Australia Laura Watson (Australia)
Laura Watson
The Politics of Twitter
Written by Laura Watson Tuesday, 10 August 2010 Last Updated on Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Twitter
On August 09 2010, Family First senator Wendy Francis announced on twitter that “Children in homosexual relationships are subject to emotional abuse. Legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse.” Wow Wendy – it seems you are a bit of a tool. Bob Day, Family First Chairman was quick to suggest that these tweets were not Wendy Francis’ views and furthermore, they did not reflect the views of the party. Apparently, her account had been hacked.

Hacked or not hacked, the interesting point for me is that Twitter is being used by politicians this election to communicate with voters. For the last few election cycles in Australia, different new media have been given special attention. In the Howard/Latham election it was websites in general, for Rudd in 2007 it was Facebook and this time around Julia and Tony are contending with Twitter.

One of the key attributes of Twitter is that it enables and encourages swift and succinct communication of views and opinions. Politicians are not generally a bread of people who can converse in direct terms which leaves Twitter as a less than desirable communication channel for politicians. To add insult to injury Twitter is, for all intents and purposes, an uncontrollable medium requiring constant engagement and monitoring – you can imagine that the adoption of Twitter by politicians would be an unfavourable yet necessary decision.

After spending a little time looking at Gillard’s and Abbott’s tweets, I’m not surprised to find that neither one uses the channel to its full potential. Their agenda’s are both clear, but neither one is really starting a conversation. The engagement potential is not being utilised one iota; for all I know I could be reading newspaper headlines and part of me wished I was because at least it’s followed by interesting content. So, what was I expecting before my search begun? To jump onto Twitter and find Julia retweeting @miafreedman or starting hash tags like #boozyfridaysatkirribillihouse?

No of course not. I think it’s admirable in some ways that politicians have stepped far out of their comfort zone and adopted a tool, which is unpredictable and inherently risky. Without a doubt, they have opened themselves up to additional slander. I also understand that, given the relatively small number of followers (Julia has about 36,000 and Tony has about 17,500), the average political social media strategist is not getting as much attention as the average media adviser. I do believe though, that as a tool for communication with voters it has serious potential for brisk, succinct conversation. How about a Twitter Q&A scheduled for an hour every couple of days where voters could ask questions directly to politicians? Or how about a Twitter debate? At least it would be short and sweet! I’m sure that Julia and Tony would have a few more followers if voters were aware that the medium was actually being used for a conversation rather than a medium for pushing agendas.

 
A sock sized effort
Written by Laura Watson Friday, 16 July 2010 Last Updated on Friday, 16 July 2010
Social Media
Today I saw an ad I really didn’t like. For your viewing pleasure – please see below.

 

 

This ad generated quite a stir here at digital Transfer and especially comments posted on twitter. After being posted on Mumbrella, there were several comments, which expressed a level of irritation – ‘wtf!’ commented “Sensis is really taking the bull by the horns by supporting and promoting the “serious issue” of endemic socklessness in Australia”, whilst ‘anon’ stated “This is exactly the sort of campaign that makes me feel ashamed to say I work in this industry…Disgusting.”

The fact that this campaign has to be ‘liked’ on Facebook in order for Sensis to donate a pair of socks was also contentious amongst the Mumbrella audience. From the get-go it appeared to be a seriously misguided use of social media and as I started to engage with the online conversation, it came to my attention that Sensis were, in my opinion, ill-equipped to respond to the public backlash using this platform.

A couple of tweets from me about this campaign yielded a response from an employee at Sensis. Initially, I was impressed; they were engaging in a conversation and taking steps to ease an overwhelmingly negative public response.  We absolutely get that this campaign is not 'social responsibility'. See Sensis GM Sustainability response on blog.” Clicking through to this persons profile revealed that they had sent this same message to everyone who had mentioned the campaign on twitter. An auto-response? Really? Don’t wave the ‘conversation carrot’ in front of me and then bring it to my attention it’s really only a monologue. It wasn’t just me who was upset – others who had received the same response were starting to use some rather colourful language to express their anger and distaste towards Sensis.

I thought about biting my proverbial tongue but before I knew it I had told the people at Sensis they could call it whatever they wanted but they couldn’t polish a turd. It was cathartic.

At the end of the day, Sensis saw an opportunity to position themselves as an organisation with a moral conscience. Working with Mission Australia to create this campaign it’s clear they’re trying to make a difference (albeit a sock sized one), so it’s clear there was intent to deliver a level of assistance. Comments from Mission Australia also highlight that this campaign was in fact helpful for homeless people. Be that as it may, I still can’t come to terms with it; and this was further amplified through digital media. They fell short with the response team, which to my knowledge included a message from the CEO giving the campaign a massive wrap and an anonymous Sensis employee who had set up an account that day to field automated responses.

BE PREPARED. That’s the key out take from all of this. We all know the power of digital. We all know that people are sharing their opinions on and offline. So, when going to market, be prepared for a conversation. Hopefully it will be a positive one, but if it isn’t, be prepared to mitigate damage.

 
digital People Friday's - Laura Watson
Written by Laura Watson Friday, 09 July 2010 Last Updated on Friday, 09 July 2010
digital People

We're very pleased to announce a new addition to the stable of digital Transfer authors, another smarty pants .....

 

In 1899, the head of the US Patent Office, Charles H Duell declared, “Everything that can be invented already has been.” Such a blatant comment need not be deconstructed. Suffice to say, bright Charlie was not aware that, thanks to many subsequent inventions, the world would become a changed place with instant global connectivity, online communities and that we would ultimately end up trusting the opinions and feedback of strangers over and above the people and brands that we purchase from. Such disequilibrium was inconceivable.

Some inventions have been extraordinary (the Interweb), others less so (the chopstick fan). I believe the key to the future lies in reducing complexity; finding easy solutions that make our lives simpler and give us back some of the time we seem to have lost.

I’m in the market for a tool that feeds encyclopedias of knowledge straight into my brain, a head device that allows me to travel to Croatia and feel the sun even if I’m freezing in the fetal position in my bed. I’m looking for an apparatus that allows me to clean my teeth without a brush, a contraption that hangs my clothes thereby reducing the size of my floordrobe, and I wouldn’t be opposed to a small pill that stops me from blushing uncontrollably at things I honestly don’t find embarrassing.

I am Laura Watson and I’m a Creative Strategist at PLAY Communication. Pleased to meet you.

 
 

eNewsletter

Receive the latest weekly digital Talent, News, Events and Jobs

E-mail Address: