Caring for others as the New Year dawns: Wouldn't it be great to hear more?

There's a lovely story for the New Year over at BirminghmamMail.net. Kathryn Jones, the director of group marketing and communications at Birmingham City University, is attempting to lose three stone in as many months to help save a young boy's life. Six year old Jay Brewer is due to travel to America for treatment of a brain tumour, and Kathryn is hoping to raise £2,000 towards sending the boy's family with him.

The NHS is footing the bill for Jay and his mother's trip, but Kathryn's efforts will help his father and siblings to be there too.

It's great to hear of people helping others. As the Coalition Government attempt to steer the country towards a Big Society, stories such as this demonstrate the ethos of looking beyond your own life to how you can help others, on which that concept is based.

Our article from October, NHS Organ Donation Social Media Campaign, mentioned the personal stories of courage posted on the corresponding facebook page, which are similar to Kathryn's story in showing people's altruism. As people read them, one would hope they may be inspired to see how they can make similar contributions to society.

I found Kathryn's story through a Google Alert I have set up to source material for this blog, but wouldn't it be great if such accounts were more visible and publicised? As the Government examines how they can nudge the population into taking a more active role in society, a strategy to highlight inspiring examples could have a significant impact.

Social Media and the viral tools therein, offer an opportunity to spread these on a massive level and in a highly engaging manner.  To some extent, individual organisations and Government campaigns may already do this, but a concerted effort in support of encouraging the Big Society could play a large part in bringing it about.

In the spirit of this, here's a few more inspiring stories of goodwill. Happy New Year!

Applications to support the "Happiness Index"?

²gether, the NHS Foundation Trust for Gloucestershire, is making use of mobile technology to promote mental wellbeing in the County.  Developed by smartphone applications developer Mubaloo, the "Moodometer" allows people to register how they feel throughout the day, via their iphones, ipads and ipods. This then provides users and their doctors with a diary of their emotional state, helping to identify any patterns to their moods.

The app is available to download for free via itunes and 1,400 people have already done so in the few weeks since it's launch. As well as being able to track user's moods, the Moodometer is location based, so users can see how others are feeling in the area. It also provides hints and tips on staying upbeat.

It's a great idea and as uptake increases, it will be interesting to see what picture it paints of the mental state of the residents of Gloucestershire. We published an article back in October, discussing research into using Social Media apps to deliver Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and it's good to see a similar project in action. A Social Media version of the Moodometer would perhaps be  useful next step, broadening the reach beyond those who own the current platforms by which it's delivered.

If the project as whole proves to be successful, it could also be of use on a national scale. Following the lead of the international community, the Coalition Government recently announced it's intention to measure the Country's mood next year. This "Happiness Index" will look to gauge the well-being of the Nation, going beyond the usual economic measures of a country's success.  The Office for National Statistics is responsible for developing the project and is currently in consultation on how it would best be delivered.

A traditional, national survey will almost certainly be the  main method employed, but innovations, such as the Moodometer, could augment this with deeper insights and a fuller picture. The UK has an ever growing relationship with technology, which continues to offer new opportunities for engagement worth considering.

Should the localism that's prevalent in Government thinking at the moment also stretch to the running of this initiative, then regional organisations, such as ²gether, may be best placed to gain the required insight into their communities. To obtain a truly meaningful measure of how the population feels, fuller engagement than a paper survey provides will be needed. Local bodies know their communities best and already have an established relationship, with the corresponding channels of communications to attain engagement.

These channels can be complimented by sharing local research and developments, like the Moodometer. A central pool of resources, the required metrics set by Government, then the actual delivery handled by local organisations.

Christmas, a time for Merriment and very little Social Marketing

Firstly, on this snowy Christmas Eve, the NHS Marketing Blog hopes all our readers have a very happy holiday time.

We'll continue to publish through the period, but we really are entering somewhat of a no man's land for Social Marketing. The time between Christmas and the New Year is traditionally a time when people cast off their worries, forget about the diet or curbing their drinking, and just look to have the best time possible.

This means any messages suggesting anything else will most likely be ignored and it's a safe bet that neither the NHS nor any other organisation, will even attempt to push them over the coming days.

Our previous article, When is the Best Time to Deliver Social Marketing?, touched on the subject, commenting on plans to influence drinkers on a night out, by suggesting that the hangover dominated morning after may be a better time.  It brings to mind the old maxim that, "Resolve is never stronger than the morning after the night before it was weakest".

So, I'm sure all good Social Marketeers will be ramped up to make the most of the festive hangover. The New Year always brings a great opportunity for looking to affect behavioural change. Not only have people often made resolutions to improve their lifestyle, they also head into a fresh year, looking for new beginnings. On a practical level too, after the expense of Christmas and the excesses in consumption, January is an austere month for most. A perfect environment to suggest cutting back or rethinking.

On Monday, we'll be publishing an article on a "moodometer" smartphone application, which helps sufferers of depression and anxiety, by allowing them to keep a diary of their mood. Something similar for New Year's resolutions may help them to be kept and I'll be keeping an eye out as the New Year dawns for if anyone's had that idea first.

Is Multi-Channel Communication the key to engagement?

Business advisory organisation Deloitte,  has just published details of their research into consumer spending. The study found that multi-channel shoppers spend a massive 82% more per transaction than those who use a store alone. "Multi-channel" means that the consumer uses more than one of a company's platforms, such as their shops, websites or catalogues.

It's a huge difference and has implications beyond the realms of retail. In this blog, we've regularly suggested that the Public Sector, and especially the NHS, should look to business to inform their Social Marketing and efforts to improve Public Health. The knowledge and expertise that business has in understanding and influencing the needs of the Public is a long established industry in itself, with years of well financed research into markets and the development of techniques to influence those markets. Examining research such as this and looking to how it can translate to their communications challenges, the NHS can save time and money doing it themselves.

In this instance, Deloitte's research shows the difference that connecting with people across multiple platforms increases their likelihood to buy a product. It's not too great a leap to presume the same would apply when selling an idea, such as those the NHS may be looking to promote in a Social Marketing campaign.

Ian Geddes, UK Head of Retail at Deloitte, said: “The multi-channel consumer is particularly well informed about the products they buy and this greater confidence is resulting in a higher value and a higher volume of purchases."

Expanding on this, multiple channels give a feel of more power to the consumer. Rather than receive a company led, singular sales message, the multi-channel consumer creates their own, choosing what and from where they take their information. They feel more in control, rather than being manipulated.

The same idea would apply to Public Health messages. Rather than a singular message from, say a television campaign telling people not to smoke, a coordinated range of channels is available, from which the Public can choose their own path to suit their needs. They then feel that they're in control of what they receive, rather than being lectured. If they then decide to make the "purchase", by stopping smoking, they feel it's their own well informed choice.

The NHS equivalent of the retail store may be a GP Surgery or Drop-In Centre, but NHS Hull went one further with the opening of Health Central earlier this year. The project is a unique and original concept in bringing health services to the Public, with a retail-style outlet situated in a busy shopping centre. Supported by various other channels, such as facebook pages and paper media, the facility has been a great success.

As we were heavily involved in the project, we shared NHS Hull's delight, when after six months it reached 10,000 people through the door. In effect, this is 10,000 "purchases", made possible by offering this new channel to the Public.

Innovative approaches such as this, broadening the range of channels available to the NHS, maximises their ability to engage with the Public. As the Deloitte report shows, multi-channel communications brings such significant benefits, that those running any campaign should always consider how they can take advantage of that potential.

Goodbye to PCTs and Hello to GP Consortia

The Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, confirmed this week what has been alluded to throughout the Department of Health's white papers over the last year. The country's 152 Primary Care Trusts, along with the corresponding Strategic Health Authorities are to be abolished. Responsibility for budgets and commissioning will be transferred to newly formed Consortia of General Practitioners.

The announcement comes as a response to the consultation following the plans laid out in the recent white paper. The changes will be staged, with PCTs following the example of many in London and the North East by merging into 'clusters', while overseeing  the formation of the consortia and supporting them in adapting to their new responsibilities.  This transition period is expected to run untill April in 2013.

To test-drive GP's capabilities in taking on the new role, 52 'Pathfinder' Consortia have been announced, covering about a quarter of the country's population. The full handover will not commence until these prove to be a success.

Confirmation of these plans comes in the same week as the Commons Health Select Committee has suggested that the Governments spending plans for the NHS will present a huge challenge. Though spending on health was 'ringfenced' in the recent spending review, the promised rise will be only just above inflation, in real terms and large savings are a requirement. The Committee says that an unprecedented level of efficiency will be needed within the NHS, for it to maintain, let alone improve, health services.

The proposed changes are obviously a part of making this happen, but implementing them in a time of austerity will be all the more difficult. Lansley's plans to stage the reorganisation are welcome in this, but making savings is a big ask of GP's, on top of all their new responsibilities. They'll need all the help they can get from PCT's, as well as the new NHS Commissioning Board and local authorities, if they're to meet the challenge.

Should Public Assets and Services have to make Money?

Gloucester County Council are embracing the Coalition Governments Big Society agenda, with the launch of a new scheme designed to encourage residents to provide services for their communities. The 'Big Community Offer' looks to transfer the management of over 30 community facilities, such as libraries and youth centres, to interested local community groups. Peppercorn rents, asset shares and start-up grants will be available in order to improve take up.

Gloucester are the latest in a long line of councils. The idea of community asset transfer has been around for decades, with all three political parties showing an increased interest in recent years and the previous Government initiating the Advancing Assets for Communities (AAC) programme, now in it's fourth year.

However, since decentralization and localism became the focus of the Coalition Government's vision for a Big Society, it's implementation has stepped up the agenda.  A recent report by think-tank ResPublica and the Development Trusts Association (DTA), who manage the AAC programme, goes as far to say that rapid, large scale transfer is 'essential' if the Big Society is to succeed.

The report states that assets by definition "... are a source of future income", and would be a means of wealth generation within poorer communities. Can that really be said of libraries, swimming baths and community centres, without changing their essential nature? Raising or introducing tariffs may bring profits, but that may then exclude the poorer people from actually using the facilities.

Do the community groups have to run the assets as businesses?

Peppercorn rents and other incentives may make it easier than a profit driven business, but money still has to be made, let alone to pay the bills, never mind to make the actual profits that the ResPublica report suggests. To apply for an asset, a business plan and assurances of sustainability need submitting.

Ok, things need paying for, but how's a library supposed to make money? A few fines? It's not a business. It shouldn't have to make money. But we need libraries, which is why they're paid for by government.  If they replace that funding with a few incentives, it's a save for the Government, but the Public's loss, if those assets can't sustain themselves.

These assets are being sold off because government struggle to sustain them. Do they really expect community groups to do any better, when there's just no money to be made? It shouldn't be about that anyway, but when the libraries can't pay the bills, it may not be too big a surprise if McDonalds step in and offer a big mac with every book borrowed.

The ResPublica report suggest that community groups will need a lot of support from Government, but if such public assets as libraries and swimming baths are to survive in anywhere near the form we see them in today, that support and especially funding will have to be ongoing.

So, what's this got to do with the NHS?

Part of the current redevelopment of the health service in the UK is travelling a very similar path to what is set out above. Communities and local organisations are being encouraged to take up ownership of local health services and will be expected to sustain them. If they fail, will Private firms then be offered the chance to do better? Only a few weeks ago, the first NHS Hospital to be run by a Private firm came into being, when Circle took over the running of Cambridgeshire's Hinchingbrooke hospital, and that may be the future for other locally lead facilities.

As with community assets, local health services aren't businesses. Yes, they should be ran professionally, but they can't always be expected to make money. Funding should come from Government.

And what about marketing?

Well, in all these transfers of responsibility, the change should be positive and an improvement. If it's just a change of ownership, with no noticeable difference to the people through the door, what's the point, except to save the Public purse.

The difference needs to come with those people coming through the door having a part of that ownership and the full community feeling involved. Rather than just passing the keys to a few interested people, there needs to be a true sense of community ownership.

For this to take place, effective and powerful community engagement programmes need to be implemented and maintained. Through these channels, individuals can feel a part of the whole, with a voice that's listened to and acted on. They can then develop a sense of ownership deeper than simply holding the keys, where they take pride in the mutually owned assets that serves themselves and their fellow residents.

How can Online Engagement be measured?

In the article we published a couple of weeks ago, A Human Face for the Department of Health: Blogging and Transparency, we featured Stephen Hale's excellent Department of Health blog. In that article, we highlighted Stephen's intention to develop and publish metrics by which to measure the success of their digital engagement and looked forward to seeing the results. Yesterday, Stephen made good on his promise and his 13 measure of success for government digital teams makes very interesting reading.

As Stephen states and any good Marketeer knows, communication and engagement campaigns are virtually pointless without effective, practical ways of measuring their success. This is often a challenge and especially so when the traditional measurement methods, such as the financial return on investment that might be employed in a commercial campaign, are entirely inappropriate. This is certainly the case with Government department's communication strategies, where it's not making money that counts, but rather making positive contact with the Public.

When speaking about digital engagement, the tools and methods available are vastly more complex, detailed and varied than any available outside the realms of the internet. There's almost too much choice and a large part of the challenge becomes as much about choosing those that will provide the most meaningful data, as it does anything else.

The 13 measures that Stephen and the DH Comms and Publications teams have developed demonstrate a deep understanding of the digital landscape. They would be relevant across all areas of Governmental digital strategy and would even be of use to Companies who struggle to take stock of the new discipline of online digital engagement. Hopefully the blog will publish results at points in the future, as it will be fascinating to see their effectiveness in practice.

How much should Big Business be involved in Public Health?

Sainsburys, the Supermarket Chain, has announced plans to offer GP's space to set up surgeries  in 204 of their outlets. The premises will be available free of charge and will be secondary to doctor's main surgeries. Sainsburys will also help market the services offered, as well as offering advice on commissioning.

This is a great opportunity for GPs, not only with the increased visibility and accessibility, but also to take advantage of high level marketing. Just how the Governments plans for GP commissioning will take shape is yet to be revealed, but if marketing their services falls within their remit, then experiencing how the experts do it could be extremely useful.

It's a prime example of Business collaborating with the Public Sector, in line with the Big Society agenda, as we discussed in an earlier article. As mentioned there, some may be cynical about the motivating factors, but Sainsburys has been clear in stating that the  extra footfall through their doors is the reason for the initiative.

Less clear cut is the deeper involvement of various food companies in shaping the Government 's public health policies, as reported earlier this month. McDonalds, PepsiCo and Diageo, amongst others, have been recruited into 'Responsibility Deal' networks by Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley. These networks, which also include organisations such as Cancer Research UK, will develop suggestions for policies aimed at tackling national health issues, such as obesity and alcohol abuse. These are expected to form part of the upcoming White Paper.

We suggested in the article above that some may be dubious about such involvement from business, when their primary aim will always be to make more money. Indeed, this has been the reaction from many, fearing that policy will be twisted to financially benefit those involved.

It's a legitimate concern, but is it better to exclude Business from the process?

By working in partnership, they could be influenced to improve their practices, rather than leaving them to their own devices. They also have a lot they can bring to the table, with years of market research, knowledge and experience in their respective areas. Yes, you could argue that this experience is in making the problems worse, but if the current Zeitgeist is for them to make amends, then that experience would still be useful in doing so.

