Guest blog post from Jane Wilson, CIPR Chief Executive Officer.
'The Big Society' is the philosophy behind the coalition government's social policy centre piece. It promotes devolution of power to communities and local government and is the counter weight to the hard fiscal management programme they have also embarked upon. It has so far crystallised into the Localism Bill, currently before Parliament, a green paper on public services and one on giving, aimed at encouraging more social action.
But the big society faces a big problem. As it stands, the initiative is neither visible nor well understood. In late 2010, Ipsos MORI reported that 54% of respondents surveyed indicated that they had not heard of the proposal and a YouGov Poll for the Sun newspaper in January 2011 showed that 63% are still in the dark. Reports from around the country indicate the big society is in danger of meaning all things to all people. Whether the initiative becomes political reality or not, it is struggling to break through into the consciousness of the people who will deliver it and those who may be affected by the changes it might bring.
Spending cuts are easy to understand and their impact is lasting and widely felt. In contrast, communicating an abstract idea on the role of the state in communities and public services to a wide audience was, perhaps, always going to be a struggle. Whilst it may be far sighted to begin a debate about the role of the state within society, the big society is about all things local - and central government may not be the best place from which to communicate the substance of the idea. Among the public and among some opinion formers, there is a degree of cynicism that the idea is being put forward to soften the image of a government engaged in a fierce economic struggle to reduce public sector debt. Regardless of this, if the idea is meaningful, it has at its core the proposition that decisions should be taken closer to the people who will be affected by them. The big society is a message that, if it is to work, must resonate outside Whitehall and in the communities that will be at the cutting edge. The results of the government's efforts at communicating it so far do not seem to reflect this.
It takes skill and expertise to communicate a complicated message to an uncertain public looking for reassurance about the provision of the public services that support their standard of living. More to the point, people who care about their communities could find much in the big society to cheer, but the confusion that surrounds the concept could undermine their enthusiasm. However, in the event that the initiative takes off, there would be a number of challenges and opportunities for communicators: local councils will be able to take on issues with far greater freedom to innovate to find solutions. This could make local government a more attractive place for talented community-minded people – it could also create more opportunities for communicators in forward thinking councils.
In general, all organisations involved in the local public services are going to have to get their message across on a more local level. Communicators could be in the best position to help organisations structure themselves internally in a way that will best enable them to meet the challenges of the big society, not just in terms of their own department but in terms of the wider organisation as well. Corporate Social Responsibility could come into its own as well.
Tweeting about the big society is not enough to make it a lasting and effective idea. A new approach to the way in which the big society is communicated could do more to inspire people in their communities in a way that delivers real change.
CIPR CEO Jane Wilson and Claire Cater from Bell Pottinger will be discussing the Big Society on CIPR TV on Wednesday 2 February at 5pm. Find out more
6 comments
This is an interesting area and has roots much further back than people imagine.
Around 2006 I was involved in the launch of the Academy for Sustainable Communities. This was the brainchild of John Prescott and came off the back of the Egan Report, by Sir John Egan, the former boss of Jaguar.
One of the central purposes of the ASC was to help build skills within community groups on how to to negotiate and communicate with professional stakeholders in, for example, major regeneration programmes. The problem has long been that experts 'beam down' into communities, decide what is right and then, frankly, bugger off to the next project, leaving the energy and benefits to fizzle out.
The analogy is with organ transplant surgery. The operation is the easy bit, the failure is always organ rejection later on by the host body.
The ASC's bold aims got bashed about a bit and the body re-purposed. A great shame.
The Big Society as expresed in DCLG's outputs is another attempt to address this through legislation, but if the communications and negotiation skills are lacking (on both sides) then I'm not holding my breath.
I think the Big Society is gaining more traction than many say. I don't deny that many polls will demonstrate confusion on the streets, but driving such a philosophy takes time and occurs in phases.
You are right to say that local leadership is critical. Central government, with the leadership of the Prime Minister, can provide a tone and energy for an idea like this, but local implementation and commitment is equally important.
Without local commitment, such a philosophy risks being dismissed as the easy musings of an elite class. Without local commitment, such an idea risks being seen as camouflage for punitive cuts.
With local commitment, tangible and meaningful support can be offered to community volunteers. With local commitment, genuine local need which would never register in the national consciousness can be accommodated. With local commitment, the benefits of the Big Society can be seen and felt directly by its members who will be motivated to contribute.
The Big Society has been introduced; it is now for the local champions to identify its value and advocate for its principles in a meaningful issue-based manner to local people. The success of this latter phase will determine its eventual longevity.
I agree wholeheartedly that a new approach to communicating Big Society is needed if it is to gain significant support locally, rather than just among London-based commentators.
Big Society is the Government's story ... if the ideas of local devolution of power are to have any substance we need to hear the local stories.
A lot of us were saying that last year ... yes, in blogs and tweets, and also at local events ... but no-one in London listened.
A mainly Sheffield-based group set up Big Society in the North, which has now become Our Society with the aim of enabling people involved in local projects to tell their stories and share experiences directly.
We have no resources beyond our personal commitment, and that of other who wish to help. I do hope you'll join us at http://oursociety.org.uk/ - or allow us to repost your excellent piece.
Julian Dobson also has some great posts here http://livingwithrats.blogspot.com/
As he says - the message won't sell, and the conversation won't stop
How to communicate a seemingly abstract concept such as The Big Society is a really fascinating challenge. This has inspired me to link the topic to the CIPR Diploma class on PR planning that I'm running on Saturday.
I'm wondering if enough thought went into analysing the situation and whether clear, measurable, communication objectives were set?
I'll report back on what the class thinks next week.
The class will be as divided as the kitchen cabinet of the proponent of the big society idea. Its just a London talk. Another abracadabra or as Steven said " a camouflage for punitive cuts". A mere transfer of responsibilities to an already battered society. This society is bigger enough. Army of volunteers every where. Countless charities complementing and releaving government of responsibilities courtesy of public benevolence What they require is a helping hand and not additional load. I may be wrong but the idea of another big society bigger than what already exists may be a purnishment too far. The wound inflicted by the big cut should, first be allowed to heal.
PR Academy students studying the CIPR Diploma in London highlighted a number of issues about The Big Society in class last Saturday, not least that it is generally perceived to be “spin for cuts”.
We were looking at strategic communication planning and struggled to work out what The Big Society plan actually is. Without knowing this, it is no surprise that subsequent communication about it looks confusing. Establishing the situation that strategic communication is based on is stressed in all PR planning models, so, although the class had only limited information to go on, the perception is that it is just an abstract idea without strong substance.
It was interesting to see that the importance of planning was also highlighted today by Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, from the Community Service Volunteers (CSV), when she said that there was no "strategic plan".
In communication terms, from what the Liverpool vanguard for the scheme, Phil Redmond, is saying, the approach seems to have misfired with at least one primary stakeholder group. If this is symptomatic of the general communication approach, the wrong strategy seems to have been developed. In a classic scenario where engagement and collaboration is required at a local level, a one-way, “lecture”, approach has been used with predictable consequences.
As we discussed in the class, strategic communication planning can often seem like a luxury. It’s time consuming and requires research. However, the consequences of not doing this are that time and money can be wasted and without proper planning the wrong approach is much more likely to be put in place, sometimes with disastrous consequences.