Ada Lovelace Day

About The Authors

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson is a social software consultant and writer who specialises in the use of blogs and wikis behind the firewall. With a background in journalism, publishing and web design, Suw is now one of the UK’s best known bloggers, frequently speaking at conferences and seminars.

She recently launched Kits and Mortar, a blog about planning a green, cat-friendly self-built home. Her personal blog is Chocolate and Vodka, and yes, she’s married to Kevin.

Email Suw

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson is the blogs editor for Guardian.co.uk, where he focuses on journalism innovation. He uses blogs, social networks, Web 2.0 tools and mobile technology to break news, to engage with audiences and tell the story behind the headlines in multiple media and on multiple platforms.

Kevin has been a digital journalist since 1996, writing for both web and print, and broadcasing on the web, television and radio. Before joining the Guardian, he worked at the BBC for eight years. He joined the BBC in 1998, as their first online journalist based outside of the UK. From their flagship Washington bureau, he covered the US for the BBC’s award winning news website, while also providing politics and technology coverage for BBC radio and television.

Kevin came to the UK in 2005 to develop a blogging strategy for BBC news. He also worked on the launch of Pods and Blogs, a Radio 5Live programme covering weblogs and podcasts. He then moved to the BBC World Service and was a key member of the team that launched World Have Your Say, an interactive radio programme with a strong online participation component.

E-mail Kevin.

Member of the Media 2.0 Workgroup
Dark Blogs Case Study

Case Study 01 - A European Pharmaceutical Group

Find out how a large pharma company uses dark blogs (behind the firewall) to gather and disseminate competitive intelligence material.


free page hit counter



hit counter script


All content © Kevin Anderson and/or Suw Charman

Interview series:
at the FASTforward blog. Amongst them: John Hagel, David Weinberger, JP Rangaswami, Don Tapscott, and many more!

Corante Blog

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007

Communities and constituencies

Posted by Suw Charman-Anderson

I’ve had cause just recently to consider in more detail the way that we think about communities, and how we misuse that term to describe groups of people who aren’t actually a community at all.

Last year at Blogtalk, I was having a chat with a friend about how she had a new client who wanted to start some blogs - so far so good - to service their community. The client was a magazine and their mistake was thinking that because they have readers, they have a community. I’m sure there are a gazillion definitions of ‘community’ out there, but it’s clear to me what a community is not: a group of people with no social relationships between each other who have just the reading of a magazine in common does not a community make. The same way that, in cities like London, it is easy to live in a place for years and never become a part of the local community.

To my mind, communities are groups of people bonded by social interactions, which will probably be initiated by and revolve around some sort of shared purpose, activity, value, interest or location. The Open Rights Group, for example, has a mailing list which forms the hub of its online community. Brought together by a shared interest in digital rights, people talk about the issues, exchange views, debate, help each other out, help ORG out, and generally interact in a positive manner. People know each other - either online, or on- and offline - and have formed social relationships, whether weak, strong, or intermediate.

There is, of course, a wider community than that formed by the discussion list. There are people who read the blog and interact via the comments, or who come to ORG events and socialise, but who aren’t on the discussion list. In some cases, their ties to ORG are stronger than their ties to each other, but small subsets of people who know each other well also exist because of some other shared context, e.g. another mailing list or working on the same issue. Others will come to know each via their comments on ORG’s blog as well as posts and comments on their own blogs. Overall, this is a loosely-joined group of people, some of whom will become more involved with ORG, some less so.

Finally, I see a third and very much bigger group, ORG’s constituency - people who may or may not be aware of ORG, are not in touch with either ORG or other ORG supporters, but who are still interested in the issues.

community

The challenge for ORG - and every other non-profit or artist or business that wants to build communities - is how you move people from sitting quietly by themselves in the outer constituency circle through to the central core community. How do you increase engagement, from the passive constituency to the active core community? Whether, like ORG, you need to find people who are going to support your non-profit with donations and voluntary action, or whether you are trying to find new fans or sell your product, moving people along that big red arrow is the hardest thing on your To Do list. Theoretically, it’s all very simple; in practice, not so much.

The first step, and the one I see people stumbling over most often, is to understand who is in your core community, who’s in your loosely-joined community, and who’s in your constituency. If you don’t get this clear, confusing your constituency with your community, then everything that comes after will be built on quicksand. This is a mistake I’ve made in the past, and it’s one I see other people making too. If you don’t understand who your constituency are, and where they are, then you can’t put together effective strategies to communicate with them.

One starting point is to look firstly at the community you do have. What type of people are they? What do they do for a living? For fun? Where do they live? Where do they hang out online?

Then look for communities that overlap yours. What communities do you have something in common with? Something ideological? Practical? Financial? Commercial? Who else is doing something similar to what you do?

Finally, look for communities that don’t overlap yours, but which could if only the people there knew about you.

community2

When you’ve identified these different groups of people, you can start to then think about how you communicate with them. And that’s a whole nother blog post.

Email a copy of 'Communities and constituencies' to a friend

EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.





E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

3 Responses to “Communities and constituencies”

  1. Michael Holloway Says:

    I look forward to discussing with you and others in the ORG ‘community’. As suggested, i’ll schedule for Monday 9 July, 6pm at the Yorkshire Grey (jnct of Grays Inn Road and Theobalds Road, London WC1X)

  2. Alison Wheeler Says:

    “If you don’t understand who your constituency are, and where they are, then you can’t put together effective strategies to communicate with them.”

    I see this as two separate-but-indivisible sides of the coin. Yes, one must communicate (outwards) with ‘them’, but there is also an element of “what is in it for the constituency” requiring a clear and easy method for ‘them’ to communicate with the hub - and be listened to! Indeed, replacing ‘them’ with ‘more of us’ is the best idea ;-P

    “Increased involvement” is a two-way thing, and increasing communication in both directions greatly increases the active benefits to all parties concerned.

  3. Suw Says:

    Alison, I see communication as a two-way process by default. If it’s one-way, it’s broadcast. And the best outcome from that communication is to move people from being outside the community to inside, which inevitably involves a transition from “them” to “us”.

    What this post doesn’t talk about, and it was not my intention to discuss it at this exact juncture, is the contents of that communication - that’s where it becomes very important to understand what’s in it for individuals. If you read any of my posts on social software adoption you’ll see that this is something that is central to the way I think about things. Increased engagement, and a movement towards becoming a part of the core community has to involve benefit to the individual - it just won’t work otherwise.

    But my intention in this post wast to draw people’s attention to the fact that your community is not the same as your constituency, and to think about the structure of communities/constituencies.

Leave a Reply