How suitable is ‘brand management’ in a public consultation?

Since communications departments have taken a bigger role in organising public consultations, it has become popular to provide such exercises with a ‘brand image.’

They tend to follow predictable patterns. ‘Better Buses for Bootle’; ‘A Healthier Hogwartshire’, or ‘A New Beginning for Knotty Ash’. These come with a specially-designed logo, colour scheme and officially-approved sub-titles. Something like ‘Have your say’, ‘We’re here to listen’ or maybe ‘Time to decide’.

All good communications best practice, no doubt. They publicise the exercise, encourage recognition, establish expectations and exert a degree of internal discipline for the project. But there are some disadvantages too. One of them is that they often serve to obscure rather than clarify who exactly is in charge. This begs the questions of who precisely are you? Or more simply who’s asking?

In consultation, this matters. Unlike an anonymous opinion poll, we know that respondents’ propensity to participate is affected by who exactly wants to hear from them. Unsurprisingly, in an age of time-poor consultees, who wants to waste their energy contributing to a dialogue unless you have confidence that your views will be taken seriously. If your consultation carries a catchy title, and has a warm, caring image, will that be enough? Will it carry the necessary credibility?

One of the factors that leads to consultation-branding is that it is becoming more unusual to find an exercise which is solely the responsibility of one public body. At one level, this is welcome. The long-delayed integration of health and social care meant that until recently, we had one organisation consulting on options which could only be implemented if the others in their patch also played ball. In England, the STPs – Sustainability & Transformation Partnerships (or whatever they will become) can easily consist of ten or even twenty bodies. Forget consultation by faceless bureaucrats; these are in danger of being consultation by faceless institutions, and the public may well be totally clueless as to who runs them, who takes the decisions, or how. In a mischievous moment, we have speculated whether we should organise an authentic-looking consultation to be issued by ten totally fictitious organisations … and see if anyone notices.

Accountability for public services is now a problem. In general, and despite the internet, most people struggle to know who runs anything. Part of the case for powerful local government mayors is that it can put a face on the faceless. Critics have seen it as creating municipal celebrities who will be drawn more to sound-bytes than to sound administration.  Yet when Andy Burnham as Mayor of Manchester, Marvin Rees in Bristol or Sadiq Khan as the London Mayor throw their weight behind a public engagement exercise – love them or hate them, at least you know who is asking.

We have yet to see ‘celebrity consultations’ on any scale, but one day soon we may see ‘Joanna Lumley wants to hear from you….’ Or ‘tell Michael Portillo what you thought of today’s railway journey.’ How about “give your views on single-use plastics to Sir David Attenborough!” In some ways, this is better than a logo and a brand; those who are chosen as the ‘face’ of a consultation need not be the ultimate decision-maker, but rather a trusted intermediary who will presumably be relied upon to ensure that voices will be heard.

Of course, we already do this to an extent. The last of the long succession of Airports Reviews was fronted by Howard Davies; although he was not a household name, key stakeholders knew who he was. The Grenfell Towers inquiry is being led by Sir Martin Moore-Bick. The name will be new to the general public, but residents of Kensington & Chelsea will hear a lot about him in the coming weeks. The same applied to the Levison inquiry, and previously to Lord Hutton’s marathon investigation. They were not consultations, but had the element that evidence was submitted to them, and those who did so knew who would be listening.

Consultors need to find faces that consultees can trust. Announcing to everyone that you’re keen on listening is not enough. The public has grown weary of slick slogans and spin. Indeed, glossy brochures and lavish promotion are almost always counter-productive. What they need is substance beneath the rhetoric and the best way to do this is to supply responsive human beings who can exhibit real leadership. The good news is that there are genuine and talented politicians, chief executives and senior people who can do this. What they lack is the right machinery and format. At the Institute we favour Public Consultation hearings – video-streamed for maximum transparency and where those responsible for taking tough decisions can hear evidence from consultees face-to-face.

Brands may well be useful, but better still is a ‘face’ that is accountable.

TRIGGER POINTS:

1. Have you ‘branded’ a consultation in your organisation?
2. If so, was the accountability spelt out clearly enough?
3. Would it work to consider Public engagement hearings in your environment?

The Institute’s Briefing Paper The Case for Public consultation hearings is due to be published for members before the end of March.

This is the 334^th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement.