Jeff French writes: Does one Hug, Shove or Smack as well as Nudge?

There is an increasing debate about the various types of behaviour change that one can now use. Should one Nudge, Think or Steer, or look at a wider mix of interventions? Charlie Mansell at TCC has recently blogged about some of these.

To take the debate even further, here is a matrix that compares the level of active conscious decision with the nature of the choice architecture. It is very important to take account of both when designing an intervention.

Creating any new form of choice architecture needs to take account of how much the response to it will be conditioned by conscious and unconscious reactions.

As can be seen there are not just Nudges, but a far richer range of approaches that can be adopted in response to the deep insight one gathers in any change programme.

Professor Jeff French is a non-executive Director of The Campaign Company, a professor at Brunel University and a Fellow at Kings College University of London. He founded and established the National Social Marketing Centre in England and currently is chief executive of Strategic Social Marketing Ltd. He will be a keynote speaker at the 2nd World Social Marketing Conference in 2011 in Dublin

An oblique approach to behaviour change?

Behaviour change will continue to rise up the public policy agenda in the coming months. The publication of the Public Health White Paper in December is likely to lead a significant debate as to how government led behaviour change strategies should develop.

An important issue will be examining the effectiveness of different types of interventions.Often when we are considering behavioural interventions we are referring to targeting a segment of the population with a particular behaviour/challenge you want to influence e.g. anti obesity or smoking campaign. This, in many ways, is the ‘traditional’ way of delivering a behaviour change initiative. In this posting I’m contrasting this with another broad approach that will be explored in those debates: where a specific behavioural outcome is a corollary of the intervention. An example might be an intervention that aims to make a community more cohesive. This may achieve specific targets set for it such as improved local survey results on attitudes to migrants, but also may lead to a decline in crime and anti-social behaviour. Shades of the Big Society here perhaps?

The concept of Obliquity states that in a complex system, the factors involved are too numerous and too intricately connected to be easily understood. Therefore, just as we cannot be sure that long-range weather forecasts won’t be affected by some unforeseen influence, we cannot be sure that single-mindedly striving for a single behavioural change is most likely to lead to desired outcome. This approach has many similarities to the more formal discipline of Systems Thinking which seeks to understand how things influence each other within a whole.

For instance, if you are running a large IT department and your goal is to help your company be profitable, the best way to achieve that goal is to think holistically and consider both the business and the technical needs of your company’s employees. By concentrating on a goal that involves providing quality services — and not just focusing attention on narrow financial metrics like unit costs and return on investment your IT department will help employees work more efficiently and be more productive This in turn, will make the company more profitable.

This concept has been argued recently by the Economist John Kay for business management, but can also apply to behavioural interventions too. Indeed it may well be the experience of businesses, willing to experiment and take risks, that may point the way here. Indeed, those with some existing experience in Systems Thinking approaches will understand the approach very well.

Social Networks are at the heart of Obliquity.If we are to take a whole systems approach then perhaps the most crucial thing is to build the quality and quantity of social networks and their relationships rather than necessarily conduct a direct behavioural campaign. Both Nicholas Christakis and Mark Earls have written some of best descriptions of the importance of  these social networks and the wider impact they have.

Research I have previously blogged about  shows that simply building relationships is a positive factor in improving wellbeing as a report on recent research by Brigham Young University in the Guardian on 27 July explained. Targeting specific behaviours is of course still important, but in effect “immunising” communities from the worst outcomes of damaging behaviours might also prove effective.

We will explore how this approach might fit in with existing behaviour change strategies in a subsequent posting. Have a good bank holiday!

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

Does Social Mobility also need Social Marketing?

The recent appointment of former Labour Minster Alan Milburn to be an independent expert reviewer on government progress over social mobility is welcome as it creates the opportunity to build on the report he published under the previous government. Social mobility is an inter-generational issue that requires long-term commitment from governments, so the greater the consensus the more likelihood of some change occurring.

At the same time it also needs to be recognised that the financial situation means it will be more difficult to deliver expensive changes at least in the short-term, whatever the level of consensus.

Is there another approach that could be piloted as part of the review into this?

Behaviour Change theory often stresses the importance of the need to address issues around both personal “ability” and “motivation”. Naturally the focus in public policy in the last century or more has been on providing support to help people develop their “ability” (eg universal education) and of course there may be more that still needs to be done in this field as books such as the Spirit Level would argue. The Capabilities Approach of Amartya Sen also quite naturally focuses on tackling the inequalities around how the state or society contributes to ability.

