Good Governance: the Infrastructure is, almost, in place

Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 09/06/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.

It’s become incredibly easy for us to say that the “internet will enable [insert favourite social need here]…” Indeed, the internet does have the potential to create a fair democratic system – but what we’re not getting at is how the desired changes are actually going to happen. Digital has the power not only to understand what changes are needed but also to bring about their implementation.

What’s needed? Bright, go-getter and can-do people who not only believe in the change they want to happen but are prepared to go the full Monty and make it work. We have the necessary human resources available and via initiatives like crowd-sourcing and initiative incubation (note not just idea-incubation) we can realise these goals.

So, what’s the real issue?

Imagine you’re talking to a shrink, where you rant ceaselessly about a problem for session upon session and either he just listens and enquires about how you feel or potentially offers you a quick-fix antidote to ease your symptoms.

The result:  a never-ending square-dance around the real issue. Symptoms are continually addressed and social graces are continually observed yet are we really setting realistic goals and developing constructive and deliverable action plans?

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them.  – Henry David Thoreau –

How do we expect to solve global socio-economic problems like we keep saying we will, when we’re relying solely on the dialogue that the internet facilitates? Agreed, the internet is the best ideas’ incubator yet available to us. Its multinational, boundary-less scope is brilliant for stimulating ideas which really are worth sharing and without it, the world would be deaf to a large population of intelligent and worthwhile contributors. However, without a defined plan/vehicle for their implementation, any idea no matter how great, remains baseless.

Less Talk More Action

I fundamentally believe that the internet is a vehicle capable of facilitating advancements in societal progress. Though I remain convinced that unless more ideas evolve into actionable strategies – the internet will largely facilitate an impenetrable bubble of stale dialogue.

Let me give you an example. High level as this may be.

1) Listen, register and convey ideas/sentiment to the necessary referents

Online reputation management (ORM) services will enable not just consumers to air their opinions of the brands they use but also what citizens have to say about elements of their country’s governance.

Consumers the world over, and not just those from developed, urban areas are becoming more and more comfortable in using social media platforms particularly those accessed via mobile for conveying political sentiment. Engagements with/following of@BarackObama and @PresidencyZA on Twitter as well as the viral nature of pro-socially democratic conversation trending within North Africa and the Middle East are cited as key examples.

With auto-verification and natural language processing search functionality via online reputation management services, large volumes of public opinion issued across multiple platforms of digital communication, the public participation process can become fully automated with governments able to extract and act on relevant insights not only on a quantitative scale but on an on-going basis as well.

For example, in this way, citizens can directly participate in processes and decision making at all levels of government, improving the communication and transparency of the overall decisions which affect their day to day lives, airing their views which otherwise would not be heard.

2) Impose accountability – discourage inaction/compel action

One particular advantage of ORM is the ability to determine source credibility. This implies the scope of an author’s audience – how many people would have the opportunity-to-see his/her message at a time.  If you can reach 4 000 people, you are considered a ‘respected source’.  Similarly, if you can reach 1 000 000 people, you are considered to be an ‘authoritative source’

You may disagree with that. Even if they have seven million followers – how could a singer be authoritative? They’re not authoritative because they’re an authority on a subject, they’re authoritative because they’re accountable to a community seven or even ten million strong.

There is a certain amount of control that needs to be exercised not only when you can influence that many people but because that is a large population which controls the supply of your influence. That connection is an organic, human-defined relationship, which if abused, will cease to exist or at least substantially reduce in following.

The same rings true for state-centric governance. With a direct line to the collective voice of the opinions of millions, leaders have the potential to not only visualise those castles in the sky (the carrot) but facing the risk of their electorate literally unfollowing them (the stick) the compelling drive to actually build the necessary foundations.

What’s your great idea? How will you overcome the barriers to its enactment?

And how will it make a lasting difference?

Twitter attends the Royal Wedding

Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 06/05/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.

With the Royal Wedding having been a major focus for the world this past weekend, BrandsEye took a look at just how much of an impact this conversation had on the online community at large.

In a single day, this fun and fanciful occasion captivated the star struck hearts of more than 20% of the global population, reportedly having attracted a total viewership of over two billion people. This contrasted with an estimated 750 million viewers of the wedding of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer in 1981.

Yes, the global population may have increased relatively equally since then but never before have so many people – ordinary grassroots consumers like you and me – had the opportunity to engage with the official proceedings via the platform of social media.

