Should Government Buy Google Ads for Crisis Communications?
I was just reading this Politico blog post about the Herman Cain presidential campaign doing a Google ad buy for searches on Ginger White by Iowans.
Regardless of your political affiliation and your perspective on Cain's guilt or innocence, you've got to admit that it's a pretty clever tactical maneuver - and one that has lessons for the rest of government.
Here are a couple ideas that I get from seeing this ad buy:
- Let's say a state or municipality experiences severe weather or a natural disaster. Should the city, state or an agency like FEMA run ads on relevant searches for citizens seeking financial assistance or critical information in the aftermath?
- What if an agency is in the midst of a news debacle and the media has spun a story in a way that miffs the facts. Should an agency run ads against a search on that story to be sure they get correct information in front of the public?
What do you think? Is this a good use of taxpayer dollars?
Has your city, state or agency already run this kind of ad in the past? If so, was it effective?
Tags: communications, technology
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Don Fitchett on -
I haven't seen any Gov Google ads yet, but I am conditioned to ignore ads. :>) I think the first idea disaster relief might not be that practical, as many will be without access to the internet. Especially those in need. But the second idea is great, and critical to benefit of the citizens who pay for the ads (via taxes) The more educated the decisions and perceptions of it's people, the better the USA will do. Sounds like a good investment.
But also besides damage control reasons to run Google ads, the Government should run ads for PSAs. If I am searching for home mortgage relief or help, a Government Ad for page with facts, tips, scams to avoid, should be the first link see. I think it is the Governments responsibility to educate consumers of best course of action and resources available. (Consumer protection) Also in this day and age, Google Ads is worth trying and then review the analytic to see if they should continue, if effective.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on -
Your point on PSA type things is well taken. Pushing out information that is more static and helpful to the people may be a good option. Though I still support that good SEO activities and self promotion remains the best option for government.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on -
Ah...but if they have smart phones, people in emergency situations might still be searching (even if Internet is out).
Agreed on PSAs. In fact, I wrote a blog post back in June 2010 about a FloodSmart.gov commercial I saw on TV. At the time, I noted that I did a Google search on "flood insurance" and could not find that commercial...but I just did another search on that same phrase and here's what I discovered:
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
Two quick things:
1.) Smart phones is a good point, but should not be relied upon for emergency comms. As I've stated, it's one method, not the solution. Additionaly, in mass disasters cell sites won't maintain power for ever. (If the lights go out, the clock is ticking on how useful this medium is.) It's an option in the tool bag to be considered, but with so many other options available to push important information to people it should not be a focus.
2.) The same website came up as the number one and two in the regular search. (My guess is based on SEO.) So, again, what is the value add to government for PAYING for "placement" when you can do it for free? (Best value to government people..hard to beat free.)
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on
-
On #2, Chris: I'd say that an agency should perform a keyword analysis and determine where they rank high enough to be noticed quickly. In those instances where they do not, buy placement AND work on SEO optimization. Once they get to a desired ranking straight away, cut the ads. So in the example above, FloodSmart.gov should turn off the ad on this keyword and re-allocate funding to a related search.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
Interesting point and makes sense, again for items that are static like PSA and ongoing programs. For ongoing emergency information for unfolding events things are far to dynamic to tie down in contracts, etc. I just don't see the value of paying for activities and services governments have already, successfully, done for free.
The "google problem" is something I just noticed as another issue I have: When logged into Google it's using your search pattern history to develop results, which means everyone's results could be different. How can we get around this? This applies because not all key words are tied back to AdWords (apparently) like SEO would. I just did a search on just the word "flood", no AdWords came up, but FEMA's flooding home page still came up.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
For emergency purposes this is just off the charts in terms of being a bad idea. Government organizations should not have to run advertisements to provide the public with correct information before, during, or after an emergency situation.
1.) Let's be honest, if government organizations were in the fray and working their existing websites and web friendly releases currently, solid SEO practices would replace the need for paid content positioning.
2.) If the organizations are doing their jobs out of their PIO offices appropriately, more than enough accurate information would be available to the public via a cross section of media outlets. (e.g., internet, radio, tv, etc.) It is the PIO's job in conjunction with emergency management staff to validate information. They are the official source, let them do their job.
(Digital PIO)
Seems to me this idea is born out of the concept of force fitting a tool to do a job instead of using the right tool for the job.