Having Business directly involved from the outset could also bring the benefit of having them help implement and promote policy and the actions that result. In the current climate of tight Public purse strings, the financial strength and marketing power of big brands could make a massive difference.

Traditionally, Businesses involvement in influencing policy is often suspected to involve handshakes and brown envelopes exchanged behind closed doors. To avoid suspicion that the Responsibility Deal Networks are not a more direct version of this, they will have to involve a great deal of transparency. If this isn't forthcoming and we see little of the discussions that take place, then the cynics will remain cynics and those on the fence may not stay there for long.

Local Government to take the lead on Public Health

The Coalition Government has set out it's plans for the future of Public Health in it's new white paper, Healthy lives, healthy people: Our strategy for public health in England. Presented to Parliament by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, the document details the intended reorganisation and proposes the creation of a new public body within the Department of Health, with specific responsibility for Public Health.

'Public Health England' will coordinate and work alongside PCT's and SHA's, as well as newly formed GP Consortia, to deliver and commission Public Health services. A newly formed NHS Commissioning Board (NHSCB) will also have an involvement, but overall responsibility for Public Health will rest with the new body from the proposed date of April 2012.

Continuing the Governments agenda of decentralising power and in line with it's previous publications on the future of healthcare in the country, the new system will  focus on a local level. In an interesting move, the paper suggests that Local Government take the lead in this. A Director of Public Health (DPH) will be appointed by each local authority in consultation with Public Health England, be employed by the former and be accountable to both.

A DPH will be the strategic leader for Public Health in their area, being the principal advisor to the local authority on all health matters and how the authority's functions may effect the health of the local population. They will identify and tackle health inequalities and be an advocate for health in the community. The DsPH will also work closely with the local NHS and GP's towards that same end.

The proposals reflect the importance of preventative measures and the need for an integrated and holistic approach in improving the health of the Nation.

The paper states that more details of the changes are to come in a series of publications, before they're put to the vote when the Health and Social Care Bill goes before Parliament in the new year.

Hang out where your Audience hangs out: Targeting GPs through Doctors.net.uk

Since it's launch in 1998, Doctors.net.uk has become the UK’s largest network of medical professionals. The organisation now has a membership comprising 90% of the UK's practising doctors, with one in five logging in every day. Twice during September, the website received record amounts of traffic, with 40,000 unique visitors during a single day.

In it's own words, the website, "... is available to UK-registered doctors in primary and secondary care. It is a secure service offering a professional e-mail facility, clinical and non-clinical forums, the very latest medical news and free accredited education allowing doctors to maintain Continuing Professional Development (CPD)."

This doctor community regularly makes a direct contribution to patient outcomes, with many examples of rare conditions being diagnosed and treated, thanks to doctors being able to share their knowledge and opinions. It’s become an indispensable resource across primary and secondary care, with 97% saying the site is their most trusted source of information.

The phenomenally high percentage of take up  and the regularity of  engagement makes Doctors.net.uk THE Social Network in which to reach GP’s and secondary care clinicians. Forget facebook and twitter; this is the place to be. Whether it's market research or spreading a message, there's no other place to be found online with the sheers numbers of active members, representing virtually the entire populace of doctors in the UK.

But it is a private network, so  not a free for all, where service providers looking to exploit GP's new found powers in commissioning, can go around selling their wares. Instead, Doctors.net.uk offers option for Private and Public organisations to purchase access to their membership, whether to conduct market research or run communication and educational campaigns. It's not clear from the website exactly what this entails or if it's open for all companies, such as Social Marketing providers, but what is clear is the results. Doctors.net.uk offers extremely detailed and accurate metrics to demonstrate return on investment. Boehringer Ingelheim, for instance, engaged 27,000 doctors in a year-long campaign that was equivalent to having 45 sales representatives on the road for the same period of time.

The Third Sector has also taken advantage of this. Cancer Research UK appointed Doctors.net.uk to launch a three month campaign targeting general practitioners. This involved a dedicated Cancer Research UK microsite within Doctors.net.uk, providing GPs with authoritative evidence-based information to improve patient consultations and earlier diagnosis.

The Department of Health and NHS make extensive use of the opportunities for engagement that Doctors.net.uk has to offer. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement conducted a year long programme through the network, aimed at improving the quality and efficiency of high volume care. They reported great success, with 20,000 doctors assessing their clinical practices and 8.000 changing their working methods, all as a direct result of the campaign.

This engagement between GP's and the Government will be of increasing importance as NHS reforms take place. Doctors.net.uk have already started to react to the changes, with the launch of a commissioning microsite and joint research projects with influential think tank, the King’s Fund. This aims to help GP's with the new process, providing clear information and forums for discussion, help and advice. This comes after research conducted by Doctors.net.uk revealed that 83% of doctors don't feel equipped to implement the reforms. Hopefully, the microsite will go some way to addressing that.

As mentioned above, I'm not clear whether companies such as ours, who offer Social Marketing services, can use Doctors.net.uk to target those GP's looking to commission what we offer. If this isn't already a possibility, I would hope that with their growing responsibility for commissioning, it soon will be. Throwing open the doors may well be too much, potentially diluting the prime purpose of Doctors.net.uk and putting off GP's, but if it's controlled, it should be mutually beneficial to both provider and GP.

NHS Choices Sharing User's Data with facebook and other Third Parties; Is this Actually so Bad?

A new article by blogger Mischa Tuffield has raised concerns over privacy on the NHS Choices website.  After conducting in depth research, Mischa identified four third-party companies, including facebook, who can track a user's movements through the NHS site. He suggests that this would be fine for a website that rates pubs, for example, but not when people are seeking advice for potentially sensitive and private matters, as they may do on the Choices website. The article even goes so far as to suggest that this may contravene the NHS's Data Protection Policy, as the data would be sent outside of Europe, which the policy forbids.

This has the potential to cause a major headache for the NHS's flagship website, which has established itself as the foremost destination for health advice in the UK. As with visiting a local GP, confidentiality is a priority for people when it comes to their health and if this isn't guaranteed on NHS Choices, that could effect their willingness to use the service.

Though the story has been reported via several online news outlets, the mainstream media has yet to pick up on it. If they do, these few spots of rain may develop into a full blown storm.

After reading the blog himself,  Tom Watson, Labour MP for West Bromwich East, certainly believes it warrants more attention. He wrote directly to Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, strongly urging that the tracking code be removed.

The Department of Health has responded to concerns, stating;

""Facebook capturing data from sites like NHS Choices is a result of Facebook’s own system. When users sign up to Facebook they agree Facebook can gather information on their web use. NHS Choices privacy policy, which is on the homepage of the site, makes this clear.

"We advise that people log out of Facebook properly, not just close the window, to ensure no inadvertent data transfer."

I tend to agree with this. Facebook has long been criticised for it's management of privacy, but a user does have the option to log out if they don't want their web movements tracked. The way facebook does this has been massively well reported during it's history, so it's highly unlikely that many of it's users are ignorant to how it works. If they stay connected, then surely that's their responsibility?

The real question for me is, what happens to the data once it's collected? For a start, it's not going to be made Public. I would imagine that this would be the main worry for those hearing about this story; that their embarassing illnesses could appear in their friends news feeds. This isn't going to happen, unless of course it's actively shared by a user, in which case, again, it's their responsibility.

Mischa states in his article that the DH's Privacy Policy doesn't make it explicit that data is not shared for third party advertising. Although facebook's interconnectivity with other sites aims to improve the user experience, it's difficult to argue that the main aim is anything but to improve the targeting of it's own advertising. This is likely to be the outcome of the shared data; it influencing the adverts an individual user, and only that user, sees on facebook.

There are still arguments against this, especially from an ethical standpoint, but I'd argue that there would be no actual negative effects for a user from having their data shared. Compare this to the positives of having facebook integrated into NHS Choices, where a single user can easily raise awareness of a health issue or story amongst their peer group of several hundred people, as well as the services which the website and NHS provides, with the potential for that information to spread virally to many, many more. There's many other benefits as well, but that alone should make facebook an indispensable part of NHS Choices.

NHS Choices: A Flagship Big Society Website?

NHS Choices, the self described "digital gateway for the public to access NHS information and advice" has published it's annual report. The document details the website's achievements and development over the past year, as well as it's plans for the coming year. The website has undoubtedly been a success for the NHS, with over 100 million visits over twelve months, becoming firmly established as the most popular health related site in the UK.

This success has been reinforced with the assertion that the website has actually saved the NHS an estimated £44 million a year.  This is based on the reduced need for GP call-outs and appointments, due to people finding the answers they need on the site. In the current economic climate, where the NHS is expected to tighten it's belt, such estimates highlight the immense value that the Internet can provide.

However, that does exclude the 15 million people in the UK, who currently have no access to the Internet. Rather than just dismiss these as an inevitably unreachable element, the report shows how NHS Choices have looked to how they can still benefit. In the main, this has involved working with intermediaries, such as libraries and health teams, who can provide access and support. There is also the NHS Choices Mobile service, which allows access to the website's directories via text message.

With great amounts of traffic, demonstrable savings, and a reach that even extends to those without internet access, where next for NHS Choices?

The plan that the report sets out for the year ahead lists new features to be introduced. These include allowing healthcare providers to edit the details of what they offer, extending user comments to all NHS services and making the homepage customisable, so that a user can personalise what is displayed to their own needs.

To a certain extent, it's already there, but with these changes, NHS Choices will move more and more towards being almost a perfect example of a national Public Sector website within the ethos of the Big Society. Co-production, where an informed Public works in conjunction with a decentralized Public Sector to provide a highly personalised service for it's individuals.

The one thing all but missing from the report, which you'd be hard pushed to omit from any modern internet strategy, is Social Media. There's mention of improving Social Network linking, but little else. Of course, this is a report on the website itself, so you might expect few mentions of outside media and there may be a separate strategy in place, but everything is so integrated in the modern internet that it's surprising that Social Media is barely mentioned.

The NHS Choices facebook page only has about 1,000 subscribers and although the twitter profile fares better with about 10,000 followers, this is still a relatively small number for such an organisation on that platform.  Neither have prominent links on the NHS Choices website, which along with the small numbers on the respective profiles, may indicate that Social Media isn't seen as a particularly important part of the overall strategy.

This could be because the powers that be see Social Media as unnecessary.  NHS Choices is an exhaustive resource, which attracts great numbers and already has in place many elements to gain the interaction and engagement that Social Media is famous for. But just because it already does well, that doesn't mean it couldn't do better.

The benefits of Social Media have been well documented, so there's no need to go into detail on that again, but it's capacity for attaining that engagement on such a deep level, along with it's vast, sometimes viral, reach make it a tool that could bring a great deal to NHS Choices.  Not only that, but the unprecedented level of user supplied lifestyle information on such platforms as facebook, offers an opportunity for targeting specific demographics at a level that's absolutely impossible to attain elsewhere.

A Human Face for the Department of Health: Blogging and Transparency

Following on from our last article, Does the Department of Health make the most of Social Media?, we were grateful to receive a comment from a spokesman for the Department, Tim Lloyd. It was great to gain feedback on our thoughts from the DH and hopefully there'll be more to come, helping us offer greater insight.

One point Tim raised was uncertainty at what purpose the hypothetical DH facebook page would serve, which we recommended in the original article.  I responded with the following;

"I think what I’d see as a facebook page for the Department would be how I’d envisage any Government page; giving an approachable, human face, focusing on transparency so as to help demystify the workings of Government and to provide a Public forum around those workings."

I stand by this and certainly believe facebook is a great platform for this purpose. However, giving a human face and personality is more often the role of the blog and the DH have recently launched one that does just that. Written by the head of digital communication for the Department of Health, Stephen Hale, it aims to provide information on how they're using the medium and promises everything from "... the big strategic stuff to the daily delights and frustrations of working in government digital communication".

So far Stephen's only published two articles, but they're already really great, being very obviously from a real person and having just the right mix of informality with professionality and knowledge. In my opinion a perfect example of what a Government blog should be. Stephen himself mentions what an asset official blogging can be and has the intention of advocating the platform with Ministers and staff. I wish him all the success in this, as bringing that inherent transparency and personality can only help strengthen the Public's relationship with Government.

I'm champing at the bit to read more from Stephen's blog and to gain further insight into how the Department utilizes digital communication. Stephens latest article mentions developing metrics for measuring their success and I'll be very interested to see what he comes up with. It's a notoriously difficult discipline, especially within the Public sector, where the usual measure of  'sales made' has little relevance, so I'll look forward to Stephen publishing more details.

Read Stephen's blog here.

Does the Department of Health make the most of Social Media?

The Department of Health (DH) has just published the traffic statistics for it's website during September, as well as it's overall numbers on it's various Social Media profiles.  It currently uses Twitter, Flickr and YouTube, but has no facebook page. More on that later.

The website itself has had 3,438,908 page impressions, 755,359 unique visitors,  and 1,074,474 visits during the month. These figures alone don't tell much of a story, except to say that the site does get a healthy amount of traffic. It would be interesting to see these numbers broken down further, to show for instance, what proportion of those visitors were Health Professionals or members of the General Public.  This can be difficult to measure, but would give a better impression of the website's reach. Perhaps, integrating a short survey could help.

The most popular pages are unsurprisingly those concerning the recent white paper, Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. There's been a large amount of discussion around the reorganisation of the NHS, detailed in this paper and publishing the document online gives people the option to easily access and read it themselves, rather than rely on third party reporting.

The DH's Twitter profile had  5369  followers and had tweeted 607 times in total by the end of September. The tweets comprise in the main of links to official announcements, health news and the activities of high ranking personnel, such as site visits and interviews.

Perhaps the primary function of Twitter is to disseminate information, so it could be a great tool to raise awareness of the Department's activities within the country's population, helping achieve the transparency that the Government states as one of it's aims. To that end, it may be an idea for the profile to include more tweets directly related to the Department. More calls to 'retweet' would also help spread the message and increase the numbers of followers, which though currently at a respectable figure, would need to be a lot higher if the aim is, as you would imagine, to address as much of the populace as possible.

If engagement is also an aim, then having tweets direct to a platform with more versatility, like facebook, would also be an idea. A facebook page is conspicuous by it's absence in the DH's portfolio of Social Media profiles. I've been unable to find any official strategy or rationale for the Department's use of Social Media, but engagement is the overriding reason why organisations use it. It's therefore somewhat odd that facebook, the undisputed king of  engagement, has been neglected.

A reason for their existence is also missing from all three of the profiles.  It's generally good practice in a Social Media profile to actually state what it's for, but many companies and organisations instead just describe themselves, like they would in an 'about us' on a website. Yes, say who you are, but also tell users what they can expect on the profile, the benefits to them for subscribing and how they should interact.

The Flickr page provides a good example of this, as it's not immediately obvious what it's for. The majority of the first page is taken up with photos of visits by the Minister of State for the DH, Simon Burns. The profile (essentially the 'about us') for the page is empty, so that sheds no light. Navigating to 'sets' actually gives the best impression, as this displays a thumbnail for each set of photos on the page. It shows that indeed the main function for the page is to display photos of various public appearances by Ministers at events and launches.

The page had been viewed 59,445 times in total, so again, gets a reasonable amount of traffic, but no comments have been left by visitors. It's therefore a one-way communication, missing out on the interactive nature of Social Media. A little more variety in the sorts of photos posted and some calls to action within the comments could help this, taking the page from merely a way to distribute photos, to another gateway to engagement.

