07812 56 53 99

Hello.

Ever fancied running a small business? Ever wanted to be head of your own PR agency? Ever wanted to work in the cut throat world of account executive client management?

Well whether that’s been your ambition or not that’s what you are doing.

Thanks to the economic situation and the paring back of budgets and resources for communications everyone working in public sector comms is having to think like a business person first and a communicator second.

First there are the structural changes. Whether you’re making them or they’re being made to you the emphasis now is on a smaller team with broader skills. The specialisms that emerged over the last ten years are disappearing as teams go back to doing everything that’s thrown at them: PR one minute, marketing the next; throw in some media handling and social media and at team level its talented generalists that are emerging from the regime of cutbacks.

Then there’s the entrepreneurialism. Well, the public sector’s form of it which is making money without risk. When the public sector recruits communicators at the top level it’s taken for granted that they can ‘do’ comms. What they’re looking for is the ability to make huge changes to deliver savings (without compromising on quality) and actually making money through the generation of new income streams. And they want experts on procurement to but new commissioning and buying policies in place to save money and generate efficiencies – often in partnership with other similar organisations.

It’s this last area that leaves a lot of public sector comms managers stumped. How do you price what we do? How do you sell what we do? What’s the value of the brand a private company might be asked to sponsor. And what are our products and services worth in the commercial marketplace?

Let’s look at a practical exercise: work out (on the back of a previously used envelope) how much your organisation’s website is worth in the commercial marketplace and then think how you’d go about selling it.

It’s clear that with another three years of austerity budgets ahead of us that in order to survive you’ll need to show your employers the money. The summer is about all you have to work up your plans. Did I have you at ‘Hello?’ I hope so.

Local government has proved that it is the best managed and the most efficient part of the public sector for the last decade.

It delivered over and above its target for efficiency savings and became a competent, well respected force in the governance and delivery of public services.  It built credibility with the Government and with the public it served.

But you would not know it from the way local government is currently being treated by its flag bearer, Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Almost daily the onslaught of abuse and black propaganda is hurled at local government while at the same time it is being asked to deliver the biggest proportion of cuts to any part of the public sector.

Into this environment this month the Secretary of State published the new Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity for English councils.  Welsh and Scottish authorities are not bound by the Code.

There is a lot of sensible advice about political neutrality but the headline grabber is the restriction placed upon councils to the number of times they can publish their own publications.

And this is where it feels as though we’ve been bundled up, crammed into the back of Mr Pickles’ time travelling DeLorean and transported back to the 1980s.  That was the decade that the Government led by Mrs Thatcher launched the original Code in response to the GLA’s use of publicity to attack the Government from its HQ across the Thames at County Hall on Westminster Bridge.

The 1986 Code was a response to the use of public money to score political points at the time by the GLA’s leader Ken Livingstone.

The 2011 Code at times adopts the same tone but that tone is inappropriate given the current politics and professionalism of local government.  Media pundit Roy Greenslade calls it ‘a sledgehammer to crack a nut.’  Jules Pipe, Chair of London Councils, says the Code is ‘worthy of North Korea.’

Despite a cross party Select Committee report on the Code that found no evidence that council publications have damaged local newspapers, this was still cited by the Secretary of State as the reason a restriction on the ability to publish needed to be made.  In response the Chair of the Select Committee, Clive Betts, MP, said that the Code ran counter to localist principles.

None of the Select Committee’s arguments were listened to – instead we’ve gone back to a 1980s stand off between central and local government that benefits neither side.  And despite numerous attempts to establish common ground with the Newspaper Society – a group who undermined their own argument in the select committee by saying they were seeing more newspaper launches than closures at the moment – we’ve ended up with the Secretary of State siding with their arguments against those of his council colleagues.

So the road ahead looks well charted: four publications per year, restrictions on commercial input and fairness and political neutrality (which we were doing anyway.)

So perhaps it’s time for us to explore roads less well travelled.  We know that our residents need printed communication that explains how they can get what they need from us and helps build a spirit of cohesion and pride of place.  There’s a particular need in the run up to the 2012 Olympics to maximise involvement and legacy benefits by getting everyone involved with this once in a lifetime event.

What happens when you try to restrict freedom of expression with clunky legislation is that people and organisations become more creative in the way they communicate.  In a way we should thank the Secretary of State.  By attempting to close of one road he is making us think imaginatively about others we can use; to think about partnerships and relationships we can forge with other organisations in the public, voluntary and private sectors.

We believe passionately in the need to communicate and we will find new and better ways to do it.  After all, as the Doc says in Back to the Future: ‘Roads!  Where we’re going we don’t need roads.’

The findings of the Communities and Local Government (CLG) select committee into the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, proposed revisions to the Code of Publicity for local authorities in England have been published this week. 

The report is a triumph of democracy and common sense.

As soon as the Code of Publicity consultation was launched bodies such as LGcommunications, the CIPR Public Services Group, the Local Government Association, London Councils and individual local authorities themselves swung into action to present their case.

