HACK by Michael Hackmer

A lot of buzz recently has been how Twitter was faster to alert people around the recent earth quakes than news organizations. This has led to some conversation about Twitter’s business model and potential applications for businesses.

A few weeks ago I had some thoughts about Twitter and its possible development of an emergency alerting tool (I’ll post sometime soon - though I may back-date it) – among other things. However, in reading some recent blog posts, I see Twitter’s ability as a Web 2.0 news and information aggregator as being the immediate advantage because unlike many news organizations – people consider Twitter “faster, unspun” with the negative of news organizations being that they are not participatory or focused on sharing.

WAIT A SECOND! HOLD THE PHONE!

No sooner had the statement about news organizations not being “focused on sharing” sprung forth and into this blog post, than I discovered a news organization mentioned in a blog post that IS using Twitter to reach out to its specific communities and engage people in conversations (I am sure there are many more, btw).

NBCi4 - MIDWEST

Using Twitter allows reporters, editors and columnists the ability to get real-time stories from people on the ground as well as drive content to people via Twitter, and get specific feeds mentioning their news organization in the different Twitter search engines. So, Twitter is a natural fit for every kind of mass media.

See page where I got the above screen shot at: http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news/nbc4now.html.

The value for radio, tv and newspaper is clear… engage your audience, expand your coverage, grow your audience, and help drive people back to your web properties (where monetization can in many instances occur).

From a marketing perspective, I think a key development strategy (for companies involved in the widget / desktop application space) is integrating Twitter with social communicators / desktop applications / widgets. Doing so would create a “must have” application for news organizations (as well as other markets). Direct Twitter conversations could fuel traffic to radio contests, news / network events, broaden community activism, and much, much more.

As far as emergency managers are concerned, using Twitter within a desktop application or somehow finding a way to convert the Twitter feed (this would take some technical experience with the Twitter API to determine if such an approach were possible) into a CAP (common alerting protocol) message, would create another inbound and outbound communication stream. Alert managers could receive real-time information that could be shared with first responders and others. Likewise, alert managers also could distribute messages via a CAP-based system to Twitter, and thereby reaching their constituents through another touch point. Such an option, for example, would prove enormously useful on a college campus.

In the end, I think the technical and business applications for a simple micro-blogging platform, like Twitter, are starting to come to the head. The question on my mind now is… is Twitter already working with a company on integrating its system with an emergency alert solution, and how many other widget / desktop application / social communicators out there will heed the call and integrate Twitter functionality into their products for the benefit of their customers.

I was asked late last year to present some thoughts at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable regarding widgets and how they relate to advocacy.

I was told the audience is expected to be largely from internet advocacy groups, non-profits / associations, and possibly a few tech companies. The goal is to give a brief presentation and spend a bulk of the time in Q&A, sharing thoughts about what constitutes a widget (this discussion includes widgets - both in and out of social networks, RIAs and desktop applications), how can they be used for advocacy, what circumstances are they effective or perhaps ineffective, and more.

So, I first set out and completed some initial research, which I later shared at the Roundtable and will share through this blog (I know, it was December… I’m running behind).

One aspect of my research that I found interesting (and I’ll take the time to share now) was how integrated, robust (I think a “robust” social network includes multiple web application offerings) and populated social networks can be the more area they cover, whereas social networks tend to be less integrated (within other aspects of one’s daily life), robust and populated in smaller communities or more niche environments.

Clearly, I am basing this statement on some initial evidence and more research will need to be done to verify this theory. Assuming the facts support the theory, the question then becomes: How is the effectiveness of social networks relevant to the discussion on widgets?

Quite simply, I think the dynamic of online participation in social networks and utilizing web applications (widgets) that are largely viral, possess a large degree of overlap. After all, at the most basic levels they both need to exist, require some measure of community acceptance, and the user needs to initiate their involvement. At another level, they exist to create a bridge of information and contact between a person and a larger community. And they often coexist - with widgets in social networks.

This brings me to the state / local elections in Virginia in 2007 (I’ll get into the current election cycle in my follow-up piece).

Where were the social networks and widgets? What happened to internet-based advocacy?

Ted McLaughlan, a Senior Solution Architect at Blackstone, noted to me in a LinkedIn email exchange that despite the presence of high-octane issues such as transportation, growth, education and the Board of Supervisors elections and Sheriff’s race (each of which were driven with charges of corruption and dirty politics), these events barely registered in social networks, campaigns did not utilize widgets, and SEO was nonexistent.

Despite the PPC ads from “Campaign for Loudoun’s Future” and the Loudoun Independent’s video interviews, search engines, McLaughlan wrote, were not tracking advocacy groups in Loudoun during the recent election cycle.

Of course, while search engines are not perfect, they can, more often than not, indicate the online presence of issue / advocacy groups… or the lack thereof. Being in the neighborhood and on the ground, I certainly can attest to the lack of online advocacy in Loudoun County, and the reliance to traditional media. I think the SEO information provides a decent proof point.

In summing up some of my thoughts - it may just be that the bridge virtual social networks and widgets provide across larger areas does not translate at the local level. There may just be some issues where the ROI or the impact is just not noticeable - that people make their local connections more physical.

It also could be that because local activists are not investing in building or participating in social networks, deploying widgets, and maximizing their SEO / SEM, that people who execute searches to locate information and do not find it and just move on. If that is indeed the case, local organizations could be missing on that 5% or more of people, who receive some key information, seek to act on it, but then move on because they cannot locate the information quickly. That’s a missed opportunity that could mean the difference between funding an initiative and passing a referendum or not.

MORE THOUGHTS TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT… Stay tuned…