Thoughts on the Brussels blogosphere debate

The debate around the Brussels’ blogosphere has tended to centre on the relative lack of good quality blogs, especially within the policy realm. Over the last couple of weeks, the debate, spearheaded by Ron Patz and elaborated by others such as Bruegel, has been about the shortage of interaction within the Brussels blogosphere, especially the paltry number of links that eurobloggers seem to include to each other in their posts.

My (very belated) two pence worth:

Obviously, the premise is correct: when a blogger engages on subject matter that is being debated more widely, they should aim to reference and respond as far as possible. However, at the risk of stating the bleedin’ obvious, looking at the  Bloggingportal.eu Editor’s Choice posts, it appears that a fair number of the bloggers in question wrote in isolation i.e. on topics which were not being debated very widely in other euroblogs at that moment in time. Not always, but often.

In a sense, the “Brussels” or “EU” blogosphere is irrelevent to many eurobloggers. Given the nature of the beast, people’s core area of interest is often a specific issue or policy area, say energy, ICT, financial services and so forth. Generalists who work across various sectors or even just regular citizens interested in the EU, but not a specific issue or policy area per se, are relatively limited. So rather than the Brussels blogosphere, their real interest is a niche e.g. the EU energy stakeholders’ blogoshere, the EU ICT stakeholders’ blogoshere etc.

Ideally, this is where the national-EU factor should come into play: creating communities that connect national and EU-level niches on specific issues or policies is where we want to go, but it’s fair to say we’re not quite there yet. The language conundrum and the splendid isolation which the Brussels bubble has grown accustomed to play a part and I for one admit candidly that I should make more of an effort to connect Brussels based clients looking to engage online with players in the national sphere.

Ultimately, although many bloggers should no doubt make more of an effort to avoid operating in splendid isolation, the issue of critical mass is no doubt rearing its head. Sure, there are a fair few euroblogs in absolute terms (+900 on Blogginportal) but within each niche, there may only be a handful that hit the sweet-spot i.e. regular, relevant, good quality posts (and in a language others understand!) I’d candidly admit that as a blogger I don’t link enough, but arguably I fall into a niche as well i.e. Brussels, the practice of Public Affairs and digital comms is an odd mix and not widely debated (an excuse on par with “my dog ate my homework..?”)

Is this state of affairs indicative of the failure of the EU blogosphere? Hardly. I know purists will disagree vehemently, but there’s still room for well written blogs even if they don’t connect to a wider blogosphere especially well: if the relevance and quality of content in a blog means it is read and appreciated by lots of people who matter, then that’s a good first step. “Then it’s just a website,” I hear. Not really, the nature of the blog allows for greater flexibility of style and formats i.e. short post vs. long post, reference vs. original content, more personal vs. less personal and so forth.

Where will we be ten years from now? My somewhat rosy vision is as follows. The EU blogosphere for generalists will probably still be whinging about the lack of an EU blogosphere for generalists, as the EU as a general construct will still not have captured the public imagination. More critical mass overall will have resulted in niches interested in EU related stuff, such as specific policy areas, accruing critical mass too: the EU blogosphere will be larger, but it will be made up of lots of smaller communities i.e. the EU energy stakeholders’ blogosphere etc. that are more connected than at present, and yes, link to each other more so than at present.

And the EU itself? It’ll be part of the mix, but at niche level i.e. Commission officials who work on energy related stuff will be part of the EU energy stakeholders’ blogosphere and so forth. Communications generalists at the EU will no longer communicate on behalf of the EU, but will merely act as evangelists and advisers to the subject matter experts, who themselves will be doing the communicating.

Brussels policy blogging: don’t bother if…

There’s a real shortage of blogs that deal with a specific policy area, written by experts in that same area operating in Brussels. Given this dearth, given that policy-makers use the web to inform themselves on policy issues, that a blog is a highly flexible medium that allows for anything from a short two-liner to a full-on analysis, that a blog can allow for an ongoing narrative that no other medium could allow for, lots of organisations trying to communicate their views on a variety of issues are losing out by relying only on tried and tested position papers, meetings and the like (I’ve previously written about the reasons for the shortage of policy blogs in Brussels over on Public Affairs 2.0 – if you click through, I recommend that you read the comments too.)

