Heads of Communications Survey
August 2016
To view more research from the Local Government Association’s Research
and Information team please visit: http://www.local.gov.uk/local-governmentintelligence
Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................... 2
Background .................................................................................................. 4
Key findings .................................................................................................. 4
Methodology .................................................................................................... 7
Survey Findings ............................................................................................... 8
Annex A ......................................................................................................... 19
Answers provided to open text questions ................................................... 19
Annex B ......................................................................................................... 30
Survey form and notes of guidance ............................................................ 30
1
Forward
Welcome to our latest temperature test of local government communications. The
results of our latest survey of heads of communications helps to give us a snapshot
of the current issues and state of local government communications. I hope it also
provides you with some useful benchmarking data for your own team.
As we all know, the landscape for public services is changing at a fast rate. With
increasing pressures on local resources, dwindling budgets, and residents
demanding greater engagement and transparency from councils, we are all having
to think about the cost and impact of our communications activity. In addition,
issues such as devolution and combined authorities mean we are all having to
think very differently.
Not surprisingly, being more commercially aware is moving higher and higher up
the agenda, with just over half of council communications teams planning to
generate income, while 51 per cent are planning efficiency savings - an increase of
10 per cent from last year.
One in ten are now carrying advertising on their websites or other digital channels
as a source of income generation. Interestingly, two thirds of these said that the
advertising had not met their expectations as a revenue stream and source of
income. This shows that there is still more work to be done on how we might
deliver effective income generation. We will continue to help develop and gather
ideas over the coming months.
As the challenge of balancing growing demand with reduced budgets continues,
it's vital that the structure of communications teams is aligned with corporate
priorities. Although many councils continue to move towards a central
communications structure, over half still have communications staff working
elsewhere in their council. Our experience is that in many cases, this approach
does not deliver the most effective or efficient outcomes as local priorities don’t
always align with corporate priorities.
The results also show that this fragmented approach is further compounded by the
fact that only a third of heads of communications sit on their council's corporate /
senior management teams. We of course have to earn the right to be there but
there are still too many examples of communications sitting too far from the top of
the organisation and seen as a ‘bolt on’ rather than an integral part of the council’s
strategic thinking.
Greater collaboration across the public sector is also becoming a key issue. While
70 per cent of councils believe that the creation of combined authorities will lead to
more resource sharing between council communications teams in the future, only
10 per cent of respondents currently share or pool staff with other local authorities
with only 4 per cent sharing or pooling staff with other public sector services. This
is an area we need to start leading, looking at a local public services
communications hub-type model.
2
Regular resident surveys are an important indicator of performance. Against the
backdrop of spending cuts, however, it's no surprise that only half of respondents
currently conduct one and that most are choosing to run them in-house. For those
councils which don't run resident surveys, a third gave ‘cost’ as the main reason.
We are developing a best practice guide for councils looking to better understand
the views of their residents which we will launch later in the year.
A positive sign for us is that 93 per cent are aware of the LGA's communications
support offer - up 10 per cent from last year. In the last year, we’ve supported more
than 50 councils. Events, seminars and case studies are seen as the most useful
ways we provide support and we will continue to work with councils,
LGcommunications, the PRCA other professional bodies and the private sector to
provide more of these resources. We will also add new features, such as our ‘Devo
comms resource’ to our online resource.
Our approach, using and learning from the best communicators and teams means
we can gather and share the very best ideas and thinking across local government
and beyond.
It's been a challenging few years for local government communicators and the
pace of change looks set to continue. We will use the results of this survey to
inform the support we offer and over the next 12 months, we are planning to:








Produce a best practice guide for councils seeking to develop a new place
brand
Work with LGcommunications, other professional bodies and the private
sector to provide a programme of events and seminars covering a range of
relevant topics
Create an online resource on communicating devolution to key stakeholders
Support councils through the delivery of communications health checks and
strategic peer reviews
Assist councils looking to share services with other councils and other parts
of the public sector through the sharing of best practice
Help local authorities looking to generate income to channel this resource
into communicating with residents about frontline services
Produce a best practice guide for councils seeking to establish the views of
their residents and how they prefer to be communicated with through
surveys
Run a follow up Heads of Communications survey
We welcome your feedback on how we can continue to improve our support to
councils.
David Holdstock
Director of Communications
Local Government Association
3
Summary
Background
Earlier this year the LGA conducted a survey of council Heads of Communications
and achieved a response rate of 53 per cent. The purpose of the survey was to
gather information on the current state of local government communications at the
local authority level and to enable benchmarking on issues such as the size and
structure of communications teams, budgets and future strategies.
The survey asked about a range of topics including length of service within local
government, membership of professional organisations, up-coming priorities and
where Heads of Communication reported to. It also explored issues including the
types of surveys and campaigns that communications teams conduct, the channels
they use and the level of awareness that Heads of Communication had about the
support available from the LGA. A copy of the survey questionnaire is available in
Annex B.
Key findings

Heads of Communications in respondent councils had been working in local
government communications for an average of 11 years;

A third (31 per cent) of respondents were members of LGcommunications, 17
per cent were members of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR),
three per cent were members of the Public Relations Consultants Association
(PRCA) and a tenth (11 per cent) belonged to other professional organisations;

On average, 8.8 FTE staff were working in corporate communications teams in
respondent authorities;

52 per cent of respondents had staff performing core communications functions
in other parts of their council, with the average number of staff involved in this
being 2.7 FTEs;

72 per cent of respondent Heads of Communications reported to a service head
or director and a quarter (25 per cent) reported to the chief executive;

A third (34 per cent) of Heads of Communications in respondent councils sit on
their council’s corporate/senior management team or equivalent;

The average non-staffing budget for corporate communications was c£125,000
and it ranged from c£51,000 in shire districts to c£368,000 in shire counties;
4

Almost all corporate communications teams in respondent councils covered
media relations (99 per cent), reputation management (95 per cent), campaign
and marketing (94 per cent) and internal communications (93 per cent);

39 per cent of respondent councils will have their non-staffing budgets reduced
in 2016/17. The proportion facing reductions was lowest for shire districts at 18
per cent and highest among unitary authorities at 71 per cent;

