Putting a price on jobs

So it costs the tax payer £200,000 to create a job in the north according to today’s NAO report. Fair dos if that post is Bob Diamond’s, but it’s probably not. The Regional Growth Fund is coming in for a lot of flack as a consequence. Conservative elements of the coalition will seek to blame the Lib Dems who championed the rebalancing in the first place, while wincing at comparisons with the RDAs. At £28,000 a go, they were £5,000 per job cheaper than the RGF (or so we are told).

Two quick reflections on this, one on policy and a second on how it’s been communicated.

The RGF has worthy ambitions but in seeking to provide a quick fix it has fallen into the same traps as the RDAs. They were also expected to report on the number of jobs created each year and reluctantly forced to spread their funding across a host of tactical initiatives rather than a handful of strategic interventions. There are reasons why the economy develops in an unbalanced way and private investors are unwilling to invest in certain areas; poor transport links, a lack of skills, the cost of remediating old industrial land perhaps. But rather than address these problems at the fundamental level and improve the environment for business, the RGF (and lots of RDA funding) focused on grants to individual enterprises that can only temporarily counterbalance the structural problems. It’s a solution that ticks political boxes (lots of things happen in lots of different areas) but is it really sustainable?

Then there’s the communications problem. Expectation management. £1.4 billion is not a lot of money. It’s just 0.2% of UK public spending. Even if it’s used to leverage huge investment from elsewhere there is only a limited amount that can be achieved. But with little else in the regional policy armoury, and no money to spend, we were told to expect a lot from a relatively modest programme. The problem was compounded when the job creation targets were set at the outset – a lesson that could have been learnt from the difficulties faced by the RDAs. In the desire to measure something, and account for public money, the programme has been a hostage to fortune. Jobs are at the mercy of a host of factors, not just RGF. Better from a policy and communications perspective to tell people about a small number of tangible high impact investments that will improve the business environment. People understand it and at least delivery sits largely in your own hands.

Jon Bennett
Director
jon@linstockcommunications.com

We’re in this together…so where are we going?

Jack Welch isn’t without his critics, but he’s eminently quotable.  “Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision, and relentlessly drive it to completion,” he says.  And while the ‘big vision’ thing can lead to cynicism (how many big visions actually get followed through?) it’s an important part of tying people into a project.

Linstock often works for large partnerships.  If we can’t get the partners bought into some core objectives at the outset, and if we can’t show there’s something in it for everyone, then the project will fail.  Within each partner organisation a host of individuals then need to be enthused.  They need to know that the hard work ahead is worth it because they can see some tangible improvement in the future.  No-one wants a whole lot of hassle and graft if they don’t understand what the result will look like.

This ‘buy in’ process is something the Coalition is grappling with at the moment.  Today’s Queen’s Speech was an opportunity to take it on, but the consensus seems to be it is an opportunity missed.  Broadly speaking the electorate seems to accept that we need to tighten our belts, though there is plenty of debate about how much.  But there isn’t much sense of how things will be better when the debts are paid.  This isn’t about a return to growth – which is more of a process than a goal in itself.  It’s about a tangible sense of the lives we can lead and the prospects of children and young people.  What type of society will we be a part of?  

Staying in for months on end while you pay off a credit card is hard.  But it’s a whole lot easier if you focus on the extra cash you’ll have each month when the slate is cleared.  The electorate understands that these are ‘difficult times’ and there is ‘hard work ahead’.  We hear the phrases often enough.  But what will be the upside when the hard work is done?  There is a major project taking place without its millions of partners understanding their common goal.    

The Queen’s Speech is being positioned as a set of measures to support the family, but with child benefit changes about to kick in this could be a difficult sell.  It’s tough for a Government beset by problems to articulate a vision at the best of times, let alone when the vision is different in each camp of the Coalition.  The danger is that in the absence of a common goal people look for a common enemy.  