Broadly their argument was two fold. 

First, they had no problem with what the code was saying about political balance and promoting the causes championed by democratically elected councillors.  In fact reading between the lines you wondered whether the Secretary of State had his head back in the 1980s and 90s when such issues were last fought over.  Local government hasn’t been partisan in its communications messaging for decades.

Second, though, the Secretary of State sought to control the choices local authorities had open to them about how and when to communicate. 

There are two arguments here that the select committee aired consummately.  The first is one of localism.  One has to trust that councils understand the communities they serve better than someone sitting in Whitehall, otherwise why bother having local councils at all?  If direct printed communication is produced then it’s probably because that is what the community needs and relates to.  And thanks to the ancient law about publishing public notices in newspapers, it is actually cheaper to put them in a regular council publication in which all sorts of other public service messages and news can be aired.

The select committee said clearly that it should be up to councils to decide on frequency and content and what works best in particular localities.  There was general agreement that council publications should not look like newspapers but apart from two or three exceptions this is not what 99% of council publications look like anyway.

So what happens next?

The report states clearly that an independent research needs to be carried out before any claims about the relationship between council publications and local newspaper business can be proved.  It puts the onus on those who seek to make comments about council publications to demonstrate their case.  And so far, that case has not been made.

Whatever councils decide to do once the new Code is finally published, it is at least gratifying to know that they have been listened to and that a select group of MPs understand the true importance of localism and democracy. 

The appalling outcome of England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup should come as no surprise to anyone who works in a large, complex, public or voluntary sector organisation.

When I worked in Reading I was involved in the town’s bid for City Status. We had a compelling case - Reading is one of the country’s leading economic hubs with a diverse set of multi-national companies contributing to a thriving business and cultural destination.

Our submission to be considered a City was water tight, with support from the business, public and voluntary sector, coverage in The Times and pundits telling us we were the favourites to succeed.

Of course, like the England bid team, it ended in tears. City status was granted to places, including Preston, who were deemed to ‘need’ it more than us. As one leading academic told us later, “these things aren’t decided on merit and you may just as well scribble the name Reading on the back of an envelope and slip it under the door.”

I often see the same look of bewilderment on the faces of newly recruited public sector communications officers as I saw on the faces of the defeated England 2018 bid team. Why, they will ask, was the decision made to do X when the clear case was made to do Y. “How could they do that to us?”

The answer is simple and it’s a lesson that’s just been learned in front of the world’s media at huge cost. Learning this quickly enables new staff to negotiate and prosper in large, complex organisations. Never learning this leads to a working life of confusion and frustration.

So, here’s the lesson and it’s the reason that seemingly bizarre decisions are made in public life and the reason why England failed in its bid to host the World Cup in 2018: Things don’t happen because they are the right thing to do. Things happen because they are the Political thing to do.

It’s amazing how many hidden talents communications colleagues have.

In recent conversations the talk is all about hidden skills.  Cooking and running a food-related business feature high on the list: from selling quiches to running a restaurant.  The number of unpublished novelists would keep Amazon busy all through Christmas.  And one even spoke of an Olympic medal bid but that might be a little ambitious given their starting point.

The reason for these flights of fancy is the unavoidable feeling that the public sector communications game is up and that it won’t be long into 2011 before they discover that they don’t have a job.

So before you get out the baking trays and install a rowing machine in the garage is there anything you can do to turn things around and survive in the world of public sector communications?

Well surprisingly the answer is yes.

Let’s set aside the need for excellent communications right now in order to communicate change – that’s a given. 

Instead let’s consider that the over-riding need in the public sector right now is to save money.  So in order to survive you need to do just that.  You need to make yourself and your team, as much as possible, a net nil cost to the organisation employing you.

If you’re a manager you need to bring in income or join up with other public sector bodies to save money.  You need to audit every aspect of communications-related spending across every department and assess spending on design, print, publications; everything where money leaves the building.  And then you need to present a plan to halve it by April of next year.

For your own costs – how can you generate income or save expenditure in your area of work?  If you don’t know how much you cost look at your annual salary and add 30% - that will be the cost to your organisation of employing you.  Now what can you do to save that much money or generate that much income?  If you can’t do this you’re vulnerable and an alternative career beckons.  If you can you’ll probably be alright but don’t wait around for someone else to do these calculations for you.

Fortune favours the brave, or in this case, the financially proactive.

The Local Government Secretary likes to introduce himself with the words: “Hello I’m Eric Pickles and I like to abolish things.”

True to his word this week he has launched a consultation document that will lead to the abolition of several council newspapers and magazines as we know them.

As reported here on the journal, a six week consultation on the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity includes the instruction that councils can not publish a magazine or ‘newspaper’ more than four times per year.

For many councils this won’t be an issue.  Some struggle to produce that many in the first place.

But for many urban authorities who rely primarily on their publications to inform residents about their rights, about new services and who campaign to improve the quality of life for all this is a huge blow.