61 per cent of respondent councils were planning measures to make savings or
generate income in 2016/17. Half (51 per cent) were planning efficiency savings
and just over a half (53 per cent) were planning to generate income;

14 per cent carried advertising on their website/online as a source of income
generation, a third (33 per cent) of these said that it met their expectations as a
revenue stream and source of income;

16 per cent of respondents shared or pooled staff with other organisations, this
was mostly other local authorities;

Just over a quarter (28 per cent) of respondents in councils where a combined
authority has been, or is about to be created, would provide its communications
service by sharing responsibility amongst the councils making up the combined
authority. Half (51 per cent) did not know how it would be provided;

70 per cent of respondents believed that the creation of combined authorities
and the devolution agenda would lead to more sharing of resources between
council communications teams;

65 per cent of respondents produced a council magazine/newsletter. Almost
half (47 per cent) of these produced it on a quarterly basis and a fifth (21 per
cent) produced it three times year;

Almost half (48 per cent) of respondents provide an email subscription service
for residents and an average of nine per cent of the local population had signed
up for the service. 27 per cent plan to introduce a service in the next 12 months;

56 per cent of respondent councils conduct a residents' or reputational survey,
half (51 per cent) used an independent polling company while 42 per cent did it
in-house. 35 per cent of those not conducting one gave expense as the main
reason;

Just over two fifths (42 per cent) of respondents were running campaigns, most
commonly relating to budget/spending, reputation and community engagement;

60 per cent of respondents indicated council reputation as one of their two main
communications priorities, just over two fifths (43 per cent) indicated economic
5
development and 37 per cent indicated communications and council budget
reductions;

93 per cent of respondents were aware of the LGA’s offer of communications
support to its member councils;

The types of communications support chosen by respondents as being most
useful over the next twelve months were events/seminars (46 per cent), case
studies (44 per cent), bespoke support via email/telephone (31 per cent) and
one-day health-check of their communications (26 per cent).
6
Methodology
The survey was conducted online via a link sent to Heads of Communications, or
their nearest equivalent, in councils with LGA membership. This was followed up
with a reminder message a few weeks later. Of the 350 councils, 26 have a shared
Head of Communications, so for these only one response was requested or
accepted. This reduced the potential number of participants to 337. Overall, a total
of 177 took part in the survey, giving a response rate of 53 per cent. A breakdown
of responses by council type shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Responses by council type
Number
Shire County
13
Shire District
96
London Borough
21
Metropolitan District
17
Unitary Authority
30
Total
177
Per cent
48
54
68
49
54
53
Base = 337
It should be noted that some respondents did not answer all of the questions in the
survey so within this report some of the findings are based on different numbers of
respondents, this number (the base) is shown below all tables.
Where the response base is less than 50, figures can be skewed due to the small
sample size and care should be taken when interpreting percentages, as small
differences can seem magnified. Therefore, where this is the case in this report,
absolute numbers are reported alongside the percentage values.
Throughout the report percentages in figures and tables may add to more than 100
per cent due to rounding.
7
Survey Findings
The Heads of Communications, or their equivalents, were asked how long they had
worked in local government communications. Overall, the average number of years
was 11 and the median number was 10. Those in shire counties had been in local
government for the fewest number of years with an average of nine and a median
of eight. In both shire and metropolitan districts the average was 10 years and the
median was nine. Among respondents in unitary authorities the average was 11
and the median was 10, while those in London boroughs had the longest average
and median at 12 years each. A breakdown of these findings is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Years worked in local government
communications by type of authority
Average
Median
Shire County
9
8
Shire District
10
9
London Borough
12
12
Metropolitan District
10
9
Unitary Authority
11
10
All
11
10
Base = 174
When asked whether they belonged to a professional organisation a third (31 per
cent) said they were members of LGcommunications, 17 per cent were members
of CIPR, three per cent were members of PRCA and 11 per cent belonged to other
professional organisations. A quarter (27 per cent) did not belong to a professional
organisation as shown in Table 3. Those who reported that they were members of
other organisations were asked to specify these, a list of the answers provided is
shown in Table A1 in Annex A.
Table 3: Membership of professional organisations
Number
Per cent
LGcommunications
54
31
PRCA
5
3
CIPR
30
17
Other organisation
20
11
None
48
27
Base = 134 Note: 19 belonged to more than one organisation.
Respondents were asked how many full-time equivalent (FTE) staff were working
in their council’s corporate communications team performing core functions at 1st
February 2016. Core functions were defined as:





media relations;
campaigns and marketing;
reputation management;
internal communications;
print/design; and
8