The DH's YouTube channel does have that variety, with a large number of videos ranging in subject from Social Marketing ad campaigns to case studies from health professionals.  The quality of content is really strong and the stats show 197,904 views, which appears to be a good number. However, looking a little deeper, the channel is almost three years old, so over that time scale the views are relatively low. The videos individually average in the low hundreds for views, though a noticeable exception is the Change4Life campaign, produced by Aardman. This series of adverts are way up, in the tens of thousands, which could possibly be down to the popularity of the production company, whose other credits include the Wallace & Gromit films. Should this be the case, the higher number of views would most likely be down to users finding the videos in searches. The difference implies that the profile relies on searches for views, rather than the videos being pro-actively promoted.

To maximise the effective reach and levels of engagement from Social Media, content and the profile itself needs promoting and interaction encouraged. The various platforms should be used in a coordinated manner, cross pollinating each other, so for example, tweets should regularly link to new videos and images on Youtube and Flickr respectively, where visitors are encouraged to leave comments and share. They should all then feed back to a central hub profile, where the deepest engagement takes place. We would usually recommend a facebook page for this hub and I would recommend the same for the Department of Health.

Does the NHS need to get to know their Audience, when Business already does?

A new Social Media campaign has been launched to help raise awareness of the Health4Work Adviceline. The service, provided by NHS Plus, aims to reduce the £100 million a year cost to business incurred by sickness and absence, by offering free and confidential advice to employers from occupational health experts. Clear Thought, a marketing agency based in Bristol, have been commissioned to conduct the campaign.

The specific targets for the campaign are small business owners, hence Clear Thought's involvement, as these are their main client base. The company therefore has extensive experience and knowledge of communicating throughout this demographic. This show's great forward thinking on the part of NHS Plus in their commissioning. Knowing your audience is the foundation of any Social Media campaign and it would be difficult to argue that the NHS has the necessary familiarity with small business. So they go to a company that does.

Moving forward with the Public and Private sector partnership in the Big Society, perhaps other companies could offer similar. If a national brand in the UK mainly markets it's products to children, then it's reasonable to assume they've done their research and know the market. They know how to sell to that demographic. Should the NHS have a Social Marketing campaign aimed at children, such as combating child obesity, then that research and knowledge already in place with the large brand, could be extremely useful in delivering that message. Perhaps even a combined message would be feasible.

Whether it's the marketing agencies who specialise in working with companies that target a specific demographic, or the companies themselves, sharing their insight would be a great contribution to the Big Society. Why should the NHS, or indeed any other area of the Public sector involved in Social Marketing, spend time and money getting to know their audience, when Business already does?

Follow the Health4Work Social Media Campaign at;

http://www.facebook.com/Health4Work

http://twitter.com/health4work

http://blog.health4work.nhs.uk/

The Big Society in Action?

Following on from our recent article taking a look at the NHS Organ Donation Social Media Camapaign, it was great to read that a further 500 people have signed up, thanks to the efforts of Kidney Research UK. This came about as a result of a unique project ran in North West London, aiming to raise awareness of the greater need for organs by those of a black or South Asian origin, due to a higher risk of contracting diabetes.

The project was funded by the Big Lottery Fund (BIG), a non-departmental public body which is responsible for delivering about half of all funds raised by the National Lottery for good causes. According to Sir Clive Booth, Chair of the Big Lottery Fund, “BIG has invested over £80 million into medical and social research to enable organisations to produce and disseminate evidence-based knowledge, to influence local and national policy and practice, and develop better services and interventions."

Despite the sign ups not being the goal of the project and actually being an unforeseen benefit, this is a great example of how interconnected public health is. An intervention in one aspect can lead to positives elsewhere, highlighting how cohesion and coordination between the Third Sector and the NHS, not to mention business and the Public, could be so important in maximising outcomes. Whether or not the Coalitions Governments Big Society agenda is sincere or entirely achievable, this is the main reasoning behind it and no matter your opinion of the agenda, does seem to make sense.

The project is going to be rolled out beyond North West London via government funding, though the article doesn't say how far a field this will be. It would be good to see collaboration between Kidney Research UK and the NHS Organ Donation campaign to exploit and adapt the project for their Social Media platforms, as well as other media. Although the project has a basis in 'face to face' communications, Social Media perhaps provides the next best thing and can have a national reach with very little cost.

As mentioned in the previous article on the Donor campaign, good causes can work extremely well with the viral nature of Social Media. With about 14% of all those needing kidney donations in the UK being from a black or South Asian background, it's a big problem that needs as much support as possible. Looking to utilise how effectively a message can be spread on such platforms would be a great help and would be all the  more effective should pages work together. Cross pollination, as it were, between organisation's profiles would not only allow their fan-bases to be targeted en masse, but also give greater scope to segment future fan targets, delivering each other's or joint messages where appropriate.

There could also be another benefit. If sectors are to have a greater partnership in the future, the cost effective and social nature or facebook, twitter, et al, could make Social Media a very useful platform in which to get to know each other and to start testing the waters in working more closely together. It is obviously already established as a place to make friends, but has also made business practices more visible, with it's credo of honesty, openness and transparency, so could even assist in reducing the impact of the traditional cultural differences between sectors, by offering insight into those cultures.

Consumers want Business to take up it's responsibility in the Big Society

The 4th Annual Goodpurpose Study by Edelman has just been published, examining global consumers attitudes towards the social purpose of business. Conducted over 13 countries, the survey looks at expectations of how brands and corporations should conduct themselves, especially in relation to supporting social issues.

For the fourth year running the study has found an increase in the role business is expected to play. Token donations to charities or latching on to a good cause for no other reason than to help PR is seen for what it is and viewed in a negative light, with people now wanting a more fundamental contribution to the improvement of society and it's environment. This should be a prime consideration in all activities that a business might pursue, including it's general day-to-day practice.

This attitude is one that business cannot afford to ignore, as the study shows that in the UK at least, it's a more powerful trigger to purchase than design, innovation or brand loyalty. It also indicates that the majority of people believe business and the Public working together can have more of an impact than they would individually. They would also be likely to share positive feeling about a company, which would obviously be extremely useful in the Social Media age.

Looking at this as a whole, it could almost be taken straight from the Big Society agenda. It shows that whether the Public actually buys in to that particular moniker, they're certainly all for the thinking behind it. As mentioned in our previous article, Can Business help the NHS in Social Marketing?, companies are already realising and acting on this emerging Public opinion. To make the circle complete, the Third and Public sectors need to seize on this, capitalizing on the resources and funding that business can supply, to tackle Social Issues in a collective and coordinated way.

Twitterers react to the Spending Review

Since last Wednesday's spending review, the Internet have been buzzing with reaction and commentary.  Twitter has been no exception, providing great insight into how the Public feel about the cuts. Given their severity, it's perhaps unsurprising that the overall response has been far from positive.

Perhaps trying to keep their heads down, the Conservative's Official profile (http://twitter.com/Conservatives) only referenced the cuts in a couple of Tweets. These highlighted the fact that the review wasn't their sole responsibility, being a collaborative effort via their "Spending Challenge" initiative and that it was a necessary measure due to a decade of debt built up by Labour.

The rest of the 'twittersphere'  weren't so quick to shift responsibility, but took a pragmatic view of the difficulties inherent in the review.

http://twitter.com/jmedcasereports commented that cuts would effect the availability of hospital beds, linking to a Telegraph article on the subject. The NHS budget may rise by £10 bn over the next four years (though factoring in inflation and considering they're expected to make £20bn in savings, this is hardly a rise in real terms), but council cuts will impair social services for the elderly, meaning their need for hospital beds could rise. The Big Society agenda states that the Third Sector will have a bigger involvement in health care, but as their funding through councils is reduced, can they realistically be expected to provide further help for the elderly, as well as other elements of Society where care is needed? If support for charities and social care departments dealing with problems such as mental health and alcoholism is reduced, there may be a higher uptake of hospital beds from there as well.

