This isn't the first time I've read about Zappos. But every time I do, the author seems genuinely surprised by some new wacky thing the online shoe retailer has done. Anecdotally, I understand Zappos has some interesting ideas about customer service, like offering it to customers. Amazing. Here's a link to an older post about an online contest Zappos ran with followers of its Twitter feeds (aka tweets). In short, a follower was randomly selected -- just cuz -- to win a free pair of shoes, as were three of her Twitterstream followers who also happen to follow Zappos (Confused? Go to the original post). It's a fine example of how tweeting for goodwill leads to some positive social capital for the company. I didn't know anything about the retailer before I started seeing posts about it and you know what? I'm curious. Score one for Zappos.
Here's an optimistic article from the Wall Street Journal about the US Federal Government's forays into Web 2.0 waters. The author sites several examples of wikis that are transforming accessibility. I found this quote especially compelling because it relates so closely to my proposed research:
"Project Government 2.0 is based on the assumption that even governments can't fight technologies that give power to the people. 'If governments are to ensure their relevance and authority, they must move quickly to meet rising expectations for openness, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency in the public sector,' the project outline says."
I don't doubt at all that the wikis help to engage citizens who are interested in them. I do doubt the motivation behind a public service organization moving wholeheartedly to Web 2.0. There's a lot going on: org structures, power relationships in the system, the need for efficiency through a vertical structure (as we learned about in network analysis, effective and efficient are not synonymous).
This brings me back to a panel discussion held today at the Uni about public deliberation, during which the panelists talked about new ways the public sector can work, much like in this article. I just think the assumption that government is somehow feeling itself irrelevant and lacking authority seems unfounded. Think of how much it affects citizens' lives every day. How others feel about the public sector is another matter.
Political parties, on the other hand, do need to stay relevant among voters, as we can see in the example of the Democratic nomination in the United States. If social capital involves a trade of resources, what can parties give in return for support -- something that won't benefit Society At Large?
