The future of government-sponsored ad campaigns

Jason Cromack, chief executive officer of Lateral Group, explains how the future of government advertising depends on communicating with the public “in a way that succeeds in combining the traditional platforms through which campaigns are conducted…”

Against a background of recession and high budget deficit, the government’s decision to cut spending on so called ‘non-critical’ advertising and marketing has raised issues.

The future of government-sponsored campaigns has come under question, prompting calls for greater clarification from the ad industry, charities and public sector bodies as to where such cuts will be made. According to recent announcements, this will be further exacerbated by government plans to cut COI staff numbers by two-fifths from 737 to 430.

The Liberal-Conservative coalition’s promise to slash marketing and advertising spending by 50% appears to have won initial support from the public, who see it as a step towards reducing the deficit, but doubts remain over which campaigns will be axed. The necessity to make cuts to the COI budget is understood; however, concerns have been raised over the fate of various government campaigns for which success can only be measured in the long term.

Will campaigns which do not generate immediate results be deemed ‘not essential’? Marketing efforts by government departments such as the Department of Health, whose Change4life campaign was launched in 2009 to tackle rising obesity rates, risk either being scaled down or being boosted with financial support from industry sources.

There appears to be a general consensus around wanting to see greater efficiency in government advertising. A push for advertising and marketing agencies employed by the COI to take more responsibility for public sector campaigns and come to an agreement with the government over charging less for such work is an arguable possibility.

A more effective approach, in which the present communication channels utilised by the government were to be optimised and integrated, could indeed see the coalition delivering ‘more for less’ in terms of delivering messages to the public. The need to combine various media in order to properly raise awareness of public campaigns is well recognised, and by doing this the government might well continue to succeed with programmes such as Change4life in spite of cuts.

Channelling less resource into advertising and instead focussing on reaching consumers through other interactive channels such as social networks and email should be considered. Despite its commitment to tackling the deficit, the government has stated that a revised, less “preaching” approach to conveying key issues will be pursued, with Health Secretary Adam Lansley citing social media as a way through which this could be achieved.

For the government to win plaudits by cutting the advertising spend, it must first prove its efficiency, and greater accountability over campaigns that are rolled out is the logical step towards such success. To compensate for the reduction in budget, the COI will find itself needing to produce tangible results with the money it does spend. However, it is important that such emphasis on success is not confined to the short-term; abandoning campaigns whose long term effects might well prove substantial would be a costly and irresponsible social mistake.

As yet the government has provided no further explanation to its classification of “essential” marketing campaigns, but the Prime Minister would do well to remember that his administration will be judged not only on cuts, but upon how wisely less money is spent, and how sensibly and effectively key public issues are dealt with.

For continued success in combating problems such as obesity, smoking and the threat of terrorism, the public must be communicated with in a way that succeeds in combining the traditional platforms through which campaigns are conducted, and doing this in an economically viable way.