Titled "Measuring the Impact of Social Media and Determining Next Steps," this is a presentation led by me and Andy Krzmarzick during the final workshop of the Advanced Learning Institute's 'Social Media for Government' conference in Washington, DC on March 26, 2009.

3. Measuring the Impact of Social Media
and Determining Next Steps
Advanced Learning Institute
Social Media for Government Conference
March 26, 2009
Ari Herzog
A i H og Andrew Krzmarzick
Ad K i k
Online Media Strategist Senior Project Coordinator
Ari Herzog & Associates The Graduate School
http://www.ariherzog.com http://www.graduateschool.edu
Blog: http://www.ariwriter.com http://generationshift.blogspot.com
Twitter: @ariherzog Twitter: @krazykriz

4. 1. Paper or
2. Laptop
3. Ideas
3 Id
So what… o I do now?
S h dd ?
4. Rank
5. Share
Source: Flickr - Khalid Almasoud's Photostream

5. AGENDA
1. Introductions
d 6. Potential Template
l l
2. Base Camp 7. Application
3. Web 1.0 Measurement 8. Next Steps
4. W b M
Web 2.0 Measurement 9. Fi l Th
t Final Thoughts
ht
5. Survey Results 10. Gov 2.0 Camp and Beyond

6. INTRODUCTIONS
Name
Agency/Organization
Expectations
E i

9. BASE CAMP
Current/Potential How Do You
Web Activities Measure Success?
ROI*
It’s all about ROI*
*So who is this ROI anyway?

10. BASE CAMP
ROI = ?
ROI ?
Return on Investment?
Return on…

12. What is ROI?
• Coined in 1920s for General Motors to
measure investment return in industry
• Digital parallel needed
»Investment
g
»Insight
»Information
»Influence
»Interaction
»Implementation

13. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY
ADVANCING MEDIA SURVEY
• 10 questions
• 4,000 potential respondents
• Web Manager’s Forum
•G L
GovLoop
• GovTwit Directory
•International Contacts
• 105 responses
• 7 countries

14. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY
ADVANCING MEDIA SURVEY
Questions
1. What enables or hinders you from using social media?
y g
2. What social media tools does your agency use?
3. Rate tools per value/importance in achieving mission.
3 Rate tools per value/importance in achieving mission
4. Do you establish metrics prior to implementation?
5. If yes, for which tools and what variables do you measure?

15. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY
ADVANCING MEDIA SURVEY
Questions
6. Is privacy, security and monitoring social tools important?
p y, y g p
7. How often do you use social media in your job?
8. Thoughts re: gov standards w/browsers, software, etc.?
8 Thoughts re: gov standards w/browsers software etc ?
9. Is CTO/CIO actively involved in social media initiatives?
10. Where are you from/what agency do you represent?

16. 1. What enables or hinders you from using social media?
Response
Enables
bl Hinders
id Depends
d Other
h
Count
Answer Options
Knowledge level
31 31% 37 37% 30 30% 2 100
(manager)
38 38% 35 35% 27 27% 1 101
Knowledge level (staff)
32 32% 36 36% 29 29% 2 99
Management support
25
5 25%
5 50 50
50% 24
4 24%
4 1 100
00
Available resources
57%
55 12 12% 28 29% 2 97
Connection to mission
30
Other (please specify)
answered question
d i 101

17. Most Believe Gaining Top‐Down Advocacy from Upper Levels Will Spur
Action Toward Widespread Gov 2.0 Strategy
The best way to spur action at our agency/department toward implementing a
more widespread Gov 2.0 strategy is:
43.0%
43 0%
Gaining top-down advocacy from the 54.4%
41.9%
upper levels of our agency/department 31.5%
14.5%
An increase in our IT budget 10.3% 13.3%
20.2%
20 2%
10.4%
A grass-roots campaign that starts at the
14.7%
lower levels of our agency/department 7.6%
8.1%
9.3%
5.9%
5 9%
Public
P bli pressure f
from our constituents
tit t 12.4%
10.5%
9.3%
Hiring more IT workers who are knowledgeable 5.9%
8.6%
about Web 2.0 techs and the power of
13.7%
collaboration
9.0%
A singular event that requires action 4.4%
11.4%
(e.g., an election, a natural disaster, etc.) Total
12.1%
Respondents
Federal Government
4.4%
4.4% State
Other 4.8%
4 8% Government
4.0% Local
Government

