COMMENTARY

4 Facebook lessons from DOD

Agencies need to learn some rules of the road before jumping into social media

Fred Wellman is a retired Army public affairs officer and senior director of communications, public relations and social media at Janson Communications.

Now that both the White House and Defense Department have established social media policies, more organizations are certain to leap into the fray and launch social networking sites. Unfortunately, many are setting out without a full understanding of the risks, rules and etiquette, and they are failing to capitalize on the opportunities those new channels present.

With more than 400 million active users worldwide, Facebook has become the first choice for a foray into social media, especially for military organizations. Facebook features more than 1,000 official military fan pages, ranging from small units and recruiting stations all the way to the upper echelons of DOD.

Janson Communications decided to take a look from a fan's perspective at how the military is using Facebook. We reviewed more than 680 pages and divided them into four categories — personality-focused, location-based, organizational and recruiting-oriented — and examined them for best practices.

That holistic approach yielded some interesting results and lessons not only for the military but also for any government organization delving into Facebook (The full report is available here).

Mark It 'Official'

The popularity of the military means there are thousands of fan pages honoring military leaders, units and bases. Many of them look official but have no connection or link to the government. For example, a clone page might use the name "Fort Campbell" when the actual government-run page is "Fort Campbell, Kentucky." Given the proliferation of such fan pages, it is imperative for government site administrators to clearly mark the official pages of their organizations.

Create and Enforce Terms of Use

By its nature, social media creates a freewheeling conversation in which anyone can say whatever they want — often in the most inappropriate ways. That doesn't necessarily mix well with an official government outlet, so agencies need to post rules of engagement prominently on official pages. Only 22 percent of the pages in our study had terms of use for fan behavior, and those that did weren't enforcing them strictly. Such rules are both appropriate and necessary for agencies that operate in social media environments.

Keep the Social in Social Media

During our study period in January, 84 percent of military Facebook pages had no interaction with their fans. Most were simply posting stories or press releases and not answering comments or wall posts from fans. The point of using these channels is to build a community around your organization or base. When you ignore your fans, you miss a great opportunity to gain valuable insight, engage your most passionate supporters and reach out to potential recruits, which is the purpose of social media to begin with.

Don't Let the Page Turn into a Zombie

While gathering information for the study, our research team found a startling number of pages that had never made it past initial setup or had gone inactive for extended periods of time. Like a zombie in a horror movie, those pages never die. They make an organization look foolish and oblivious to the culture of social media. Once you start, stay committed. Don't let the effort die out because the initial manager moves on or the organization as a whole loses interest.

The culture of social media is different from traditional communications channels, and when venturing into that world, government agencies should learn the ways of the community to make the most impact.

Fred Wellman is a retired Army public affairs officer and senior director of communications, public relations and social media at Janson Communications.

The 2014 Federal 100

FCW is very pleased to profile the women and men who make up this year's Fed 100. 

Reader comments

Tue, Apr 27, 2010

Users are called 'friends' not 'fans'on facebook. Such a basic error undermines the message!

Tue, Apr 27, 2010

Nothing new in this. Same "rules" we have been applying to BBS/forums for eons now.

Mon, Apr 26, 2010

So these facebook pages are mostly essentially mini-web-pages, and are kept up about as poorly as most of those are? What business need or mission requirement were these answering again? IMHO, aside from recruiting sites and stay-in-touch with family sites, most DOD facebook pages are a solution in search of a problem. If a unit or base or command MUST have a facebook page, put up a static page steering them to the web site. Having both is a useless duplication.

Thu, Apr 22, 2010 Fred Wellman JANSON Communications

Chris, Great points and all but to be honest the brevity is due to the need to keep the piece under 500 words. Editors are tough characters to beat. The full report is available on our company website for free at www.jansoncom.com. You will see an explanation for some of our assumptions there. We hit a lot of zombies but stopped adding them to our data set because they were giving a false sense of the reality and noted their existence. There is backing data for your other concerns in the 17 page report. We did this on our own and it was not paid for by any client. I personally collected the pages based on looking at whether they were created and run by military units and not fans.

Thu, Apr 22, 2010 Chris Turner Washington, DC

This article troubles me because none of the advice appears to be actually derived from the data at hand.

This appears to be the result of some kind of formal research, yet there is little evidence that any organized research or evaluation was undertaken.

From the text, here's what I got out of it:

Total in Sample 680
"TYPE:"
- Personality no data
- Location no data
- Organizational no data
- Recruiting no data
Official Markings no data (100%? see (2) below)
Terms of Use 22%
- Enforcing terms no data
"Social in Social:"
- Interact with fans? Yes 16% No 84%
Zombie Pages "startling number"

Here are a few of the questions I asked:
1) Is there a formal version of this report (did someone pay for it?)?
2) Are we to assume that "official markings" were the selection criterion to be included in the sample?
3) Is there a formal definition of the researched elements? For example,
how did we differentiate "personality" from "Organizational," etc.?

I am eager to see a larger, more in-depth report on this study.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above