However increasingly the other half of the behaviour change equation, “motivation”, is moving out of a past cul-de-sac of American business management and self-help books and is beginning to be recognised as a collective action problem for society to address. The argument is quite simple, and makes a practical use of the current understanding of how the brain works and the two independent systems within it: the emotional side and the rational reflective or conscious system. If we just invest in supporting abilities we do much to support the part of us that is the rational, however we then do not address the issues around our emotional selves.

Behaviour Change campaigns in areas like public health and the environment already recognise the importance of addressing both aspects of human behaviour.  However in other areas of public policy there is still the danger that however much we invest in improving “ability”, if we do not address the challenge of demotivation then the gap in a range of inequalities (from health to social mobility) could continue to widen.

Much of the early debate in this field has been around the Happiness agenda of Richard Layard, which has already led to much more resources being invested in support for talking therapies in mental health provision. Government’s have also increased the number of “personal advisors” and advocates in a number of fields from education to employment, but there has been no joined up approach to this across Government. The current financial situation may hold back further significant development here for the next few years.

How might one develop new approaches to supporting social mobility in the short-term?

One approach for future pilots might be to draw from the specific field of social marketing within behaviour change. Before one can develop new proposals for intervention, there needs to be a gathering of insight using newer forms of segmentation that give a greater understanding of levels of motivation and self-efficacy within the community. Only then can more targeted interventions be delivered to the right people, to enable motivations to be supported that then make the important continuing investment into developing ability all the more effective.

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

Should one “Nudge”, “Think” or “Steer”? It’s a lot more than that!

Former New Statesman editor Peter Wilby writing in the Guardian yesterday, produced a critical piece on the use of Nudges in public policy. He described authors Thaler and Sustein’s “libertarian paternalism”  as bearing “the same theological relationship to Friedmanite economics (Milton Friedman was also a Chicago professor) as intelligent design does to creationism”.

The danger with this critique is that Nudges, which are a tool to change the “choice architecture“(eg change the order of the food counter to emphasise salads over sweets) are then characterised as being purely something related to a single political philosophy (ie Libertarian Paternalism). Perceiving a behavioural tool in partisan terms could lead to it being discounted by the other side in any political debate.

This would be a tragedy as the opportunity to secure positive social outcomes in areas where there is wide political agreement (reducing poor health or education outcomes) could be weakened. Hopefully the debate around the forthcoming Public Health White Paper and the outcome of Graham Allen’s Early Intervention Commission could lead to a recognition of sustained long-term action through a range of approaches including the use of Nudges.

Nudges are an approach where we are spared the cognitive effort of thinking too hard about the behaviour in question. As well as the political debate above,  others argue that behavioural approaches that make us debate or think more can also be effective. Matthew Taylor of the RSA now champions “Steer” and Professor Gerry Stoker says the alternative is to “Think“.

Who is right in this part of the debate?

The answer is that there is no magic bullet, just a wide choice in ammunition.

Context is also king and the social network that you are in really counts. What people around you do has a vast impact as Mark Earls, the author of Herd has recently written praising the work of Nicholas Christakis and his recent book Connected.

The recent Cabinet Office Mindspace report also shows the vast range of tools one can use in behavioural interventions.

The most important lesson from this research is to gather the deep information to ensure one uses the right mix of tools to deliver an effective intervention through a clear understanding of the context that existing behaviour operates within. So before deploying Nudge, Think, Steer and all the other one word behaviour change solutions that are on offer, the fundamental prior action is also one word – “Insight”!

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

Building better social networks – a business contribution to public health?

In his recent speech on Public Health, Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley set out his vision for a new Public Health Service. He was supportive of the initiatives like the Change4Life campaign but wanted to see it as a much more locally lead and much more a local social movement, perhaps contributing to the Big Society:

‘….we need a new approach. We have to make Change4life less a government campaign, more a social movement. Less paid for by government, more backed by business. Less about costly advertising, more about supporting family and individual responses.’

Responding to his announcements, some private businesses may wish to consider contributing to this as part of their Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda. However those companies will also be fully aware of the level of public scepticism over the offer of this help.

The Independent Newspaper on Thursday 9 July reported an example of the reaction from health campaigners to Lansley’s speech:

“Health organisations reacted with disbelief. Betty McBride, director of policy and communications at the British Heart Foundation, said: “We wait with bated breath for the fast food merchants, chocolate bar makers and fizzy drink vendors to beat a path to the public health door. Meanwhile, parents and children continue to be faced with the bewildering kaleidoscope of confusing food labels and pre-watershed junk food ads.

