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.

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.