It's interesting to read the strategy (exec summary) and recommendations made to DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) by its agency, made public in these pdfs.
I'm coming at these documents cold but I notice how apprehensive I feel. Here's why.
The opening paragraph of Exec Summary says:
This strategy includes a series of recommendations to change attitudes towards climate change in the UK. It is an evidence-based strategy drawing upon the extensive research, consultation and experience of the specialist communications consultants FUTERRA.I think it's always a bad sign when an agency insists on spelling its name in capitals everywhere. Smacks of rampant egotism to me. And what's with this awkward jargon of "evidence-based"; are they afraid we'll think they made it up in the bath last night? Why do they have to labour the concept of "extensive"?
Then it says
• This is an attitude change and not a behaviour change strategy. Evidence shows that these recommendations are unlikely to have any direct impact on specific public behaviours.This is weird. There seems to be some kind of subtext here. I wonder if this means "Actually, this isn't going to work but, hell, you want to spend money on it, spend it with us." The assumption that behaviour change always follows attitude change is the pretext for this government wasting a lot of money on patronising advertising. I fear more of the same.
• However, attitude change is extremely valuable in itself. We can generate support for policy changes, and use growing awareness of climate change to open the door to behaviour change.
From the recommendations:
Recommendation 8: BrandingBig alarm bells ringing here. Yes folks, all the tell-tale signs of top-down communications at its most presumptuous.
A branded statement, aligned with the BHAG, be used across the activities of
the strategy and all the communications.
Recommendation 9: Ownership of Brand
We recommend that Defra ‘own’ the brand, supported by the existing Working
Group members. This group should also develop the criteria and terms for its
use.
Futerra (sorry FUTERRA) sum their plan up in this baffling diagram.

I've got a thing about diagrams like this. They are meant to simplify and summarise but I find them utterly confusing. There is a ton of information in a visual image but I don't think they've given any real thought to it. Like what's behind the choice of shapes and sizes here? Are they really just saying "Oh, there's lots of elements to this and they're all inter-related somehow"? Beats me.
These are just my top-of-mind responses. They're based on my own experience of watching too many uninspired ad campaigns - always preceded by this kind of laboured argument. If I'm being horribly unfair, put me right.
Bookmark: del.icio.us Digg it ma.gnolia Yahoo MyWeb Google StumbleUpon
Permalink











Facebook/Johnnie Moore
Linkedin/Johnnie Moore
Twitter/johnniemoore
Last.fm/johnniemoore
Del.icio.us/johnniemoore
Technorati/johnniemoore
MyBlogLog/JohnnieM
Blog/Johnnie Moore
Comments (2)
Having read the document too, it struck me just how "off the shelf" this strategy is. It doesnt seem to offer much inspirational thinking other than the standard public sector partnershipapproach of providing local stakeholders with communications toolkits to carry the message into the field. These are then supported by National Roadshows and an overarching brand statement to act as foundations for the core messages.
Given that Climate Change is in everyone's interest, how about developing communication approaches that create local engagement, conversaton and a variety of responses and initiatives? Communications approaches that encourage a diversity of actions, that stimulate community champions and leaders (Climate Change Communities of Practice for example) and that reward proactive businesses may achieve better outcomes. I fear that the limited ambition of "attitude change" may not deliver the best value-for-money for Defra's £12m communications budget.
February 19, 2005 15:08 Permalink for comment
Thanks for the comment Chris, I was wondering if it was just me being a bit whiney. What you say makes good sense to me.
February 19, 2005 15:45 Permalink for comment