In a sense, these networks have since allowed consumers to take ownership of their own experience of the royal wedding – where their ownership implies, their being able to share their 5 cents worth with their respective online audiences.

In this way, hundreds of millions of people across the globe were actively engaging online, generating conversation of their views and opinions about everything from fashions on the day to the controversy of the guests both in attendance and in absentia.

Where did the most adoring fans come from?

Considering population levels, the most talkative nation was not the house-proud Britons who accounted for a 17% share of conversation but rather the Americans who topped the charts with a 29% share.

Otherwise, the people most involved in this conversation came predominantly from former British colonies namely, South Africa, Canada, India and Australia – collectively generating 28% of the royal wedding buzz.  Interestingly enough, statistically significant conversation also came from Indonesia, Italy and France – accounting for a 4% and 2% respective share of the total conversation. Similarly, 89% of this conversation was in English with some conversation also picked up in French and Italian.

Of course, there was also the Royal Wedding drinking game, which started under a similar premise to the one based on the South African State of the Nation Address, where participants would take penalty drinks based on appearances by specific celebrities and members of the royal family, references to Charles and Diana’s wedding etc.

The Facebook page – The Royal Wedding Drinking Game 29/04/11, which inspired most of the awareness of the game received 335 978 likes and 249 mentions of uniquely South African engagement.

As proven during the South African State of the Nation Address, the drinking game version proved a great vehicle for everyday people to engage with and celebrate the occasion not only in the comfort of their homes or local pubs but in their own online communities as well.

Before, aside from those present at the ceremony, the broadcasting of this message in the case of Charles and Diana’s wedding in the 1980s, was one-way in nature and was limited to television and radio, allowing for no feedback or engagement from their 750 million-strong audience.

As a result, traditional communication mediums were deaf to the vast quantities of hundreds of millions of branded back-channel conversations occurring off the back of broadcasts like these in living rooms and bars around the world.

As such, the marketing community at large was missing out on vast quantities of branded conversation and ultimately valuable opportunities for market research.

Having celebrities like Victoria and David Beckham present at a ceremony like this or having a couture wedding dress would merely have accounted for isolated response conversation between fans offline.

Social media have allowed these conversations extend beyond lounges and bars, allowing participants to share their experiences with people across the world – which was never possible to this extent in the 1980s.

2011 South African Budget Speech Online

Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 24/02/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.

– Did you budget for this much conversation?

Since yesterday, BrandsEye has been tracking the online conversation surrounding Pravin Gordhan’s 2011 South African Budget Speech to present you with a balanced appraisal of volumes and trending topics thereof.

97% of this conversation came from consumers – showing significant engagement by ordinary people in their own personal capacity. Considering that there was no celebrity-inspired stunt driving online conversation as was the case with Pres. Jacob Zuma’s 2011 State of the Nation Address, this is a considerable amount of unadulterated online conversation for a single event measured over two days.  2% thereof came from press-related sources, while the remaining 1% was pushed by enterprises such as Deloitte.

67% of this conversation was exchanged on Twitter, which included 109 retweets. Facebook served as a platform for 15% of the conversation, with miscellaneous websites and blogs such as mybroadband.co.za, techcentral.co.za and marcforrest.com driving the remainder.

“Tax” was the most trending theme with 16.8% of budget-specific conversation – relating to the various taxation adjustments for the following budget year.  The 80c increase in sin taxes per carton of cigarettes specifically, was of particular concern, holding 6.5% of the conversation. Other notable influences of this theme would have included the R 8.1 billion worth of tax relief granted for the following financial year.

Exchanges about the fuel levy increase and taxes on gambling winnings over R 25 000 were also influentialholding 9.3% and 7.3% of the conversation respectively.  A further 8.3% of the conversation talked about the R 800 billion set aside for infrastructural improvements without cutting the budget deficit.

The Independent Online and @BusinessLiveSA was the most engaging/engaged with online presence, accounting for 2.6% and 2.3% of the total conversation.   Other prominent entities who were either drivers of/engaged by conversation were @stephengrootes, @khayadlanga, @Mgigaba and @DeloitteSA.

6.7% of this conversation came from a respected source, which has a reach 1000 or more people.  In total, thisconversation reached approximately 2 690 970 people, thus generating an earned media value of R 609 180.75.