To tweet or not to tweet, what is the question?

New tech is changing the face of engaging with foreign populations, whether you’d like to call it PD 2.0 or not. Craig Hayden‘s post on CPD blog raises some important questions in this area and one of the key questions for different organisations will be through which of the spaces, platforms or technologies should they seek to engage? This however, is only half the question – the other half is not just being ‘on YouTube’ or ‘having a blog’ or even ‘tweeting’, how can the tech be used to its full potential, and which bit of tech is being used for what purpose?

Serious answers to these will help organisations avoid appearing like the drunken uncle dancing in cringe-worthy fashion at a wedding.  

The recent DipNote use of Twitter, has drawn comment from Enduring America along with wider comments on DipNote coming from Mountainrunner. Ok its not perfect and a good conclusion is one which Mountainrunner writes about DipNote “this really isn’t a knock on the blog, it isn’t more than half good either“. It’s not a disaster, its not a roaring success that will revolutionise PD, it is just nudging along.

This judgement however, comes with a slight caveat – it is based on what I think they want it for. That caveat relates not just my view of the State Department’s use of Twitter, if relates to all those deciding whether to use Twitter or not and by extension it could (and should) be asked whenever organisations are (were) considering Ning, Facebook, YouTube, etc or any of the next generation of spaces and technologies.

What do you want it for? What are you going to do with it?  Failure to ask these questions vastly increases the chance of using it ‘because everyone else is’. We’ve all been there at some point; there is a lot of buzz around a particular thing, then someone suggests it should be part of project x or programme y etc. next thing you know you’ve announced it and we’re off to the races there’s no getting it back now. Anyone that’s been through it knows this is a sure-fire way of appearing like the uncle at the wedding.

So it was that the already croweded infosphere was full of the news from #mumbai just before Christmas. Stories which suggested that as the attacks unfolded ‘news’ was pouring out of Mumbai last week via twitter while Journalists were coordinating informal information networks on their blackberries. Most news media covered this angle to some extent, though the revelation that NFL star receiver Plexico Burress somehow managed to shoot himself in the leg at a nightclub did run it close in some papers.

There is however, a distinct difference between the info networks run by journalists and the twitter avalanche that has particular relevance here. The networks were being run for a purpose (and received comparatively little attention), while the Twitter avalanche was just that, a lot of people sending personal communication without some overarching purpose – this was not some mass movement.

The wolfe’s den makes a useful point here; Never before has a crisis unleashed so much raw data — and so little interpretation. Equally, rumour circulated that Indian authorities asked people to stop tweeting in case it was providing the attackers with useful intelligence, yet in 100 pages Alexader Wolfe couldn’t find much of practical use.

Consider that avalanche, one article noted within five seconds at 0748 GMT, 80 messages were posted, another graphically demonstrates the speed it gathered pace. I don’t intend to discuss in depth the security implications of operating in such an environment, merely to highlight the level of buzz created stories of their own about Twitter. The numbers became the story…

This unfortunately has become the way in a number of things in Public Diplomacy, size of potential audience has been the draw not what can be done in that particular environment. The stories about the Twitter avalanche have an echo of some presentations I’ve seen over the last couple of years on the potential of new technology in public diplomacy / digital diplomacy / engagement in virtual worlds etc. Heavy on the potential, or at least potential numbers, but less so on the clarity of what is going to be done with it. Some of this to be fair may be due to the perceived (and in many cases actual) level of understanding of the audience – I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve heard “this is what World of Warcraft looks like” or “This is an avatar walking around Second Life and this is how many Avatars there are”. In these cases and that of #Mumbai, the story is the size of the involvement (or potential involvement) rather than the serious practical purpose it can serve. These technologies provide means for engagement not just an audience for a message!

I am not saying we should abandon discussion, nor that we should not be happy with having found another way of reaching an audience. I suggest that if it is just another means to deliver a message (even if it has more of a human voice than other methods), another way to ask for comment just to answer back with the same rebuttals that will also appear in other media, to take a centralised view and drive traffic to other sites or stories produced by the same organisation, it is a missed opportunity. But if that’s all you want if for then it will do the job just fine. Both DipNote and 10 Downing Street have been largely using them in this way.

These have parallels with Politicians playing half a game of tennis with 5 children from a school of 1800 students, a visit to 1 ward in a hospital treating thousands of patients a year, or perhaps a visit to the troops in the combat zone while the actual battle rages a safe distance (preferably a long way) up the road. Despite the high numbers actually involved in the general vicinity the engagement actually genuinely reaches very few, while providing a nice photo op. Image over engagement; which if that’s all that is desired then fine, but lets not discuss the size of potential size and discuss that is will reach a limited number in a cool way.

However, is there more? Sure; it could be used for coordination amongst participants at events. If PD organisations are engaged in events which are intended to promote network building then this has some serious potential (assuming that it is a technology the participants coordinate around – rather than one which has little resonance). For example, TN2020 run by the British Council attempts this – though seems to be relying on @andrewkneale at time of writing for many of the comments.

This method uses a public space by creates an introspective view, as many of the comments while public have little resonance to anyone not included in the ‘insider’ group of attendees. The deliberate channelling in this type of network building provides means for measurement and coordination while enabling network development amongst the attendees. It may even allow an invitation for outsiders to participate but it will be hard for them not to remain outsiders if physical events continue without their involvement. 

However, one may consider something like FrontlineSMS (thanks; Peter Upton) particularly if relying on a centralised network model, which provides enables instantaneous two-way communication on a large scale, largely through a central hub. OK it has not got the cool appeal of Twitter, but if phone usage within the target community is text rather than web-based, it may provide a serious alternative. It would facilitate organising; a swarm or a text vote, running a competition or providing auto-response for opening times at an information centre. It, as with much of the new tech discussion, all depends on where and with whom the organisation is working along with what they are trying to achieve.

Ultimately PD is about influencing the way people to act – tech may be one of the tools and providing information may part of the process, but the important debate is what to do through tech.

Repeating the same things through different channels, will have little success just as (as I highlighted in Options for Influence) the Cluetrain Manifesto argued companies would have to evolve their methods of engagement:

‘Most corporations, …only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do.’

PD must evolve also not just to use the technologies these networks do, but also use them as these networks do. This will move toward the open source approach in some elements of engagement, as PD organisations evolve, Giles Scott-Smith wrote;

In place of futile attempts to control all information outlets and non-state actors, the aim has shifted more towards proposals ‘to create image and value platforms’ and ‘network relationships’ around which state and non-state actors can congregate and mobilize

To do this they may seek to engage in an open-source approach to public diplomacy

which engages in collective effort among peers (both foreign and domestic), whether they are governments, NGO, commercial enterprises, or members of a blogroll or Facebook group. In doing so it may seek to aid groups that lobby a foreign government for a change in policy but may equally aim to achieve the beneficial outcome by changing the behaviour of the population, directly irrespective of government policy or direction.

To tweet or not to tweet; the question is what are you trying to achieve?