When it comes to social behaviour, be that business or personal, there are quite some elements that have to come together. Relationships are about mutual beneficial actions and reactions, otherwise relationships tend to confuse, distort and eventually turn into structures resembling decaying buildings. Which reminds me of the kind of the relationship most governments in the West seem to be having with their ‘client-base’; the kind of disenfranchisement in which one of the two is making a lot of noise and the other one sitting idly by while none of the two is communicating.

In business this would cost you your reputation, turnover, agility with regards to technological development, and thus eventually your entire business. Governments so far are lucky as they are not (yet) going bankrupt (despite the economic reality in which several governments are operating) and can continue to ‘work’ because we seem to be holding on to the idea that the democratic-process will and can bring change.

I’m not entirely sure on that one frankly, but let’s wait and see.

What I am rather sure of is the increasing role of platforms in our lives. Platforms that deal with ways to engage with the enormous amount of information we are faced with on a daily basis. We live in a time where the question of; “What is relevant and how does it impact my life?” will be more frequently asked than ever before in the history of our species.

And thus, companies will have to ask themselves how they can be relevant to their consumers.

Google and Twitter jumped to the mark by opening up a phone-to-twitter phone line when they saw the reaction of their users toward what was happening in Egypt. Doing the same they do here, using a mix and match of ‘old’ and ‘new’ technology; enabling the masses.

Whatever you might think of Wikipedia, Twitter, Google, Huffington Post, Mashable, Wikileaks or Facebook; what they do, is creating relevant information for people when and where they want it, it enables them to connect with like-minded individuals, share the information they want to share and allows them to ‘follow’ people they like, think are interesting or the opposite of the two.

So how is this relevant to brands?

Let me show you an example by Greenpeace, who seem on the right track but just missed out on one part in my humble opinion; true engagement.

Their old Rainbow Warrior (1957) has sailed the oceans and will now be put to rest. So they wanted to build a new one. One that holds Greenpeace’ values high and can be seen as a boat with which they will fight the necessary fights over the well-being of the ocean in the future. But Greenpeace is an NGO and gets most of its money from individual donations. So they launched a (very good-looking) campaign (A New Warrior) to try to get people to donate money for the continuation of the Rainbow Warrior saga.

In this quest they have launched a website that enables you to look at the blueprint, construction schedule, progress so far, a donation ‘wall’ (which will be realised on the boat as well) and buying necessities for the boat like a GPS, life-boat, couch or an electronic steering-wheel. Which is a great idea I find.

But why do it halfheartedly? Why not empower the people -who are literally the lifeblood of your organisation, to have a say after they gave you a part of their resources? There are tons of ways to get people more actively engaged with Greenpeace’s cause when you give them the opportunity to do so and become true ambassadors of your cause. Give them the tools they need and they will do the task at hand and help you reach the goals you have been working hard to reach for the last 40 years (congrats Greenpeace btw, and thanks for doing what you do).

Examples? Ok.

Give ‘them’ (the people who invested in your organisation) a say in your agenda by enabling them to co-decide on the course of the boat they ‘co-own’. Greenpeace provides them with a list of possible cases and background info on these cases and let them decide. Surely, this brings a lot of potential ‘unknowns’ into the equation, but it will most definitely lead to higher involvement and commitment to your organisation.This will also lead to them telling their friends about it which will lead to more relevance to their friends (someone I know did this and that) and thereby a bigger crowd for your message.

What does this mean for the organisation? In Greenpeace’s case it would mean they would become a ‘research and execution’ platform with a following of highly involved people supporting their goal and protecting their interest. Which is a great thing to be I’d say. You can’t sink a rainbow -type deal.

There are lots of possibilities for ‘non-NGO’ organisations to engage with their ‘eco-system’ / ‘tribe’  / ‘crowd’ / ‘consumers’ in such a way, yet it seems that we aren’t quite there yet. If I’m honest I see opportunities like these in child-care (yeah really, so much to be won there), for Innocent Drinks, Amnesty International (I know it’s an NGO, but I like them), Simple Shoes, the Cradle to Cradle organisation, Williams F1 Triodos Bank and We Generate (last two are Dutch). Just to name a few.

Peace.