An article over at the Observer really resonated, with many Twitterers (http://twitter.com/virginiamoffatt,  http://twitter.com/adanylkiw, and http://twitter.com/instituteforgov, to name but a few) linking to it. Written  by a Civil Servant, giving the view from within Whitehall, it's main thrust is a shared feeling in the corridors of power that an almost utopian efficiency will be needed throughout the Big Society in order to make the projected and needed savings in coming years. Few believe this will take place and the country will instead be facing massive job cuts throughout the Public Sector. If this is the belief of those actually working in government, one does start to doubt the sincerity of the whole Big Society agenda. Is it not so much us all taking our part in creating a better tomorrow, as sharing the blame for harsh times, when we can't live up to the Governments deliberately unrealistic benchmarks for efficiency?

Guardian Journalist, Patrick Butler (http://twitter.com/patrickjbutler) posted links to various reaction pieces at his newspaper. A particularly interesting article gave doctors' views from a survey that the King's Fund health thinktank commissioned from Doctors.net.uk to gauge feeling on the cuts and recent proposals for the NHS.

Part of the justification for decentralising decision making to GP consortia was that they know how best to deliver health services and where to spend money. Somewhat ironically, the survey reveals that only one in four doctors believe the Coalition Governments proposals will actually lead to a better standard of care. The general consensus is that asking the NHS to make £2bn of savings, while undertaking the largest reorganisation in it's history is a virtually impossible task. If that's their opinion and they know best, then shouldn't that have an impact on the Governments plans for reform?

These are just a few of many who've tweeted on the subject, offering a fascinating real-time perspective from a genuine cross section of the UK's population.  To see more, visit the search results page for "spending review" here.

Do we want more Daylight in the Winter?

A new article published in the British Medical Journal has made the case for not putting the clocks back this weekend, as being beneficial to the British Public's health.

Written by Dr Mayer Hillman, a public policy specialist, the piece suggests that the extra hours of daylight would offer more time for exercise during the Winter months. It would also have a positive effect on the Nation's general mood, as well as more serious psychological complaints, such as depression and anxiety.

Dr Hillman raises the point as a relatively easy way to dramatically improve the entire country's health and well being all at once, citing various studies to support his argument. The Doctor also claims that the majority of the populace would be in favour of the move, about four for every one against.

In the modern era of the Big Society, where all aspects of the country are jointly responsible for it's running, should this not then be strongly considered? It's certainly a radical move, but one that as Dr Hillman suggests, would actually have a surprisingly small financial and administrative cost to implement.  With the current financial restraints, a simple change like this could get a lot more 'bang for your buck' than a multitude of national  Social Marketing campaigns.

But before such a change could occur, the Public would need consulting. As mentioned above, we're all now supposedly jointly responsible, so need to be involved in the decision making process. Difficult times often call for left field ideas, but before they get serious enough to warrant mentions in Parliament or referendums, Public opinion needs gauging. In the past this would be an expensive and difficult task, but now we're in the age of Social Media, it's far cheaper and easier to engage the Public and get a solid impression of their thoughts.

If the Big Society is to involve the Public, Social Media does offer the tools to create national forums for discussion and opinion, the likes of which haven't been anywhere near possible before. All  it takes is for someone to realize that opportunity fully and for those in power to pay attention when they do.

When is the Best Time to Deliver Social Marketing?

To mark the launch of Alcohol Awareness Week 2010, a new initiative has been introduced by Northhamptonshire NHS. As part of their ongoing Like A Drink campaign, the PCT will be taking their drink awareness message to the bars and clubs of the county.

Young drinkers in the area are the targets and will be invited to take a variety of sobriety tests, such as breathalysers and walking straight lines whilst wearing beer goggles. Those who score poorly will have their hands stamped with the web address for the campaign, where they can find help and advice in controlling their drinking.

This is far from the first time that such a campaign has targeted the Public whilst actually in drinking establishments, where it's been commonplace for several years now to find drink awareness messages on beermats and wall posters. Charities, such as DrinkAware and Alcohol Concern, as well as the NHS, have employed such techniques, along with the more direct, face to face methods currently being used by NHS Norhamptonshire.

But is this the right time and place to deliver such messages? Within the buying cycle of the average drinker, the decision has already been made to make the purchase and the amount to be  imbibed will already be roughly predetermined. What's more, they're already out on their night of fun and being told to consider cutting it short or to be sensible whilst it's in full swing may gain a little resentment against the message itself and the organisation offering it.

To a certain extent, this is speculation and it would be interesting to see figures on the effectiveness of such campaigns, as well as the results garnered from NHS Northamptonshire's latest scheme as it progresses. However, the point does highlight an important consideration in Social Marketing, which mirrors that of it's commercial counterpart; what is the most effective time to deliver a message?

This point is often overlooked in both the Commercial and Public sector, with campaigns rolled out as soon as they're ready to go, but more thought is needed. To achieve maximum impact and penetration, the psychology of the recipient needs to inform the timing of the message. In email communications, for instance, Friday afternoons is considered an optimum time to give a sales pitch for retail. The target will be winding down work and looking forward to shopping on the Saturday.

With an alcohol awareness campaign, targeting the point  at which people are most likely to have a positive outlook on their drinking habits, i.e. whilst on a night out, may not be the best time. With the NHS Northamptonshire initiative, the hand stamp may well be the best move, as this could still be with there the morning after, when hangovers rear their ugly heads.

As this is the time many are more likely to, albeit often over-optimistically, proclaim "I'll never drink again!", it stands to reason that it would be one of those optimum times to deliver the message. For that message to stand a chance of effecting behavioural change it needs to 'bed in' strongly or better still, engage recipients enough for them to subscribe to an ongoing campaign. It doesn't take to great a leap of the imagination to realise that this is something which Social Media is almost ideally placed to deliver, all the more so as Sunday just happens to be a day when people are most likely to log in.

Spending Review brings a Reality Check to the Big Society

The spending review announced by Chancellor George Osborne on Wednesday, demonstrated the harsh reality behind the relative optimism of the Coalition Government's Big Society agenda. Decentralising decision making and shifting the responsibility for providing services from the Public to Private and Third sectors has long been mooted as part of this agenda to reduce Government costs. The review revealed just how large this contribution would have to be.

Recent publications by the Government, , such as Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS, have set out how organisations should set out to take up this responsibility and these have thus far received generally positive responses, such as that from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisiations (ACEVO) discussed in our previous article.  But now that the scale of the task is becoming apparent, along with just how far belts will need to be tightened, will the outlook for and attitude towards the Big Society remain so rosey?

The NHS Chief Executive, Sir David Nicholson KCB CBE still seems to be looking on the bright side in his letter sent to major NHS stakeholder following the review. As he mentions, the NHS is actually one of the few Public services that isn't having it's budget cut. It's actually set to rise by £10 billion over the next four years, but Sir David fails to mention that this only represents a 0.1% annual rise once inflation is taken into account, a fact widely reported by the press.  So, for all intents and purposes, that's a cut, and savings will need to be made.

But as mentioned before and reiterated in Sir David's letter, the rest of Society is there to take up the slack. All well and good if it's in a position to take up that responsibility, but as the Government and various stakeholders have said, huge changes and restructuring need to take place before that can be the case.  It may be a house of cards, where everyone involved needs to precisely place their card or risk it all falling apart.

The Third Sector in the Big Society

A new report, The Organised Efforts of Society, has been published by the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). The document gives a comprehensive view on what the Third Sector believes it's role should be within the Coalition Government's Big Society agenda.

