Introducing CMS 3.0

The other day I was discussing with a colleague about content management in higher education and how it is becoming much more complicated.

When we talk about web content, typically we refer to the pages on our website; what I call “on-site” content. However with the emergence of Web 2.0, web content has exploded beyond our .edu domains; what I call “off-site” content. How many institutions have a YouTube channel, manage or participate in blogs, and have a presence on Facebook, mySpace or LinkedIn?

Just as technology has evolved, so must our concept of content management. Currently, a “CMS” describes a piece of software. Something that allows text and images on a website to be easily manipulated and retrieved dynamically from a data system. Let’s call that CMS 2.0. (CMS 1.0 is an HTML-only website.)

The goal of CMS 1.0/2.0 is largely to keep on-site content up-to-date. However, in the socially connected world of Web 2.0 the goal is not just to be current but to stay relevant. This requires constantly adding new, sometimes smaller, and more widely distributed bits of content off-site.

For example, a news story posted on your website (CMS 1.0/2.0), is re-purposed as a blog post, updated Twitter entry, turned into a vod or podcast, and used as a point of discussion for members of your various online communities. Managing on-site and off-site content is the next evolution of content management; what I’m calling CMS 3.0.

For me, CMS 3.0 is a management concept, not simply a piece of software. It’s an approach in which we choose to manage certain online content, both on- and off-site, as part of our institution’s overall web presence.

It is a management concept because
1. There is no software on the market today that seamlessly integrates the management of on-site and off-site content. With the creation of gadgets and use of APIs, I don’t think it will be too long before some smart company tries to do this though.

2. University web teams are already struggling just to manage on-site content, and many rely on a distributed network of web editors to stay afloat. (See Management Models in CMS) Now add the need to re-purpose and maintain off-site content...that means more support, training and monitoring.

3. Participating in the online social network elevates the importance and influence of an institution’s content. Distributed web editors now need training not only in software systems, but also on the institution’s brand and core messages.

CMS 3.0 is a combined function of IT and marketing communications. Institutions that have or are moving toward integrated web teams will be in the best position for success.

Management models in CMS

There's been conversation recently on the uwebd (University Web Developers) listserv about the appropriate management model in a CMS environment. Specifically, if content updates should be managed by a central unit or through a distributed network of department web editors.

Just to be clear, when it comes to monitoring and maintaining website content through a CMS, there are two basic management models

1. Centralized: Consists of a smaller group or team in which content change requests from university clients are funnelled through; access to the CMS software is limited to people within the group/team who are typically given greater administrative authority.
   
2. Distributed: Consists of a larger network of individuals from university departments who are directly responsible for content changes; access to the CMS software is unlimited, but authority to perform certain functions may be restricted.

Because colleges and universities are insanely diverse places, most end up with a hybrid of both. Even for the most seasoned web manager, keeping an enterprise-level website current amidst people with a wide variety of skills (and high turnover), small (and shrinking) budgets, few (and frozen) resources is a daunting challenge. It's no wonder why some are discovering simply implementing a CMS isn't the golden chalice they'd expected, or the vendor promised.

Even though both models present different challenges, the distributed model will prove to be more effective in maintaining higher education websites.

The reality is very few institutions will ever invest in web departments to the degree necessary to sustain a centralized management model. Also, website content is expanding beyond our websites. With Web 2.0, managing content now takes on dimensions not limited to the .edu domain or even just text and images.

The end of anonymity

Much has been said, and will continue to be after the outcome of yesterday's election, about Barack Obama's use of the Web in this campaign.

• From NYTimes.com: The '08 Campaign: Sea Change for Politics as We Know It
• From Educational Marketing Group: Simple Web Bits from the Campaign - Interactivity
• From .eduGuru: Comparing the Obama and McCain emails

Regardless of your political affiliation, one has to respect the amazing spectacle that was Obama's online marketing machine. What I take away is how Obama seamlessly incorporated all facets of Web 2.0--website, email, text messaging, video, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.--to create a shared vision among supporters, organize grassroots efforts and reach pockets of untapped constituents.

His campaign resided in a web-centric universe; even going so far as to announce his vice presidential pick directly to supporters via text message, in advance of a traditional press conference. And therein lies the point.

Obama's campaign is a defining moment for us as web communicators because he proved the power of self-identification over anonymity.

Voters could learn something about Obama through traditional media (online and off) or by lurking anonymously on various websites, but to truly be "in the know," you had to first belong.

Obama wasn't shy about asking for your email and other identifying information upfront. It was virtually a requirement to gain access to his website--which was the hub of his entire marketing campaign.

In return, you became part of the cause. You were invited to do more... ...told about campaign stops in your area......and given first notice on special news and insights......in short, you were valued.

For years many of us, myself included, warned against requiring visitors to self-identify too soon for fear it would turn them off and they would leave our websites, never to return. I'm sure there were many visitors to barackobama.com who didn't sign up and left.

However, even for those with only a remote curiosity who took a chance and did sign-up, the value received seemed to outweigh the price of giving up your email address, name and where you lived. There might be a lesson in that for us in higher ed.

The reality, whether we choose to accept it, is that certain constituent groups only really matter to our institutions--prospective students, parents, current students, alumni, donors, faculty and staff. And among these groups, some people care about us more than others. That is true whether we know them or not.

Yet on our websites, we stop short of finding out who these people are right away; and, I contend, do little to prove how truly valuable they are to us over the life of the relationship.