In the wake of the Obama phenomenon, many, especially those in the political profession, will be eager to re-flex those online communication skills in an attempt to reach out to their citizenry.
The effect, it seems, is not lost to our leaders, as featured in “PAP ready to YouTube to reach young” (TODAY, p3, 17 Nov 2008).
However, a quick scrutiny of www.pap.org.sg does not seem to bring substantive justification to the claim of getting the message across in a serious way, which people can accept, and to resonate with them.
If we want to take a leaf from Obama's success, as Minister George Yeo proposed in “Woo the young? Like Obama, use the Net” (TODAY, p6, 6 Nov 2008), there are three key factors that must be fulfilled.
First, relevance. Obama's online campaign revolves around a feel for the ground. He had videos of himself going to average Americans to ask what ails them most about the economy, a true ear for the people’s voice. He did not claim himself to understand the hockey mom, but showed how a baseball mom eked a living to get by.
In an economic downturn, documenting how a website's party members showed spirited patrotism in a national event near four months ago, feels just a little too detached.
Second, focus and consistency. Obama did not waffle on what he wanted to talk about. The blog entries were to brief and the point, communicating just what he wanted people to know. It also carried the momentum of his campaign, such that the reader can see how his strongly-held beliefs is made living proof by how he views the campaign on the road.
A website laden with categories of information, tagged with un-intuitive sub-categories, and teeming with general and often repeated party lines would feel more like the same thing again. It is just not the best way to attract and retain your readership.
And third, understand that the views of others matter. All of Obama’s videos are posted on YouTube, usually flooded by comments. His blog also carries the comment feature- almost a defacto standard today. It could invite adversarial comments, but to engage online, one has to live with the worst and roll with the rest.
Having a website that claims e-engagement with netizens by posting a few videos, with no option for feedback, and cannot be found on other website that allows that, just doesn't cut it in today’s age.
Evidently, the conversation that goes on in theonlinecitizen.com, and even the straitstime.com points to a rather sore fact: If it is not a good conversation with you, it is usually a bad conversation about you.
Ultimately, adopting a medium for the touted qualities of that medium is not going to guarantee that your message gets through. This is especially so for new media, in a world where everyone's opinion is of equal value. Relevance, clarity and direction, and a willingness to actively engage are much better bets. N