Jon Bennett

Director

jon@linstockcommunications.com
 

The social media reticence of university vice-chancellors

Patrick McGhee’s appointment as the new chair of Million+ provided a modest smattering of media coverage at the beginning of this month. While the Times Higher Education focused on Mr McGhee’s rather sober task of widening participation at universities and his ‘humble’ beginnings, it was left to the Guardian to provide a more left-field angle yesterday when it highlighted his prolific use of Twitter.

A vice-chancellor tweeting? Who’d have thought it? Well, actually, as the Guardian rightly points out, it is a relatively novel concept among the leaders of our universities. But is this a cause for concern, should we worry that our vice-chancellors seem so uninterested in drafting pithy 140 character messages? For many, this question will no doubt be the cue for rolled-eyes and mumblings about social media being ‘over-hyped.’ Certainly, some have oversold social media as a communications panacea and prematurely rejected more traditional communications techniques. Moreover, there is the very real danger that using social media opens organisations and individuals to a level of scrutiny and criticism that can be extremely damaging, if handled incorrectly. But, despite this, or perhaps because of this, social media remains an often unrealised channel to communicate with target audiences. No doubt students are already moving onto new social media platforms, but for those looking to engage with an increasingly consumer-like student demanding answers on all manner of things, Twitter remains a solid option to engage with them.

Not all communications between universities and their students/prospective students need to, or should, come directly from the vice chancellor. But in an increasingly volatile market where universities are having to make tough and sometimes unpopular decisions, it is often vice-chancellors who find the buck stops with them. Numerous universities have adopted social media to effectively engage with students, but true cultural change needs to come from the top. More vice chancellors should follow the lead of Patrick McGhee and demonstrate a willingness to embrace social media if they want to better understand the students they seek to attract.

The Guardian’s coverage of Patrick McGhee’s Twitter usage also points to a further modern phenomenon – the development of the use of news outlets becoming news in itself. OK, Twitter is not strictly a ‘news outlet’, but it does serve a loose function as an aggregator and spreader of opinion. The relative newness and associated excitement associated with Twitter and other forms of social media will surely dissipate with time, and with this it is likely that ‘Prominent public figure uses Twitter’ stories will also begin to fade. But in the meantime, spokespeople of high-profile organisations need to be aware that simply using these platforms can be a story in itself. This is particularly true of organisations where eagle-eyed members of the public are keen to scrutinise the motives behind even the most innocent use of social media.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

Voters reject confused mayoral offer – Where next for localism?

The Government’s localism agenda has been dealt a fairly hefty blow today with an overwhelming rejection of its plans for directly elected mayors.

Sensing how the wind was blowing, government ministers were already suggesting that one or two yes votes would exceed their hopes. But it looks as though they will not even get that.

The Minister in charge, Greg Clark, has suggested future mayoral proposals could cover wider geographic areas, perhaps hoping that this would somehow bypass the entrenched political interests of city councillors.

So what lessons can be learnt from yet another ‘No’ in a UK referendum? These results follow the rejection of a regional assembly in the north east that sounded the death knell for regional government in the UK. And they come hot on the heels of a national rejection of proportional representation.  People don’t seem keen to change the way we do democracy.

Is it a case of simple voter apathy? A rejection of the political class in general? Or the result of risk aversion? The status quo needs to be pretty bad and the benefits of change quite clear before people will make a leap into the unknown.  

It is certainly true that many voters were completely unaware of the debate on directly elected mayors and turnout was remarkably low; just 24% in Manchester and Nottingham. 

In communication terms the pro campaign was up against it, having neither a clear message nor a trusted voice to present it.  The largely unspecified powers did little to motivate local people.  Rather than local champions able to inspire trust, mayoral supporters faced a dearth of local support from the political establishment, business leaders or local media.  In Nottingham, the hostile council even issued a leaflet warning Asian voters that the introduction of a directly elected mayor could provide a boost to parties such as the British National party or English Defence League.

Even those local media outlets that did back a yes vote, such as the Bristol Post, did so at the very last minute. And were more concerned with encouraging people to go out and exercise their vote than issuing a genuine rallying call in favour of change.  Business remained either indifferent to change or positively campaigned against it.

