What does David Cameron's much-discussed, and occasionally derided, idea of the 'big society' mean for the marketing industry? The answer could be an expanded role for brands in delivering key government messages.
Last week, Marketing revealed that the Cabinet Office plans to reduce the amount spent through the COI by £160m - a sizeable chunk of the government communications budget. In the 2008/09 financial year, the COI's 'turnover' was £540m, making the cuts equivalent to 30% of communications outlay. (However, to put these figures into perspective, COI turnover jumped by £163m in 2008/09, so the cuts return spend to roughly its 2007/08 level.)
A spokesman for the Cabinet Office makes it clear that the government is 'committed to spending less on advertising'. The Cabinet Office will work with each department over the coming months to find ways to save money.
At present, there is no coherent plan to strengthen ties to the private sector, but ministers are known to favour co-operation with third parties, including voluntary groups, to encourage 'bottom-up' change. Cameron's advisers have been influenced by behavioural economics theories, including changing behaviour via peer pressure.
Growing sophistication
Private-sector partnerships were discussed at length under the Labour administration as a way to reach people more efficiently and piggyback on the relationships consumers have with brands. In 2006, the National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC) released a report, commissioned by the Department of Health, calling for more partnerships between the DoH and brands.
There has been some progress, according to Steve Bell, chief executive of Iris London, which has worked with the COI on brand partnerships. He has noted a rise in the number of brands approaching government departments seeking tie-ups, and the COI is now more sophisticated in the way in which it plans and measures such campaigns.
Bell believes there is scope for closer co-operation between the government and private sector, but warns that partnership marketing can not be seized on as a 'knee-jerk' response to cuts. They need to be long-term and deliver clear benefits to both the brand and the department with which it ties up. 'Using brands as free media channels is neither sustainable nor insightful,' he adds.
John Bromley, director of the NSMC, also believes that reduced government marketing budgets will lead to a greater focus on brand partnerships. Since the launch of the NSMC report in 2006, it has been working with the DoH. There have been relatively few large-scale tie-ups to date, but Bromley notes: 'One of the main planks of social marketing is getting all sorts of companies involved.'
A model partnership
Drinkaware, the charity funded by the alcohol industry to promote sensible drinking, is one example of the private sector delivering social messages.
Its chief executive, Chris Sorek, argues that the charity has a workable model for public-private co-operation. Its board includes public health professionals, and it co-ordinates its activity with that run by the DoH. He believes similar partnerships could help deliver other health campaigns, and work more widely in areas such as encouraging children to take up science.
Sorek expects Drinkaware's role to become more important as a result of the government cuts, predicting that the industry would respond positively to a growing reliance on the private sector. 'We all want to solve the problem of irresponsible drinking,' he adds.
Developing these partnerships will take work, and may not always be feasible. Bromley warns that there can be a 'conflict of interest' between brands that want to maximise profits and civil servants who want to reduce consumption. In some cases, it is arguably the threat of direct regulation that encourages brands to work in this way. Moreover, says Bell, there is a finite number of brands the government could work with credibly. As more departments adopt this strategy, so the returns will diminish.
However, the pressure on budgets will not ease any time soon. For cash-strapped civil servants, working with brands may now be the best option.
DRINKAWARE AN OVERVIEW
Drinkaware was initially the campaigning arm of the Portman Group, the drinks industry trade organisation. It became an independent charity in 2006 after the government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy called for an industry fund to educate consumers.
The charity's goal is to raise £5m a year to fund campaigning and education on sensible alcohol consumption. Its supporters include retailers, the on-trade and drinks companies.
It co-ordinates its activity with relevant government departments and the campaigns run by its backers. In 2009 it launched a £100m push in partnership with the government and 45 different companies.
Its board includes five members from the drinks industry, five from the public health community, plus three independent members.