360DigitalInfluence

Earlier this month, I participated in the Gov 2.0 LA conference. According to Alan W. Silberberg, conference founder and organizer:

Gov20LA is a hybrid conference dedicated to enabling open thinking and positive networking around technology, government and people highlighting the global growth of Gov 2.0, as well as the merger points that exist now between it and mobile and enterprise.

continue reading

A few hours ago, Scott Goodson published a post on Forbes.com entitled, “Why is Quora Exploding?” In his post he muses, “Today, Quora has… built… a lovely space where genteel thought leaders ask questions, provide answers and debate ideas in an open forum.”

This is truly one of the best explanations of Quora that I have read to date.

Like many others in my circle, after hearing much to do about Quora at the end of last year, in 2011 I decided to finally dive in and begin to explore what this new platform had to offer. A few weeks, a few topics and a few hundred followers later, for me it’s been love at first sight. Quora feels a bit like Facebook and a bit like Twitter. It provides answers to questions like Yahoo answers. And yet the feel of this community is quite distinct than the feel of any of the other platforms that I’ve just mentioned. It is not set up to just provide answers to questions. It is not set up to merely provide updates to a community of followers and friends.

It’s set up to create thought provoking dialogue and conversations about different topics that run the gamut from social media to business and philosophy.

For me the feel of Quora is reminiscent of some of my favorite graduate level courses at Cornell University.

It is that exploration that is so attractive.

continue reading

Multicultural is the anti-thesis of the become like us phenomena. It turns assimilation on its head, upside down.

Multicultural: According to Webster of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse cultures.

Diverse: According to Webster, the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety; especially * : the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization.

By its very definition Multicultural Social Media looks at difference and acknowledges, we are not all the same. There are cultural, linguistic and identity politics that drive us. They inform our purchasing behaviors and preference. They have an impact on how we relate to each other and the world.

In a few hours, I’m going to be joining some amazing folks at Social Media Atlanta in what promises to be a fascinating conversation about Multicultural Social Media.

There are so many layers to this conversation, I almost don’t know where to begin. So, I’ve decided to begin at the beginning (like Julio Iglesias says) with three reasons why folks should care about multicultural social media.

#1- Population:

US Census Bureau US Population Graph

In May of 2009, money.CNN.com published a piece called Minority Populations on the Rise.

“The nation is becoming even more diverse: More than one third of its population belongs to a minority group, and Hispanics are the fastest-growing segment.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday that the minority population reached an estimated 104.6 million - or 34% of the nation’s total population - on July 1, 2008, compared to 31% when the Census was taken in 2000. Nearly one in six residents, or 46.9 million people, are Hispanic, the agency reported.”

According to that report, the break down of the U.S. population was as follows: Hispanics 15.4%, Blacks 13.5%, Asians 5%.

These were the numbers in 2008. A few months ago we just completed the 2010 census. Although the results of the census are not yet tabulated, many anticipate that the results will show an even greater increase in the minority population.

#2- Money: The second reason that you should care about multicultural social media is money. The demographics alone are striking. However, add to that the estimated spending power for these groups and you have a very compelling case that any brand would be foolish to ignore. According to a post in Mashable by Jessica Faye Carter earlier this year, that 34% has an estimated spending power of over $2 trillion. That’s nothing to scoff at. It represents a tremendous economy opportunity for brands.
continue reading

What I am about to say is going to be confronting to some of you. To others this may be obvious, common sense. The days of total control over message are over. If these days ever existed, they are no more. Social media has created a world where a brand no longer gets to push out its message on a passive audience. Instead, through social media folks are engaging in conversations about brands with and without the brand.

The question then becomes: Is a brand present in the conversations that are happening about it and therefore able to share its point of view? When a brand is not present, there is a much slimmer chance that their point of view will be heard. This is true of social media in general and I hope to explore the impact of this in different spaces in the weeks and months to come. However, today I wanted to explore the question of how this relates to governments and Wikipedia.

Earlier this year, the European government found itself in a conundrum. A newspaper published a story which quoted the European Commission Vice-President Antonio Tajani as saying that tourism is a human right. Shortly thereafter, Wikipedia picked up this third party information and stated it as a truth. When his team tried to correct the information on Wikipedia by adding the text of his speech, the page moderators blocked them. Given Wikipedia’s construct, the third party information was considered more reliable than the original source. Thus the conundrum. The information was incorrect. However, Wikipedia strongly discourages organizations from editing organization-related articles, citing conflict of interest.

If there are factual errors, organizations are asked to:
a. Leave a note on the article’s talk page
b. Post a comment on the help desk
c. Contact Wikipedia via email

If an organization insists on editing an article directly, the organization must declare their interests on their user page(s) and on the talk page of the article they edit. The conflict of interest guidelines must also be adhered to, as must the neutral point of view and verifiability. As it relates to verifiability, the changes must be backed by reliable sources, which in the Wikipedia world means third-party sources. That is why in this case the original speech was not considered a reliable source whereas the newspaper article was.

What then is the solution? In my opinion, the solution is as follows:

1- Establish long-term relationships with a grassroots community who will contribute the missing positive information to the article.

2- If an organization is very keen on immediately changing information that is not factually correct said organization could leave a note on the article’s talk page. They could also post a comment on the help desk and they could contact Wikipedia via email.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a grassroots tool that collects information from reliable, impartial sources. In theory, if a brand has invested time engaging folks and having conversations about its win with the grassroots, this community in turn will be posting said information onto platforms like Wikipedia.

Is this a silver bullet?

No.

However, in this modern age of online WOM I truly believe that this is the best way to ensure that social media tools like Wikipedia reflect the brand’s point of view. A brand, government or otherwise, is in effect present in the conversation about it by engaging the community, making a long term investment in it and ultimately handing over control.

Today is my birthday. As I sit back, reflect on life and take stock of the years, I can’t help but marvel at how far things have come.

In the Fall of 2003, I left a corporate job in management with Eastman Kodak Company to work on a Presidential Campaign.

I took a 2/3 pay cut and traded in an ocean front view apartment in Miami, Florida for a sleeping bag in a four-person home in Little Rock, Arkansas.

You might ask, “Why?”

I know my mother definitely did.

The answer is simple. I was inspired by the promise of an accountable and open government by, for and of the people.

This move was my first foray into the world of new media. Many of you might have heard of the Dean campaign and the technological innovation that the techies there made. The same was true for the techies involved with the Clark campaign. They were a passionate group of folks inspired to use technology for the good of a better government, by, of and for the people. This was something that they were making real in the campaign space but the vision that many of them had was to see this transcend the campaign and brought into office by the candidate once elected.

Seven years later, I found myself having coffee, reminiscing about what got me into this space (new media) with someone who I consider to be a leader in the Gov 2.0 space. Seven years later the Obama campaign - itself brought into office in no small part because of technology - was the administration that brought with it the Open Directive. And though it is true that this movement may not have started with the Obama administration, for me it has been inspiring to see the growth that has happened in the course of the last few years.

This transformation has taken the work of many unsung heroes.

It is an iterative process and change does not happen overnight but I am inspired by what I have seen to date. I truly believe that this is only the beginning.

That twenty something year old who left the rat race of corporate America for the promise of what could be possible in government with inspired leadership, still exists.

The opportunity is huge and this is only the beginning.

I’d like to take a moment and use this thread to honor some of the unsung heroes. Who are some of the people that you know who are making a difference in this space?

Yesterday we had the great honor of hosting an amazing panel of speakers at our Ogilvy DC office to discuss Gov 2.0.  An intrepid audience was not daunted by the early hour, the rain nor the delays of the red line.  They arrived ready to hear our panelists:

- Alexander Howard, O’Reilly Media
- Gwynne Kostin, U.S. General Services Administration
- Micah Sifry, Personal Democracy Forum
- Ari Melber, The Nation
- Mark Murray, NBC News

Quite a panel it was.  For those of you that joined us, thank you!  For those of you who missed it, please check out Alex’s recap here.  Below you can find the full version of the live stream (the event starts about 30 minutes into the live stream) as well as Alex’s abbreviated version.

Additionally, here were some of the moments that I found the most interesting-

The moderator, Rohit Bhargava, a founding member of the 360 Digital Influence group at Ogilvy PR,  kicked off the panel with a conversation about Gov 2.0 what it is, what it isn’t, etc.

When asked his opinion on Gov 2.0, Micah noted that where he got excited was the chance that Gov 2.0 offered the people, the possibility of a smarter government and the opportunity for government to give its citizens the ability to participate and help with the greatest challenges of our time.  He talked about how the Obama campaign came in with a bunch of promises regarding how they would use the web to co-create government to produce the services but that we were just seeing the beginning of this. ”There is a civic surplus waiting to be tapped of people who want the country to succeed,” he quipped and while he confronted a few in the audience with the contention that  the White House has failed at #opengov he offered up as consolation that they had at least successfully pushed #gov20 at agency level.

