EC and I’m wonderful’ approach we sometimes see, the EC should go where the audience already is, and talk about the specific benefits the EC brings which are relevant to that audience’s particular area of concern.
But there’ll also be some cases where the EC will need to create such a group.
And many times, the EC should do both. So you’re both probably right.
It all depends on the context – there is no such thing as ONE Facebook tactic!
What’s interesting me at the moment, as controversy swirls around FB, is whether the EC should not avoid FB due to the fact that it does things which its EU-based competitors cannot. Doesn’t seem fair. But it’s hard to argue with a population of 400 million users…
May 28th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Thanks for the interesting comments and debate, folks. There’s definitely much I agree/identify with:
@brusselsblogger’s advice to get websites right first before going onto social media (I also got some feedback on Twitter that resources should be distributed as follows, which sounds about right: 80%web, 20% social media)
@matthew’s recommendations to explain the ‘what, why and how’ more clearly, including more/better work across Commission departments.
@lindamargaret’s comments about going where the people are and providing them with tools to steer the debate, like Facebook (although clearly Dick is right that this won’t work for all issues and it shouldn’t just be the Commission driving this – we need to get other stakeholders on-board)
One of the things I have been trying to do recently is come up with non-web examples that can help to explain the value of social media to sceptics/non-specialists eg:
1. You spend some of your time in the office seeing visitors, and some of your time going out to speak at events and meeting people. The web works the same way – some people will find their way to your website, to reach others you have to go where the are.
2. On Europe Day, the Commission opened the doors of the Berlaymont so that visitors could come and find out more about what we are doing. In other European cities, the Commission went out and took part in events organised with other partners (local authorities etc…). Again, this is a bit like the difference between our Europa websites and the outreach we can do using social media.
What do you think? Any other examples we could use?
June 3rd, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Explaining the benefits of social media to those who don’t actually participate in it has been the subject of many a conversation over the years. Because it’s hard.
Probably the best non-web metaphor is the oldest and simplest tenet from private sector mar-comms:
“word of mouth is the best marketing”
Most people get that – who hasn’t asked their friends for their opinion of which car or washing machine to buy?
So you can build on that basic, eternal principle a little.
First, explain that it’s called *social* media for a reason. People now build social networks online. And they share their thoughts with these friends.
And people pay more attention to their friends than they will any press release or brochure, whether it’s about dishwashers or tax policies.
So social media communications leverages the power of word of mouth. If someone shares a positive impression of something the EU is doing that matters to them, their friends will take it seriously.
And there’s a good chance that many of those friends care about the same thing, because people usually build friendships and networks around common interests.
Then add the ripple effect: some of those friends will pass the info on to *their* friends.
Then add a note of caution. Because if word of mouth is the best marketing, it comes with an edge: social media is just as good as transmitting negative impressions and messages.
So given all that, here’s a non-web example: joining in a social media conversation is like joining in *any* real-world conversation, whether it be held in a town hall, a church or a supermarket queue.
Perhaps it’s to point out a relevant EC programme, politely rebut Eurocr*p, or point the participants to people having a similar conversation in another country, over a language barrier.
Whatever, social media conversations are open to all, and a positive contribution to a conversation will probably get picked up by the other participants and carried to their friends.
Just as the person you met in the supermarket queue repeats what he heard that night at a dinner party. The world of mouth then continues to ripple outwards … and the lot can be found through Google.
But also remind your audience that another basic tenet of marketing also still holds: first, have a great story to tell.
Because no amount of marketing can disguise rubbish, particularly in a world where everyone can express their opinion, their friends can pass it on, and Google finds it all instantly.
Fortunately, the EC has many great stories to tell. If only it would tell them!
Which brings us back to where we started: a well written, thematically organised, upper level on EUROPA to underpin these conversations …