Tag Archives: web

Quote of the Week: Why the Web Was Won

Have you ever been in a meeting and someone tells you: We aren’t in the behavior change business, we just want to raise awareness? You are not alone. Put take heart, there are those who know better. Especially in the times of the Web, behavior change–and micro-choices that lead to a great action–are even more possible.

In a post titled Designing for Networks, Mike Arauz captures the potential of the Web–beyond its ability to be a distribution channel, beyond its ability to influence and beyond its use in achieving awareness:

If you only use the Internet in order to raise awareness, and perhaps to influence perception, then you are missing out on what the Web was made for: to enable large networks of people to come together for effective purposes through sharing, cooperating, and organizing collective action.

It might have been okay to work towards just “awareness” in the past, but with today’s technology, we can achieve more. I believe that the Web increases our ability to measure, evaluate and influence behavior change. The thing is: Behavior change is no longer on the same playing field. Just like journalism is evolving and the media, the way we influence behavior change and achieve behavior change has evolved. We, as practitioners, must evolve with it. I recently came across another quote that embodies this belief from one of the TurningPoint Collaborative’s PDFs, The Basics of Social Marketing:

The process of heightening awareness, shifting attitudes, and strengthening knowledge is valuable if, and only if, it leads to action.

Why do we want someone to know to exercise, eat right, and get their vaccines? Because we want them to act on that knowledge to prevent disease. Why do we want teens to know that drinking impairs their ability to drive? Because we don’t want them to drink and drive and hurt themselves or others.

Your Challenge

This week, think about why the Web was won. Sure–it can house knowledge and be a database of information–but it is more and can be more for you, your organization and your cause. Think about your bottom line–What is it you want to accomplish? Solve? Create? End? Start? Because at some level it involves behavior, especially if you are working in a Web environment. Do you want people to click on a certain link, read a certain story, donate to your causes—these are all online behaviors.

PS: Do you like these challenges? Are these helpful? I want to help you in being effective. And, I know I like prompts–do you?

The One Review of the iPad You Must Read

On the social media and tech stream this week, we have the iPad. Despite my thoughts on how the name “iPad” was determined, the iPad draws one’s curiosity.

I don’t have an iPad nor have I seen one in person, but Jeff Jarvis’ review captures two of the bigger implications of this new technology that deserve your attention.

  • Web sites vs. Apps
  • Content Consuming vs. Content Creating

I’m not going to repeat all that Jarvis says in his review–I’ll let you read his words directly as his points are worth your time and consideration. Instead, I’ll add in my own comments.

On Web sites vs. Apps: As mobile marketing continues to grow and evolve across the board (fyi: Mobile Health Conference coming up in May), this will become an ever-greater question. Not just in terms of execution and strategy, but also in terms of analytics. Many organizations are just now getting a grasp on their Web site analytics and how the data can offer insight and direction regarding an organization’s overall mission and objectives. The next phase many are working to figure out–is how to measure and assess not just a Web site–but a Web presence. The division between a site-based Web and an app-based Web will throw in another element into the analytics puzzle.

On Content Consuming vs. Content Creating: I may not have an iPad, but I do have the Barnes and Noble Nook. I love my Nook, but I want to do so much more with it. Barnes and Noble, if you’re reading this, please borrow a page from Netflix. So, I understand Jarvis’ point. As a consumer, there are times when I appreciate that my Nook is an ereader–nothing else. But there are times–where I want more. With the ipad, you have some degree of more–but not everything. Like Jarvis said, you don’t even have a camera (which seemed odd to me when the iPad launched). I think there is a need for balance. I don’t want another mini computer that I can connect to my email and social networks. I also don’t want another phone or a super machine. What I do want–is a relaxing user environment where I have the option to create, share and consume at my leisure on my terms. But then again, maybe I’m not the audience for the iPad. Maybe there are those that just want to consume–and not create or distribute.

Thoughts on Publishing and Content: I find this conversation interesting not because of the Web vs. App conversation or the hardware vs. software talk, but more so because it gets to the heart of publishing and distribution of content. The development of e-readers are changing the world of publishing and how the traditional business-model of journalism operates. Many are hoping, that if done right, it can “save” journalism. But here’s the thing: Journalism does not need saving. Instead, it needs pioneering. Perhaps, the “business-model” of journalism is where the rubber meets the road. This is where we need our innovations…  in my humble opinion.

In general, I agree with Jarvis’ main point about “implications.” How we maneuver down the road of information, communications and consumer-technology, will have implications. This is why, as consumers, it is important for us to know that our choices–where we spend our money, how we relate to information, how we choose to communicate, the type of content we consume and the type of content we produce–carries implications.

Your thoughts needed: Are the iPad, e-readers and tablets the best we can do?

*****

This post was originally going to be the quote of the week–but I couldn’t choose just one sentence to highlight as Jarvis’ whole article stretches one’s thinking.

Building a Web Site: Easy as 1, 2 OR 3?

Today, I heard that fundamentally there are three main purposes of a Web site: 1) informational, 2) transactional and 3) community-based. An Informational Web site is one that is primarily a resource. A transactional Web site has a desired action, which is usually associated with e-commerce. And lastly, a community-based Web site is one that is designed to encourage people to interact, network and share.

I’m not one to put things into boxes and draw hard boundaries, but at first I liked this concept. It’s simple. It’s easy. But, after pondering for a second, I got to thinking: is it relevant? We all know the Web is an evolving beast, which is why I think today’s best Web sites pull the best components from each of these three “types”  to creates a stronger vehicle.

Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t mean that Web sites don’t need to focus. In the world of the Web, I’m seeing the concept of “focusing” becoming increasingly important. For example, these Web sites have focus:

  • Wikipedia–Informational
  • Amazon–Transactional
  • Facebook–Community

But Wikipedia is also a community of editors working together to create a service. Facebook has its own marketplace where transactions are worked out and don’t forget Facebook advertising or monetary exchange through Facebook applications such as Causes. Amazon–though primarily transactional–encourages us to give reviews, rate its products, create gift lists and in essence, build community around the purchases we make. Marinate on that thought for a second and then take this statement into consideration:

Considering current evolutions of the Web and comments such as Shel’s, I’m thinking the text books may need some updating. Web sites still need to focus, but at the same time, they need to add value to the end-consumer, provide products or services or action steps, while also building community. Just take a look around–the sites that we are all using everyday are Web sites that can serve multiple functions. So, get creative. Just because you have a ton of content you have to share, there are ways to not only “inform” people of the content, but also ways to generate actions, make the content interactive and build community. Thus, I answer “all of the above.”

What do you think? What’s your take? Is building a Web site easy as 1, 2, or 3?

flickr credit: Andreanna

Scribd Your Own Script: Social Publishing Meets Collaboration and More

At DC’s Social Media Club event this past week, I heard many mumors about Scribd, so naturally I checked it out. I have yet begun to explore the site, but already I am impressed. With the self-description of “democratizing publishing” through its document sharing community, it’s hard not to be immediately intrigued.

Launched in March 2007 by founders Trip Adler, Jared Friedman, and Tikhon Bernstam, the platform now has greated that 50 million readers every month, with over 50,000 documents uploaded every day, and is available in 90 different languages. What rock have I been stuck under? I mean, individuals like Obama and groups like the New York Times and the World Economic Forum are on here too! This looks like a great community, that I look forward to interacting with more.

Not only can you

  • Engage in collaboration,
  • Expand your social network through your profile, searching for colleagues,
  • Create and join interest-specific groups,
  • Upload and/or download documents and files,
  • Find and discover interesting documents by category, by topic group, by searching, or by browsing the library,
  • Find interesting documents by category, by topic group, by searching, or by just browsing our library,
  • Create potential ways to monetize through your documents and hard work

With Scribd having just raised $9 million, along with a new president for social publishing, I look forward to observing and experiencing how Scribd develops in the future. Granted, the term “social publishing” has meant the publication of documents from “many to many” or “one to many” through a variety of social software mixed with web content management in terms of what the technology offers, however, what would “social publishing” through a non-profit/social change lens look like?