Gwynne shocked the group by bluntly stating, ”We’re still throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing what sticks.”  She paid homage to the folks who have been working in this space for several administrations before it was called Gov 2.0 and discussed how despite that history this space was still new and agencies were still trying to figure out how to bring the services closer to where the people are.

Ari noted that there is a strong argument that the #Gov20 model is more representative than the 1.0 model and yet there was quite a ways left to go on that front.  Related to the question of who’s in and who’s out, in perhaps one of the most unexpected moments in the panel, Ari asked the audience: “Would you want an app to tell you how racially diverse your Facebook or Twitter networks are?”  He asked for a show of hands.  He then asked a mostly stunned group:  How many of you would want to share that information with others?

Mark spoke about the impact that he saw issue campaigns having on the upcoming elections and the political environment. In his estimation, the party out of power has had a tendency to be the most innovative in this space.  The ensuing question of course was: why?  The response?  Those in power have to govern and are often using the technology to govern.  Those out of power can be innovative with technology in their campaigns because they are not governing.

Building on Gwynne’s historical analysis, Alex also pushed the group noting that the conversation couldn’t just be about Washington.  It had to be about data that people could use in Washington but also locally.  He discussed how in his estimation the technology itself and platforms were tremendously relevant, giving a shout out to Drupal and Open Source Technology.  He also gave props to techpresident and Gov Loop.  The group discussed some excellent case studies and left us all with much to think about as it relates to the future of Gov 2.0, OpenGov, We Government and what that could hold.

Two weeks ago, I had a conversation with Brian Solis which pretty much echoed these sentiments from Gov 2.0 in the Web 2.0 world.   My biggest take away from the conversation with Solis was similar to my biggest take away from my participation in the Ogilvy DC Gov 2.0 event and that was this:  we are still in a period of evolution.  We are standing on the shoulders of those that came before us as it relates to this space and yet, it still a very new space that will in the end be defined by what we the people, our agencies, government and politicans choose to do with what we have.

Some highlights from the hashtag on the Twitterverse:

continue reading

What is Gov 2.0? What are some of the trends and opportunities in this space? What are some of the exciting break throughs? How can an organization benefit from it? Why should I care?

On Monday September 27th, Ogilvy 360 DI will be bringing together some of the preeminent thought leaders in this space to discuss these very questions. The event which will focus on how social media tools are shaping government, the 2010 elections and issue campaigns is standing room only. Nearly two hundred people have registered on Eventbrite. Seating will be on a first come first serve basis.

This week I had the honor of interviewing a couple of the panelists that will be featured during next week’s Ogilvy 360 DI Gov 2.0 Exchange. Their responses were candid and compelling; and provided a sneak peek at the conversation and themes we will tackle on Monday.

Ogilvy 360 DI: What do you see as the vision of Gov 2.0 and why is it relevant?

A: MICAH SIFRY, Co-founder and Editor, Personal Democracy Forum

At Personal Democracy Forum, we prefer the term “We-government,” the co-creating of new forms of collaboration and service that use technology, public data and the social web to address vital issues and solve public problems, that enables us to do more with less. It’s neither Right nor Left, not small government or big government, but effective do-it-ourselves-government.

This is relevant for obvious reasons. In many ways the old ideologies have run out of steam. Laissez-faire capitalism has been badly discredited by the financial meltdown (and Enron and accounting scandals before that); big government liberalism, where wise technocrats supposedly engineer good public policy on behalf of the public, has also run out steam, captured by special interest groups that block innovation.

Meanwhile we are living in a paradoxical moment of political gridlock and technological transformation. Every day that ordinary citizens watch their elected leaders struggle and mostly fail to get anything done in the face of organized blocking minorities, makes the public feel more powerless. But at the same time, every day a new tech innovation puts more power literally in our own hands. In such a moment, should we be surprised that the single biggest Twitter burst seen around any national event was not for President Obama’s State of the Union speech this past winter, but for the unveiling of the iPad, a few days later?

People are looking for new answers, and a lot of innovation is starting to emerge from the edges, where civic hackers are inventing new ways of combining public data with community engagement. That is the promise of We-government. Not e-government, where the authorities use the web to provide the public with information and services delivered from above, but where we reinvent government as a platform connecting all of us around the issues and needs that matter in our own lives most.