“Tam Fry, of the National Obesity Forum, said he was “horror-struck” at Mr Lansley’s remarks. “[This is] nothing other than a bare-faced request for cash from a rich food and drink industry to bail out a cash-starved Department of Health campaign. The quid pro quo is that the Department gives industry an assurance that there will be no regulation or legislation over its activities.

“What the UK desperately needs are people willing to stand up to the food and drink lobby, such as Michelle Obama is doing in her anti-obesity campaign in the US, rather than politicians rolling over on their backs in front of the lobbyists as is apparently happening here’

Business involvement may well be widely seen by the public in cynical terms as “guilt money”, and thus may even have negative marketing benefit for companies, putting them off from contributing to the public good.

Is there an alternative approach?

I think there is, based on new research in this field.

Recent research has shown that building relationships are vital to wellbeing as a report on recent research by Brigham Young University in the Guardian on 27 July explained:

“A life of booze, fags and slothfulness may be enough to earn your doctor’s disapproval, but there is one last hope: a repeat prescription of mates and good conversation.

“A circle of close friends and strong family ties can boost a person’s health more than exercise, losing weight or quitting cigarettes and alcohol, psychologists say.

“Sociable people seem to reap extra rewards from their relationships by feeling less stressed, taking better care of themselves and having less risky lifestyles than those who are more isolated, they claim.

“A review of studies into the impact of relationships on health found that people had a 50% better survival rate if they belonged to a wider social group, be it friends, neighbours, relatives or a mix of these.

“The striking impact of social connections on wellbeing has led researchers to call on GPs and health officials to take loneliness as seriously as other health risks, such as alcoholism and smoking.

“We take relationships for granted as humans,” said Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a psychologist at Brigham Young University in Utah. “That constant interaction is not only beneficial psychologically but directly to our physical health.”

What this implies is that a company working in food retailing may want to avoid directly funding nutrition or anti-obesity campaigns which might be seen as cynical or a conflict of interests. It is instead about companies building relationships and social networks and changing the  context through which behaviour happens, which then helps people make better informed personal choices.

Building deeper authentic relationships are exactly what business marketing and branding is all about nowadays. Constructing stronger social networks within poorer communities helps contribute to changing the contexts by which negative behaviours such as obesity develop and are reinforced. This creates levels of sustainability that can actually lead to increased profits as companies respond to the new or better behaviours that are developed and reinforced; and compared to the public sector have the market insight to respond to them more quickly and effectively.

As the Guardian report indicates, irrespective of the specific intervention, it is the social network itself that contributes to individual and community resilience and motivation. Thus focusing on the network building rather than the direct intervention could be better value for money for the public sector, but also for the private sector too. Indeed this more flexible approach is something the private sector might more easily deliver than a public sector, committed as it would be, to specific interventions and specific outcomes.

The private sector is also likely to understand this more easily as this approach to public policy is very similar to the national and local marketing campaigns that companies conduct anyway. This approach may also be one that also wins greater support across the community rather than a company sponsoring an existing part of a campaign like Change4Life.

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

A Big Society for all segments of society?

Last week David Cameron spoke about the Big Society and talked about the pressing need for it in terms of the challenges government currently faces:

“We’ve got the biggest budget deficit in the G20. And over the past decade, many of our most pressing social problems got worse, not better.It’s time for something different, something bold – something that doesn’t just pour money down the throat of wasteful, top-down government schemes.”

The danger with this narrative is that it is possible that the Big Society will be seen simply as a tool to deliver the financial reductions within Central and Local Government and the wider public sector in much the same way as 80′s style privatisation was seen by many as a tool to purely achieve certain financial reductions. The Big Society might possibly come across as a more humane approach than that, but nevertheless it faced the danger of being seen as that new tool.

Why was that a danger?

Some of course would hold values where change along these lines would be seen as a positive thing. However we should also remember (see previous blog postings here) that for many this change would be seen as a threat to their values. Thus the danger exists that a potentially consensual policy could be seen as extremely divisive.

To be fair on David Cameron, his speech was mainly focused on decentralisation, which along with transparency and effectively targeted social finance, was one of three tools he saw as helping to deliver the Big Society.

However this week Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark added a new dimension to the Big Society and it was very important how he interpreted it. He said:

“Last week, in Liverpool, David Cameron unpacked this basic idea. The Big Society, he said, consists of three strands: Firstly, public sector reform. Secondly, community empowerment.And thirdly, philanthropic action.

