Stakeholder reactions to the DCPs Overall, stakeholders were positive about the DCPs and the idea of developing a set of principles. Government involvement was seen as necessary to provide legitimacy and credibility to the DCPs. As a government initiative it was welcomed in a space where there are currently no clear The questions raised were about form not ‘leaders’. function and based on a strong desire to minimise the amount of unnecessary work needed their end’. Broadly speaking, the content areas of the DCPs were intuitive, ‘at relevant and seen to be interconnected. Stakeholders did not identify anything as or inappropriate in the principles. Their feedback centred on a desire for the ‘missing’ DCPs to be simplified and clarification about whether the principles were stakeholder- or consumer-facing documents. Looking at the detail of the DCPs, the names of the each were interpreted as intended. Know what you need to was seen to focus on consumer education about technologies, rules, rights and responsibilities. Choose consciously was interpreted as focusing on empowering consumers to make informed choices. Engage positively was felt to focus on promoting responsible behaviour. These three topics areas were felt to sit on a continuum and present a logical progression. The titles also fitted with what stakeholders feel they are already doing and what they feel they have been telling their consumers or customers. A number of stakeholders had seen previous drafts of the DCPs, which had different titles. Those who had, said that the titles had moved on positively, and were ‘new’ more prescriptive and action-oriented. When tested, the body copy generated two clear and overriding responses: it only reflected their own long-standing attitudes and behaviour toward these issues there was no clear call to action, actionable outcomes or precise directives. Stakeholders did not think the body copy provided them with any news’ or with ‘new any clear direction on what was expected from them that would be different to what they already do. They consistently reported that should they wish, or be expected to pass this information on to consumers, the language would need to be revised.
Stakeholder reactions to the DCPs Overall, stakeholders were positive about the DCPs and the idea of developing a set of principles. Government involvement was seen as necessary to provide legitimacy and credibility to the DCPs. As a government initiative it was welcomed in a space where there are currently no clear ‘leaders’. The questions raised were about form not function and based on a strong desire to minimise the amount of unnecessary work needed ‘at their end’. Broadly speaking, the content areas of the DCPs were intuitive, relevant and seen to be interconnected. Stakeholders did not identify anything as ‘missing’ or inappropriate in the principles. Their feedback centred on a desire for the DCPs to be simplified and clarification about whether the principles were stakeholder- or consumer-facing documents. Looking at the detail of the DCPs, the names of the each were interpreted as intended. Know what you need to was seen to focus on consumer education about technologies, rules, rights and responsibilities. Choose consciously was interpreted as focusing on empowering consumers to make informed choices. Engage positively was felt to focus on promoting responsible behaviour. These three topics areas were felt to sit on a continuum and present a logical progression. The titles also fitted with what stakeholders feel they are already doing and what they feel they have been telling their consumers or customers. A number of stakeholders had seen previous drafts of the DCPs, which had different titles. Those who had, said that the ‘new’ titles had moved on positively, and were more prescriptive and action-oriented. When tested, the body copy generated two clear and overriding responses: it only reflected their own long-standing attitudes and behaviour toward these issues there was no clear call to action, actionable outcomes or precise directives. Stakeholders did not think the body copy provided them with any ‘new news’ or with any clear direction on what was expected from them that would be different to what they already do. They consistently reported that should they wish, or be expected to pass this information on to consumers, the language would need to be revised.
Digital%20Citizens%20Guide%20research.docx