Will Facebook profiles replace govt web sites?

All market demographics should be catered for. I would be sorry to see Government sites demolished.

I use them extensively and see much merit in them, though there is a role for improvement and consistency in the way that these are presented and managed generally.

Facebook and Twitter profiles and other such social media platforms should always be additional to Government websites.

There is no such thing as a single demographic for the "people" or where they are. 

Adopting popular social media platforms to reach certain demographic profiles is important but should not replace more conventional platforms or ignore other needs.

The issue of layered participation and involvement must be considered. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have their merits - and drawbacks.  These platforms do not appeal to all categories of stakeholders for numerous reasons.

Having said that as a newcomer stakeholder in the government and quasi-government social media arena, I readily admit that in these early days of establishing a social media strategy there is a dearth of response from the citizen stakeholders for which engagement is sought. This may me explained by a number of moderating factors including:

1) Marketing strategies - Lack of knowledge of the existence of such informal opportunities to make enquiries, provide suggestions or express concerns may hamper engagement.

The National Measurement Institute (NMI) have an identifiable communication strategies aimed at increasing awareness, which will include radio. Their example may be worth emulating. Contact the Communications Analyst at the NMI for suggestions and advice.

2) Negative experiences with the engagement process by existing and would-be stakeholders.

The perception of tokenism of stakeholder consultation is widespread. It will take time and strategically planned effort to redress these impediments.

3) Costs in terms of time

It takes a huge amount of dedicated effort to effect engagement - from a citizen's perspective or the perspective of other stakeholders.

4) Perceived lack of reward

Based on experiences to date with efforts to engagement with all three tiers of Government, it may be reasonable to suppose that quality of feedback, (if this occurs at all) be may be a barrrier.

People need to have the confidence that their views will

a) Be acknowledged - beyond the auto acknowledgements that normally follow direct email communication to a vast majority of government, quasi-government and funded entities.

Many of those entities that are structured as legal entities under corporations law as companies with limited guarantee but without share portfolio describe themselves as being "independent" and even believe themselves to be "unaccountable" except to their Boards of Management despite wholly or substantially being funded through public coffers

For the purposes of this comment and in all other respects I include any entity providing a public service in comments relating to government services and profiles - and I have precisely the same expectations of accountability to voters and other stakeholders

b) respected and taken into account

c) be reflected in measurable and published outcomes in addition to be individually acknowledged and explained, with re-direction where appropriate when issues are beyond the charter or scope of the body originally approached

Engagement with stakeholders, including ordinary citizens is a complex and challenging matter that deserves careful strategic planning.

Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO); Steve Davies and others, here's a change to develop policy principles that will effect maximal engagement with all classes of stakeholders.

Those wishing further dialogue feel free to contact me directly or on this site.

Cheers

Madeleine Kingston

Citizen Stakeholder

mkin2711@bigpond.net.au