18. How
1.
1 Paper or
are they
2. Laptop
3. Ideas connected
4. R k
Rank
to your
5. Share
mission?

19. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11280943@N04/1504440991/

20. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study
2.
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports

21. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study
1 Brookings Institution E Government Study
Since 2000:
• > 1,500 state and Federal government sites
• 0 – 100 point scale

22. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study
1 Brookings Institution E Government Study
Since 2000:
• > 1,500 state and Federal government sites
• 0 – 100 point scale

23. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study
1 Brookings Institution E Government Study
• Advertisements (lack of) • Pay via credit card
• PDA/handheld device accessibility
• Audio clips
• Personalization of the website
• Commenting
• Premium fees (lack of)
• Databases
• Privacy policies
l
• Digital signatures on transactions
• Disability access • Publications
• E‐mail contact information • Security policies
yp
• E‐mail updates • User fees
• Foreign language access • Video clips
4 points per feature (72 total points) + 28 more for frequency

24. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
1. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study
1 Brookings Institution E Government Study
You got it…
You got it
or you don’t.
y

25. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
• User Goals
• Value
• Navigation
• Presentation
•T
Trust

26. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
Value
• Does landing page provide evidence that user goals can be
achieved?
hi d?
• Is essential content available where needed?
• Is essential function available where needed?
• Are essential content and function given priority in display?

27. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
Navigation
• Are menu category/sub‐category clear?
•A
Are content and function classified logically?
t t d f ti l ifi d l i ll ?
• Is the task flow efficient?
• Is wording in hyperlinks/controls clear and informative?
• Are keyword searches comprehensive and precise?

28. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
Presentation
• Does site use language that’s easy to understand?
• D th it
Does the site use graphics, icons, and symbols “ “ ?
hi i d b l “ “ ?
• Is text legible? Text format/layout support easy scanning?
• Are form fields and interactive elements placed well?

29. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
Trust
• Does the site present privacy and security policies?
• D l
Do location cues orient the user?
ti i t th ?
• Is contextual help available at key points?
• Does the site help users avoid and recover from errors?

30. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
2. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
2 Forrester Website Benchmark Survey
Trust the
experts?

31. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index

32. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
E‐Gov – What is it?
• Key question:
• Measures 94 e‐gov sites on: How satisfied are citizens?
1. Navigation
1 Navigation • B d U i
Based on University of Michigan’s
i f Mi hi ’
2. Functionality American Customer
3. Search
h Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
( )
4. Look and Feel

33. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index

34. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
E Gov Outcomes
E‐Gov Outcomes as of Q1 2009
• All‐time high: 74.1% satisfaction overall
• M t
Most successful sites:
f l it
• Citizens find information quickly and easily
• E‐Commerce and Transaction functions

35. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
E Gov Top Performers
E‐Gov Top Performers
• http://www.ssa.gov/estimator (Score: 89)
• http://www.cia.gov/employment (Score: 81)
• http://www.niams.nih.gov/index.htm (Score: 82)
• http://medlineplus.gov (Score: 86)

36. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
E Gov Advantages
E‐Gov Advantages
• Savings of time and money for government
• B tt
Better service for citizens and businesses
i f iti d b i
• Accountability, transparency, active participation
• Streamlined bureaucracy and reduced redundancy

37. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
3. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index
3 ForeSee: E Government Satisfaction Index
The
customers
customers’
always
y
right?

38. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Government Initiatives
4 OMB E Government Initiatives
E‐Government Act of 2002
“To enhance the management and promotion of electronic
Government services and processes by establishing a Federal
Chief Information Officer…and a broad framework of
measures that require using Internet‐based information
h i i b di f i
technology to enhance citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.”

39. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
4 OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)

40. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
GOAL:
Really?
“…to be the best manager,
innovator and
Do we
Do we
user of information,
believe it?
services and
i d
If so,
information systems
let s do it.
let’s do it
in the world.”

41. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Gov Report ‐
4 OMB E Gov Report Jan 2009
FIVE PORTFOLIOS
• Government to Citizen
• Government to Business
• Government to Government
• Internal Efficiency and Effectiveness
• Cross‐Cutting
• Lines of Business

42. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Gov Report ‐
4 OMB E Gov Report Jan 2009
• Business.gov
• Regulations.gov
• USALearning.gov
gg
• Grants.gov
• FedBizOpps gov
FedBizOpps.gov
• Recreation.gov
• USAJOBS g
USAJOBS.gov

43. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Gov Report ‐
4 OMB E Gov Report Jan 2009
• 28/28 agencies have implementation plans
• 87% of milestones met

44. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Gov Report ‐
4 OMB E Gov Report Jan 2009)
Opportunities for Continued Improvement
a) Improve Information Security Management
b) Improve Information Privacy
c) Increase IT Workforce Competency
d) Improve E‐Gov Initiatives Performance Measures

45. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
4 OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
d) Improve E‐Gov Initiatives Performance Measures
Improve E Gov Initiatives Performance Measures
• Adoption/Participation – Is the relevant community participating?
• Usage – What’s the level of use by the target community?
What s the level of use by the target community?
• Customer Satisfaction – Is the community satisfied w/ products/services?
• Cost Sa ings/A oidance Wh ’ $ l f
Cost Savings/Avoidance – What’s $ value for government /citizens?
/ i i ?
• Efficiency ‐ Any decreases in time and/or increases in productivity?

46. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT

47. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
4. OMB E Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
4. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Reports (Jan 2009)
Peer
Pressure?

48. WEB 1.0 MEASUREMENT
What measurement
How
1. Paper or
p approach could you
are they
2. Laptop
adapt from
3. Ideas connected
“Web 1.0”?
4.
4 Rank to your
5. Share What would motivate
mission?
y
your key
y
stakeholder(s)?
You got it…
g
The customers’
or you don’t.
always right?
Trust the Peer
experts? Pressure?

49. http://www.flickr.com/photos/pablography/2415832354/

50. 2.0
1.0
10

51. “IMPACT FOR GENERATIONS”
IMPACT GENERATIONS
Generations Explained
% of total adult % of internet‐
Birth Years, Ages in 2009
Generation Name*
population using population
Born 1977‐1990, Ages 18‐32 26% 30%
Gen Y (Millennials)
Born 1965‐1976, Ages 33‐44
9 5 97 , g 33 44 20% 23%
3
Gen X
58%
Born 1955‐1964, Ages 45‐54 20% 22%
Younger Boomers
Born 1946‐1954, Ages 55‐63 13% 13%
Older Boomers
Born 1937‐1945, Ages 64‐72 9% 7%
Silent Generation
Born ‐1936, Age 73+
B 6 A 9%
% 4%
%
G.I. Generation
GG i
Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project December 2008 survey. N=2,253 total adults, and margin of error is ±2%. N=1,650 total internet
users, and margin of error is ±3%.
*All generation labels used in this report, with the exception of “Younger ‐” and “Older ‐” Boomers, are the names conventionalized by Howe
and Strauss’s book, Generations: Strauss, William & Howe, Neil. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 (Perennial, 1992). As for
“Younger Boomers” and “Older Boomers”, enough research has been done to suggest that the two decades of Baby Boomers are different
enough to merit being divided into distinct generational groups.

