Andy Oram wrote a post on Friday that triggered some thoughts of my own about reputation management, and how public sector communicators can approach this issue. Oram attended a Yale symposium on Reputation Economies in Cyberspace and has since been providing thorough coverage and analysis.
What I found interesting about his first post (he has posted two more on the topic with the fourth to come) Reputation: where the personal and the participatory meet up was that the discussion (so far) is limited to individuals; the implications of what online reputations mean for organizations doesn’t feature. So I thought I might explore some of those implications, particularly as they relate to government agencies.
Before I get to the 3-step approach to a reputation management, it might be worth pausing to consider what exactly we mean by an agency reputation. I’m not sure that I necessarily agree with the definition Andy derives from the symposium, at least not in a public sector context:
reputation can be seen as a market in which people invest in reputation, store it, exchange it, and expend it as necessary for other goods.
My take on it is that reputation is a product of the degree of trust that your publics have in your agency. It is not an end in itself — and it is certainly not something that we are in a position to trade. Public sector agencies have public monies and public authority ceded to them by the citizens of the state. The extent to which we effectively manage that money and authority determines the level of trust that the citizens have in their public institutions; reputation is one expression of that degree of trust.
Other expressions of trust may be, for example, the willingness to comply with taxation policies, to engage in public consultations or elections or to participate in the census. None of which, in a functioning democracy, you would want to see compromised…
The 3 Steps
A public sector communicator’s job consists in part as being the curator of their agency’s trust. While their fellow managers have responsibility for the effective discharge of the public’s money and authority, the communicator is responsible for ensuring that this is transparent to that authorizing public.
Within this framework, what then can a public sector communicator do to effectively manage their agency’s online reputation?
Online/offline
Any consideration of an agency’s online reputation must first acknowledge that, no matter how much work you do in cyberspace, most of the transactions that impact upon your reputation will still take place offline. For that reason, you might want to focus your attentions on your internal communications. If you can engage your staff and have them embrace the vision of your agency (and the values of the public service), then you have a solid foundation on which to build your management strategy.
Online, all the time
Your online presence is, for all intents and purposes, ubiquitous. No matter how many people you have in the field, at the counter or behind the wheel, the simple fact of the matter is that your web sites are available 24/7 to anyone, anywhere. Or they should be.
And, as more and more people use their phones and other portable devices to access the Internet, the smart money would be on those agencies that make a strategic investment in exceeding these customers’ expectations.
Not busy, engaged
Social media offer real opportunities, if deployed intelligently, for an agency to engage with it’s publics in ways that are both convenient, transparent and, increasingly, expected by younger citizens who are only just forming their own impressions of what it is like to deal with government agencies.
Conclusion
Ultimately, any and all of these tactics are only ever going to assist you to manage the outputs of your online reputation, not the outcomes. These are contingent upon the nature of the many and complex interactions that your publics have with your agency. However, while you can’t control the outcomes, you are obliged to do your best to manage those elements within your control.
Trust in government is an indicator of a lot more than reputation. It is not just a measure of credibility or a record of successful transactions (the TradeMe model) but is the fundamental social and political legitimacy that we have to keep earning every day.
Photo: sonicbloom
6 Comments
Reputations are not so much traded as conferred by association so individuals have the power to confer positive (or negative) cred to their organisations in a web 2.0 world through their online (and offline) activities.
This is because we tend to trust people who are recommended or trusted by people we already know and trust.
What is interesting here is the potential role of individuals in developing an organisational reputation – if we allow them to speak (and even if we don’t).
For sci-fi buffs, this is an interesting take on online reputation economies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie
Thanks infofreako. Your inference about the impact of social media on our workforce, and particularly around the issue of consent is a good one.
I don’t see ‘approved,’ or for that matter ‘independent,’ agency bloggers, for example, having much of an effect as personalities (which is the traditional reputational and blogger model).
However, I do think that agencies that are prepared to engage using social media will increasingly be seen as more responsive, more effective and hence more trusted.
Or in your coffee shop .
The worst astroturf of the year.
Starbucks may have eroded a lot of trust – but in their non-internet savy, soccer mom, demographic they have probably had significant cut through.
It’s so crude it makes me cringe.
Reputation is the broad estimation in which your publics hold you, it is indeed an expression of trust. I agree that in general comparatively more effort should be directed towards offline reputation but it should be acknowledged that online reputation management is crucial as events (positive or negative) can unfold very quickly. In the words of KD Paine, “the words shared in the blogosphere are an important source of outtake information”.
@Sam:
@Leon: good point about response time Leon, engaging quickly can assist you to manage a crisis.
At least Mencken would have come up with the idea himself.
The current cheer campaign is most likely based off this event in Bakersfield California back in 2005. The link is through to the LiveJournal community for Starbucks baristas. (via)