Trying to rally the cause David Cameron said "I want a Boris in Birmingham, I want a Boris in Leeds, I want a Boris in Bradford”. While Boris remains popular in London, or at least in the suburbs, perhaps that call didn’t have the positive effect the Prime Minister was hoping for. It could be the policy was seen as being imposed by the London political establishment and not as a response to calls from the grassroots.

Despite the claims of all political parties to be localist in their approach, voters aren’t exactly breaking down the doors of the polling booths to make their voices heard.  A Mayor for London was supported by just one in four Londoners in the 1998 referendum, and rejected by just over one in ten in Nottingham.  Rather than giving power to the people, we are taking decisions endorsed by a shrinking minority.  Where next for Localism?

Tony Cox

Consultant

tony@linstockcommunications.com 

Social mobility and cognitive biases

Perhaps it’s our suspicions of a lingering class system, or maybe it’s our ingrained sense of fair play, but social mobility is a subject that always gets the British chattering classes in a tizzy. This week we can expect a new bout of hand-wringing when the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Social Mobility publishes a report entitled ‘Seven Truths about Social Mobility’. Due for release tomorrow, the report will focus on the UK’s relatively poor record on social mobility compared to similar developed nations, concluding that the ‘success’ of a child in the UK is determined long before they even enter the education system.

Although the APPG is cross-party in nature, the report will almost certainly be used as a brick-bat by politicians to bash their rivals. Already Hazel Blears, a Labour member of the APPG has said “…We need to ensure that young people from working-class backgrounds, whose parents don't have the same exclusive networks as some in the City of London, are given the opportunities to achieve. This means ending unpaid internships and opening up opportunities as well as education and support.” A less than subtle dig at the Government’s internships programme and perceived cosiness with the City perhaps?

But other less traditional critics have also been quick to put the boot into Government. Conservative MP Nadine Dorries recently described David Cameron and George Osborne as “Two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others.” For many this was a visceral attack based simply on personal and professional differences. But for others, this was further proof of the Conservatives being out-of-touch and unconcerned with improving the lot of Britain’s working class. Labour in contrast continues to be seen in a much more favourable light, and despite a brief blip in 2009, has regularly polled higher than the other parties on the issue of which party is seen as the champion of the poor. Undoubtedly its working class-roots have helped in this sense, but does New Labour really have a better record on improving social mobility?

Maybe statistics can cut through the bluster and highlight the true political champion of the working classes and social mobility? Well, no, and most accounts of social mobility in the UK make pretty grim reading all round. In fact, a London School of Economics report in 2007 concluded that low social mobility in the UK has not improved in 30 years. Clearly, no governing party has covered themselves in glory.

Despite this, social mobility remains a significant communications challenge for the Conservatives; to a much greater extent than it does for Labour, and long after the supposed ‘de-toxification’ of the Tory brand was completed. This points to the difficulties organisations in all industries face when confronted with the need to overturn entrenched views – it takes time and patience. Moreover, it takes very little for people to revert to old perceptions and ideas. Numerous studies have shown peoples’ cognitive biases when interpreting political messages. Considerable evidence suggests people presented with balanced arguments place greater weight on those they already agree with, exhibiting what is termed confirmation bias. This confirmation bias is perhaps seen in people’s perceptions of the relative strengths of the political parties in improving social mobility.

There are other communications forces at work here as well, and they were highlighted in a recent Financial Times (FT) article on effective spokespeople for the relative political parties. The article suggested some Conservative MPs felt they lacked a regional presence compared to the Labour party, with fewer MPs with regional accents willing and able to deliver difficult messaging to regional audiences. This points to another communications challenge, the fact people are more likely to trust messages delivered by those who ‘speak their language’. For Conservative MPs from the South East discussing social mobility issues in Northern cities, the message is sometimes not as important as the voice in which it is being delivered.

Few politicians have resisted the urge to criticise their opposite number on the subject of social mobility, and this practice is unlikely to end this week. But determining who comes out on top when the mud begins to fly can often be as simple as understanding our inate communications biases.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

Working with government, challenging public perceptions

Whatever mistrust the British electorate feels for politicians, it pales in comparison to the cynicism reserved for private organisations working with government. From schools to hospitals to railways, public services have seen private sector involvement in recent years. In almost every case, outrage has followed. It is clear that the British public still has deep reservations about private sector involvement in traditional public sectors.