52. Source: Flickr – lyzadanger’s photostream

59. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
1. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”
’“ b ”
2. UN E‐Government Survey
3. Rutgers Digital Governance Study
4. F d l W b M
Federal Web Manager’s “Putting Citizens First”
’ “P tti Citi Fi t”

60. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
1. IBM s Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government
1 IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2 0 in Government”
What could we measure?
Engagement Effectiveness
1) Usability 1) Objectives
2) Extent of engagement 2) Benchmarks

61. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
1. IBM s Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government
1 IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2 0 in Government”
Examples Tools
Number of visitors Feedburner
• •
Number of links Google Analytics
• •
Number of comments Technorati
• •
Creation of new knowledge
•
Increase in solutions
•
Increase in collaboration
I i ll b ti
•

62. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
1. IBM: “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”
Findings
• Gov needs to meet citizens where they are online
• Citizens are willing to be interactive w/ gov online
• Role of intermediaries will increase
• Gov needs to rethink content and service design
• Gov must embed authority in web‐based services
• Citizens trust gov with personal data, but not efficiency
• Gov must measure its Web 2.0 initiatives

63. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
1. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”
gg
Recommendations
1. Just do it
2. Develop gov‐wide inventory of common Web 2.0 issues
3. Rethink how you deliver your mission
4
4. Reconfigure Internet info/services: component‐based
g / p
5. Ensure authenticity of gov information and services
6.
6 Learn and keep an open mind

64. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
2. UN E‐Government Survey 2008
• 192 member nations, 189 online
9 ,9 “From E‐Government to
From E‐Government to
Connected Governance”
• Broadband is crucial
– US in 4th, after Sweden, Denmark, Norway
• eParticipation is crucial
– US in 1st, followed by South Korea, FR/DK
• Connect the silos
– Infrastructure integration transformation
Infrastructure, integration, transformation

65. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
2. UN E‐Government Survey 2008
2.0
20 Connected
Transactional: G2C
(pay taxes, renew licenses,
2-way comm, 24x7)
Interactive
(download forms apps
forms, apps,
and portal)
1.0 Enhanced
(archived li k t
( hi d links to regulations, reports, newsletters)
l ti t l tt )
Emerging
(website, links,
(website links static)

66. Top 10 UN Member Nations
1. Sweden
GOAL:
GOAL
2. Denmark
3. Norway “…to be the best manager,
g,
4. USA
innovator and
5. Netherlands
user of information,
f i f ti
6. Republic of Korea
bl f
7. Canada services and
8.
8 Australia information systems
9. France
in the world.”
10. United Kingdom
g

67. USA vs Denmark
Connected
Connected: 78% vs 93%
Transactional: G2C
(pay taxes, renew
Transactional: 65% vs 80% licenses, 2-way comm, 24x7)
Interactive
(download forms, apps,
Interactive: 90% vs 89% and portal)
Enhanced
Enhanced: 98% vs 97% (archived links to regulations,
reports, newsletters)
t l tt )
Emerging: 100% vs 100% Emerging
(website, links, static)
Total: 85% vs 89%

68. UN: Best Practices
EU's Debate Europe
•
http://europa.eu/debateeurope/index_en.htm
http://europa eu/debateeurope/index en htm
Brazilian House of Representatives ‐ online debates
•
http://www2.camera.gov.br/popular
Iceland Ministry of Social Affairs ‐ online chat
•
http://www.felagsmalaraduneyti.is/radherra
Ireland ‐ gov procurement portal
•
http://www.e‐tenders.gov.ie
Malta Health Ministry – online health card apps, med ency, anim lessons
Malta Health Ministry online health card apps med ency anim lessons
•
http://www.ehealth.gov.mt/article.aspx?art=90
Netherlands e‐Citizen Charter
•
http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/104894
h // h / / il / 8

69. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study
• Joint biennial survey of Rutgers & Sungkyunkwan
• Co‐sponsored by the UN Division for Public Administration
Co sponsored by the UN Division for Public Administration
and Development Management & American Society of
Public Administration
• Conducted in 2007, with data from the International
Telecommunications Union
• Evaluated 100 cities with populations > 160 000
Evaluated 100 cities with populations > 160,000
• Ranked gov systems according to:
‐Privacy ‐ Service
‐ Citizen Participation
‐Usability
‐Content

71. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study
• 86 of 100 cities had official websites
• New York was 4th in 2003 2nd in 2005 9th in 2007
New York was 4th in 2003, 2nd in 2005, 9th in 2007
• New York scored 6 on participation vs Seoul with 16
• 10 N.A. cities: NYC, Guatemala City, Mexico City, Toronto,
Kingston (Jamaica), Port‐au‐Prince (Haiti), San Jose (Costa
Rica), San Juan (Puerto Rico), San Salvador (El Salvador),
Rica) San Juan (Puerto Rico) San Salvador (El Salvador)
and Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)
• 70% of N.A. cities had official websites, vs 100% in Europe,
South America, and Oceania

73. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
3. Rutgers Digital Governance in Municipalities Study
Seoul's Cyber Policy Forum aims to “provide
S l' C b P li F i t “ id
•
citizens …to understand policy issues…facilitate
dc
discussions…encourage citizen participation…
o e co ge c e p c p o
obtain feedback…reflect citizens’ opinions…”
http://www.e‐seoul.go.kr Korean, Chinese,
http://www e seoul go kr ‐ Korean Chinese
•
Japanese, English, French, Spanish
Hong Kong, Helsinki, Singapore, Madrid
lk dd
•

74. Internet Soul in Seoul: 9/2008
• 796 online services
• 35 000 civil petitions submitted every year
35,000 civil petitions submitted every year
• 680 public documents available for reading/applying
• 63,000 license apps for 11 depts & 70 agencies
• Pay e‐taxes; stored on gov servers for 5 years
y ; g 5y
• Gov mtgs synced w/ live TV broadcasts & web streaming
• 40 free internet training classes offered; podcasts/VOD
f l ff d d /
• 11,000 emails sent to mayor; w/ personalized response
• 42,000 online reservations: 540 gov svcs & 25 agencies

75. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First”
• Need to easily find relevant, accurate, and up‐to‐date info
• Understand information the first time they read it
• Complete common tasks efficiently
• D li it b h
Duplicity: web, phone, email, live chat, print, in‐person
il li h t i t i
• Provide feedback and hear how government will respond
• Access key info despite disability and English proficiency

76. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First”
The Web Content Managers Advisory Council has posted the Top 10 Best
Th W b C M Ad i C il h d h T B
Practices for Government Websites on its website, webcontent.gov:
1. Meet all laws, requirements, policies, and other directives
1 Meet all laws requirements policies and other directives
for public websites
2. Document your governance structure, including roles,
relationships, responsibilities, rules, and review processes
3. Develop, document, and implement a strategic plan that
both incorporates visionary changes and corrects problems
with web content
4. Focus on top tasks
5.
5 Create and manage content effectively and efficiently

77. WEB 2.0 MEASUREMENT
4. Federal Web Managers Council: “Putting Citizens First”
6. Collaborate within your agency and across
g
government to manage content and eliminate
g
duplication
7
7. Follow usability best practices
y p
8. Evaluate the effectiveness of your website
9.
9 Make sure the public can find your content
10. Create opportunities for the public to interact
with their government
hh

79. Credit: Jeremy Caplan, Dept of Commerce

82. Sylvia Sweets Tea Room,
y ,
corner of School and Main
streets, Brockton, Mass.
• Uploaded January 8, 2008 with assorted notes,
subjects, call number, etc.
• 20+ comments from Jan 2008 to last week