Still, some blogs do get launched, and in this post, rather than argue for more policy blogs, I’d like to make another point, possibly born out of the frustration at seeing a number of valiant efforts fail. Despite the undoubted value of blogging – if done well – don’t even bother if:

• You aren’t allowed to talk about anything interesting (or don’t want to, or can’t legally do so.) You work on topical and/or contentious issues and have views, so EXPRESS THEM: that’s what people care about. Blogging about your CEO’s pet CSR initiative and about how useful your product or service is a waste of time. It’s not going to “educate policy-makers and their influencers” – it’s going to make them never ever visit your blog again.
• No one can really be bothered to write. Blogging sounds like a good idea, you sort of see the value, but you sure as hell aren’t going to write; nor are any of your colleagues. A blog needs to be fed regularly and requires an author (or authors) who are real people and who represent the organisation. Yes it’s an effort; yes it’s a commitment. If you see it as an add-on which your agency can run for you, don’t bother.
• You’re going to write in a vacuum. A blog offers an opportunity to connect to other people and sources. Whether you just link through to lots of good 3rd party content, or even better, connect to others writing about the same issues in Brussels or (more likely) at national level by linking to their content, you’ll add credibility to your blog, drive traffic and hopefully even build relationships. Just writing about your own stuff is a wasted opportunity.
• You aren’t going to market it properly. Don’t think people will magically show up. Sure, good content is the clincher, but you need to constantly promote your blog. That can mean anything from advertising to SEO to everyone within the organisation simply just referring to it whenever they can.

How many organisations actually have the will and flexibility to avoid all of the above? Sadly, not that many (unless they’re facing a crisis.)

Policy blogging in Brussels: more of it please

I wrote a post on Fleishman-Hillard’s Public Affairs 2.0 blog last week on the shortage of policy-specific blogs in Brussels. My point in short was this: plenty of good quality blogs are being written about the EU at large which cover a wide array of issues and often result in decent conversations. Movers and shakers in Brussels read these blogs, and yet the scores of organisations present here whose remit is to engage with policy makers and other stakeholders on issues key to their sectors are virtually non-existent in the blogosphere. Why?! They’ll write position papers, engage in face-to-face meetings, develop alliances, work with the media, and yet they won’t blog. What a wasted opportunity to present their views in an ongoing narrative, engage with other stakeholders and build relationships, all while showcasing people in the most open and transparent medium imaginable rather than just presenting a faceless organisation through the same age-old tactics.

Anyway, no point in paraphrasing the post when you can read it here (note the good comments too.) Further comments very welcome (here or on PA 2.0.)

Eurobloggers are not the Brussels press corp

This entry is prompted by a recent post by Julien on his mistrust of Brussels PA/PR agencies and their attempts to connect with him; and an even more recent conversation I had with a consultant who asked how to best “harness” Eurobloggers (p.s. I told him to not hold his breath.) Yes, Brussels communicators are trying to engage with Eurobloggers to push their stories. Will it work? No. Eurobloggers aren’t journalists. They blog because they’re into politics. If pitching journalists is hard, pitching bloggers is much harder because they usually only have a personal, not a professional stake.

Lost opportunity? No, blogging is important, but for Brussels communicators, it shouldn’t be about the Eurobloggers, at least when it comes to a blogger relations strategy. It should be about getting clients to dip their toes into blogging etc. themselves and then trying to tentatively build relationships with people who write about their issue, not those most likely to be read by MEPs. As a consultant or communications adviser, your role should be guidance, not doing the blogging yourself.

Here’s an extract of the comment I wrote in reply to Julien’s post in which I describe in brief how best practice blogger relations should be carried out (and in turn how it should mean Brussels agencies won’t be pestering him for much longer!)

I work on social media strategies for clients… I can honestly say that my approach to blogging, Twitter et al (and ZN’s too) centres on how I can best help clients use the tools themselves… Why? Frankly, it works better… you’re far better off helping clients build constructive relationships themselves, and generally not with eurobloggers but preferably with issue or sector experts…(.)