The two governing parties have referred to the Voluntary sector's role via new Social Enterprises being set up as part of their 'Right to Request' policy for NHS workers, but there's been little further expansion on just where it fits in. The report from the ACEVO looks to redress this, stating that in the past, Government has seen Public bodies as solely responsible for the population's health.  Now, in line with Big Society thinking , that responsibility should be shared between Public, Private and  the Third sectors, along with the population itself.

The paper demonstrates what a huge resource Voluntary organisations represent to this initiative.

"There are 900,000 voluntary sector organisations in the UK, with a combined annual turnover of £157 billion, a workforce of 1,600,000, combined assets of £244 billion, and the capacity to mobilise over a quarter of the population to volunteer formally at least once a month.”

Put in such a way, it's easy to see the potential, but for that potential to be realised, cross-sectoral collaboration in all aspects of Public Health, from research and evidence gathering, through to policy making and delivery, is vital. The paper lays out how this can be achieved, detailing the challenges that will need to be met by all parties and giving great examples of when voluntary organisations have had real success in relation to the core aims of the Big Society.

For larger voluntary organisations the changes needed to work in partnership with other sectors should be easily achievable, but others may need to step up their game in many respects.

In the realms of Social Marketing, this may be easier said than done. Like in Small Business, if budgets are tight, marketing may be a low priority, conducted by in house teams or worse still, not at all.  If those teams don't exist or don't possess the required expertise, what then?

The proposed 'Big Society Bank' may be able to help, but the purse strings won't be wide open for everyone.

The report suggests that accessing Public funds needs to be conducted in a more businesslike manner than is often the case, with detailed strategies aiming to obtain realistic outcomes, rather than simply assuming the right to a slice of the pie. Social Marketing is an extremely complex field and experts will be needed to provide those plans and inform the campaigns that follow. If a small Social Enterprise is lucky enough to have such expertise in their staff, then great, but what if not? Even accessing funding in the first place may be an impossibility.

It's somewhat of a chicken and egg scenario. Expertise is needed to access the money to employ the expertise.

So what to do?

The Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, has spoken about a new 'Responsibility Deal' between Government and Business, built on social responsibility, not state regulation. Within this, Business should look to re-evaluate it's practices so as to take up it's share in the role of improving society, as well as offering funding and help to campaigns which do the same.

Taking a cue from this, perhaps one way the Marketing Sector can embrace it's own social responsibility is to offer help to those in the voluntary sector who need it. Not necessarily offering funding, but expertise instead. The odd hour here and there from resident strategists at an agency, given for free, could be a great help in shaping the strategies of smaller Social Enterprises, Charities, etc, allowing them to access funding and conduct truly effective campaigns.

Should Emergency Service Call Outs be Tweeted?

In the past couple of days a lot of media attention has been focused on the new Twitter initiative launched by Greater Manchester Police (GMP). For a period of 24 hours all calls outs received were displayed across four twitter profiles. The initiative's main aim was to raise awareness of the daily work load of Police Officers.

As well as genuine call outs, the profile also highlighted the amount of time wasting calls operators receive, including hoaxes and situations barely needing the attention of a Police Officer. One call, for instance, was a complaint of a man walking in a designated dog walking area, without a dog.

As the project drew to a close, GMP spokesmen were hailing it as a great success, having brought more visibility and possibly sympathy to the role the Police play. Depending on the man hours taken to administer the profiles, it may well be worth considering repeating the exercise on a regular basis, given the positives outcomes achieved.

Should this be the case, the negatives should be considered too. It's a possibility that offering a public platform may actually encourage hoaxers, maybe even competition amongst them, especially if there's a chance of national media coverage.

Either way, this must be of interest to the NHS, as well as the Fire Service. Though traditionally they do have a better public perception than the Police, many of the same positives would still apply in making their day to day more visible.

There may also be a deeper effect. The nature of Social Media  has started to redefine how business conducts itself and as Public Services start to utilize the format, they may find they have to do the same. Bringing honesty, openness and transparency to the Police, who have at times been heavily criticised for not exactly holding these virtues to heart, could start fundamental shift in their practices.

Maybe the NHS should let the Police guinea pig the initiative for a while before giving it a go themselves.

Can Social Media Actually Deliver Health Services?

An interesting article over at BBC News tells how researchers are looking into the possibility of using Social Networks to help tackle insomnia. Specifically, it suggests that the short, session based way in which users interact with Social Media is similar to the approach used in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and could therefore be used in a similar way.

The research will focus on the games played on facebook and other networks, such as farmville and mafiawars. These are massively popular and researchers believe that examining the techniques that make them so could help them develop similar applications incorporating elements of CBT.

Initially, this will be aimed at treating insomnia, as CBT has been shown to be particularly effective against this disorder. If successful, it could extend to other psychological problems, such as depression and anxiety.

In effect, this means that Social Media may not only be able to spread a message, but also actually deliver treatment. After the initial development of the application, the cost would be virtually nil and the number of patients treated could be limitless.  With budgets becoming ever tighter and patients often having difficulty accessing therapy, these two points alone make research into this area worth strong investment.

But they aren't the only benefits. The communicative nature of Social Networks means that those going through the treatment will easily be able to seek support and advice from fellow sufferers. This, along with the almost addictive nature of such games, would make it far more likely that people would stick at it. With Social Media being such a viral medium, the games could also reach those who haven't yet considered therapy, but could still bene

Can Business help the NHS in Social Marketing?

The marketing industry has a new agenda of helping Social Change on the horizon, according to an  article over at Marketing Week. This will no doubt extend into the realms of health, so what effect might it have on the NHS?

The advent of web 2.0 has given consumers an unprecedented level of power and a strong voice within the market place, as well as making business practice more accessible and visible than ever. If a business does something wrong, a disgruntled customer now has the potential to tell thousands, if not millions of people via the internet. This has brought about an era of openness, honesty and transparency, where these have become much more than just buzz words, but the defining features of a revolution in how business presents itself.

Coca-Cola have just launched the Live Positively campaign, which Guillermo Aponte, president and general manager of Coca-Cola Philippines, says, "... is our commitment to making a positive difference in the world by incorporating sustainability into everything that we do,”

But Coke does have to do this, if only to combat the large amount of websites, blogs and profiles that try to paint a different picture, such as Killer Coke.

Either way, big business is trying to play nice. Really nice. And they're turning to marketing agencies, of all people, to help them.

I say "of all people", but really it makes sense. It's marketeers who're in the business of segmenting and understanding demographics and selling ideas. Or put another way, helping a Private or Public entity communicate with the Public.

So now that communication from business  may have a similar message as that given by the Public sector. With budgets being cut, having the Private sector contribute in Social Marketing could be extremely helpful to the NHS, but how can they ensure that the messages are complimentary? Perhaps the answer is to work together.

Again, Coca Cola provides an example, having a history of partnerships with Public bodies throughout the world. However,  there is a risk that having a brand attached to a campaign can dilute the message.

"In October 2009, in an effort to improve their image, Coca-Cola partnered with the American Academy of Family Physicians, providing a $500,000 grant to help promote healthy-lifestyle education; the partnership spawned sharp criticism of both Coca-Cola and the AAFP by physicians and nutritionists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

 

But the benefits that business can bring may be worth the risk. A business may have a wider reach and a larger budget than the NHS, so could really help spread their message further. Another benefit could be  that if the marketing sector finds more and more of it's private sector work involves Social Marketing, that will better place them to provide the same services to the NHS. Methodology and tools may already have been developed and research done.

Partnerships could lead on to health services, Social Marketing campaigns or Social Enterprises being sponsored by business. If MacDonalds sponsored heart disease wards, would this be seen as hypocrisy or a company genuinely trying to change? And would that be a move towards the privatisation of the NHS, that some suspect to be a long standing aim of the Conservative party?

