1 / 20

Facebook experience

Facebook experience. Riigikogu – Estonia Helin Noor Press and Information D epartment , Information Centre of the Riigikogu , adviser. Why? Analysis Who and how? Problems and risks What? Plans and conclusions. Why:. Deciding arguments: National Electoral Committee’s experience

gilles
Download Presentation

Facebook experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Facebookexperience Riigikogu – Estonia Helin Noor Press and Information Department, Information Centre of theRiigikogu, adviser

  2. Why? • Analysis • Who and how? • Problems and risks • What? • Plans and conclusions

  3. Why: • Deciding arguments: • National Electoral Committee’s experience • The upcoming parliament elections of 2011 • European Union Affairs Committee’s experience in FB • Our personal experience in FB and Twitter • Newly prepared digital photo gallery • EVERYBODY is in social media- why not the Parliament

  4. Previous analysis: • General development of social media (the increasing number of FB users – e.g. the number of FB users grew to 397 080 users, which means +104 600 people or +35.76%, in Estonia in last 6 months. • Other parliaments’ experience in social media • Many have started and quitted – why? • Many MPs have a FB or Twitter account • Conclusion –main focus is on Facebook

  5. 6 last mounth

  6. Who and how? • Who coordinates social media in the parliament, which information is entered and do we need regulations, and how to increase our fan club. • Who will take the risks, analyses problems.

  7. Coordination of FB and Twitter was assigned to the Information Service of the Press and Information Department. • The Riigikogu Information Service includes 2 (7 in dep)information advisers who have personal FB accounts; • at the same time, ca more than 50 officials of the Chancellery of the Riigikogu have a FB and Twitter account; • Members of the Riigikogu - ca 35 people are in social media.

  8. Problems and risks: • Availability of information • Distraction of attention • Giving up privacy • Leaking of business secrets and wasting of working time • Distinguishing between institutional and personal information • A problem/risk in the case of the Riigikogu is that there are 101 spokespersons • How to achieve a human dimension when you are forwarding dry information

  9. What? • Agenda • ministers participating in Question Time • resolutions of the Board meeting, if they significantly concern the Riigikogu • activities of the Board,with photos • events with the participation of the Riigikogu, with photos • Joint meetings of committees • exhibitions • Public discussions, seminars, conferences, etc., in the Conference Hall. • Other events - Open Doors Day – a separate event can be created in FB for that, as we did last year. Popular holidays, book presentations. • And press releases

  10. However, a firm rule is followed here: more work, less fun. That is, main focus (2/3) on the information concerning the work of the Riigikogu and 1/3 on “soft issues” and second rule is that FB entries are supplied with photos or other illustrative material if it is possible.

  11. We started in November 2010 with the press release informing the public that the activities of the Riigikogu can now be followed in Facebook and Twitter. • As I said before we reached the conclusion that we will not be able to put the process in solid frames. It is creative work, changing with time, and 1-2 people are needed who would commit themselves to finding information to reflect in FB.

  12. We sent 101 e-mails with an invitation to “like” the Riigikogu’s Facebook page and to follow Twitter. We communicated personally with ca 50 Members of the Riigikogu. • Our lobbying resulted in 10 Members of the Riigikogu! • The feedback contained the following arguments: • Personal and political life should be kept separate • There is no time • There is no interest • Uses other channels to communicate with people

  13. Consequently, we have to find another way to get Members of the Riigikogu to visit and become fans of the Riigikogu Facebook page. • How to get Members of the Riigikogu to Facebook (at first those who have their personal account) and • ...how to initiate discussions so that it would be real social media.

  14. Planned as of autumn 2011 • 1. Idea: Matters of significant national importance are discussed at plenary sittings of the parliament.The public is informed of them 2 weeks in advance. In cooperation with the relevant committee or parliamentary group, we initiate a discussion on the same topic in Facebook. In cooperation with the responsible Members of the Riigikogu, introductory texts are produced and the relevant discussion is initiated in FB. The discussion is announced with a press release.

  15. 2. Idea: When important Acts are in the legislative proceeding in the parliament, similarly with the previous idea – cooperation with MPs of the relevant committee (politicians from both opposition and coalition might be involved into discussion). Definitely to involve interest groups who have a very brief opportunity to participate in the legislative process. This would be one possibility for involving citizens in the work of the parliament.

  16. So what is our experience? • We have got: an account, information, the people who manage it; there are MPs who have their own account but who have no interest in participating in the development of the Facebook account of their institution and the discussions, that is, we actually lack communication. • Chairs of committees are needed who would actively participate in social media (who would create their image as politicians through social media): the experience of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Union Affairs Committee.

  17. Crisis situations are needed: • The experience of our National Electoral Committee when communication of the elections information from the elections information system to the webpage was interrupted for 1,5 hours and we forwarded the information on-line in FB and Twitter. • Kidnapping of our bicycle tourists in Lebanon – on-line interviews etc. are available on the page of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

  18. More questions • Is FB a suitable communication channel for the parliament at all? • Why not take it simply as one possibility of sharing information and not worry? • After all, information reaches only few people through social media; the classical channels like press releases, webpage, etc., still remain? • Might the problem be the fact that people are in FB with their "own faces“. • There are hundreds of comments for the topical news in online media. • Are we affraid to show what we think?

  19. Statistics: • National Electoral Committee TW: 600(Since Oct 2009) • National Electoral Committee FB: 3692 (was 3800)(Since Nov 2010) • European Union Affairs Committee FB: 223 (Since July 2009) • Riigikogu FB: 187 (Since Nov 2010) • Riigikogu TW: 63 (Since Nov 2010) • Foreign Affairs CommitteeFB: 121(Since April 2011)

  20. Thank you! HelinNoor, adviser Press and Information department, Information Centre of Riigikogu

More Related