By Chris Wood
An early mentor observed that any agency worth its salt always operated on two levels… Firstly understanding and meeting the particular brief they were given. Beyond that, understanding, and as far as possible addressing, the issues that kept the client awake at night.
There has been a historically prevalent if slanderous view that the Public Sector has been Fat and Happy, and that as a corollary very little is likely to keep its marketing community awake at night.
In reality, Public Sector marketers usually operate in an infinitely more complex marketing landscape; involving many more reasons for insomnia, than their Private Sector counterparts. To be supportive and effective, any agency needs to recognise and acknowledge these particular complexities and demons.
The first thing to note is that marketing is a new discipline in the Public Sector – above all in government, where Ian Schoolar, now one of the most experienced Public Sector marketers, was appointed to be the first marketing Director of a major government department only in 2001.
It is widely acknowledged that the marketing function is not well understood, and despite significant improvements since the Phillis Report in 2004 it is still regarded as both a junior and separate relation to policymaking and communications (as media relations). The latter is often seen as an infinitely more important activity by politicians focused on the front line of daily sparring with the Media. Establishing harmony and understanding between the functions is a critical pre-requisite, if marketing is to be effective.
Private Sector marketing generally implements and responds to a fairly coherent marketing strategy, understood and agreed by the board. Its Public Sector counterpart answers to a rather more complex context and brief. The latter often derives from three strands that do not always plait into a neat rope pulling in one direction; namely Government priorities, Civil Service policies, and themes of the moment: such as Gus O’Donnell’s mantras of joined up government and cross cutting initiatives.
Finally there are the important issues of goals and criteria. Marketing and selling products and services is a pleasantly tangible task. Marketing and implementing policies, so as to effect real change in behaviours, is a more difficult undertaking.
Ian Schoolar, who we helped to rebrand Inland Revenue, set a target for the re-branding that was rather different from a Private Sector exercise… but music to the ears of the department’s political masters. Simply, he aimed to recoup the cost within two years by two simple outcomes. First, by clarifying the Revenue’s core purpose, how it went about it, and its interface with the public so that consumer confusion, complaints and cock-ups fell dramatically, and with them the costs of tax collection. Secondly, by giving an unloved workforce motivation and customer orientation, to enhance productivity and ultimately reduce the costs too. The undertaking succeeded handsomely.
To conclude, the context in which public sector marketing has to work reminds me of a sign that used to adorn a friend’s desk. If you can keep your head in the midst of all this confusion… you just don’t understand the situation.
No one is advocating the virtues of being a headless chicken. However those who believe public sector marketing is merely a slight variation on its private sector counterpart really don’t understand the situation.
Unless supporting agencies recognise that the context for public sector marketing and its very particular stakeholders, requires an equally particular approach, naivety will be their undoing.