Governmental organizations always face criticism from public opinion on how they deal with certain issues, like health, education or generally large corporations about their products and services. At the web 2.0 era where criticism is not only coming from offline sources (e.g traditional media) but also from online sources (social media, like blogs, social networking sites and microblogging services), which could be proven potentially more powerful from any other means of communication. For example, using as a case study Greece, Twitter users have immensely contributed their online communications during the demonstrations against the government's austerity measures, Thorlos tennis socks by using #hashtags e.g. #19ogr.
It was just a typical example or a heterogeneous group of people (who do not know each other) and whose only common reference point is a social media tool, like Twitter in which jointly they used its technology in order to organise themselves for a common goal.
It is obvious, what happens when a heterogeneous mix of people decides to join on a common goal through a social media tool like Twitter.
However, another question arises; what happens when a homogeneous group, of an organisation/company, decides in terms of public affairs to act proactively to a crisis, that could bring it against society. Have the ministries worked on proactive crisis management plans that could absorb that kind of situations? Namely, how an organisation can prevent negative impact/criticism of the public opinion, on the issues that the ministry deals with. Have the organisations conducted proper research in order to see what their online/offline reputation is? In case of negative online/offline reputation have the companies/organisations conducted research on finding ways to reverse that situation? What kind of tools can an organisation use in order to follow the daily activity of online users that could be against its policies, proposed legislations and generally on the quality of its work and it employees?
If a governmental organization, such as a ministry (like the ministries of Finance, Education, Health) are interested in absorbing proactively any negative impact through online environments, then the ideal way is the use of social media in order to absorb and mitigate potential negative online reputation. In other terms a simple proactive crisis management plan could potentially lead to an online reputation management victory in terms of public affairs and communication.
How can a public affairs/relations team, through the use of social media and their full potential, absorb and mitigate any positive impact on a ministry? It could be achieved by monitoring online on search engines like Google, anything that is published online and it is related to the work, activities of a certain (governmental organization). For example, if we assume that the PR team of the Ministry of Education tries to find out online what the online reputation, generally, of the ministry is, then, the case in point an effective tool to find it out is Google Alerts.
However, it should be pointed out that the use of social media tools (and Google Alerts) as proactive management tools can not be only be limited to governmental organizations but it could also be expanded to SMEs, large corporations, non-profit organization and so forth. Thus the question that should be arisen is if the companies are ready to embrace social media as proactive management tools that could improve their online reputation.
Google Alerts and Boolean Operators
Google Alerts, are basically email updates of the latest relevant Google results (web, news, etc.) based on your queries. Thus, the result types can come from everything or from selected sources (news, blogs, videos and discussions). Additionally the team can adjust the frequency of those updates, according to its needs for a 24/7 response or for a "9 to 5 response".
Then, the PR department should develop a meticulous search strategy/policy according to which with the use of Boolean operators (AND, NOT, OR) the PR department can extract the related term or the exact information that it seeks for, in order to process the acquired information and later on though its online channels (Facebook, Twitter and official blog ) give an immediate response.
How Boolean Operators work on a search engine like Google. For example the use of " " is necessary if somebody is looking for a specific term. E. g. "Ministerial decision"; that means that all results that contain this term will be available at the team's disposal through its mail. Another example "ministerial decision" AND "ministry of education". That means, results related to these terms will be available at the team's disposal. It should be noted that words, like "of" (stop - word) is not searchable through Google. The use of OR could be used in this case, for example "Minister Nikolaoy" OR "Minister Nikolaou" in order to broaden the search to the extent that it can retrieve both possible last names.
Another example M.O.F (Ministry of Education), so the PR team could perform a query like that MOF OR M.O.F NOT M.o.F
For the truncation/wildcard like * if the PR/Communications team performs a query, then it is possible to retrieve multiple results. For example "Minist* decision"; in that case the team will retrieve information which is related to "minister", "ministerial" and so forth.
Overall if the Communication team is able to perform such kind of queries with the use of Boolean/proximity (AND, OR, NOT/?, * ) operators and truncation/wildcards ( e.g (nW),(W),(N), (nN), (L), (S) ).