Although some agencies no doubt make the mistake of simply transferring media relations to the web and seeking out people most likely to be read by legislators, I suspect this practice will fizzle out. Why? Because an article in the FT is undoubtedly worth more in “PR dollars” than a far better article in a relevant trade publication, whereas online, impact can be determined more by quality than by reach because of search, hyperlinking and aggregation.

To spell it out, here’s two (very simplified!) scenarios I could propose to clients (no prizes for which one I think is most likely to work.)

1) We’ll write a post on our blog saying you’re great. We’ve hooked up with Julien Frisch and the other 30 popular eurobloggers – maybe one of them will pick up your story (but don’t hold your breath, none of them have ever written about your issue.)

2) Your 3 experts could blog or tweet (assuming they want to.) We’ll help them out with the dos and don’ts, but they have to do the writing and it has to be honest. We’ll do some research to identify other people (academics, scientists, companies, pressure groups, students etc.) writing good content on your issue (whether for or against) and run them by your experts. In due time, we can add them to our blogroll, your experts could link to them in posts or comment on their blogs, and maybe we can build relationships with them if they’re interested, and hyperlink to their content or maybe even get them to be guest bloggers.

The difference is obviously that it’s the organisation’s experts and not the agency that is telling the story, and you’re promoting good quality content and interaction rather than throwing a story at someone who happens to have MEPs amongst his/her readers and hoping that it will stick… (.)

EP elections: parties get your acts together!

I’m not an expert on the minutiae of European politics – for more in-depth analysis of the elections I’d recommend proper Euroblogs like Julien Frisch, The European Citizen, Nosemonkey and Grahnlaw – but there’s one “layman’s” observation I would make.

Low turnouts and the success of a number of unsavoury fringe parties (as well as the failure of the centre-left to make up ground on the centre-right despite the financial crisis “gift”) is likely going to be blamed in some smug quarters on a cynical media and stupid and/or gullible voters. Or if not that, on the fact that voters have become too individualistic to care about serious politics and wider community matters.

But what about the failure of many mainstream parties – especially those on the centre-left – to offer voters a real sense that they offer a helping hand in trying times? I think that’s far more critical. Sure, the media may be a tad cynical, but have entire electorates suddenly gone dim-witted? Hardly. Have we all turned into materialistic egomaniacs? Maybe, but I doubt charity donations would be at an all time high if that were so. Perhaps it’s fair to say that it’s not an easy time to be a political party. People don’t vote along party lines like they used to (largely because social class does not matter much anymore in political terms) while there aren’t that many issues on which parties can really stand out seeing as they all pretty much straddle the middle ground.

Nonetheless, it’s certainly the case that plenty of Europeans feel utterly estranged from political parties . What should they do about it? For a start, try to be more representative and not appear so detached; be less dismissive and most of all to be more communicative. It means surveying constituents and acting on results. And as an advocate for all things online, I’d say more than anything it means members of parties communicating online directly with their constituents and making it an absolute priority to engage in daily dialogue even if it takes up a sizable chunk of working hours.

And if that fails? More proportional representation and direct democracy perhaps, but that opens up a whole new kettle of fish.

MEP trends survey: some more thoughts

I wrote about the EP Digital Trends survey the other day - a godsend to people like me who often face the inevitable comment “yeah, but MEPs don’t use the web” – as it highlights that they in fact do indeed use it,  primarily for search, but even to (shock horror) read blogs. James, whose team published the survey, has written a post describing what the results actually mean to PA practitioners, essentially detailing how they must make sure that they combine their advoacy and media relations with a sound online search and content strategy.

