People also have different channel preferences depending on whether they are alone or with others, are on the road or at home, or are seeking a quick bit of information, performing an infrequent transaction, or are doing serious or complex research with significant health or financial consequences.
Realistically it’s also impossible to control what people say online about companies. Just type the name of any large company into the Google search engine followed by the word “sucks” and you’ll see what I mean.
Google’s recent announcement about ending its support for Google Reader caught me by surprise. I had long ago given up on actively using RSS readers to aggregate feeds and thought most others had done so as well. The outcry that spread throughout Google+, my social network of choice, was therefore a surprise.
Making sure that a meaningful org chart is available, precisely because it is a public statement about responsibility, might just be one of the simplest and most direct methods we have for promoting government program transparency and accountability.
In Five Challenges Government Faces When Adopting Web 2.0 I wrote about the need to consider the cost impact on the organization of hiring additional “community managers” to support the addition of social media and social networking to overall customer support operations:
Last week I wrote about my experiences when my main laptop computer died. The bright spot was that I learned about the value of remotely-sourced database access through my use of DabbleDB. The dark side: my experience with my computer vendor’s Gold service plan.
Looking back, I can see advantages and disadvantages of using social media and social networking technologies as components in overall customer and technical support situations.