83. Library of Congress on Flickr
• Internal meetings began early 2007
• Z t ff
Zero staff members worked full‐time on this project!
b k d f ll ti thi j t!
• Purchased a Flickr Pro account at $24.95/year
• Developed a custom upload app w/ java and marc4j
• 1‐time cost of 222 hours of tech programming over 6
i f h f h i
months
• U l d d
Uploaded 3,100 photos in January 2008
h t i J 8
,q
• Ongoing costs involve a 7‐member team, equivalent to
gg
1 FTE (including tracking LOC photo usage on external
blogs, communications, etc)

84. …9 Months Later:
9 Months Later:
…24 Hours Later
24 Hours Later
All 3,100+ photos viewed
• 5,621 photos as of 3/19/09
•
10 Million+ views
•
392,000 views on the photostream
•
Site averages 500,000 views a
•
650,000 views of photos
6 i f h t
• month h
7,166 comments
•
1.1 million total views on LOC account
•
Flickr members favorited 79% of
•
420 photos had comments
• photos
Between Jan ‐ May 2008, average
•
1,200 photos were favorited
, p
•
LOC PPOC websites rose 20% per
LOC PPOC b it 20%
month, compared to 2007

85. “Increasing the ability to engage and
Increasing the ability to engage and
connect with photos increases the sense
of ownership and respect that people
feel for these photos.
feel for these photos.”
“Lessons learned from this project
“L l df thi jt
p
provide guideposts to the type of
g p yp
experience that people would like to
have with our collections.
have with our collections ”

86. “ADVANCING SOCIAL MEDIA” SURVEY
ADVANCING MEDIA SURVEY
Results!
R lt !

88. Advancing Social Media in Government
Do you establish metrics prior to implementing any of the
above social media tools at your agency?
Response Response
Frequency Count
Answer Options
43.8% 46
Yes
56.2% 59
No
answered question 105
skipped question 0

89. “…we don't have benchmark data,
nor do we have measurable objectives
for any of our tools.
f f l
We basically just put them out there
We basically just put them out there
and hope they work.
p y
It's kind of annoying.”

90. Advancing Social Media in Government
If you answered YES for #4, what tools are you measuring?
Response Response
Frequency
F Count
C t
Answer O i
Options
60.4% 29
1 Blogs
58.3% 28
2 E-mail
56.3% 27
3 Twitter
43.8% 21
4 RSS
33.3% 16
5 YouTube
31.3% 15
6 Facebook
25.0%
2 0% 122
7 Podcasts
16.7% 8
8 Mobile devices
14.6% 7
9 Wikis
8.3% 4
10 Delicious
8.3% 4
11 Z-other social networking (e.g. Flickr, Govloop, LinkedIn, Ning)
6.3% 3
12 LinkedIn
6.3% 3
13 Z-other video sharing (e.g. Hulu, Vimeo, Viddler)
4.2% 2
14 Z-other social bookmarking (e.g. Digg, StumbleUpon)
2.1% 1
15 Gaming
2.1% 1
16 MySpace
0.0%
0 0% 0
17 Second Life
0.0% 0
18 Z-other virtual worlds/3D Web (e.g. YooWalk)
answered question 48
skipped question 57

91. GENERAL BLOGS
• Posts
• Views
• Views
Number of views/page
/p g PODCASTS
• Comments (quantitative)
• Subscriptions
Time on site/page
• People
• Downloads
• Visitors • Complaints
Google • Visits
Unique • Comments (qualitative)
Analytics
y
• Subscriptions
Overall
• Paths
Paths to site
• Links elsewhere?
Paths on site
WIKIS
Geographic distribution
Geographic distribution •Users
RSS
Searches •Adoption rate
• Subscriptions
•Edits
Satisfaction
Comments
TWITTER
•Followers
•Growth
YOUTUBE/VIMEO •Link click‐throughs ( h
Li k li k h h (when, what types of
h f
• Views content)
• Comments •Retweets
• Downloads •Rankings (Twinfluence, Twitter Grader)
• Page placement traffic
Page placement traffic C i t i il i ti
•Comparison to similar organizations
• Ratings •Friends
• Click‐throughs •Conversations