web/digital communications.
The overall average number of staff was 8.8 FTEs and the median number was 5.5
FTEs. Shire counties had the highest number of staff with an average of 20.8 FTEs
and a median of 21 FTEs while shire districts had the lowest with an average of 3.5
FTEs and a median of 3 FTEs. It should be noted that not all teams deliver all the
core functions listed above, and that core functions may not encompass the same
activities in all councils. As a guide, the overall ratio of staff to population was 0.43
FTEs per ten thousand population, this figure ranged from 0.28 FTES in shire
counties to 0.68 FTEs in unitary authorities. A complete breakdown of these figures
is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Numbers and ratio of staff employed in councils’
corporate communications teams at 1st February 2016
Average
Median
Ratio*
Shire County
20.8
21.0
0.28
Shire District
3.5
3.0
0.32
London Borough
15.6
13.0
0.60
Metropolitan District
16.7
14.0
0.53
Unitary Authority
11.4
9.3
0.68
All
8.8
5.5
0.43
Base = 175 *Average per 10,000 population
Around half (52 per cent) of respondents reported that staff in other parts of their
council were performing core communications functions. On average the number
of staff was 2.7 FTE and most were based in the web team. Other teams where
they were based included leisure/tourism, customer services, business support,
adoption and fostering, waste and recycling, and economic development. A full
breakdown of the number and percentage of councils where staff in other teams
are performing core communications functions and the average numbers of staff is
shown in Table 5 and a list of the teams where they are based is shown in Table
A2 in Annex A.
Table 5: Councils with staff in other teams performing core
communications functions and average FTE
Number
Shire County
Shire District
London Borough
Metropolitan District
Unitary Authority
All
7
47
12
8
18
92
Per cent
54
49
57
47
60
52
Average
FTE
5.9
1.9
3.4
3.4
3.6
2.7
Base = 177
Almost three-quarters of respondents (72 per cent) reported to a service head or
director while a quarter (25 per cent) reported to the chief executive or equivalent
and three per cent had another officer as their line manager. These findings are
9
shown in Table 6 and a list of the head/directors and other line managers that are
reported to is shown in Table A3 in Annex A.
Table 6: Heads of Communications’ line managers
Number
Per cent
Chief executive
41
25
Service head/director
119
72
Other
9
3
Base = 165
A third (34 per cent) of Heads of Communications sit on their council’s corporate/
senior management team or equivalent. This proportion was highest for those in
metropolitan districts where almost half (47 per cent) of those responded sit on
their corporate/senior management team or equivalent and lowest for those in
London boroughs where it was a fifth (21 per cent). There is a full breakdown of
these findings in Table 7.
Table 7: Percentage of Heads of Communications
sitting on councils’ corporate/senior management
team or equivalent.
Number
Per cent
Shire County
3
23
Shire District
34
37
London Borough
4
21
Metropolitan District
8
47
Unitary Authority
9
31
All
58
34
Base = 169
The overall average non-staffing budget for corporate communications, covering
the core functions as outlined above, was £125,202 and the median was £55,000.
These figures ranged from an average £50,976 and a median of £32,895 in shire
districts to an average of £368,222 and a median of £250,000 in shire counties. A
full breakdown of these findings is shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Non-staffing budget for corporate
communications
Average
Median
Shire County
368,222
250,000
Shire District
50,976
32,895
London Borough
176,173
200,000
Metropolitan District
248,346
175,000
Unitary Authority
165,575
100,000
All
125,202
55,000
Base = 110
Almost all corporate communications teams in respondent councils covered media
relations (99 per cent) as well as reputation management (95 per cent), campaign
10
and marketing (94 per cent) and internal communications (93 per cent). A smaller
proportion delivered web/digital communications (86 per cent) and print/design (77
per cent) while the services delivered by the lowest proportion were commercial
marketing (38 per cent), public affairs (36 per cent), policy (25 per cent) and other
services (15 per cent). These findings are shown in Table 9 and a list of the other
services provided is shown in Table A4 of Annex A.
Table 9: Services delivered by corporate
communications teams
Number
Media relations
167
Reputation management
160
Campaign and marketing
159
Internal communications
157
Web/digital communications
145
Print/design
130
Commercial Marketing
64
Public Affairs
61
Policy
43
Other
25
Per cent
99
95
94
93
86
77
38
36
25
15
Base = 169
Overall, 39 per cent of respondents will have their non-staffing budgets reduced in
2016/17. The proportion of councils facing budget reductions was lowest for shire
districts at 18 per cent and highest among unitary authorities at 71 per cent. There
is a full breakdown of these figures shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Councils’ whose non-staffing budgets are
being reduced in 2016/17
Number
Per cent
Shire County
8
62
Shire District
16
18
London Borough
13
68
Metropolitan District
8
47
Unitary Authority
20
71
All
65
39
Base = 165 of which 18 answered ‘don’t know’
Overall, 61 per cent of respondents were planning at least one measure to either
make savings or to generate income in corporate communications in 2016/17. Just
over a half (53 per cent) were planning to generate income, most commonly
through advertising revenue or by providing services commercially. Half (51 per
cent) were planning efficiency savings, a quarter (25 per cent) were planning staff
reductions, 10 per cent were planning to share staff with other councils and four
per cent were planning to share staff with other public bodies such as the NHS.
Nine per cent had other measures planned and just over a fifth (22 per cent) were
not planning to undertake any savings or income generation measures. A full
breakdown of these findings is shown in Table 11 and a list of the income
11
generation plans and other savings measures is shown in Table A5 of Annex A.
Table 11: Measures planned to make savings or to generate
more income in corporate communications in 2016/17
Number
Per cent
Efficiency savings
86
51
Staff reductions
43
25
Sharing staff with other councils
17
10
Sharing staff with other public bodies
6
4
Other
16
9
Income generation
90
53
Not planning any of these measures
37
22
Base = 169
Following on from this, respondents were asked whether they carried advertising
on their website or other digital channels as a source of income generation. Just 14
per cent said they did. Those who had used it were then asked whether it had met
their expectations as a revenue stream and source of income. A third (33 per cent)
said it had, half (50 per cent) said it had not and 17 per cent did not know. Most
stated that the level of internal resource required to set up and maintain this activity
varied between none and very little, particularly for those who had used the Council
Advertising Network to manage it for them. When asked whether they had joined
with other councils to carry advertising, one third (33 per cent) had while two thirds
(67 per cent) had not. These findings are shown in Table 12 and a list of the
answers relating to the internal resource required is shown in Table A7 in Annex A.
Table 12: Advertising on council websites or other digital channels as a
source of income generation
Had it met their expectations
as a revenue stream and
source of income?
Number
Per Cent
Yes
8
33
No
12
50
Don’t know
4
17
Had they joined with other
