The Met & Social Media

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by British Transport Police on December 3, 2010 at 11:44

Thanks for this Hugh

I will be passing on this development to my superiors. Let me just defend my MPS colleagues with regard to the number of Twits(?) they are following: the link (www.met.police.co.uk/webinfo/twitter.htm) just above the numbers of followers and following states,

"Following
If you follow us on Twitter we will not automatically follow you back. This is to discourage the use of direct messaging, avoid resource wasting spam handling and so that you can easily identify other key Twitter users we think are relevant to our work in who we follow. Being followed by us does not imply endorsement of any kind."

Further down the page it says, "The CO11 team reads all @replies and Direct Messages and ensures that any emerging themes or helpful suggestions are passed to the relevant people."

I think that's fair enough. This seems to me to be a 'toe in the water' to test the response, maybe before further use by SNTs, etc? Perhaps Jono could help me out here???

BTW, I'm wishing BTP were allowed to do this...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on December 3, 2010 at 12:37

Mmm.

Believe me, I understand the tyranny of Twitter. I have a personal profile, a business one and a HoL one. I do have sympathy for organisations who are struggling to deal with the policy & resource implications. 'tain't easy.

I opened my post by welcoming the advances in the Met's thinking, but, disclaimer or not within CO11's Twitter policy, I think the Twitter profile I point to does raise some real questions for the Met.

The equivalent situation in 1885 would have been that the force sent letters out but had their "letter box" nailed closed. In 1985 it would have been like using the phone to call out but refusing to receive any calls.

Well okay, that's an organisational decision, but what are the reputational implications? What are the lost opportunities? Has anyone roughed out a cost-benefit analysis?

None of this is easy stuff. I'm not pretending it is. This is just a gentle friendly nudge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on December 3, 2010 at 13:42

Reminded me of a discussion started by Liz in February last year. She gently chided councillors for not coming on Twitter.

Hugh's suggestion was for councillors: "to think about the advantages of using it to listen rather than talk". He described picking-up ". . . a huge number of useful things from around 10-15 mins a day". "Then perhaps the key question becomes, how useful would it be for the residents of your ward if you were to become even better informed?"

Isn't this what the Met Police are doing? Listening; becoming better informed; and on this site responding selectively and usefully?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on December 3, 2010 at 14:32

Is a councillor an organisation, Alan?

I wouldn't make the same suggestion to councillors and councils; to individuals and organisations.

I've underlined twice now and will do so a third time that I welcome the Met making advances; listening is certainly better than staying opted out. But they, and indeed all organisations, need to decide for themselves if they think they're doing enough.

Twitter can be a right pain, but on balance it's valuable.

Just offering perspectives, Alan. I'm not evangelising. I respect the decisions that individuals and organisations make for themselves, but suggest they reframe from time to time. If they end up in the same position, so be it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on December 3, 2010 at 14:59

....and I guess what I failed to mention in my last reply, Alan, is that I doubt they're using Twitter to listen very much at all. They're following 5 people. The way Twitter works means that's all they're probably listening to, and mebbe not even them.

• ▶ Reply