And there's the larger question. Few would question that business, like everyone else, should have a Social Conscience, but do they have the right to influence how people live? Traditionally, their aim would be to influence people into buying a product or service. Many would question the techniques in this as being too manipulative and would likely be even more concerned should that extend to behavioural change too. The bottom line would still be the same, being 'buy more'. Some question even the NHS's right to change behaviour, but with business, there's that added cynicism about motivation, that it all boils down to making money.

Or to put that more succinctly, can we trust trust business, especially big business, with Social Marketing?

NHS Organ Donation Social Media Campaign

Genuine good causes can work extremely well on Social Media. If the aim of a campaign is to raise awareness, then a viral platform can obviously be very useful in bringing those desired numbers. Funny or entertaining content is generally what spreads best, but a good cause is also very likely to be shared.

The first organ donation campaign to run across the UK was launched in Autumn 2009. This campaign aimed to promote public awareness about organ donation and increase significantly the number of people on the NHS Organ Donor Register, so that many more lives could be saved and transformed.

Twitter and facebook profiles have been launched to help support the campaign, which you can visit at the links below;

www.facebook.com/organdonationuk

twitter.com/NHSBT

The facebook page at the time of publication has almost 300, 000 subscribers. This is great number, but actually represents an even larger reach. A general rule states that about ten percent of a Social Media profile's fanbase will regularly interact with it. So, the page can expect about 30, 000 of it's fans to be interacting and to keep doing so. Comments and 'likes' will be displayed on the fans personal profiles, for any visitors there to see. Most importantly though, when they initially 'like' the page or if they share a post from it, then it will appear in their friends news feeds. On average, a facebook user will have between 100 and 200 friends, therefore those interactions could have reached over 3 million people. Now, newsfeeds can move quickly, so that's not to say that each of those people would always see those messages, but the potential is there.

And it's not a marketing department or a corporate brand passing that message to them, it's their friends, so more likely to be trusted and acted on. Many of the unique comments (i.e. not a reaction to a post by the page, but stand alone comments by fans) are personal stories from people with real life experience of organ donation. Again, this is content that is very likely to be 'liked', especially by the poster's friends, and therefore, shared. They're genuinely touching and inspiring and within five minutes I was moved to register as a donor myself.

To register, a user does have to leave the page and visit the website. This is missing a trick really, as when people choose to be on facebook, they'd often rather not leave. The several clicks to get to the donor registration page may discourage people from going through with it, rather than if the form was available on the facebook page, where they could do it straight away. I've left a comment on the page suggesting this and they've responded, so hopefully it will be available soon. I think it would really help.

The twitter profile currently has just over 1,000 followers, which is a reasonable number, but well under that of the facebook page.  Chances are that a good few of those 300, 000 on the page also have twitter profiles, so it's worth trying to recruit them through facebook. On the surface, this may look like a waste of time, as these people are already being reached, but they may have different connections on twitter than they do on facebook. To maximise reach, both profiles should regularly feed into each other.

The content on twitter is great, being varied and interesting. It includes calls to action , with links to register, etc, 'retweets' of peoples donation stories, as well as the  more official, corporate messages. This pretty much matches what we'd suggest for any Social Media profile, whether Public or Private sector. A social element, to involve the audience, interspersed with information about the organisation, and remembering to include directives, so there is a real world outcome from the profile. Everyone in Social Media should look to follow this basic credo and it shows that the good people behind the Organ Donation campaign are very much on the right track.

Magazine Aimed at Larger Ladies Doesn't Help the NHS Fight Obesity.

A magazine aimed at larger ladies called Just As Beautiful has been launched, causing controversy in the Press. The publication looks to celebrate curvy women and help them believe they're fine the way they are.

The Daily Mail reacted with an article suggesting that being overweight isn't something to be encouraged, when it can lead to premature death and illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease.

Yahoo! Lifestyle took another tack, commenting that when other women's magazines are making efforts to include all shapes and sizes, singling out larger women with their own glossy is in fact a step backwards, seeming "... to continue the division and segregation of women based on their specific shapes. "

Whichever view you take, one thing is for certain; Just As Beautiful doesn't exactly compliment the NHS agenda of tackling obesity. Those running the various Social Marketing campaigns concerned with weight loss must have spat feathers when they heard the news.  One would imagine that the readership, if loyal, would quickly become virtually immune to any efforts to change their lifestyle.

But what can the NHS do when confronted with a problem like this? Free speech and freedom of the press are defining features of our Society and those who question that, do so at their peril. They could issue statements condeming the magazine, but they can't stop it being published or indeed, being bought.

Just As Beautiful will no doubt be well publicised and advertised, so the best the NHS can do is ensure that their conflicting messages receive the same level of professional promotion or if possible, an even greater amount.

This is possibly the only solution when the NHS finds it's Social Marketing conflicts with an aspect of Society. One could argue that they're fighting a similar battle with fast food retailers. Again, what else can they do, but try to shout louder, with messages that bring about long lasting changes within the fabric of the country.

Social Marketing does aim at that enduring behavioural change, rather than just saying 'eat healthy, it's good for you', but that, of course, takes time.  As this process progresses, it's inevitable that others may not agree with that change in the first place. Dealing with this is yet another thing for the NHS to consider in their Social Marketing efforts.

Why Marketing is at the core of co-production in the Big Society

The coalition government's flagship Big Society agenda aims to decentralize decision making within the public sector and give power back to the people. Local authorities and the Public are to work together to provide services more tailored to their needs, than national governance could offer.

The recent Government White Paper, Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS, lays out how the Big Society relates to the NHS. Co-production of services will be the joint responsibility of newly formed GP consortia, social enterprises and the local population.

The White Paper explains the intention of raising public involvement in shaping their local health services to unprecedented levels. The various points of contact between the Public and their local suppliers needed in achieving this will revolve around effective communication and engagement. This is intrinsic to the Big Society initiative and it cannot possibly work without it.

The knowledge and expertise within the Marketing sector has to be utilized in providing and supporting this.

Transparency of information is inherent in the Big Society concept. Ineffective delivery of information is essentially the same as keeping it behind closed doors. Not only does it need to be delivered well, but also presented in such a manner as to be easily digestible by the Public at large. Making data available is one thing, but to truly involve the Public and to have that transparency mean something, it needs to engage the public, being presented in an appealing manner.

Local HealthWatch organisations will have the role of ensuring listening to the Public is central. Will this be a matter of simply checking that the local authority is going through the motions, sending out the odd survey, or will it go deeper, assessing and guiding the efficiency and effectiveness of Public engagement?

This engagement will not only be feedback, but also taking an active part in commissioning. This, as part of the overall 'Big Society' policy of deepening the Public's role in providing their own services, makes it all the more essential that that communication channels are as effective as possible. Marketing agencies from the Private sector will need to be central in making this a reality, as it is they who hold the required knowledge and tools in communication and engagement.

The new NHS Commissioning Board will provide leadership and guidance for GP consortia in commissioning, championing greater public involvement, and supporting the development of GP Consortia. If they're to do that, one would hope that will include support in commissioning marketing agencies with the required expertise, as the services they provide in public engagement are absolutely essential to the core aims of the Big Society.

Though the government claim their agenda is not the privatisation of the NHS, their proposals do seem to represent a restructuring from what is essentially a national corporation into a loose association of, for all intents and purposes, small businesses. Small business, with limited budgets, often have marketing as a low priority, perhaps conducting it themselves, rather than employing a marketing department or employing agencies. This cannot be the case for the GP consortia and social enterprises if the reforms are going to succeed, as public engagement is the corner stone of the policy and marketing agencies are THE experts in that field.

This Big Society is about listening to and involving the Public. Marketing provides the tools to make that happen.