Ogilvy 360 DI: In your opinion, what are some of “the success stories” that exist in the Gov 2.0 space?

A: ALEXANDER HOWARD, Gov 2.0 Correspondent, O’Reilly Media

Alex Howard

First, given recent assessments and what I view as a general consensus by close observers, we’re in open government’s beta period. There are definitely both risks and rewards to the use of Web 2.0 by federal agencies.

continue reading

Last week I announced the launch of the 360 DI series on Gov 2.0 and our upcoming DI Ogilvy Exchange. There has been a phenomenal response to the upcoming panel. The following panelists are confirmed Ari Melber, The Nation and Politico; Mark Murray from NBC Universal; Lovisa Williams, Deputy Director from the State Department’s Office of Innovative Engagement; Alex Howard, O’Reilly’s Gov 2.0 correspondent; Micah Sifry, co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum. The date is set for Monday September 27th.

As we enter the second week of our series of posts on Gov 2.0, we wanted to highlight/introduce some of the other members of the DI team interested in this space and their musings on Gov 2.0.

Kelly Ferraro-

In 2008, how I connected to the world began to change during the presidential election. A graduate student, I was more than familiar with the word-of-mouth power of Facebook, and was an early adopter and avid user. But at that time, I had been using social media simply to communicate with my law school peers, and keep in touch with family and friends.

Enter the election of 2008.

Suddenly, a platform that I had used to stay connected with people became a news resource for campaigns, expressing political views, sharing articles, and making donations. Instead of reading the New York Times or the Washington Post online, I would log in to Facebook for my daily news. There, I would find the latest campaign development through a shared article, or a conversation thread about a candidate.

But more importantly, Facebook coupled with other social media tools  helped Barack Obama secure the presidency. With the use of various digital platforms, Barack Obama rejected public financing and raised a record-breaking $650 million, largely from private, individual on-line donations. And now, for the first time ever, we have a President who is accessible via Facebook, Twitter, and a blog.

To me, this shift means two things: ACCESSS and POWER.

In my view, Gov 2.0 is about the power and ability of citizens to gain access to government like never before. Gone are the days when writing a letter to Congress helped voice an issue. Today, you can send a 140-character message that’s publicly available to every follower of a Congressman.

Think about the bargaining power that holds! You can publish your message not just to the leader with whom you want to speak, but to every person paying attention to every move that leader makes. The pressure on the figure to respond is heightened when he or she is up for re-election, or is working on a contentious issue. In this sense, Gov 2.0 not only gives citizens greater access to their government, but also gives them greater power to leverage their voice and perhaps a greater change of  getting a response.

The hope is that this heightened access and power will lead to action, and ultimately, change. I believe that is what will define the next iteration: Gov 3.0

Jackie Titus-

My Georgetown colleague, Mike Rupert, a Communications Director for a major government agency in DC was the first to introduce me to Gov 2.0 communications. By watching his work I learned about the power behind social media and digital communications for Government agencies. Mike changed the way his agency communicated with college students through a new website www.thisshouldbeillegal.com – the goal of the page is simple, “Helping Keep College Students Safe and Healthy in DC”. What I love about this work is the core mission of the agency stayed the same but the new approach facilitated a more direct conversation with the target audience.

At its core Gov 2.0 is taking the information the public is entitled to and makes it more accessible. However we know that this new form of communication is not just about pushing out more information and providing more access, it is also about a dialogue. Government agencies can scale their approach use it to raise widespread awareness or communicate at the local level about public safety and neighborhood alerts.

Charlie Tansill-

Integrating social media into government agencies will be a mammoth challenge. Bureaucracy, special interest organizations, national security, and resistance to change all present incredible obstacles; however, it is crucial that these challenges are overcome and that government begin to incorporate social media for many reasons.

1. Transparency: Especially in a democracy where officials are elected, it is crucial that the government be as transparent as possible. Citizens are not comforted by a government that is trying to hide their operations; rather, when a government is open, it breeds trust and confidence. Social media does exactly that: facilitates a more open, translucent, corruption-free and accountable government. Obama is a huge proponent of transparency and its importance in holding officials and policies accountable for their actions. There are even international organizations that exist for this very purpose such as Transparency International!

2. Empowerment: For the most part, social media is inexpensive, simple and mobile and, because of this, it brings a voice to more people; it provides another outlet through which common citizens can share a voice and be empowered. It encourages the power of Collective Intelligence!