It's a novel concept, but advertising is not the place to pushing this type of important information when multiple web friendly options already exist. Additionally, it probably would be a PR nightmare in and of itself for the public to find out that a government organization was paying for ad space to "correct" the open media. (Right or wrong..this probably wouldn't excite 1st Amendment activists.)
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Krzmarzick on
-
Don't think of it as "advertising." Think of it as purchasing critical online placement.
Gov does it with TV and radio spots, billboards and other traditional methods...why not ad up online?
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
For direct, real-time emergency information this is simply a bad idea for the reasons we have mentioned here as a group. This purchased space is in the "advertisement" area of the search and a great deal of people have already trained themselves to look past it. Even more important a lot of companies now make google chrome extensions and/or applications for browsers that disable adverts from the viewing area as most have already agreed they take up space and don't provide value 99% of the time. This is a very difficult human factor to over come.
Additionally, why should the government pay for "critical online placement" for actual emergency information? (Technically they get it for free via the EAS, etc.) Also, as stated, SEO replaces the need for paid placement, especially when coupled with the standard media barrage PIOs make before and after disasters announcing where the websties, blogs, twitter, etc are available.
I mean, we need to think about the context here: near real-time information. Not preparedness, etc. For static preparedness, programs, etc PSAs and adverting is key. Very different from actual emergency comms.
-
Permalink Reply by Don Fitchett on
-
I agree with you Chris, that the government webmasters don't do SEO optimization on their website, thus limited visibility. So much so I wrote a blog post on that http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/start-a-government-small-busi... not too long ago.
From what the various Government websites look like, their PIO offices are not connected or controlling the web masters. Because their design principles and operating procedures vary from entity to entity, with lack of SEO being the primary thing in common. As pointed out in my blog post above. :>)
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Hammer on
-
I am also on the same page as Chris. Not a great idea for emergency purposes, though I suspect my reasons are different.
Keep in mind that any putative PSA use of the net comes along well after a great many users have been so bombarded with advertising and spam that ads are treated as the very antithesis of "public service". Long enough that an entire industry has evolved with respect to the tactical blocking of ads, banner, pop-up, or whatever. So there is, first, the matter of whether any recipient would actual get to see the PSA.
Second, there is the matter of using one provider. We'll set aside for the moment the political PR matters arising from a monopoly by a software company on the public dime. To simply assure that people are reachable, government would likely need to stay on top of what search engines or potential home pages people are using (and while Google is king at the moment, things WILL change), and make sure there are ads on all of them, and that there is a means to circumvent blocking that works for all of them. And forcing an ad to appear suddenly on the net seems rather unlikely.
Then there is the matter of the digital divide, although this is less a problem, day by day (familiar with the $25 raspberrypi?). Then there is the matter of power outages. I have a little battery/windup radio I can use in emergencies. I even have a battery-operated TV, that'll run off a car battery. I don't know what people would do if the power is out. Yes, some folks will have fully charged laptops, netbooks, or tablets, but not everybody's device will be charged, or have a charge that will last long enough. And just what did you think those wi-fi routers ran on, love?
So, PSAs of a non-emergency nature? Sure, if they buy PSA time on tv, then why not high-profile websites? As an adjunct to an emergency warning system, or as the main emergency warning system, I think it just has so many flaws as to be a source of risk itself.
For the time being, I think the traditional radio and tv interruptions are likely the most dependable we have.
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Poirier on
-
You make great additional points on this topic. @Don brought up the similar issue with people are just conditioned to ignore advert space on websites now and you make an even more specific point that a lot of companies/organizations now block adverts for security reasons as well. Thus making it a waste of money to attempt to target an "audience" that is already rate limited.
Your second point on single provider is a good one from a contracting practice and practical practice as well. Single points of failure in emergency management is obviously a VERY bad thing!
Finally, the "digitial divide" point is a huge discussion right now in #SMEM. A lot of organizations seems to forget that for quite a few emergencies the one thing you are practically 95% sure you are going to lose is power. This is one of MANY reasons I constantly support social media as an OPTION for emergency management, but not as a primary solution in any way, shape, or form. Focus needs to remain on solid emeregency communications processes and procedures to ensure that proper validation of information is taking place along with citizen engagement, but remembering that social media is simply another communication platform in the tool bag.
Tools & Resources
© 2012 Created by GovLoop.