These concerns are not without foundation. Private companies have a bottom line and their primary motive is to turn a profit. Certain PFI initiatives, the botched NHS IT upgrade and privatisation of the railways are all examples of private sector involvement in projects that encountered problems. But is public cynicism grounded in reality or the result of more irrational fears? And what communications challenges does this pose for private companies working with government?

This week it was reported that statisticians at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had signed off on controversial research developed by private procurement specialists Opera Solutions. The research claimed councils could save £10bn a year through improved procurement. Clearly, this is a significant piece of research with a bold central assertion; the sort of research that will raise eyebrows and receive criticism.

And surely enough, criticism arrived. In particular, questions were raised over the report’s methodology, which involved examining the spending of three local authorities on energy, mobile phones and legal services, determining savings that they could make through working together, and then extrapolating these findings for all local authorities. While Opera would no doubt stand by these findings, it is easy to see why others have been sceptical, particularly given the current government’s desire for councils to make cuts. It is an important and instructive tale for those engaging with government – sometimes your client’s wider political objectives and interpretation of your work may draw you into the firing line.

Opera Solution's recent problems point to other communications difficulties facing private companies working with government. If simply providing statistics can be seen to have a sinister motive behind it, what chance for those providing services that the electorate has an emotive response to, such as health and education? To further confuse matters, public responses to private sector involvement with government are not always predictable. Private companies such as YouGov regularly provide statistics for political parties; statistics that are generally accepted to be impartial by the electorate. Admittedly there are good reasons for this, including YouGov’s transparency of methodology and the trust it has accrued over some time. But public cynicism is somewhat inconsistent, and dependent on media.

So what are the communications principles for private companies working with government, both at a local and central level? Firstly, go in with your eyes open. Political agendas of all persuasions will mean that the likelihood of becoming part of the story is always a distinct possibility. Secondly, be transparent. Private companies found lurking in the shadows behind government will always raise concerns for some and questions for others. While it is not always desirable or appropriate to put yourself front and centre, you should never look to obfuscate your involvement. Thirdly, make sure your communications are consistent with those you are providing services for. Mixed messages are often the cause of increased public anxiety. Finally, and most importantly, be confident in the integrity of the services you provide. Private companies provide government with valuable services in numerous areas at many levels. We should not be afraid to champion the value that we bring to government and the wider public.

John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com

A choice dilemma in pensions

For a libertarian the concept of choice is fundamental. It means providing individuals with maximum opportunity to make their own decisions and pursue their personal dreams.

But does this freedom always produce the best outcome, both for the individual and for society more widely? And if not, does that matter less than the ideological integrity of choice at the outset?  

The concept of choice is central to many discussions in the pensions industry at the moment. It was the subject of debate at the recent pension conference organised by our client, TheCityUK.

There is an argument that too much choice worries and confuses people – and results in no choice being made at all. This is supported by recent research from NEST that found almost 6 out of 10 people find pensions so complicated that they can’t understand the best options available, while around 1 in 3 are put off thinking about saving for retirement because they find pensions confusing.

One bold option being pursued is to offer savers no choice whatsoever. This proposition was put forward at the conference by ex-Pensions Minister Nigel Waterson. Although it was delicately pointed out to Mr Waterson by another ex-politician chairing the event, James Purnell, that he had attacked the then government for not offering enough choice in the new auto-enrolment pensions scheme!

Putting that gentle political ribbing to one side, in this type of scheme all savings are invested in one single fund. Diversification may appear to be a problem but as long as the fund itself is well diversified that can be overcome.

In communications terms this allows for a simpler message to consumers. Don’t worry about choosing funds or choosing providers. When thinking about retirement saving start early, save more and carry on. This kind of simplicity is the key to good communications with consumers.

Of course, this message relies on consumer trust in the pensions system, which is a whole other debate.  

Tony Cox

Consultant

tony@linstockcommunications.com