local authorities to carry
advertising?
Number
Per Cent
8
33
16
67
-
Base = 24 These figures should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size
Sixteen per cent of respondents shared or pooled staff with other organisations,
this was mostly other local authorities, but also included NHS/CCGs, a LEP, a local
housing association and a national park. A breakdown of these findings is shown in
Table 13 and a list of the other public bodies who councils share staff with is shown
in Table A8 in Annex A.
Table 13: Whether councils sharing or pooling staff with
other organisations
Number
Per cent
Yes, with another council
17
10
Yes, with NHS/CCG organisation
5
3
12
Yes, with a LEP
Yes, with another public body
No
Don't know
1
3
137
2
1
2
83
1
Base = 165
Half (51 per cent) of respondents in councils where a combined authority has been,
or is about to be created, did not know how they would provide its communications
service. Just over a quarter (28 per cent) said it would be by sharing responsibility
amongst the councils making up the combined authority, 17 per cent said it would
be by creating a dedicated communications team and one per cent would use an
agency or other provider. Eleven per cent answered that they would provide it in
other ways. There is a breakdown of these findings shown in Table 14 and a list of
the other ways that it would be provided is shown in Table A9 in Annex A.
Table 14: How a communications service will be provided
for a combined authority
Number Per cent
Sharing responsibility amongst the councils
20
28
making up the combined authority
Creating a dedicated communications team
12
17
Using an agency or other provider
1
1
Don't know
37
51
Other
8
11
Base = 72
When asked whether they believed that the creation of combined authorities and
the devolution agenda would lead to more sharing of resources between council
communications teams seven in ten (70 per cent) respondents said they did, eight
per cent did not and just over a fifth (22 per cent) didn’t know. These findings are
shown in Table 15.
Table 15: Combined authorities and the devolution
agenda will lead to more sharing of resources
Number
Per cent
Yes
116
70
No
14
8
Don’t know
36
22
Base = 166
Two-thirds (65 per cent) of respondents produced a council magazine/newsletter.
Almost half (47 per cent) of these produced it on a quarterly basis, a fifth (21 per
cent) produced it three times year, 18 per cent bi-annually, four per cent every two
months, three per cent monthly and two per cent fortnightly. No councils produced
their magazine/newsletter on a weekly basis but two per cent produced it at other
frequencies. A breakdown of these findings is shown in Table 16 and a list of the
other frequencies is shown in Table A10 in Annex A.
13
Table 16: Frequency of council magazine/newsletter
Number
Per cent
Once a week
Every fortnight
2
2
Once a month
3
3
Every two months
4
4
Every quarter
48
47
Three times a year
22
21
Bi-annual
19
18
Once a year
3
3
Other frequency
2
2
Base = 103
Almost half (48 per cent) of respondents provide an email subscription service for
residents to sign up to for updates about council services while just over a quarter
(27 per cent) plan to introduce a service in the next 12 months. In councils with a
subscription service an average of nine per cent of the local population had signed
up for the service. In London boroughs the proportion was double the national rate,
at 18 per cent while in counties it was much lower, at three per cent. There are full
breakdowns of these findings shown in Table 17 and Table 18Table 19.
Table 17: Provision of email service for residents to
subscribe to for updates about council services
Number Per cent
Yes
80
48
No
41
25
No, but planning to in the next 12 months
44
27
Base = 165
Table 18: Percentage of the local population who
subscribe to email update service
Per cent
Shire County
3
Shire District
6
London Borough
18
Metropolitan District
10
Unitary Authority
9
All
9
Base = 57
Over half (56 per cent) of respondents conduct a residents' or reputational survey
to determine how they access news about their council and their satisfaction with it.
Of these, 42 per cent conducted their survey every two years, a third (33 per cent)
did it annually, seven per cent did it every three years, another seven per cent did it
on an ad hoc basis, three per cent conducted it on an ongoing basis and two per
cent did it quarterly. A further six per cent of respondents conducted their survey at
another frequency. There is a breakdown of these findings in Table 19 and a list of
the other frequencies is shown in Table A11 in Annex A
14
Table 19: Frequency of residents' or reputational survey
Number
Per cent
Yearly
30
33
Biennially
38
42
Every three years
6
7
Ad hoc
6
7
Ongoing
3
3
Other frequency
5
6
Base = 90
In half (51 per cent) of the councils who conducted a survey it was carried out by
an independent polling company. In 42 per cent the survey was carried out by the
council itself while in seven per cent it was done by another organisation. These
findings are shown in Table 20 and list of the other organisations used is shown in
Table A12 in Annex A.Table A12: Other organisations who carry out residents' or
reputational surveys
Table 20: Heads of Communications’ line managers
Number
Per cent
Independent polling company
45
51
Your council
37
42
Other
6
7
Base = 88
The most common method used to carry out the survey was online, used by 45 per
cent of respondents. A third (34 per cent) used postal surveys, a quarter (26 per
cent) used telephone surveys, 21 per cent used citizens’ juries/panels and face-toface surveys were used by a fifth (20 per cent). A further three per cent used other
types of survey, one of which was a combination of online and telephone, and two
per cent did not know which method was used. A full breakdown of these findings
is shown in Table 21 and a list of the other survey methods is shown in Table A13
in Annex A.
Table 21: Types of residents' or reputational survey
Number
Per cent
Online
41
45
Postal
31
34
Telephone
24
26
Citizens' jury/panel
19
21
Face-to-face
18
20
Other
3
3
Don’t know
2
2
Base = 92
Respondents from councils who did not conduct a residents' or reputational survey
were asked to indicate the main reason why they did not carry one out, just over a
third (35 per cent) said that it was too expensive, just under a quarter (23 per cent)
15
said that there was no senior support for it within the council and nine per cent said
that they did not think it was a worthwhile exercise. A third of respondents indicated
that there was another reason for not doing a survey. These included monitoring
resident satisfaction through smaller surveys and being unclear about how or when
they will run the next survey. These findings are shown in Table 22 and a list of the
other reason for not conducting a survey is shown in Table A14 in Annex A.
Table 22: Reasons for not conducting a residents' or
reputational survey
Number Per cent
Would like to but it is too expensive
24
35
No senior support within the council
16
23
Do not think it is a worthwhile exercise
6
9
Other
23
33
Base = 69
Just over two fifths (42 per cent) of respondents were running campaigns aimed at
improving the reputation of their council and its services, the most common themes
for these were budget/spending, council reputation and community engagement,
which were all being targeted by 18 per cent of councils. These were followed by
environment/waste and recycling targeted by 15 per cent, economic development/
regeneration and social care, both targeted by 13 per cent, and dog fouling/litter,
health and transport all of which were targeted by five per cent of respondents and
two fifths (40 per cent) were running campaigns covering other themes. A full