“Though these strands are intertwined, they are also distinct: The first is about what the state can do for us.The second is about what we can do for ourselves. And the third is about what we can do for others.

“All three are essential to the Big Society.”

This is welcome news. From work we have done with local authorities we have identified three broad values sets which will respond in different ways to both efficiencies and to the challenges of the Big Society. Compare Greg Clark’s comment above with what we said in our blog posting on the subject on 26 May.

Greg Clark in his speech then put some meat on the bones of the three strands:

“For instance, public services can either be delivered in a way that increases dependency and undermines pro-social behaviour, or the state can intervene in order to strengthen the ability of people to look after themselves and others.

“Alongside the traditional public services, we also need a much clearer concept of communities of shared interest, which act together in their own way to achieve those interests. Local councils are an obvious example, but there are many more beyond the state, including voluntary organisations, faith communities, friendly societies, co-operatives and social enterprises. The more we get away from the idea of a single source of help, delivered by a unitary state, ruling over a monolithic public sector, the closer we will get to a Big Society.

Finally there is the third strand, which is the grace of undiluted altruism - as delivered by charities, social enterprises, volunteers and givers of all descriptions. This is the purest expression of the Big Society, and so in our enthusiasm to reform our public services and empower strong communities, it is vital that we don’t overlook the blessing of selfless philanthropy.”

In the 1980′s a Minister might have told people to simply “get on their bike” to look for work, but in doing so would have only really spoken to the needs, values and emotions of about one in three of the electorate and in many cases that speech would have been anathema to the values of others.

Now today we see a Minister speak about the Big Society in terms that a wider range of  values segments in society might just buy into.

Greg Clark also talked about the need for self-organisation and, even if one were to disagree with some of the politically ideological points he makes early in his speech, his critique of what might have happened with a centrally planned Grameen Bank was sadly very accurate. Last week David Cameron announced four Vanguard authorities: Eden Valley in Cumbria, Windsor and Maidenhead, Sutton and Liverpool. Let us hope that decentralisation truly allows them to experiment with new ideas. As someone who is a resident of one of those authorities and a former local Councillor of it too, I look forward to writing further as to how those flexibilities develop.

What was impressive was his recognition, not just of the different values of people, but also of the different values of organisations, when it came to the diffusion of innovations; and that people and organisations would therefore adapt in various different ways:

“But ultimately, and by definition, the success of decentralisation depends on local action. Indeed, upon the initiative of some of you in this room today.Some of you will be pioneers. Others, just as importantly, will be inspired imitators, shopping around for the best new ideas and customising them for local use.”

There is a lot of work to do to build a variety of approaches to delivering a Big Society that all could be comfortable with, but with this speech we see a recognition there is a need to win wide buy-in to the concept, not just in specific communities, but across a wide range of different values.

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

Phillip Blond on how Influence is needed to build the Big Society

Phillip Blond, the Director of the Think-Tank ResPublica was a keynote speaker last week at the at the Conference “Beyond the Usual Suspects – Real Influence Matters”. This was an event commissioned by the London Empowerment Partnership, where TCC reported back on research on factors affecting residents’ perceptions of influence on local decision-making in London boroughs. It also enabled representatives from London Boroughs and other organisations to discuss how to improve residents’ experience of influencing local decision-making.

Phillip had the following to say on the subject, linking the work of the conference to his own research:

‘The very reason why I think this report is so interesting and so important… is it shows you the potential that councils have to turn reactive approaches into proactive approaches. And what I want to talk about is what these proactive approaches should be: group formation.’

He then very much endorsed the core findings of the Report:

‘What I found so interesting about this piece of work is that it started to fill in the middle.  It started to fill in the middle between ideas and reality. It started to show how we might get to where we need to get to from where we are. And I think what struck me most importantly was that for citizens, any engagement they have with their local council is utterly determinative of what they think of that local council, and how they engage with it. And I like the way the report said on the one hand, you often get very, very poor frontline service from councils, and then that’s separated from all the engagement procedures, from local council magazines to the high-flown rhetoric. But for most people their engagement is when they come to you, as the report says, reactively: about a problem, about a situation.’