I wholeheartedly agree. I’d also add that beyond ensuring that their content is found, there’s a lot they can do to ensure that the content might actually influence an MEP’s view of an issue. MEPs are accountable to their constituents, so even if your content is top-tier and convincing, you still need to prove to them that voters are on your side (or at least a good portion of them.) To do so I think you need to match content and search strategies with a broader engagement strategy. Here’s a few first thoughts (not all applicable to all issues and organisations, but it’s a start):

• Adopt a portal approach: don’t just showcase your own content but bring in good-quality third-party material that backs up your case and gives you credibility by association. If you really trust your sources, you can automate the process via aggregation.
• Similar sort of thing: make stakeholders your “ambassadors” by showcasing them on your site directly, ideally using video. Bite-sized interviews and preferably basic production standards, and you’ve got something a lot more powerful than a written “key message.”
• Appeal to potential supporters (assuming you have some) by adopting a really personalised approach. Don’t just have good, sober content but also one or more personal blogs or vlogs which show the real you. This then becomes a mechanism for stakeholder dialogue, where people can comment and you can personally engage with them.
• Use multiple channels if you have the resources and feel your audiences are scattered - social networks, Twitter etc. - but stay on message and lead people back to your main site. The latter point is key: always ensure that everything you do is showcased in your main “hub” i.e. via one URL.
• Make your online platform a “community” rather than a mere site (you’re already half-way there if you’ve taken some of the steps above.) Not meaning that you recreate Facebook on your €20,000 site; but rather that you make it a place where plenty of people, within your organisation or not, are featured and engage in some way. These people will then be more likely to mobilise on your behalf and help spread your message; a sort of Obama effect in miniature.

And here’s the bonus. If done well, you haven’t just put mechanisms in motion that will help convince MEPs directly if they find your content online. You’ve also got yourself a fully fledged eCampaign that could spread online (again, scope really depends on the issue and organisation in question!) and influence the wider debate. And eventually your MEPs might not just hear about you via you own channels; they might even hear indirectly via their constituents or traditional media that’s picked up the story. It’s come full circle, and that should really be your end-goal.

MEPs online: survey

Fleishman-Hillard published the results of their EP Digital Trends Survey earlier this week, exploring European Parliamentarians’ use of the web from two perspectives: first, their own actual outgoing communications; and second, their use of the web as a research and learning tool.

The figure which most stood out for me is that 93% of MEPs use search engines every day. That many of these then go on to claim they do not read blogs doesn’t really matter. I doubt many would discard a good blog that appears top of the search rankings (maybe they wouldn’t even identify it as a blog..?) Further proof (as if any were needed) that organisations should make good quality online content (and a search strategy) core elements of their communications.

Some observations on other findings in the report:

• “62% of MEPs have either never heard of Twitter or have no plans to use it” – Wonder if any respondents both said they’d never heard of it AND thus wouldn’t dream of using it. Hope not.
• “80% of MEPs believe websites to be either very effective or effective in communicating to voters, making websites as effective as one-on-one meetings” – So 1 in 5 still don’t think websites work? Not surprising, but I had hoped this might have been more like 1 in 20. I’ll always remember the MEP who last year told me that he “didn’t believe in the Internet” but I thought the Obama effect would have changed that sort of attitude to a greater extent.
• “51% of MEPs believe blogging or micro-blogging to be very effective or effective in communicating to voters” – Considering how alien blogging still is to many, this is a good figure. Hope it’ll be more like 90% come 2014. Communicating in you own voice directly to your constituents, for free, whenever you want and wherever you have an Internet connection? What’s not to love?

Why the Brussels PA bubble isn't embracing the web

Smug online consultants in Brussels (and elsewhere no doubt) are constantly saying that traditional communicators are not embracing the web because they just “don’t get it.” What a load of tosh. However, web uptake has been slow, but it’s not because thousands of smart people have suddenly gone dim. Sure, plenty think that the web isn’t important because “MEPs don’t use it” or “surely only lonely teens use Facebook” etc. However, they’re not in the majority.

Instead, I’d split the majority of web naysayers into three groups:

1. The people who generally don’t value campaigning. Those who think all decision-making takes place in cramped offices with key stakeholders while everybody else is happily getting on with their lives with little knowledge or interest in complex matters of politics. These people “don’t get it” more broadly: they think comms plays second fiddle; they split PA professionals and communicators into two different camps and consider the former far more important (and clever no doubt.) Are these people dumb? Generally not. Their model has worked for decades and I’m sure backroom dealing is still the most important tactic out there, especially for issues that haven’t made it into a pressure group’s in-tray.

