If there is one particular sector that requires effective public relations then I believe it is politics. Politicians are supposedly the people that represent the views of their constituents and the country, therefore maintaining and establishing good relations with their publics should be of paramount importance. However, after briefly analysing each of the three main political parties’ on-line and social media usages in a recent workshop exercise, I was shocked to find the fundamental principles of dialogue and transparency appeared to have been disregarded. Instead, what appeared to be shown was a one-sided, one-way message which, to a neutral observer, seemed to try and brainwash, cover up, and avoid any negativity aimed at the host party. Most definitions of public relations include the notion of reputation management, however by lacking an interest in engaging in dialogue with the party’s publics through these communication channels, could the transparency of the party’s intentions be called into question?
Despite The Conservative Party utilising more social media channels than the other parties, I struggled to find a section which encouraged me to add my opinion, or ask a question which will be answered by a source of authority, such as a spokesperson for the party. Also, there was one particular area in which I consider to be devious. The Conservative Wall allows the user to see ‘brand advocates’ and see their faces, and why they are a Conservative. However, it appears too coincidental that the majority of the individuals’ images are taken with the same background, which looks like it could have been taken by the Conservative party itself at a conference, and then posted by the party. The particular aspect of this that I find deviant is that it masquerades itself as a user-generated area; however there is no upload function for the user.
The Labour Party had an area of their website dedicated to networking and user-generated content; however, it was not accessible to every website visitor, but only to members. Also, like The Conservatives, there was no function allowing the user to submit feedback, or engage in dialogue with a party spokesperson regarding specific issues. However, the most unbelievable revelation of this exercise was that The Labour Party has no official group or fan page on Facebook. Facebook is a networking site which builds upon the need to engage in conversation, so why has this been disregarded?
I am pleased to see that political parties are entering into on-line and social media platforms as this is becoming an increasingly valuable media form within the public sphere. However, as any organisation needs to understand, public relations in the modern day is no longer a one-way message, it needs to encourage dialogue with its publics. By disregarding this principle in social media applications, such as Facebook, it looks as though the organisation does not value the opinion of its publics, and this could appear to be non-transparent.
Posted by thegoodshepherduk on December 17, 2009 at 7:06 pm
It seems as if the various political parties are starting to embrace social media, but at an arms length.
I expect that the lack of a function to allow users to provide feedback is a deliberate move to prevent derogatory comments against the party being posted and exposed for all to see. However, surely this is part and parcel of social media, and the parties need to take the rough with the smooth and not take themselves so seriously.
After viewing the stats for the various parties on Twitter, it appears that the Conservative Party have the highest number of followers with a reasonable 16,980 followers. The Labour Party on the other hand have a pitiful 8,293 followers.
This, combined with the Labour Party’s lack of a facebook page could say something quite substantial about the respective parties’ online social media presence.
Posted by Andrew Dunn on December 17, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Damn this blog pisses over mine. I wholly agree with you when you say it is of paramount importance for politicians to maintain good public relations with their publics, after all, it’s them that they’re representing, and they have every right to see that their elected members are doing their jobs properly; or at least not fibbing about their balls-ups.
I’m not sure I agree so whole-hearedly when you criticise the main parties apparent lack of two-way dialogue. I agree that there’s room for improvement, but all three major parties have Facebook pages, which (to a varying extent), other people can publish to:
http://www.facebook.com/labourparty
http://www.facebook.com/conservatives
http://www.facebook.com/libdems
While the extent to which the views of the every-day folk are taken aboard by the politicians is up to speculation, the pages do allow for two way communication, and critical voices are not removed along the way, such as this little micro-debate:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/liberal-democrats/liberal-democrats-leader-adds-support-to-international-human-rights-day/214006477592
I feel that censorship of views is perhaps an issue on these new mediums though, since they are moderated by the parties themselves, and as such, they have the power to remove what they want, if they want.
So yes, there is a bias in power in terms of ability to get messages across. All the parties’ primary websites are mainly one way facilitators, despite some lacklustre attempts at interactivity, but I find their adoption of using social networks, blogs and micro-blogs quite encouraging, and I’d say it certainly marks a shift in the way politicians communicate with citizens. You may have stumbled across this, but the Lib Dems have their own social network, which supplements the Facebook page:
http://act.libdems.org.uk/
Though this too is Lib Dem moderated.
I think it’d be good to see politicians becoming more involved with independently moderated networks and discussions for truly transparent public relations in the future. There may be a way to do, but this more open forum of discussion can only be a good way to go for democracy.