We won’t gobble up too much real estate summarizing the article that appeared in this past Sunday’s WaPo, but we will brag a bit that it featured some expertise courtesy of M&M CEO and president Marilyn Finnemore.

The gist:

Know yourself; build your brand. Understand what unique value and persona you bring. Google yourself; it’s especially valuable to see the top 10 things that turn up, Bassik said. If you don’t like some of them, set them to private if they’re on a personal blog or profile.

With every blog post and every photo you upload, you are creating a picture of yourself. “You have to be aware of the image that you’re creating. You are in the process of branding yourself,” said Marilyn E. Finnemore, chief executive of Mind & Media in Alexandria, which works with government agencies and others on recruitment and public information campaigns.

She . . . suggest[s] starting a personal blog or contributing to others’ blogs, thus showing your talent and expertise. But write about solutions, and be positive and authoritative in what you write. “Be conscious and mindful what you put your name on,” said Finnemore. “The words you use are a reflection of your personality.”

Thanks to Maddie at Social Fish for pointing me to Steve Radick’s post, What Makes Government 2.0 Different from Enterprise 2.0? I was chewing on a parallel topic last week when I was wondering why government can’t put together marketing campaigns like private sector firms do. The bottom line is we’re talking about very different animals. As Steve writes:

“What makes implementing social media on the intranet of a government agency like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) different than say, General Motors (GM)?  I’ve worked with clients from across the government who are all seeing social media succeed in helping organizations communicate, collaborate, and share information better than they ever have.  From wikis in the Intelligence Community to internal blogs at IBM, many of my clients see these articles and want to use social media to realize these same benefits, but don’t know how to do it.  The first thing that I have to tell them is that just because another organization, company, or agency implemented blogs or wikis or whatever else, they won’t necessarily see the same results, especially if they compare themselves to case studies in the private sector.  There are several fundamental differences between implementing social media behind the firewall in the government as opposed to a Fortune 500 company.”

Steve goes on to point out six of those differences and then asks for any others.

I offer a seventh, purpose of the organization.

Private sectors firms exist to make cash, the government exists to provide public services. So while in both environments I can see great reasons to embrace a web 2.0 workflow, the desire to undertake the transition likely varies. When we develop communication plans at Mind and Media we always determine the hook, meaning we answer “what’s in it for the audience?” Without hook it’s difficult to get buy in. Well, for profit companies will bite on a hook that contributes to higher efficiencies, greater competitive advantage, and better recruiting and retention—all elements that contribute to greater profits. The collaborative tools of web 2.0 support those elements so the private sector is more likely to push for their adoption.

But again, there are great reasons for government to embrace web 2.0, as well. One hook is knowledge management. As Steve points out, every four years can mean big shake ups in government agency personal and operations. Add to that mix, the constant stream of retirees leaving federal service. How can everything in their collective minds be captured, searched, and updated without effective use of tools like wikis and knowledge management systems? Members of the SES could build a legacy on the adoption of web 2.0 strategies.

Now let’s look outside the agencies, toward the public. Certainly the primary web presence of most government agencies are the epitome of a resource website. Visitors come with inquires and obtain information. On that type of site the most valuable tools are simply good organization and powerful search. But what about agency efforts to raise public awareness or support public education? In those cases, user-generated content or other social media tools could prove invaluable. A site like Hireveteransfirst.gov (very different in purpose from its parent agency dol.gov) serves the purpose of supporting veterans by encouraging companies to consider them for hire. That mission could be furthered by letting employers and veterans actually interact on the site, or on existing social networks, like Facebook. Veterans and employers, both, could share tips and participate in an ongoing dialogue. The result could be both greater success of the mission, but also a lesser workload on the agency because the role of gatekeeper is lessened and audience interaction is increased.

Support you mission, lessen your burden, improve efficiencies…no matter if you’re working in government, private sector, or non-profit, how can you not be attracted to social media and web 2.0?