breakdown of these findings is shown in Table 1 and a list of the other campaign
themes is shown in Table A15 in Annex A.
Table 23: Themes of campaigns aimed at improving the
reputation of councils and their services
Number Per cent
Budget/spending
10
18
Community engagement
10
18
Reputation
10
18
Environment/Waste and recycling
8
15
Economic development/Regeneration
7
13
Social Care services/recruitment
7
13
Dog fouling/litter
3
5
Health
3
5
Transport
3
5
Other
22
40
Base = 55
Respondents were asked to identify two main priorities for communications in their
council. Three fifths (60 per cent) cited council reputation and just over two fifths
(43 per cent) picked economic development, making these the most commonly
chosen priorities. These were followed by communications and budget reductions
(37 per cent), marketing income-generating services (20 per cent), place branding
16
(19 per cent) and other priorities (14 per cent). These findings are shown in Table
24 and a list of the other priorities specified is shown in Table A16 in Annex A.
Table 24: Main priorities for communications
Number Per cent
Council reputation
101
60
Economic development
72
43
Communications and budget reductions
61
37
Marketing income-generating services
34
20
Place branding
31
19
Other
24
14
Base = 167
Most respondents (93 per cent) were aware that the LGA offers communications
support to its member councils and when asked to indicate which types of support
they would find most useful over the next twelve months almost half (46 per cent)
said events/seminars. Forty-four per cent said case studies, a third (31 per cent)
wanted bespoke support via email/telephone when required, a quarter (26 per
cent) would like a one-day health-check of their council's communications and a
fifth (22 per cent) wanted help to build contacts with other councils. Seventeen per
cent of respondents felt that crisis communication support would be most valuable,
15 per cent opted for a two or three day review and 13 per cent answered that they
would like a visit from a member of the LGA communications team. Options other
than those listed in the question were selected by four per cent of respondents
while seven per cent indicated that they would not find any support useful over the
next twelve months. These findings are shown in Table 25 and the other types of
support specified are shown in Table A17 in Annex A
Table 25: Types of communications support councils
would find most useful over the next twelve months
Number Per cent
Events/seminars
75
46
Case studies
72
44
Bespoke support via email/telephone
50
31
when required
One-day health-check of your council's
43
26
communications
Contact building with other councils
36
22
Crisis communications support
27
17
Two- or three-day strategic review of
25
15
your council's communications
Visit from a member of the LGA
22
13
communications team
Other
7
4
None of the above
11
7
Base = 163
17
Just under seven in ten (69 per cent) of respondents were willing to be involved in
the LGA's pool of communications professionals to support councils which help to
carry out peer reviews etc.
Additional comments received included suggestions for support, further information
on areas covered by the survey, and information about changes and restructures
within the respondent’s own councils. These are shown in Table A18 in Annex A.
18
Annex A
Answers provided to open text questions
Table A1: Other professional organisations
Chartered Institute of Marketing (x 12)
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (x 2)
About to join CIPR (Chartered Institute of Public Relations)
BCS (British Computer Society)
GCS (Government Communication Service)
Institute of Directors
NCTJ (National Council for the Training of Journalists )
RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and
Commerce)
SOCITM (Society of Information Technology Management)
Table A2: Other teams where staff are performing core communications
functions
Web/ICT (x39)
Leisure (x 14)
Customer services (x 10)
Marketing in other teams (x 10)
Corporate Services and HR (x 7)
Environmental Services (x 7)
Social care (x 7)
Regeneration/Economic Development (x 6)
Print and design (x 4)
Tourism (x 4)
Adult education (x 2)
Housing (x 2)
Regulatory Services (x 2)
Transport (x 2)
Apprenticeships
Community engagement, consultation
Direct services
Due to the size of the authority many different members of staff contribute to
various communications tasks.
19
Fire and rescue
Marketing teams
Planning
Press & PR
Principally websites/social media/field marketing/service-specific internal
comms, as part of wider service-specific roles
Support services
Supporting change projects.
Table A3: Heads of communications’ line managers
Service head/director
Assistant/Deputy Chief Executive (x 15)
Corporate Services (x 13)
Strategy/Policy (x 12)
Customer Services (x 7)
Human Resources (x 7)
Legal Services (x 5)
People (x 5)
Communities (x 3)
Unspecified (x 28)
Assistant Director of Policy, Performance and Communications
Assistant Director Organisational Change
Assistant Treasurer-Service Delivery
Chief Communications Officer
Corporate Director for Resources
Director of Business Strategy and Planning
Director of Central Services
Director of Commercial and Change
Director of Engagement, Organisation Design and Development
Director of Governance
Director of Performance, Policy and Partnerships
Director of Professional Services
Divisional director of delivery, communications and political governance
Head of Business Development and Improvement
Head of Families and Communities
Head of Partnerships & Community Engagement
Head of Transformation
Head of Transformation
20
Strategic Director Resources
Other line manager
No direct line management. I work with CEO, Directors, the other ADs and
Council Members
service manager (who reports to exec head, who reports to CExec)
Team Manager (responsible for comms, customer services, projects and
business development)
Third Tier Manager who reports to Head of Service
Table A4: Other services delivered by corporate communications teams
Social media (x7)
Consultation (x 4)
Events (x 4)
Photography/video (x 4)
Advertising (x 2)
Commissioning print and design (x 2)
Mayor's office support (x 2)
Research (x 2)
Equalities
Tourism
Translation & interpretation services
Venue management
Table A5: Other measures planned to make savings in corporate
communications in 2016/17
Savings measures
Cutting
Cutting budget to corporate magazine (external)
Delivering marketing and comms for other organisations
Everything is on the table
I am the first part of a restructure to build a best in class comms function
Increased use of digital / email channels
Moving magazine online
Our marketing and communications teams have been merged to help to
ensure that we work more efficiently
Providing graphic design for other organisations
Reducing editions of council magazine and replacing with digital channels
Savings through natural wastage
21
Small increase in income to be generated by advertising
transformation of customer service delivery
We already have advertising income of £9.2 per year which supplements the
comms budget
We are restructuring to get rid of general marketing comms roles (all PO4)
and having staff on different grades - some higher and more lower. This
allows us to hire more specialist staff in different roles. Please note that our
budget is likely to increase in 2016/17 following an independent growth
commission report which said we needed to invest in this service.
We have had a single shared comms team between two councils since 2012
Table A6: Income generation plans in corporate communications for
2016/17
Advertising - council publications, website, posters and sponsorship (x 35)
Providing services to other organisations (x 25)