The electronic revolution – much promoted by the Coalition Government has passed many of our residents by.  Nine million people in the UK never go on line and those people dominate the group of clients, customers and service users that we are here to support.

With circulation of local commercial newspapers in decline, the delivery of information straight through your letterbox from the council and its partners has been shown time and again to be both an effective means of communication and a very cheap one.

There’s a commercial point being made here and the Newspaper Society, who represent some but not all of the views of the newspaper industry, have lobbied hard against those council publications that look and feel like newspapers – the ones that take commercial advertising (one recently advertised pawn brokers and pay day loans.)

On this point I agree – council publications have no business trying to look like commercial newspapers.  But there is a massive difference between those and the vast majority of council publications that in the purest definition of excellent communication seek to inform and educate the public without bias and prejudice. 

Robbed of this vehicle of communication there will be some very deep soul searching and some very radical ideas to compensate for the loss of this channel.

The process will be quick – a consultation by November followed by legally binding implementation in January 2011.

Here at CJ we will be exploring the implications of these changes and looking at alternative solutions.  After all, as professional communicators sometimes when we’re told we can’t do something, we can become our most creative.

The news that Camden’s Chief Executive and management team are to take over at neighbouring Islington is a significant move in the back office integration of public services.

Other councils have shared chief executives but these have tended to be a county council taking over at a smaller district.  The fact that two unitary London boroughs will merge management teams and chief executives is a first.

As well as running the council, chief executives are the eyes and ears of the political leaders of the council.  It’s going to be very interesting to see how they fulfill this role and give advice to politicians when there’s a conflict of interest between the two boroughs or power shifts from one political party to another.

Nevertheless, all credit to the new administration in Islington for allowing Camden to park their managerial tanks on Islington’s Town Hall lawn.  It will be fascinating to see how the management merger works and interest will be intense in many quarters not least the Government who would like to see more of this type of collaboration.

My interest though is in the communications implications of this merger.  Chief Executives play a vital role in managing and delivering the brand of a local authority.

Take internal communications.  The best chief executives front all of the staff events and are figureheads for staff engagement.  When change programs are launched they are the voice and the image of the campaign.  The best chief executives have the strategic vision and the common touch.  They’re as much at home in the boardroom as on a bin lorry and everyone knows who they are.

However, they’re also very busy and running two councils at once will stretch their availability to breaking point.  Not just internal colleagues but partner organizations will be queuing up for a personal meeting.  And like sibling rivals neither council will feel that the chief executive is giving them the attention they crave – they’ll almost always be somewhere else.

In communication terms this sense of conflicting loyalties and lack of time is a real issue.  Robbed their own chief executive staff and partners could easily start to lose loyalty to the organization and the place.

Externally too the conflict of interest will rise over the promotion of place.  Whether its additional grant funding or inward investment (two big things chief executives are responsible for) it will be very hard to treat both boroughs evenly and fairly.  And even if they do – suspicions will easily surface that one is thought more important than the other – especially as money gets tighter.

Then there’s the cash.  The leaders of Islington and Camden cite saving money as a prime reason for sharing a chief executive.  But that could easily be a false economy.  Good chief executives will be saving a hundred times their salary for local taxpayers and the risk is that without their hands on management of the efficiency agenda councils will actually lose money.

So the communications challenge is huge.  Each council’s communications team will need to show that it’s working for the staff, the councilors, the partners and most importantly the residents and businesses of Camden and Islington.

And while they're at it they might want to think about branding those tanks with two equally sized council logos.

The recent communications news from Government, the COI, local government and the health service has been about job losses.

When you look in detail at which jobs are going it’s clear that marketing is in the firing line.  Of the 40% reduction in jobs at the COI (nearly 300 in total) most were marketing posts. 

Shortly after the election I attended an event at HMRC.  Their director of communications told us that his budget was being reduced from £30m down to £3m.  That’s a 90% cut and all of it was coming from advertising and marketing.

Government departments will now only do campaigns that have a direct financial return, On top of that, each item of marketing spend will have to be signed off by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

And it’s not just Government departments.  In councils the main focus for cost cutting seems to be falling on marketing and campaigns.

So where does that leave marketeers?  Interestingly the answer may lie within the jobs pages here at CJ.  It’s surprising how many marketing jobs there are but it’s also worth noting what organisations are looking for.  Dominating the field at the moment are charities looking for marketing to produce a return and generate income.

It’s that simple.  Marketing has got to produce a tangible return and it has to be credible and easy to demonstrate that its value far exceeds its cost.

Over the years we’ve produced some excellent campaigns, some cutting edge design and materials that have reached groups that were unreachable through any other medium, but, we haven’t demonstrated irrefutable value for money.

This omission will now cost several thousand marketing jobs across the public sector.  Those marketing teams that survive will have learnt quickly what Return On Investment really means and will be demonstrating it to their leaders in spades.