The excellent knowledge on search engines and how to perform a query could be a communicational victory. Based on the excellent information retrieval skills, then the PR team can use effectively Google Alerts and update its mail by receiving information related to the
How does it work? For example, if the PR team wishes to know overall the online activity through Google Alerts and wants to find out what's being said about a service or an issue that is related to a ministry the use of Google alerts is the best way on updating their "information tank".
Twitter
After a PR team retrieves automatically all the accumulated information which is related to the nature of the a governmental organisation, it is easier to infiltrate all this information by putting it on their online channel Twitter, even if it's negative publicity.
It is vital for any governmental organisation to accept, even the negative publicity, to "absorb" it by publishing it by its own channel (like Twitter and Facebook) and reply to the questions that may arise from users. Interaction "e-engagement" with users is vital. If any organisation wishes to prevent any communication defeat, it should act proactively by formulating a proactive crisis management plan which should include the use of a social media tool like Twitter. Creating online relationship with users, will use as a "safety net" when a crisis emerges. In this way it will be easier any organisation to absorb any negative impact or it is most likely to mitigate the impact, instead of hiding the problem/crisis under the rug. Any governmental organisation should "personalise the experience" by allowing users to comment -even if the comments are negative- and interact with them.
The use of hashtags, from the side of the governmental organisation, on a certain topic which concerns (online) public opinion (for example #uni_asylum ) could help the PR team of the governmental organisation to categorize a number of issues with the use of hashtags. By categorizing the issues, the team could respond effectively to every and each one of the user that raises a question.
Additionally any organisation can monitor the online activity of users (whose profile is not protected). In this way putting specific words on the "Search" and anything (word for example) that is related to the organisation can be retrieved and processed by the PR department.
Facebook
Negative e-WOM (electronic word of mouth marketing) could be spread as a virus, within the online community. As an example of bad crisis management the Greek TV network MEGA, during the demonstrations in Athens during summer of 2011 against the austerity measures, received hundreds of comments on its Facebook page by angry citizens/users for its role (supporting the Greek government). Thus, the Greek TV network, what it did, was to disable its page due the massive amount of negative comments that it was receiving. However its tactics enraged even more users/citizens.
Thus, it would be vital for the organisation, through its PR team to "get the hit" by allowing all comments even the negative ones, instead of hiding them "under the rug" by joining the conversation. The organisation should take the responsibility on replying to any questions or comments that are not offensive or anonymous for ad hoc purposes (it can be regulated with the use of social media guidelines). An organisation which is only an organisation that posts comments without engaging with users, leads to the "dehumanisation" of the organisation. Even though we are aware of the fact that an organisation is not a living organism, interacting with users, leads to the "humanisation" of any organisation. In the long run, this abstract theory could be interpreted into a PR win for the organisation as long as it is not going to hesitate to implement this theory into practice.
Blogging
By creating a virtual area where all bloggers can upload or comment on the organization's posts, this leads to the empowerment of e-democracy and the same time it can be a victory in terms of communication and public affairs. Implicitly when users are being followed, are "friends" or receive replies by organizations, feel that their opinion counts and in the long run the organization will be able to "cash out" this online engagement with users, when a crisis emerges. Would you go directly against your friend/follower, or would you try to resolve this disagreement by chatting? The same thing applies in an online environment where logic and interaction will not be replaced by swearing. Online relationships amongst users and governmental organization can flourish with regular communication. It is important to send a follow-up email after the initial contact with a new user either, it's a blog post, Twitter or Facebook. This communication, of online engagement could potentially revolutionize the way that (governmental) organizations (in proactive crisis management) interact with users. For the blog it is of vital essence for the governmental organization to create social media guidelines in order to formulate a certain regulatory framework in which the organization can shape a code of conduct. This code of conduct can cover areas of trolling, bad behavior, personal information, anonymous comments etc. In this way the organization creates the necessary framework for absolute transparency with its users, without leaving any grey areas.
Transparency and interaction with users can ensure that for any crisis that may come up in the future could become a safety net in the long run for any governmental organization without disrupting its good relation with citizens; on the contrary, the level of e-democracy will be enhanced.
No comments:
Post a Comment