3. Collaboration: Social media tools allow for quick information-sharing between international organizations, agencies, politicians, and humanitarian agencies, which allows for more partnerships and collaboration. Especially at a time when special interest groups have so much influence, social media tools could be used to combat this trend so that organizations can cross boundaries and work together toward the collective good.

These are just a few of the reasons I believe social media is critical to the future of government.

More details, including the launch of the Eventbrite are forthcoming. Please stay tuned to our blog for further information. Thank you for all your interest and support. We are very excited about the upcoming event.

Next month, the Digital Influence team will be partnering with others at Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide to bring you an Ogilvy Exchange on Government. The working title of the event: How Social Media Tools are Shaping Government, the 2010 Elections and Issue Campaigns.

In 2008, the Obama administration swept into the White House in large part transported on the wings of the Netroots – the fundraising and voter mobilization of his online supporters was unprecedented. With this administration came the ideals of the Open Gov Directive and Gov 2.0: transparent, participatory government. Two years later we can’t help but ask the following questions:

What happened to the momentum?

Does it still exist?

How has it evolved?

Are these ideals being fulfilled in government?

What are some of the best, innovative case studies of what is possible in this space?

What does the future hold?

What do the Administration, the media and the campaign stakeholders think is next for 2010 and 2012?

How is the next generation of political advocates going to bring together social media to create a movement, to raise money, to organize locally, to fight opposition campaigns and to get out the vote?

Will the Republicans be able to capitalize on this power as well as the Democrats?

We realize that this topic is vast and one that will take several conversations to cover. Consequently, we are hopeful that this Ogilvy Exchange will be the first of many where we begin to discuss these questions. In parallel, the 360Di team is launching a series of blog posts on government that we hope to publish on a weekly basis to continue to explore this topic in a more thorough manner.

We are very excited to share that the following speakers have expressed an interest in participating in our Exchange: Micah Sifry from Personal Democracy Forum; Ari Melber from the Nation and Politico; Mark Murray from NBC Universal; Lovisa Williams, Deputy Director from the State Department’s Office of Innovative Engagement. We will be providing more details as speakers are confirmed. We look forward to having you join us at this event!

For more details on the event and how to get involved you can reach me at Kety.Esquivel@OgilvyPR.com.

Latinos and Hispanics in Web 2.0 are in the sweet spot. Over the course of the last few days, whether it be at Netroots Nation in Las Vegas, the Bridge Conference in the beltway or within Ogilvy’s own LatinRed professional network during an event in New York City, I have found myself in conversations with various folks talking about the opportunity found in engaging this demographic online here in the States.

So what is the opportunity?

At the end of last year and beginning of this year, I was thrilled to see a couple of recent studies that provided a quantitative backing to what I and others in the industry have been saying for years. Latinos are in Social Media.

According to a report released by the Pew Hispanic Center and the Pew Internet & American Life Project in December of 2009, internet use among Latino adults rose by 10 percentage points from 54% to 64% between 2006- 2008. In comparison, the rates for whites rose four percentage points, and the rates for blacks rose only two percentage points during that time period.

A recent report published by AOL and Cheskin states that the number of Hispanics online has grown faster than the growth of the total US population. Two similarly striking findings of this report are that Latinos have more confidence in online product rating sites than their friends’ opinions (78%: 28%) and that they are earlier adopters of technology, more so than general market users.

Moreover, the AOL and Cheskin report found the percentage of bloggers in the Latino community to be at 21%.

So what does all this mean?

The numbers show that Latinos are:
-A significant presence in the Web 2.0 space and growing
-Content producers
-Early adopters
-Significantly influenced by online product ratings

Although two recent studies, “How Young Latinos Communicate with Friends in the Digital Age” and “The Latino Digital Divide: The Native Born versus The Foreign Born,” just released by Pew report that Latinos are still playing catch up to their non-Latino counterparts online, the reports also state that younger native-born Latinos are embracing the technology enthusiastically. According to the reports:

- 85 percent of native-born Latinos older than sixteen use the internet
- 80 percent of native-born Latinos between sixteen and twenty five use cellphones and
- 78 percent of native-born Latinos between sixteen and twenty five with internet access use social networking sites.

With one out of every four children being born in the US of Hispanic origin, the significance of these findings should not be lost on us as it relates to this market or the opportunity it presents in the private, nonprofit and political sectors.

To not realize on this opportunity would be foolish.

It’s like catching a baseball on the ’sweet spot’ of the bat. If you don’t swing, you can’t knock it out of the park. It’s time to swing and swing now!