Comments on: Channels, marketing and pin-point accuracy: Tower08 and the language of Transformational Goverment

By: Paul Canning

Paul Canning — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:01:38 +0000

hi William

made me laugh ‘cos that’s exactly how it sounds to me – “beam at viewers” – and I just know that’s how they think. But it’s rare to hear this within egov. a recognition laugh I guess? sometimes one feels one’s banging one’s proverbial head against … y’know what I mean.

did you catch my response to this – One year on: Ten answers for Minister Watson – Ten things not happening in eGov
http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/04/one-year-on-ten-answers-for-minister.html ?

By: Ideal Gov administrator

Ideal Gov administrator — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:07:16 +0000

I dont think they explicitly covered marketing at thos event. I think a sort of rancid, second-hand view of marketing comes built into this way of thinking; it’s not fresh, intelligent, open to question.

Oh. Explain. Why did it make you laugh? (Sorry for delay in reply; spam burden has taken much of the pleasure out of comment admin, and sometimes comment content gets overlooked).

By: Paul Canning

Paul Canning — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:17:07 +0000

William

are there any links to content about online marketing from this event? This is one of my main interests. I can’t see anything in the agenda and Tom Watson’s speech has that one vague reference to findability. Can’t find anything else either. Am I missing something? It all sounded very pat-ourselves-on-the-back but several years behind the online game – but I wasn’t there.

‘We’ve been asked to talk about “channels”. Already I’m uneasy. Channels are what broadcasters beam at viewers. ‘
… made me laugh, probably for different reasons 2u though ;]

By: Martin Stewart-Weeks

Martin Stewart-Weeks — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:42:51 +0000

I’m struck by the inverse ratio that seems to rule the relationship between the eloquence and repetition of pleas for a more respectful, citizen-centric public services ethic and the stubborn refusal of the system to move in that direction. In fact I sometimes wonder if the intransigence isn’t some fiendish plot to provoke clever and insightly people to write more and more passionate essays on why the system needs to change, while all the time showing little sign of purposeful change, at scale.

The fact is that, too often, the public sector behaves in ways that betray either a real or a perceived hostility towards the people they are meant to be serving. And if it’s not hostility, then it’s at least a profound neutrality about people and their ability to become more engaged and responsible. Clearly, the public sector does not believe that ‘ourselves’ is the right place for the control of our personal data, or it would have overseen a wholesale handover of data which doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon. Just ask the average GP if it’s a good idea for patients to be in charge of their own medical data. They are unlikely to agree…and who knows, perhaps they’re right.

So the contrast keeps striking me – the elegant, articulate and compelling arguments for change and the considerable institutional and cultural inertia with which, for the most part, it is greeted.