92. “Metrics only tell part of the story...
it is difficult to directly measure “influence”,
so we use roundabout metrics
(size/reach of our network,
(i / hf t k
incoming links,
g ,
content being syndicated)”

93. “Very difficult to know beforehand
“ diffi l k bf h d
what metrics really matter,
what metrics really matter
and what success/failure looks like.
Often we get cornered
into continuing with social media
into continuing with social media
as we don't really know if it is quot;workingquot;
and are too conservative to quot;turn them offquot;
(and don t know how to give them a respectable funeral)
(and don't know how to give them a respectable funeral)”

95. Is privacy, security, and/or monitoring of social
tools important at your agency?
Yes Response
No Depends
Count
Answer Options
p
70 70% 12 12% 18 18% 100
Privacy
80 80% 9 9% 11 11% 100
Security
69 70% 13 13% 17 17% 98
Monitoring
• Google Analytics, WebTrends, WordPress
• Session cookies, legalities
• Tracking: email, website, twitter

96. Feedback
• SNS blocked either 100% or by peak time
• SNS security threats, reduce productivity
y , p y
• Parent agency blocked YT/FB access; unblocked
g y ;
after learning of biz presence
• Google Analytics contrary to Patriot Act?

99. POTENTIAL TEMPLATE
Photo Credit: DryIcons: http://flickr.com/photos/dryicons/2213575431/

100. BEFORE YOU BEGIN…
1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps.
1 Why? Ti t i i g l bj ti d g
2. Who? Champion, contributors, constituents.
3. What? Content is the key to success.
4. How? Decide which tools best meet goals.
5.
5 When? C t h d l t i l
Create a schedule to implement and evaluate.
t d l t

101. BEFORE YOU BEGIN…
1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps.
1 Why? Ti t i i g l bj ti d g
Recruitment
•
Transparency
•
Retention
•
Accountability
•
Efficiency
Effi i
•
Participation
•
Communication
•

102. BRAINSTORMING/APPLICATION
1. Why? Tie to mission, goals, objectives, needs, gaps.
2. Who? Assign owner/contributors; define audience.
3. How? Decide which tools best meet goals.
4. What? Content is the key to success.
5. When? Create a schedule to implement and evaluate.
Blogs
Bl g
Goal (Tied to Tool): _______________ Mobile Comm
Objective(s) Action Target Measure of Champion, Podcasts
Steps
p Date Success Creator RSS
Social Bookmarking
1. _______ 1.1
Social Virtual Networking
1.2
Videos
2. _______ Virtual Worlds (Second Life)
3. _______ Web‐Based Calling
Webcasts/Webinars
Wikis

103. IN CLOSING
What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage!
Wh k h fl h ?
What makes the elephant charge his tusk
in the misty mist or the dusky dusk? Courage!
in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk?
What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage!
What have they got that I ain't we all got?
yg g
Courage!
g

104. RESOURCES
1. Ari Herzog: http://www.ariwriter.com, @ariherzog
2. Andrew Krzmarzick: http://generationshift.blogspot.com, @krazykriz
3. Brookings Institution E‐Government Study: http://snurl.com/crpxn
4. Forrester Website Benchmark Survey: http://www.forrester.com/cxpbenchmark
5. ForeSee: E‐Government Satisfaction Index: http://snurl.com/crpyu
6. OMB E‐Gov Initiative and Report: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e‐gov/
7.
7 Social Media and Government (Jeffrey Levy): http://snurl.com/crq0x
Social Media and Government (Jeffrey Levy): http://snurl com/crq0x
8. Federal Web Manager’s “Putting Citizens First:” http://snurl.com/crndj
9. IBM’s “Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government”: http://snurl.com/crq3e
10. Air Force Blog Assessment: http://is.gd/eAYo