2. An extension of the first point – let’s be honest, there are people who don’t really need the web. The experts whose job it is to really explain the nitty-gritty of policy to legislators. They still make up the majority of communicators in Brussels and they’re pretty essential.

3. Those who appreciate the value of the web in communications terms but can’t see the ROI (i.e. primarily the agencies). The thinking here is: “I can charge 100K for an event but Twitter is free. It’s a no brainer.” They’ve got a point, and until they’ve got clients that will happily pay for events and see more value in a trade-press article than a blogger relations campaign, they’ll stick to it. And rightly so. They’ve got a business to run, after all.  Two points I’d make though. First, mastering the web is difficult: selling really competent web strategy, putting together the pieces, mapping online conversations and how to react to and shape them (and so on) doesn’ t come cheap. And as for billable hours, sure, setting up a Twitter account is quick and easy, but following conversations, engaging in them, producing content for multiple platforms, engaging with bloggers etc. takes a lot of time! Second, you’ve got the risk of the client one day saying: my competitor is doing really good work online, why aren’t we? What do we do? You want to be proactive now rather than reactive later.

What’s my vision? The scenario is really not a showdown of traditional vs. modern models. They key lies in integration of all tactics in the most suitable manner considering an organisation’s communications objectives. However, I do think any approach should embrace the web, whether its simply the place where information is centralised and made easily obtainable for all stakeholders; or the focal point of an engagement approach in which an organisation seeks to listen and engage in wider debates that can ultimately dictate the pace and nature of regulation (or ideally both…)

The said model has worked for decades and I’m sure backroom dealing is still by far the most important tactic out there, especially for issues that haven’t made it into a pressure group’s in-tray.

Advice to an MEP blogger

I’m currently working with an MEP who is looking to launch a blog within the next few months. Here’s a summary of a few of my recommendations.

Define an editorial approach

You may have 20+ years’ experience. You may have your very distinct writing style and feel you have Shakespearean abilities. Perhaps, but you still need to define an editorial approach, write it down and stick to it. This includes type of language you’ll use (colloquial or formal), how often you’ll post (at least once a week), how you’ll address readers, length of posts, and if and how you’ll interact with other bloggers. What’s the point? It’ll help maintain consistency, which you need to keep readers coming back: they’ll grow accustomed to your style and get to know the “real you” more than if you were to serve up a hotchpotch of posts.

Decide on your themes and stick to them

Similar argument here. You don’t want to risk the blog going all over the place, so stick to 4-7 core themes which you know about, you know your readers will be interested in, you can write about well, and then stick to them. In this way you’ll establish yourself as an expert and a resource on certain policy areas, rather than the MEP who writes about scores of topics but does not really believe in any wholeheartedly. By all means, if something out of the ordinary is taking place that doesn’t fit within the themes – the upcoming EP elections, a natural disaster, crisis, etc. – which people would expect you to write about and where you feel you can contribute to the debate, feel free, but then get back to your core themes asap.

Develop an editorial plan

To help stick to your approach and themes, develop an editorial plan which is at all times updated for the upcoming three months. You don’t need to stick to this religiously, but it will help to ensure that you maintain focus and consistency.

Don’t campaign!

Granted, a politician blogging is by nature campaigning you could say, but what I mean here is: don’t make it all about you and your party and how you’re far better suited to govern than the opposition. Blogging is about building relationships with readers over time, so it’s much better to establish yourself as a good writer who provides insights and expertise in his/her chosen subject-matter. If you’re seen to just be campaigning, you’ll only be preaching to the converted rather than utilising your blog to engage in issues and trying to shift the debate towards your views in the long-run. Political blogging tends to be a bit more partisan and cut-throat than average, you might say, but so what, this highlights my point all the more: stand out from the crowd by talking about the issues in depth as you see them, not how your view is inherently superior to the opposition’s. Just two “disclaimers” on this point though: 1) this works if the politician in question is moderate. If he/she could be described as straying fairly far from the centre, like say a Dan Hannan, there’s probably more political capital to be won by being highly opinionated rather than engaging; and 2) with the EP elections coming up it’s fair for MEPs to campaign just a tad bit!

