Specifically, I was asked if Ms. Stoddart’s “apocalyptic” view has any merit.

I read the speech very quickly and typed my stream-of-conscious thoughts as quickly as I could in the little time I had. I should probably take some more time to refine them and organize them into something coherent now. But, this is a blog. It’s meant to be in the moment. And my moments of blogging have been few and far between lately. I should probably blog about that, too.

This is how I answered the question. I’m sharing it here in the hopes of maybe kick-starting a conversation.

In a word, yes. However, things are never that simple.

Let me see if I can encapsulate my thoughts so you can decide if they’re interesting enough for you.

The digital economy has changed many things about the marketer-consumer relationship. Marketers have become curators of the breadcrumbs we consumers willingly and unwittingly scatter everywhere, all the time. The ease of access to and storage of information means the marketers now have a greater responsibility to protect that information. Too often we’ve read stories (or perhaps experienced first hand) the damage caused by poor controls surrounding storage and transmission of the data. Ann Kavoukian does a great job of explaining how good privacy practices are good business [in her book] — do it well and consumers will reward you with their business. Of course, that suggestion came before we made the rush from bricks-and-mortar stores to buying and downloading bits in real time and reporting our every activity over Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare and (who knew) our cell phones.

Some call that “permission-based stalking.” [However, as] Ms. Stoddart points out, online license/service agreements consist of volumes of legal text. I challenge you to find someone who has read the full text of any of those agreements before they accepted and still accepted. I once Tweeted about the 16 page iTunes agreement I was presented [and blindly agreed to] on my iPhone.

For many (perhaps most) consumers, targeted advertising is beneficial and we’re willing to accept our role as a data point for marketers in exchange for a reduction in the general noise by presenting us with ads that are more likely to appeal to us. However, informed consent and commitment from the marketers are key to preventing what could be a supernatural privacy disaster.

Privacy, tracking and targeted marketing in the digital economy is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

This goes beyond simply working against the authenticity and immediacy of social media culture. The 25-pages of guidelines require social media programs and participants to understand an additional 10 documents on legislation and 21 on government policy. Though the TBS’s social media rules refer to those 31 documents as “Instruments”.

Instruments… signature legalese. Proof, as Josh Greenberg points out, these rules were written by a rather large, multi-disciplinary committee. In fact, you can see where the various author groups clashed in opinion and tone by the presence and absence of the word “you” in various statements of the guidelines. Those alone tell a very interesting story about this document.

These new guidelines are a very-thinly veiled path of deep resistance. The result will be the a culture in which the public service couldn’t be bothered with navigating the many layers of review and approval for the overall program and each of its actions, or a series of dull social media initiatives that routinely make headlines for their exponential and ever increasing costs. High costs and bad press… a sure recipe to prove social media programs are ineffective and bad government policy.

Social media guidelines need to create a culture which innovates public relations and communications. That comes by setting simple and achievable parameters and establishing support systems for those who participate. The foundation needs to be clear, solid and human-friendly. For more on what that looks like, check out the three-page Guidelines for the use of social media in the Victorian public sector and how the Victorian Department of Justice created a clear and easy-to-follow supporting policy.

Treasury Board guidelines-by-committee overcomplicate social media is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

Admittedly, it was a bit of a bitter-sweet celebration. A dear relative has been given a grim medical prognosis.

Celebrating good health is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

According to an Ottawa Citizen report, Disconnect is primary reason young Canadians don’t vote: survey, the authors suggest…

…a number of possible solutions, including an increased information drive on how, where and when to vote; a survey into methods for distributing voter information beyond mailed postcards; placing more emphasis on other ways of voting, such as absentee and mail-in ballots; putting polls in locations where youth feel more comfortable; and making sure that voting booths are child-friendly, so parents are more likely to vote.

I believe that kind of passive thinking, plus a political system that has gambled its stability on historical participation data for specific groups and constituencies, was what created this situation in the first place. The system as it exists now has built-in obsolescence. At the very least, it’s designed to age-out voter participation until it all collapses.

If the article is correct, the authors of the report missed out on three much more meaningful recommendations which can actually fix the system rather than sell false comfort to Elections Canada. The solutions are built on engaging young voters, not patronizing them.

1. Invest real money and resources into developing and designing a strong civics education program which engages students through primary and secondary school — in the classroom, out in the community and using technology (apps, games, social media, etc…);
2. Educate politicians on engaging all voters, especially young voters, to build a democracy that can become more engaged now and sustain itself in the long-term; and,
3. Guide politicians into a new culture of better conduct, more human tone and adopting social- rather than broadcast-media style relationship building (this applies in all areas of political theatre including the campaign trail).

I trust the terms of the survey contract made it clear Elections Canada was paying for the survey and data crunching, not the recommendations.