Providing print and design services (x 17)
Providing services to schools (x 10)
Providing filming/location services (x 7)
Marketing services and advertising (x 4)
Providing training (x 4)
Advertising options and use of public assets
Already have an income expectation of £250,000. Other income to be gained
from non-core activities such as events, town centre promotional space.
As itemed above, but I will be considering sharing staff - conversations
started at <organisation name> Comms level
Business Development has been added to my role where I will work with other
departments to identify new income generation potential and help increase
income for some non-mandatory services we already
Digital related initiatives
Events
Filming and photography through our events management process.
investment in income generating property
Making sure activity to public sector partners is properly charged.
Marketing emails
New satellite websites, more social media promotions
Primarily by channelling all comms activity through corporate team. Also
looking for additional service level agreements internally
Some internal recharging of services. Formalising arrangements for charges
academy schools for communications supporting. Picking up leave cover for
partner organisations. Charging projects for we team design time
Sports services - e.g. promotion of swimming lessons at leisure centres
22
Supporting services across the council to increase income - for example from
letting of property
Using an external company to source advertising for our residents’ newsletter.
Expected to bring in between £2,000 and £4,000 a year.
Using the Council and Borough assets - vehicles, digital screens in the
community etc
We are just about to pilot a Commercial Development Unit
We have also hired a commercial manager.
We will seek income for events. The city magazine is a partnership funded
publication. We will seek further partners.
Working with private sector partners to develop a portfolio of advertising
hoarding sites using council owned land.
Table A7: Internal resource required to set up and maintain advertising
None (x 4)
None. We go through the Council Advertising Network.
Minimal/very little (x 5)
Extremely minimal - managed via Capacity Grid
It has been minimal as the Council Advertising Network look after this on our
behalf.
Minimal - have used a third party to manage the advertising
Minimal - we have used Council Advertising Network (capacity grid)
0.5 FTE
0.6 FTE
About two hours a week
Has been easily integrated into an existing role
Income generation is managed by the council's marketing and business
development function, which sits outside marketing and corporate
communications but works closely with us. Advertising sales are handled by
this team and require part of a post to maintain.
Less than a week’s work in total, shared across three officers.
Organised through CAN about to launch
Part of existing roles
This has been organised by our IT section and so I'm not sure of the level of
resource required.
Table A8: Other public bodies with whom councils share or pool staff
Council trading company
Housing association
National park
23
Table A9: Other ways a communications service will be provided for
combined authorities
A lead officer has been appointed to support the combined authority, they are
seconded
Combination of using LEP Communications Team and sharing responsibility
between local authority communications teams
Combined authority comms team in transition; new MD of CA - comms
resource to be determined
LAs would continue to deliver comms/marketing activities separately, whilst
continuing to work in partnership
Proposal is dedicated comms team on secondment from participating
authorities
Retaining sovereign comms functions
We are a pilot accountable care organisation, currently developing a business
case to see whether this should go ahead. At this stage, all the heads of
comms have come together to deliver the comms required (led by the
foundation trust) but if it does get the go-ahead in the summer it will need its
own dedicated resource. Saying that, all the partners work well together.
We are combining services not entire authority so a dedicated comms
function is being developed to exist as part of a core group of council
services. Undoubtedly we will need to work in a different way with the sharing
authorities. Currently working through this (only just in post).
Table A10: Other frequencies for council magazines/newspapers
5 times a year in digital only format
Councillors still to decide publishing programme for next year
Table A11: Other frequencies for residents' or reputational surveys
Infrequently!
One off survey conducted by LGA in 2015
Part of a wider survey which takes place every 4 years and asks residents
about all aspects of the council
Undertook last year but no plan to repeat
We did one in autumn 2015 and are likely to do it yearly or biennially (tbc)
Table A12: Other organisations who carry out residents' or reputational
surveys
Consultation partnership
Currently going out to procurement as our previous provider, TNS, no longer
provides a comparative data survey with other London boroughs
24
GovMetric
LGA
We are just introducing this and looking at options, I have only been in post 6
months and this was never done previously.
Work with Stratford District Council's consultation team
Table A13: Other types of residents' or reputational survey
Citizens panel plus up to 150 households selected at random
Not sure yet.
Online and phone this year - online only last year
Residents’ magazine
Still to be agreed for this year
Table A14: Other reasons for not conducting residents' or reputational
survey
Discontinued due to cost; replaced by increased project-specific consultation
We have a residents panel established
We have a residents e newsletter
We run satisfaction surveys via CRM / Customer Service
We currently have no budget for a reputation survey, but we carry out
research and consultation on all communications activity and use the insight
from that to inform our work
Budget withdrawn to do this
Have done in the past and will do in the future but not done annually.
I have a proposal currently being considered to do this.
I'm new-ish here and about to introduce one
Planned in the next 12 months
Too expensive but will be possible in the next 12 months due to ICT changes
we are looking to soon
We will be in the future
We have in the past but it is not a regular survey and I don't know when we
will be carrying out the next
DK
Not handled by communications
Not within my remit
This would be carried out by another unit, and has been done on a very
limited basis, with aspirations to do it more comprehensively
25
Table A15: Other campaign themes
Currently devising work plan for 16-17 with range of campaigns
Digitalisation - making most of technology
Transformation - improving efficiency
Doing services online E-Billing Report repairs online
Full Public Affairs programme
How to keep in touch Pride in Hertsmere
Launched a new campaign this month on plans to create a new smart and
responsive online service for residents, businesses and visitors, allowing them
to access council services anytime, anywhere.
More to <council name> This Winter campaign - highlights events, activities in
district plus <council name> services such as waste and recycling, parking
and winter health messages
No paid campaigns, but an overall focus on improving reputation of children's
safeguarding services, aligned to delivery of Ofsted improvement plan, and to
support recruitment of social workers; plus ongoing activity around engaging
public and managing expectations, particularly around changes to services
Ongoing campaign to highlight key services