Don’t stray from blogging too soon

If you like blogging and get into it, hang on a moment before you jump on the Twitter bandwagon, set up a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and so on. It’s tempting to spread your tentacles far and thin, like Swedish MEP Åsa Westlund has done, but I think it’s important to get the blog just right first before starting to worry about when next to tweet or post a video. By all means, all tools can play a part, but none more so than a high-quality blog.

The Hannan viral phenomenon: not that big a deal

As everyone in Brussels and the UK by now certainly must be aware, a YouTube video of  Dan Hannan MEP slating/skewing/roasting/panning Gordon Brown, who was present at the time and simply had to sit, listen and endure, has become an internet phenomenon, with over two million views to date.

A little late to be writing about this perhaps, seeing as the event in question took place a couple of weeks ago. However, I’ve just read yet another post or article by a political commentator claiming that the success of the video must imply that common folk, greatly perturbed by the current state of affairs in the UK, have watched the video in droves because it sums up their anger and frustration with the current administration, and that the mainstream media has not reported on it because they are out of touch with what people are feeling at this time.

I disagree somewhat. I’m sure lots of people think Hannan is right. And I’m sure lots of people are angry. That does not explain 2 million hits though! What does? In my view, mainly people’s thirst for sensationalism and the nature of viral. An extremely articulate young man laying into the PM for three minutes as he just sits there makes truly awesome and unique viewing. The manner in which it was delivered had something Hollywood’esque about it: it seemed almost too scripted to be true. And that’s why most people wanted to share the link, I’m sure: it’s a sensational story which does what a good tabloid does i.e. it entertains, surprises and opines.

Maybe I’m wrong, but do you think most people’s thinking when they sent the link to friends was (something along the lines of): “gosh I’m fuming, Brown and his cronies have really sent us down s*** creak without a paddle, I’m sure Rob and Jane will agree wholeheartedly so I’m sending this link to them.” I think it’s more likely their thinking was: “look at Gordon squirm as the posh young whippersnapper lays into him! Ha that’s great viewing! I’m going to send it to Rob and Jane, I’m sure they’ll think it’s fun.”

As for serious media not reporting on it: well why should they? To them, the story is “politician lays into Brown” which happens hundreds of times every day. So what? To do their job properly they should report on the content of a number of Hannan’s fine speeches, as well as the scores of other bright young politicians expressing a view on either side of the political divide. Simply feeding the public’s hunger for sensationalism by reporting on Hannan’s speech and little else should be left to the Daily Mails of this world. And although I’m sure Hannan’s pleased with the exposure this has given him, I’m sure he is also concerned that he might become “typecast” as the politician who slated Brown, while the numerous very well articulated views on other matters expressed in his blog and elsewhere take second fiddle.

As for the nature of viral, I think it’s important to take a step back and acknowledge what makes things go viral i.e. what makes people decide to forward links to people they know. Frankly, not much. It’s not as if it’s an arduous process: see something interesting or fun, hey presto, and you’ve sent it to a hundred friends. It does not mean that you wholeheartedly endorse it or think it’s earth-shatteringly interesting. Hence the 10 million plus views of dancing hamsters and the like and why 2 million hits doesn’t mean you’ve got 2 million people who think Hannan should be made PM while Brown should be lynched.

By no means am I denying that 2 million hits shows Hannan has hit a raw nerve; that some people have watched the speech and agreed wholeheartedly with it. However, at the same time I think it’s important to not over-emphasise the two million hits or what it siginifies in the broader political debate. Instead why not praise Hannan for writing thought-provoking posts showcasing real expertise, strong views and a fair share of brilliance every day in his blog (although I agree with about 0.1% of what he says?) That’s what shifts opinions and mobilises people in the long-run, not a one-off viral sensation.