UPDATE…

Okay, I’ve located the report. The authors’ recommendations appear to be because 64% of surveyed non-voters claim access, schedules or responsibilities impede their ability to vote. The recent Ontario election adopted a variety of extended advanced voting options that were very well advertised. Still voter turnout hit an all-time low.

What’s missing from this discussion is how motivated the respondents are to make the time to vote. I know a lot of voters who are 40 or older who navigated busy schedules involving family, work and other life issues and still went out of their way to vote. I suspect that, at the core, this is about sense of importance about the vote. Throwing good money after bad to tell young voters when and how to vote won’t get them to the polls. Low turnout is a symptom of a larger problem.

Study authors recommend fixing our political system with blinders is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

It’s up to me. It’s up to you. It’s up to all of us. #NoMoreBullies is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

Before our segment, Don Martin spoke with CRTC Chairman Konrad von Finckenstein. I noted (though didn’t bring up in my discussion) that Mr. von Finckenstein dodged the question about why the CRTC changed it’s earlier decision on UBB. You can find that exchange beginning at 3:16 in this clip.

Usage Based Billing on Power Play is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

As noted on the page, it has a table with the following features:

• Lists all federal MPs, their parties and ridings
• Icons link to MPs’ primary digital outposts (web, Facebook, Flickr, Twitter & YouTube)
• Column headings for MP, Party, Prov and Riding can be clicked to toggle sort order
• Names of MPs who have been the subject of a digital makeover are linked to their makeover posts

Please let me know if you identify any inaccurate or missing information.

Federal MPs and their digital ecosystems is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

I suppose it’s possible you didn’t know about that event. However, a Google search of gail shea gives a Globe and Mail article about that event second billing, behind Gail Shea’s otherwise anonymous website (more below).

And that’s my way of introducing Gail Shea as the latest MP to get a digital makeover.

Focus on user experience

Like those of many MPs, Minister Shea’s website is a solid foundation for her digital ecosystem. The site’s layout is clean and easy to follow. Your eyes generally know where to land even if distracted by a series of images that change on a short cycle on the right side. Visitors are presented with important information about Ms. Shea and her responsibilities as well as recent content aggregated from selected social media outposts (providing links to some).

Otherwise, the site could use some improvements to the user experience. Newsletters are as many as three clicks away — one click to a page listing the newsletters, one click on the link to the desired newsletter and a third (and extraneous) click to actually be presented with the newsletter. The site offers visitors the ability to subscribe to the newsletter via email. Ms. Shea might consider providing a link to subscribe via RSS for the more technically-savvy.

I like her Privacy Statement. It’s short and unmistakable.

Maintain the ecosystem

Ms. Shea’s re-election website is still alive, and growing more stagnant each day.

It appears her last update to this purpose-built site was on Friday, April 29 (three days before Canadians went to the polls). There’s been nothing since. No update posted on election day or post-election “thank you for your support” message to volunteers and supporters (in fact, Ms. Shea didn’t post a post-election thank you message to any of her online properties), and no message directing site visitors to her actual website.

My best advice would be to redirect this URL to her primary website, thus removing a potentially confusing site (for visitors) from her ecosystem.

Help Google help you

A Google search of Gail Shea puts her own main website at the top of the results. That’s exactly what you’d hope for if you were Ms. Shea. There’s a significant problem though. There’s no indication which Gail Shea the site is for. Ms. Shea is missing an opportunity to help Internet surfers and researchers identify what belongs to her. GailShea.ca is essentially anonymous. I suggest she get her team to add descriptive metadata into her site.

This is a particular problem since the second link is a Globe and Mail article titled Why Gail Shea is used to getting pie in her face. Now would be a good time to consider ways of promoting the search ranking of Internet properties Ms. Shea has control over in order to naturally demote the relevance of some of the more embarrassing online content.

Participate in conversations

Ms. Shea’s use of Twitter is sparse. There have been long gaps between tweets beyond just the expected summer break. Having said that, it’s odd Ms. Shea would tweet good wishes to Jack Layton on July 25th and then not acknowledge his death and impact like so many of her colleagues did on their own Twitter accounts in late August. In fact, Ms. Shea didn’t tweet again until October 8.

Ms. Shea is using Twitter as a broadcast channel rather than one of communication. This is typical of most politicians who are new to social media. There are other telltale signs including the absence of a link to her website within her Twitter profile information.

This may all sound critical. However, Twitter is a communication tool on the public record. Politicians should know that what they do and what they don’t do in the public eye will always come under scrutiny. Having a channel is not nearly important as how effectively and productively that channel is used. So, commit to specific channels and do them well.

Build a community one interaction at a time

Photographs represent the majority of Ms. Shea’s Facebook Fan Page. That’s an effective way to get visitors to take notice and perhaps even look for themselves or people they know. It’s also part of an approach which screams “playing it safe” online. While I don’t necessarily disagree with a play-safe approach for a newcomer, it’s no way to build a constituency of support or justify hosting an online community. Besides, Ms. Shea already has a photo gallery on her website.