ongoing campaign to promote the range of services provided - using social
media, bin lorry sides etc.
Preparing for the future
Provision of services.
Safer <council name> and about to launch new campaign.
Decentralised Energy Network
<council name> is changing Leisure services
Teacher recruitment and many more
This is quite general in as much as any communications plan involves this
element by alerting residents to our services / news etc.
Variety. Covering values and vision. Tourism
Via social media and free bus shelter and other Council asset advertising
We are about to embark on a campaign to promote use of e-services. Also
running on-going campaigns to promote safety in the workplace
We are running a media campaign on street pride and enforcement but this
will be escalated into a full blown campaign in 2016/17. Our residents' survey
shows this is the key reputational issue for the council.
We plan to develop such a campaign in 2016 - we have yet to scope it.
Table A16: Other main priorities for communications
1. Quality control of information presented to committees; 2. Simplified
website updated more regularly.
All
26
Based on our Council Plan priorities
Cost reducing activity e.g. foster care recruitment; prevention services
Digital strategy and digital communications
Ensuring a strategic approach is taken
Growth, budget, engagement
HS2
Improving the health our population
Income generation by direct Services we have kept out services in-house and
not commissioned out.
Informing residents of the services available to them and how to access them
Internal communications
Keeping residents informed about the Council and its services (x 2)
Local planning, housing, economy etc.
Marketing other services outside of the above
New Local Plan
Our agenda is around growth (hence place branding) but also supporting our
business goals - in particular civic pride (hence our street pride campaign and
support for our large festivals programme)
Our corporate and therefore communications priorities, which shape our
marketing framework, are education and inward investment
Pro-active, open and transparent communications
Regeneration
Resident behaviour change
Service uptake
Table A17: Other types of communications support
Best practice info particularly with behavioural change campaigns
Facilitated comms workshop with Executive Members to help shape our
reputation campaign
Information on national/international comms trends that could be adapted /
help inform comms plans/strategies
Online resources
Webinars, blogs
Table A18: Additional comments
Requests/Suggestions for support
A good way of support might be some regional/county workshops on specific
themes, aimed at local authorities PRs, to help develop skills and build better
networks (for example, East Anglia having a seminar/workshop looking at
devolution or crisis comms).
27
I believe we should share more campaigns for multi-use by different
authorities. <Council name> did this for a while but maybe it needs to sit
centrally with the LGA for it to be sustainable.
It would be helpful if the LGA could provide some toolkits around key national
campaigns. Or have a way of sharing comms plans on key campaigns, i.e. do
it online etc. Let’s be honest we very much mirror what each other does.
Would be interested in learning more about other LA's approached to
digitalisation of services and the associated engagement, communications
and marketing
Further information on areas covered by the survey
Although we don't carry out surveys formally we do monitor inbound comms
and assess and evaluate individual projects.
I don't communicate to enhance an organisation's reputation but to provide
information about what we can do for people (the end result may have an
impact on reputation, but that's not its prime purpose).
The non-staff budget does not give the full picture because of internal
recharging (x 2)
The question on the Combined Authority and sharing resources I wanted to
add that I think materials etc will be shared but not necessarily staff.
Changes within respondent councils
Communications is currently under review/restructuring (x 5)
I am a team of one at the moment, but following an LGA peer review last year,
I am recruiting for a comms officer at the moment.
The communication teams is being reduced over the coming year
We are still in restructure mode and trying to plan for the future. There is an
on-going challenge with strategy and planning that hopefully will be addressed
in the next 6-9 months.
Comments/suggestions on the survey
Found the web/digital comms references a bit tricky to answer as too generic:
my team now does much broader digital transformation too i.e. development
of end-to-end digital services, commissioning of new cross-Council
technology; as well as managing intranet, website content and digital
marketing etc. It might be interesting to explore whether other Heads of
Comms roles are expanding - my remit now covers Customer Experience
strategy, the cross-Council digital transformation programme outlined above,
plus the Complaints Team and FOI - i.e. a much broader remit than when I
joined the Council as Head of Comms 3 years ago!
Important to differentiate responses from councils which still have local
authority housing function - effectively two organisations to cover so resource
implication is huge.
Many of our priorities this year are set out in our city mayor's manifesto and
the plans of our service areas. These weren't listed as options in the question
about priorities. It would be helpful to have a section where we could include
details of the services we support as a unitary authority so that the number of
staff and structures could be compared to similar authorities. I have indicated
that we do not produce a civic magazine as our June edition will be our last.
We have steadily reduced the number of issues we produce from 12 issues
per year to four issues per year to three issues. Budget restraints have now
28
led to us discontinuing the magazine and we will be introducing an enewsletter for residents.
Only that you are asking about complex areas with many nuances and, while I
appreciate you want view from all heads of communications, the survey is a
slightly blunt instrument in gathering feedback. Many of your Y/N questions
actually have significant shades of grey within them and that won't be
reflected in your results.
Other comments
A core priority of mine as the newly recruited Senior Content &
Communications Manager is to maximise use of our owned channels and to
be more proactive in our media relations and reputation management. I am
using my experience from 20 years as a journalist in <organisation name>
and as a crisis communications advisor in the private sector to deliver this
change in emphasis in our communications
Professional Body membership - very expensive. I was a member of the CIPR
whilst completing a qualification with them and found it really useful but the
Council was not able to pay my ongoing membership fees so had to cancel it.
Mentoring for younger professionals would be helpful, as well as more
toolkits, monthly round of who has done good work this month etc.
29
Annex B
Survey form and notes of guidance
LGA HEADS OF COMMUNICATIONS SURVEY 2016
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. All responses will be treated
confidentially. Information will be aggregated, and no individual or authority will be
identified in any publications without your consent. Identifiable information may be
used internally within the LGA.
You can navigate through the questions using the arrows at the bottom of each
page. Use the back arrow at the bottom of the page if you wish to amend your
response to an earlier question.
If you stop before completing the survey, you can come back to this page using the
link supplied in the email and you will be able to continue where you left off. To
ensure your answers have been saved, click on the 'page forward' arrow at the
bottom of the page that you were working on before exiting.
If you have any queries about the survey, please contact
[email protected] (020 7664 3181).
Please complete the questionnaire by 24th March 2016.
Please amend your contact details as necessary, and add your job title if the box is
empty.
Name
Authority
Job title
Email
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Q1 - How many years have you worked in local government communications?
Years
Q2 - Are you a member of a professional organisation?
 Yes, I am a member of LGCommunications
 Yes, I am a member of PRCA
 Yes, I am a member of CIPR
 Yes, I am a member of another organisation (please specify)____________
 No, I am not
Q3 - How many staff were employed in your authority's corporate communications
team performing core functions at 1 February 2016?
30
Core functions are defined as media relations, campaigns and marketing,
reputation management, internal communications, print/design, and web/digital
communications. Please enter the number in full-time equivalent terms. If you do
not know, please enter DK.
FTE staff
Q4 - Are there other staff performing any of these core communications functions
in other parts of your authority (e.g. web, marketing teams)?
 Yes (please specify where)____________
 No
 Don't know
Q4a - If yes, please indicate how many staff were performing these
functions in other parts of the authority at 1 February 2016.
Please enter the number in full-time equivalent terms. If you do not know,
please enter DK.
FTE staff
Q5 - Who is your line manager?
 Chief executive (or equivalent)
 Service head/director (please specify)____________
 Other (please specify)____________
Q6 - Do you sit on your council's corporate/senior management team or
equivalent?
 Yes
 No
Q7 - What is your authority's total non-staffing budget for corporate
communications in 2015/16?
This covers core functions, defined as media relations, campaigns and marketing,
reputation management, internal communications, print/design, and web/digital
communications. If you do not know, please enter DK.
£
31
Q8 - Which services does your corporate communications team currently deliver?
Please tick all that apply.
 Media relations
 Campaign and marketing
 Reputation management
 Internal communications
 Print/design
 Web/digital communications
 Policy
 Public Affairs
 Commercial Marketing
 Other (please specify)____________
Q9 - Is your authority's non-staffing budget for corporate communications being
reduced in 2016/17?
 Yes
 No
 Don't know
Q10 - Are you planning any of the following measures to make savings, or planning
to generate more income, in corporate communications in 2016/17?
Please tick all that apply.
 Staff reductions
 Efficiency savings
 Sharing staff with other councils
 Sharing staff with other public bodies (e.g. NHS)
 Other (please specify)____________
 Other (please specify)____________
 Income generation
 I am not planning any of these measures
Q10a - If yes, please can you provide more information about how you
intend to generate income?
Q11 - Do you carry advertising on your website or other digital channels as a
source of income generation?
 Yes
 No
32
Q11a - If yes, has it met your expectations as a revenue stream and source
of income?
 Yes
 No
 Don't know
Q11b - What level of internal resource has been required to set up and
maintain this activity?
Q11c - Have you joined with other local authorities to carry advertising?
 Yes
 No
 Don't know
Q12 - Do you currently share or pool staff with other organisations?
 Yes (please specify organisations)____________
 No
 Don't know
Q13 - If a combined authority has been, or is about to be, created in your area,
how will it provide a communications service?
 Sharing responsibility amongst the councils making up the combined authority
 Creating a dedicated communications team
 Using an agency or other provider
 Don't know
 Other (please specify)____________
 Not applicable
Q14 - In light of the creation of combined authorities and the devolution agenda, do
you believe this will lead to more sharing of resources between council
communications teams?
 Yes
 No
 Don't know
33
Q15 - Do you produce a council magazine/newspaper?
 Yes
 No
Q15a - If yes, how frequently do you produce your council magazine/
newspaper?
 Once a week
 Every fortnight
 Once a month
 Every quarter
 Bi-annual
 Other (please specify)____________
Q15b - Do you provide an email service for residents to subscribe for
updates about council services?
 Yes
 No
 No, but planning to in the next 12 months
Q15c - How many subscribers do you currently have?
Please enter the exact number or your best estimate. If you have estimated
the number please indicate this by following it with the letter E. If you do not
know, please enter DK.
Subscribers ______________________________
Q16 - Do you currently conduct a residents' or reputational survey to determine
how they access news about your council and their satisfaction with it?
 Yes
 No
Q16a - If yes, how often do you carry out the survey?
 Yearly
 Biennially
 Other (please specify)____________
Q16b - Please indicate who carries out the survey.
 Independent polling company
 Your council
 Other (please specify)____________
34
Q16c - What form(s) does the survey take?
 Online
 Face-to-face
 Postal
 Citizens' jury/panel
 Other (please specify)____________
Q16d - If no, please indicate the main reason why you do not carry out a
residents' survey.
 Would like to but it is too expensive
 Do not think it is a worthwhile exercise
 No senior support within the council
 Other (please specify)____________
Q17 - Are you running any campaigns aimed at improving the reputation of your
council and the services it provides?
 Yes
 No
Q17a - If yes, could you provide detail please?
Q18 - Please indicate up to two main priorities for communications in your
authority.
 Council reputation
 Communications and budget reductions
 Place branding
 Economic development
 Marketing income-generating services (e.g. leisure, tourism)
 Other (please specify)____________
Q19 - Are you aware that the LGA offers communications support to its member
councils?
 Yes
 No
35
Q20 - What types of communications support would you find most useful over the
next twelve months?
Please tick up to three items.
 Bespoke support via email/telephone when required
 Case studies
 Crisis communications support (e.g. publication of serious case reviews)
 Visit from a member of the LGA communications team
 Contact building with other councils
 One-day health-check of your council's communications
 Two- or three-day strategic review of your council's communications
 Events/seminars
 Other (please specify)____________
 None of the above
Q21 - Would you be willing to be involved in the LGA's pool of communications
professionals to support councils? For example helping to carry out peer reviews
 Yes
 No
Q22 - Are you happy for your response to be shared with other local authorities on
request?
 Yes, on a named basis
 Yes, but only anonymously
 No
Q23 - Please add any other comments you have on the topics covered by this
survey.
The LGA is interested in seeing councils' organisation charts for corporate
communications - we would be grateful if you could separately email yours to
[email protected]
Thank you very much for your help.
36
Local Government Association
Local Government House
Smith Square
London SW1P 3HZ
Telephone 020 7664 3000
Fax 020 7664 3030
Email [email protected]
www.local.gov.uk
© Local Government Association, April 2016
For a copy in Braille, larger print or audio,
please contact us on 020 7664 3000.
We consider requests on an individual basis.