I have, despite forces almost gravitational in their inexorability, resisted the urge to post about Twitter. Primarily because, over the last 18 months, the web has been awash with commentary about how to use the micro-blogging service. However, the publication this week by the UK Government’s Cabinet Office of a strategy template for government agencies to start tweeting is an opportune moment to reflect on what it might mean for New Zealand State sector agencies.
The Template Strategy, it must be said, is an excellent idea. The plethora of information available on the web is of variable quality and there isn’t much specific to government. I imagine that this document will be welcomed across Whitehall and in many other jurisdictions.
There are many things to commend the document. It addresses the objectives and metrics that agencies should consider when they think about starting a Twitter account. There is a section on risks and mitigations that should start a healthy discussion among managers who enjoy that sort of thing. But mostly there is a lot of good, practical advice about how government agencies should consider integrating Twitter into their overall communications program.
Naturally, there are also a couple of points that I would make regarding the suitability of the document for the New Zealand context.
My primary concern is around the notion that corporate communications people need to approve all posts:
5.6 All other tweets will be cleared by staff at Information Officer grade and above in the digital media team, consulting relevant colleagues in comms and private offices as necessary. (p. 7)
The State Services Commission has issued guidelines for State servants using social media, together with the Code of Conduct there exits sufficient guidance for State servants to use their judgement when engaging with these tools.
My view is that with some training, some guidance and the trust of their organizations, New Zealand State servants should be able to blog and tweet responsibly and with an authenticity that would not be possible if their posts had to go past corporate communications.
This would also eliminate the risk of
criticism arising from the perceptions that our use of Twitter is out of keeping with the ethos of the platform (such as too formal/corporate, self-promoting or ‘dry’). (p.3)
The second area where I would encourage New Zealand practitioners to adopt a different approach is regarding followers. The template recommends that:
We will however, follow back anyone who follows our account, using an automated service…
(p.9) emphasis in original
I can not urge agencies strongly enough to disregard this advice. Forget about trying to follow people; follower counts are irrelevant. Focus on responding to those people who choose to interact with your agency via the service. Similarly the number of followers that you have is not a metric that has any value to a government agency — and trying to spend any time determining the relevance of those followers would be a criminal waste of taxpayer funds…
Those two reservations aside, I think this document is an excellent tool for agencies to start thinking about how they expand their social media presence.









8 Comments
Hi Jason
I’m the author of the UK document. First of all, I’m absolutely delighted to see it covered here, and all corners of the globe for that matter – way beyond my expectations for the document when I published it quietly on a blog a couple of weeks ago!
Secondly, I thought I’d point out a possible misunderstanding in your post. My document as it stands was about managing a *corporate* Twitter account (such as our own @bisgovuk) and as such, some level of clearance or central control over content is, in my opinion, unavoidable. But, like you, I absolutely wouldn’t advocate clearance for individuals’ tweets under their own names – even when they’re speaking in an official capacity.
I’ll be checking out the links you mention above to NZ’s code of conduct and SM guidance, could help us with ours.
An interesting read. How would this apply to local government? Do the standards of integrity and conduct apply to local government?
Thanks for dropping by Neil, and congratulations on the paper.
I did understand that the paper was about corporate accounts; and my comments for colleagues here were intended to be read as pertaining to formal agency accounts (hence the .govt.nz title). I think the difference in our approaches reflects a range of influences, including scale, constitutional matters and culture. But as I said in the post, the document will be welcome here.
Hi Waylon. No, the Code only applies to State Services agencies: local government authorities are required to have their own codes under the Local Govt Act 2002.
Great discussion. Neil, you might also be interested in Staff Contribution Guidelines we developed for the SSC blog. They’re available online and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence: http://blog.e.govt.nz/index.ph.....ons-style/
Interesting, will check them out too.
Web 2.0 is not about communication departments but about all civil servants. Thanks for your views, Jason, it urged my to write my own blog. There, I’m taking it a bit further even: see http://twurl.nl/laklz1 (translated by Google; for the whole blog site please go to http://english.ambtenaar20.nl).
Hey Jason
I’ve been following the discussion about this template with interest. Like you, I inevitably found there were a few points I disagreed with – or which, at least, go against the grain of what I advocate here at the National Library
Chelsea Hughes and I blogged about our Twitter account a couple of months ago. We try to follow back the [real] people who follow us as much as possible, but I agree – it’s pretty meaningless as any kind of metric. The aim of our Twitter account is to help people enjoy and use our digitised collections, so we use tr.im to measure click throughs and make sure that when we put out our twice-daily tweets we’re at our desks for the next 30 minutes to keep the conversation going. We’ve also found that we do the odd bit of customer service through the account – for us, 2 people asking us questions is a much more important figure than adding 200 followers.
In our own (short, hopefully common sense) guidelines for staff posting on or running ’social media sites’ we’ve recommended following the SSC guidelines. I’m hoping to release the guidelines under a CC licence in a couple of weeks. One of the other things we recommend is that staff should always clearly identify themselves, in particular when running a site or account. Chelsea and I felt it was really important to say that it was us running the @nlnz account, partly because it emphasises that we’re responsible for what happens on it, partly because we think it’s nicer for other Twitters to talk to people, rather than an institution. However, the template recommends anonymous tweeting. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Thanks Courtney: I agree about identifying the people behind the accounts. It is important that when people approach our agencies they should know who it is they are dealing with. Public servants identify themselves when they answer the phone, why should social media be any different?
There may be issues with multiple contributors to a single Twitter account but I am sure there are ways to get around this. The fundamental principle, and one you have clearly put into practice, is that social media is about people…
13 Trackbacks
[...] definitieve voorbeeld voor overheidsorganisaties. Jason Ryan, een collega-ambtenaar Nieuw-Zeeland, geeft hetzelfde commentaar: waarom gaat dit alleen over Twitter voor de communicatieafdeling? Geef ambtenaren het vertrouwen [...]
Twitter Comment
RT @jasonwryan: Some thoughts on the UK government’s Twitter Strategy template [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @jasonwryan Some thoughts on the UK government’s Twitter Strategy template [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
Great critique on recent UK Twitter doc RT @jasonwryan Some thoughts on the UK government’s Twitter Strategy template [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@jasonwryan some thoughts on the UK government’s Twitter Strategy template [link to post] – Don’t forget Jason is presenting #lgwn09
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT @piawaugh: Great critique on recent UK Twitter doc RT @jasonwryan Thoughts on the UK Twitter Strategy template [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
RT: @piawaugh: “Great critique on recent UK Twitter doc by @jasonwryan [link to post] “. Meer nadruk bijv op vertrouwen in ambtenaren.
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@jasonwryan good to see the blog restarting. I missed your return – it is using a new RSS feed.
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@jasonwryan Bravo on follower counts! I think auto-following back is polite, though “You are being followed by GCSB” could be worrying.
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@jasonwryan yes – and just read that post – well put!
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@gnat I was trying to ensure the focus was on the engagement (replying), not the numbers…
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
@mattlane yep good post that one from Jason… amazing list of UK depts using Twitter in the doc he links to
– Posted using Chat Catcher
Twitter Comment
Further on a corporate Twitter strategy [link to post] I found relevant to Aus (via @b3rn)
– Posted using Chat Catcher