I have a usually strict rule that I’ll never publicly criticise any other public sector comms people’s work.
So it gives me no pleasure to report that recent public communications from Central Government on COVID-19 have tested this rule to breaking point.
by Ben Capper
The litany is almost too long to detail; and there are a number of particular lowlights, that I’m sure many will think of immediately.
However, the aspect of the government’s, (let’s be charitable) “strategy” that has finally pushed me over the edge, is the completely baffling approach to campaign identity.
I’ve lost count of the different creative treatments this campaign has had. Just a cursory glance on the Prime Ministerial and various ministerial Twitter feeds over the last six weeks (not months or years: weeks) shows around 20 or so different ones.
From the original tri-colour lecturn messages, to the (not at all bad) tidier red bordered ones, through the green Stay Alert ones, to the Nando’s heat guide aesthetic to the “Zany 1960s wholesome family comedy show starring Mary Tyler-Moore” aesthetic; to the ad campaign for Rishi Sunak’s range of signature masculine fragrances; to this apparent early-90s flyer for a punk gig aesthetic; it’s been a mess.
All visual things mean something
I’ve written before about why branding and all elements of identity are important. But very simply: all visual things mean something. Your font means something, your colour scheme means something, your tone of voice means something, the consistency (or lack thereof) of their application means something. They all evoke a feeling and put something important across.
What does going from “red” to “green” signify? There can be no more obvious interpretation of this than meaning moving from “Stop” to “Go”. Essentially from “don’t leave the house” to “trip to the beach?”.
It’s worth reminding ourselves that the day after this change was announced in that now infamous address by Boris Johnson on Sunday 10th May, that 210 people died.
The following day it was 627.
What then do retro-Batman-TV-show style typefaces and colour schemes signify? It’s all a bit of a laugh? Not to be taken too seriously?
The day that was first premiered on the No 10 Twitter feed: 286 new deaths.
Just let all that sink in for a minute.
Comms is nothing without outcomes
I’ve raised this on Twitter a few times, and I’ve had a similar reply on a couple of occasions. Words to the effect of “the only people who care about fonts and colour schemes are ‘creative types’ so it’s a way of kicking the ‘metropolitan liberal elite’.”
OK, fair enough. I consider myself kicked. And I think there is possibly something in this assertion to be honest
The thing is, it’s Comms 101 that all that really matters in our world are outcomes. And maybe “amount of liberals triggered” is a legitimate measure in this particular government for how well their pandemic communications are working.
Back in the real world however, there is only one outcome that matters. How many people are getting sick and dying.
At the last count, the UK has the worst death toll in Europe.
Bad leadership = bad comms
Can this all be laid at the door of comms?
Well no. Toxic organisations, bad leadership, and failing strategies inevitably beget bad communications, however brilliant and hard-working the practitioners involved are.
I’m sure a lot of us can relate to that particular challenge; and I totally sympathise with the individual comms professionals in government who must’ve been pulling their hair out over this in the past few months.
However, let’s not be too quick to let our profession off the hook either.
Comms either are or aren’t important
I’ve been involved in this community since about 2014 when I first attended the UnAwards. I think I first wrote for comms2point0 in about 2015. In that time, there has been a very clear over-riding narrative: that comms is of critical importance to government and the public sector. That we should have a seat at the top table. That our work has a transformative impact on our communities’ health and wellbeing.
Are we now going to respond “nothing to do with us guv” when the role of comms is scrutinised in the public inquiries that follow?
Communications either are important, or aren’t.
I’m going with the former.
The challenging thing for us is that, if we want that seat at the top table, we’re going to have to take the scrutiny and the responsibility that comes with it.
We can argue about fonts and infographics all day long. But frankly, those discussions belong to a simpler, more innocent time. The fact is, government comms during the pandemic have been prominent, they have been regular, and they have (probably) been very expensively produced.
The problem is, they haven’t been very good.
And here we are.
What happens next?
When this is all over; at some point, I really hope we’ll hear some reflection on lessons learned from some of the key players involved. On what we should do differently next time. An honest reflection on the role that comms played. On what it should have done. What went wrong, as well as what went right.
Some reflection on what this says about the level of influence comms people have or should have. What our responsibilities are. How we share in our successes, but also take our fair share of ownership for failures.
Without this reflection, I fear that our profession risks a potentially pivotal loss of credibility.
That would be a tragedy for us all.
Ben Capper is founder and lead consultant at Grey Fox Communications and Marketing Ltd.
