Issue - meetings

Review of Communications and Marketing

Meeting: 20/01/2009 - Cabinet (Item 131)

131 Review of Communications and Marketing PDF 34 KB

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Gilbert)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report providing an update on the progress of the communications and marketing review.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1

This would provide a centralised co-ordinated approach to all council marketing activity – internal, local and external. It is made up of the core team’s current areas of work plus:

· Management and co-ordination of all short lifespan leaflets, adverts, fliers, newsletters, together with distribution, monitoring and evaluating

· Management, co-ordination and development of all council website activity, including the development of the council’s e-marketing capacity (as described above).

· All council advertising

· All ‘external’ marketing activity (economic development, tourism, festivals/events)

· Corporate sponsorship

· Member, including civic, communications

· All marketing budgets will be pooled centrally.

This approach requires a core team sufficiently resourced to deliver within agreed time/quality levels, especially where service income targets are affected. A centralised function means a small residual function will still be required within the service to liaise with the corporate team. As is the case with each of the options, evidence demonstrates that a centralised function works most effectively where all officers are co-located.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Most closely mirrors the best practice models identified via the research phase of the review and likely to deliver the benefits the research identified (set out in 4.0 above)	This option must be fully resourced otherwise it risks failing services, in some cases impacting on their bottom line.
Most closely delivers the objectives set out in the review project plan
Allows greater economies of scale
Income opportunities via corporate approach to sponsorship
Increases customer awareness and take up where appropriate

Option 2

This option sees the centralisation of all marketing functions, as set out in option 1, plus tourism services and the whole festivals and events team.

It sits outside the scope of the original project plan but has arisen out of concerns that separating tourism marketing from the tourism delivery function may be detrimental to the service delivery of that area. Option 2 therefore transfers the whole of those functions – festivals and events team, tourism and the TICs – so avoiding any potential downside caused by splitting the functions.

Advantages	Disadvantages
As in Option 1 – but extends the level of integration further.	Outside the scope of the project mandate
Avoids any potential negative impact that might be caused by splitting marketing away from the tourism/events functions	Potentially more complex and time consuming to deliver
Event management skills and expertise could be shared across the council

Option 3

This consists of option 2, but would also include Customer Services

Again, it is outside of the scope of the original project plan but has been put forward by the project group in recognition that communications and marketing is interlinked with good customer service. Both are based around identifying our wide range of customers/service users, the information they require, providing that information in the formats and ways that suit ... view the full minutes text for item 131