In fact, taking a broadcast media approach over social media channels may cause some members to question their participation in the community or even support for a non-communicative politician. People join Fan Pages to engage with others, particularly those who have established the Page. Absence doesn’t necessarily make the heart grow fonder in those cases. Engaging with people cyclically, like only during an election, suggests a focus on opportunism and self-interest.

For example… Ms. Shea’s Facebook Fan Page features a number of unanswered questions. People see that. People notice the absence of participation in the community. I suggest becoming a participant in the Page. While it’s possible the questions may have been answered “offline”, the public still sees them as ignored.

Ms. Shea routinely posted updates and thoughts to her Facebook Page during the election, though did not participate in the dialog or acknowledge messages from others. Her Facebook activity dropped dramatically after the election.

Do each channel well

I noticed Ms. Shea opened a YouTube channel on October 18. The channel has a proper description and a link to her main website. That’s good so far. I’d suggest adding her official photo to the channel as soon as possible, and start uploading videos in the very near future.

However, things get more complicated.

A separate YouTube channel, launched on November 8th, boasts a single video of Ms. Shea delivering a Remembrance Day message. This video is embedded on Ms. Shea’s official website.

It appears the secondary channel is owned by a Charlottetown-based digital production outfit, though they haven’t completed the YouTube profile with a photo, bio or link.

One has to wonder why Ms. Shea would have a video channel and not populate it with her own video.

GAIL SHEA’S DIGITAL GRADE: C-

Digital makeover: Gail Shea is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

I mixed in clips of podcasting friends, daycare community friends and my daughters reading excerpts of In Flanders Fields and was able to secure permission to use songs by Bryan Adams and The Duhks.

The resulting podcast is attached to this post.

Remembrance Day from the CD Into The Fire by Bryan Adams and The Bantry Girls Lament / The Ol’ Yellow House from the CD Your Daughters and Your Sons by The Duhks (The Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion) used with permission.

Photo: Remembrance Day Poppies Laying on a Soldier’s Kit in Afghanistan uploaded to Flickr by UK Ministry of Defence.

Lest we forget is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.

We’ve seen many examples of how the Internet can be put to good use and just as many if it being misused. I don’t specifically mean abused; though, there are ample cases of that as well. I generally mean misused. As part of my work I follow critics of specific industries and organizations and have found many to be proudly absolutist in their views and more eager to pull the trigger than champion positive and productive change in incremental steps. It’s the fire method that dismisses the need for ready and aim (in either order).

A conversation I had yesterday afternoon turned to a particularly weighty issue. The person I was meeting with expressed an interest in effecting change about this issue and inquired about using social media to drum up a groundswell of support mixed with a high-profile legal action.

The problem I have with this approach is that it’s adversarial. It pits us against them and generally is about shaming stakeholders into change. Not only that, it puts the targets in defense mode. Their legal teams will advise them to not comment and refuse to engage with the enemy. That’s called adversarialism and it’s probably why change so often looks the same.

In many cases the need for change is more about established practices rather than specific intent. That is, the systems and practices (with lumps and warts) have been in place for years. They work even if they’re completely archaic and offensive and may even be recognized as such by those on the inside. Changing the status quo is likely hard for a variety of reasons outsiders can’t fully appreciate. If it was easy, some of the more significant issues would already be addressed.

It’s a lot easier to criticize others than roll up your sleeves to make things happen. Many advocacy and activism campaigns come under fire because the participants do little more than point out shortcomings, stopping short of suggesting practical solutions or offering to collaborate and support the change.

I suggested taking a multi-pronged and cooperative, problem-solving approach. People are more likely to act on the need for change (driven by the evolution of social norms and technological innovations) if they know they aren’t (or won’t come) under attack, can get the necessary support and can be made to look good in the process. To be metaphorical… rather than spark an inferno, build a campfire.

I suggested the following first steps as a starting point:

1. Identify the core of the issue. Understand why the issue exists today and perhaps not when the systems were first put in place.
2. Identify key stakeholders and players including those who may be willing to offer support, those who may present roadblocks and those who could present significant problems for those at the centre of the issue.
3. Identify applicable laws at all levels of government (municipal, provincial, federal).
4. Identify political, social and economic impacts (domestic, international) and possible champions in politics, government, industry and the public.
5. Identify some possible (and practical) solutions.
6. Determine ways in which you and the public can help those at the centre of the issue and how you can help rally support for them.
7. For each audience, figure out how to present the problem as a short story and the possible solutions in an easily digestible way.

Advocacy in the digital age: relationships and campfires not targets and firebombers is a post from Mark Blevis. Sign up for my free digital public affairs newsletter.