On September 23^rd, the US. Coast Guard put onto “You Tube” an announcement from Admiral Thad Allen letting their force know that the Coast Guard is embracing social media and Web 2.0. This is big! Check out the video:

What’s the big deal, you might ask? The big deal is that the government has been, until now, overall pretty hesitant to publicly embrace this change in how we are communicating through Web 2.0 and social network initiatives. I have actually sat in on meetings with government media and public affairs groups that have been trying for a while to have their “top brass” understand and embrace these changes and they have been met with hesitancy and fear of this change. Questions of control and policy continue to brew up and a general lack of understanding of the significance of this new communication seems prevelent.

As I had explained to one person I talked to, you have to change the perception. That person, who works for a government agency I won’t name, was explaining that their top folks are afraid that if they start a blog, negative posts will appear. My reply to that is that’s a good thing. Today, people go to the water cooler in his organization and complain there (it’s not like it’s not happening). By providing a social network medium like a blog, yes, you might get complaints. But unlike the water cooler where you can’t hear the complaint to solve it, the blog will allow the organization to respond directly and publicly, letting all know what can be done. It also allows for a community of others to respond to that complaint as well.

It seems the Coast Guard gets this and I think that will be a good thing in the long run. They have even started using “Facebook” to get the word out. Next time you are on Facebook, look up “Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen”. You can join the page and become a fan. Now, it wouldn’t be fair to say they are the only ones. I know that the Air Force has created a group on Facebook as well. But the Coast Guard leader presenting as strong a statement as in the above video shows that they are serious about implementing this communication solution. I applaud them for taking such a stance as an early adapter government agency.

I spent last Monday and Tuesday at the Interact08 conference in DC which, in short, brought folks together to talk about web-based marketing. I was surprised—considering the choice of host city—that none of the discussions or presentations touched on the federal sector. Looking at the speaker list, I probably should have known—big dogs of marketing, advertising, and web development with private sector clients that probably outspend the DoD pushing sneakers and hamburgers. But still, we were in DC, and there are plenty of federal government dollars supporting marketing campaigns no matter that they may be less glamorous.

On day one I was a little annoyed, feeling like none of the content was relevant to me and my federal clients. The examples and strategies were, as I first saw them, simply too cool to fly in the federal sector. Too cutting edge. Too risky. Too expensive. Too original. On and on. I debated returning on day two, but, hell, it was paid for.

I went into day two looking to maybe just meet some folks, but somewhere between coffee number 11 and the lunch I found purpose. Maybe it was better speakers (Brent Canfield from RTCRM was awesome!) or topics, but I ended up jazzed and inspired. Most of all, I came away wanting to do the stuff I was hearing about, but in my sphere, the government sphere. Possible?

First, what makes that level of work possible? What factors support the creation of best of the best marketing? After listening to the slew of speakers I’d say:

• Trust between the client and vendor
• The client’s willingness to accept risk, meaning an acceptance that original ideas may fly or not
• Time to dream, execute, measure and revise and
• Money to get it all done

So, if those four things are necessary to generate killer marketing, can it be done in the government sector? I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how agencies, with non-government clients, work versus companies focused on federal government clients. The most glaring difference is the inherent competition injected into federal contracting. Certainly the system is designed to eliminate preferential treatment from buyer to seller, which is good if you imagine someone awarding a billion dollar airplane design contract based on who’s his favorite golf partner. But think of the drawbacks. Does the nature of government contracting allow for all four of those factors? Can you develop trust, take risks, and spend time brainstorming as partners when the bid,  proposal, and contracting process is drenched in oversight and mandated recompetes?  Or when RFPs must be so clearly defined that deliverable are pre-determined?

Keep in mind I’m not talking about multi-year billion dollar aircraft design and production contracts. I’m talking about marketing, recruiting, and public awareness campaigns that are often doled out based on specific deliverables as opposed to being based on mission or measurable results. Budgets reset each year. Contracts recomplete. Agency leadership turns over. That environment runs counter to long-term, successful marketing efforts. It seems to me that in order to sustain top notch marketing campaigns the sphere of each effort has to get bigger. Imagine an SES being able to plan out a three- to four-year strategy knowing that one partner will be along for the whole effort. Or even (bite my tongue!) that an SES could choose to work with a vendor with which s/he has a previous successful relationship. In such a scenario there could be all four factors: trust, acceptance of risk, time, and money. And with that come innovation and excellent work.