www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

If you've watched the evolution of this blog, and my previous one, I have softened my tone to be less absolute. Frankly, that actually derives from my use of this blog and other social media tools. The more I build relationships with new Edmontonians and Albertans, the more I am exposed to differeing opinions and my willingness to accept other viewpoints expands.

This evolution has also made me more critical of viewpoints which seem wholly agendized. In my opinion, the louder and more entrenched you are in your position, the less likely I am to trust it's anything but exactly that, an agenda.

I have a theory, which I plan to investigate and reflect on over time, but the basic theme of it is that social media tools force us to become more accountable to our words, and hence more ideologically moderate. At least for those who choose to sign their real name next to their accounts, blogs and comments. We are sophisticated enough, and perhaps narcassictic enough, to not want to offend our followers or friends. Or God forbid we LOSE followers with our agenda's. I also tend to think that as people become more and more reliant on new media to research their opinions, they naturally become more wary of anonymous or agendized text as the "advertisment" of social media. Like when I fast-forward through the commercials of a PVR'ed 60 Minutes, I'll almost completely disregard the anonymous comment, or agendized poster.

Perhaps this is why corporate Twitter and Facebook accounts are treated differently than individual ones. When I put this in a political context, which is how I largely enjoy using social media, I look for people who can break from the ranks of simple partisan noise.

I suspect that I am not alone. I believe that we are way more sophiticated in our ability to see though the BS, and have learned to appreciate when we are engaged, or listened to, instead of spoken to in soundbites and party lines.

I am holding out hope that a political movement will appear, which doesn't arrive on the scene with all of the answers, but enters the discussion with some humility and willingness to listen.

You know that weird uncle on your dad's side that makes the whole room feel awkward at the annual family gathering? You're not sure if you should feel sorry for him, be scared of him, mock or tolerate him. One thing is for sure, you won't let your kids near him. When Weird Uncle is in the room, a fog of social awkwardness is apparent to everyone but him.

Thats kind of how I feel about the current Alberta Government, and the execution of its Social Media strategy.

Joining Twitter is like walking into a huge party, buzzing with many different types of conversations, people from all walks of life. The difference between the physical world and the virtual world of Twitter, is that anyone can get into the party. As much as they might prefer the old-world command and control type party where you can have a bouncer screening who gets in; this is the coolest party in town and your ticket is worth the exact same as the bus driver who works the midnight shift, the hippy activist, or the cyber-journalist looking for the next scoop.

It is a faceless and fashionless world where you win the attention and respect of others by GIVING to the conversation, showing respect by ReTweeting other peoples good ideas, and above all else, not appearing to be 100% agendized. Of course, real-world celebrity and notoriety will get you some original followers and attention. Like walking into the party and the DJ turning down the music; all eyes turn to the door. We see that you have arrived, but your continued "coolness" will only last if you recognize that the party has already started, and did not just start on your arrival.

So this week was one of those fantastically awkward moments. When the weird uncle, in this case the Alberta Government, chose to leave the party instead trying to fit in. A Government account was being run by a Mr. David Sands, and originally he was there to defend the Government's Oil Sands policy. Somehow, he became a lighting rod for all government policy. The problem in my opinion was that the account was in his personal name. To complicate that, the last two weeks saw a parody account was created of Finance Minister Ted Morton.

The Morton parody account was a funny invention, and nothing new in the Twitterverse. The person behind it seemed to have used actual Morton speeches and writings, to highlight his right-wing social conservative positions. It didn't take long for the parody to be identified by even the most casual of Twitter user, but Mr. Sands seemed to try and object to the account and whoever was behind it. A mistake, and kind of like trying to punch a ghost. A waste of time and embarrassing to the people watching it. To exacerbate the debacle, the account of David Sands was also quickly parodied by someone with nearly the exact same name and background image.

Anyways, and my point for writing about this, is that all of this could have been avoided with a proper strategy by the Government to be in the conversation properly. In my opinion, the issue was the way the Government entered the fray. Instead of having a Twitter account, or several, in the name of the Government and it's departments, it was being represented by a named individual. It could have avoided the individual/personal attacks and been in the medium as exactly what it is, an organization.

The best example of how to do this, in my opinion, is the City of Edmonton account. The City account is ran by three City staffers, and we all know that we are not talking to the Mayor or City Manager. Beyond that however, the people behind the account make the effort to still get involved in the discussion and in-person events that make Twitter real. Mr. Sands may well be a very nice person, but he was never in a position to succeed, because he had to own the constant criticism of government policy, instead of simply managing the dialogue that people wanted to have with the government.

In reviewing his "tweets' below, it appears that the Alberta Government might be abandoning Twitter for a while. This is a real shame, and not as much a reflection on David Sands, as much as his managers, who really don't understand that Twitter is a place for the government to LISTEN and ASSIST it's citizens, and NOT a place to defend divisive policy.

Here is the last conversation that the Sands account had. As you can see, it's WAY too personal for the government to be having, seeming defensive, trite and frankly awkward.

Today I had a very enjoyable conversation and coffee with Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell. I am neither a Liberal Party member, nor that active in my opinions of Federal politics. Interestingly though, Mitchell sought me out after we got into a small tete-e-tete on Twitter about partisanship. I applaud him for invoking an in-person meeting where we quickly became more similar than different.

Our discussion today turned to how Social Media can be used as a force to activate the electorate. As we spoke, I shared with him my fascination with how the average citizen suddenly has the ability to "publish" their own thoughts through blog posts, tweets and by clustering with like minded others on social media networks. We both agreed that this was a powerful evolutionary force in how movements can get their start. Not surprisingly the "Obama Effect" was discussed and used as an example of how a broad grassroots movement can start and grow. Even our Premier, Ed Stelmach, mentioned the "Obama Effect" in his Q & A session with party delegates at the PC AGM. I have thought a lot about this, and in particular when I look to the Bill 44 debate and how it evolved quickly online, somewhat empowering regular citizens.

But as I think about it, and in particular President Obama's success using it, I can't help but think that the successful use of online tools to raise awareness, then money and finally get out the vote, was not entirely because of the TOOL as much as it was the VISION the tool was propagating. President Obama has a message of hope and a defined new way, that resonated with people. Particularly in light of the lack of hope that President Bush may have cast over people.

So as I think more about this, I think that politicos are wise to work on their vision first, and then if that vision resonates with people, social media simply allows a highly leveraged environment for that vision to spread. Tools change, but politics is simply about building hope and pointing people in a collective direction. Old tools worked also, be it traditional media, or word of mouth campaigns. The nature of social media tools in fact can harm a poorly created vision, and I think the Bill 44 debate, or recent H1N1 delivery debacle proved just that by harming the reputation of the PCs amongst some, as bad policy or governance. In those cases citizens used that same social leverage to rally against a bad idea or vision.

So for me, I am looking for ideas and vision first. The political party that has built its social media leverage at the same time by being active participants will then be able to use these tools successfully when coupled with a compelling story.

Of course you can transpose this idea to business as well.