Anxious for your thoughts, as with today’s excitement at the We Are One concert on the mall today, my mind is racing with ideas. Cheers!

Liked what you read? Feel free to share with others: Bookmark and Share and/or connect with me on Twitter – @socialbttrfly.

Federal Web Council Reveals New Study: Putting Citizens First, Transforming Online Government

“There are about 24,000 U.S. Government Web sites now online.”

“Only a minority of government agencies have developed strong Web policies and management controls. Some have hundreds of “legacy” Web sites with outdated or irrelevant content.”

“We have too much content to categorize, search, and manage effectively, and there is no comprehensive system for removing or archiving old or underused content.”

“Agencies should be required and funded to regular content reviews, to ensure their online content is accurate. relevant, mission-related, and written in plain language. They should have a process for archiving content that is no longer in frequent use and no longer required on the Web site.”

According to my twitter search RSS feed, the term “Government 2.0” is increasing in frequency and popularity. More bloggers and more blog posts continue to emerge on what and how government should improve its online Web presence, leveraging social media. Thus, I was enthused to read last week’s report from the experts themselves: government, to accomplish just this.

Last week, the Federal Web Managers Council, comprised of Cabinet agency Web Directors released its study titled, “Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online Government.” Its purpose is to “recommend specific strategies for revolutionizing how the U.S. Government delivers online services to the American people.

One of the most exciting pieces of the report (in my opinion) is what I understand as the government’s endorsement for more social media:

“The Government should use social media, not just to create transparency, but also to help people accomplish core tasks…To do this, the government must ensure that federal employees who need access to social media tools have them, and that these new ways of delivering content are available to all, including people with disabilities.”

Within this document, the Federal Web Managers Council also reveal their shared vision for the government’s presence online. This vision is for the public to:

  • Easily find relevant, accurate, and up-to-date information
  • Understand information the first time they read it
  • Complete common tasks efficiently
  • Get the same answer whether they use the Web, phone, email, live chat, read a brochure, or visit in-person.
  • Provide feedback and ideas and hear what the government will do with them
  • Access critical information if they have a disability or aren’t proficient in English.

The list of recommendations is not limited to but includes:

  • Establish Web Communications as a core government business function
  • Help the public complete common government tasks efficiently
  • Clean up clutter so people can find what they need online
  • Engage the public in a dialogue to improve our customer service
  • Ensure under-served populations can access critical information online.

For more information or to read the report in its entirety, the full report is available here.

Your Turn: What do think of the recommendations, how would you prioritize and what else might you include?

Liked what you read? Feel free to share with others: Bookmark and Share and/or connect with me on Twitter – @socialbttrfly.

Is Everything Going 2.0?

Is everything going 2.0?

Health, Science, Museum, Birding, Philanthropy, Reputation, Enterprise, Food and more! Feel free to add to the list.

**********************

  • Museum 2.0 is a blog itself by Nina Simon that talks about how Web 2.0 can be applied in museum design. Nina paints her vision for the revitlization for museums and future possibilities here, and in her video.
  • Health 2.0: SocialButterfly’s own post sparked by recently released research studies, regarding the developments in the growing Health 2.0 field, offering numerous examples and resources.
  • Science 2.0: SocialButterfly’s own post on Science 2.0, including a mini-case study on the OpenWetWare project, voicing both concerns and future possibilities.
  • Birding 2.0: Michelle Riggen-Ransom as Social Media for Social Change wrote a great piece on Birding 2.0, about how Science 2.0 and technological developments are advancing great hobbies such as bird watching in the bird watching community.
  • Reputation 2.0: Jeff McCord looks at the importance of one’s online reputation when entering the trenches of the job search in his post titled, Reputation 2.0.

***********************

Other topics I Googled with a ‘2.0’ added that found results include Love 2.0, Crafts 2.0, Education 2.0, Music 2.0, Church 2.0 …What others can you find?