‘Paradoxically the most important people in the Council are the ones who are often paid the least and respected the least – which is front line staff, often women. And they’re the people who are actually the agents or the potential agents of change in those communities. They’re the most important members of those communities – far more important than the Chief Executive’

‘Why? Because they’re the site at which most people make up their mind about the council. And what I liked about the report was the idea that all these people come with lots of different perspectives, lots of different ideas, and they have this… meeting point with the council that nobody did anything about. There’s never a strategy to move from someone who comes to you reactively and then say ‘well, how do I turn this person into a proactive member of a group, of a community?’ And you’ll often get calls from people who are incredibly angry, who are incredibly frustrated, and in no way keyed in. And so, many of our engagements with the public sector is an experience of endless phone calls, endless visits and not being satisfied.’

Looking forward, he supported some of the key recommendations:

‘The image I got from the report is this whole diversity of needs coming out of the council and the council only responding in one way, and a massive, massive opportunity missed…. I would integrate customer services and all the  rhetoric of engagement, and I would say from every engagement you have, what the front line should do is try to become a facilitator, try to provoke and engage and get people into groups such that they can feel less alienated, more empowered and able to make a difference themselves. If you can give people quick wins, if you can start creating the conditions for them to make a difference, then everything – absolutely everything – can change.’

He also reminded the people present that too often the wide range of potential communications channels, that were available to spread positive messages and to engage, were not used. These value for money approaches may become more important in the current financial climate:

‘And again as the report points out, everybody underestimates word of mouth and personal experience. If most people’s experience of councils is negative, and I suggest it probably is, then that’s exactly where energy, focus and customer service should be integrated. The most important people then become your front line staff. And that’s been I think a fundamental structural message.’

Finally, he linked the report back to the wider themes of the Big Society:

‘[Making a success of the Big Society] requires organisations that are represented here to start to make the difference between the vision and the reality.’

His comments illustrate an important point. Before one can energise the engaged communities needed to build the Big Society he champions, one needs to ensure that local residents are engaged effectively at all times by local public bodies. And it is frontline staff that are crucial to deliver that engagement.

Presentations and audio broadcasts from the conference will soon be available on the TCC website.

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

Behaviour Change – the new Public Health agenda

In his first speech on Public Health, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley yesterday set out his vision for a new Public Health Service.

Some of the key points he announced included:

• A new ring-fenced public health budget
• A new ‘Health Premium’ to target public health resources towards the areas with the poorest health
• Clear outcomes and measures to judge progress alongside NHS and social care outcomes
• An enhanced role for Public Health Directors so they have the resources and authority to improve the health of their communities
• Clearly setting out what was needed to be done, but not telling local professionals how to do it, in order to encourage local innovation

Lansley was critical of past public health awareness campaigns saying:

‘It seems to me that awareness campaigns have too often sent the wrong messages – when they’re screaming at you to drink less, many people are just having their behaviour reinforced – the message doesn’t come out as ‘drink less’ but as ‘everyone drinks, so don’t worry about it’. It tells people that the norm in society is misuse of alcohol.’

Nevertheless he was supportive of the Change4Life campaign but wanted to see it as a much more locally led and much more a local social movement, perhaps contributing to the Big Society:

‘….we need a new approach. We have to make Change4life less a government campaign, more a social movement. Less paid for by government, more backed by business. Less about costly advertising, more about supporting family and individual responses.’

However a significant aspect of the speech that was less reported than the above points was the commitment to a range of behaviour change strategies. This included:

• Focusing on self-esteem for target groups. Lansley said,  ‘Just as leadership drives organisational success, so self-esteem drives personal fulfilment. That is why, contrary to the media reporting, I applauded Jamie Oliver’s initiative on school dinners and when he went to Rotherham – because Jamie ‘got it’…..The fact is, you can’t legislate for self-esteem from Westminster. We can’t pass the Elimination of Obesity Act 2010. Turning Jamie’s campaign into a list of how often you can offer chips – whilst not rationing roast potatoes cooked in oil – doesn’t do the job.’ Identifying target groups for self-esteem development is something TCC has been working on for a number of years with our unique Values Based Segmentation which can assist with not just the identification, but also help explain why people behave as they do.
• Identifying and reinforcing positive social norms. Lansley says, ‘Studies has shown that social norms are much more important than policymakers have traditionally assumed.  People are deeply influenced by the behaviour of those around them – and public policy should reflect that.‘ The recognition of this is very important. TCC very much welcomes this having pioneered interventions in this area whether it included peer to peer engagement on sexual health in Barnsley, through to the insight work it provided that assisted Barking and Dagenham Council with its Eyesore Gardens campaign that led to the creation of a new social norm.
• Commissioning from the best new insights from social psychology and behavioural economics. Lansley made reference to the work of Nicholas Christakis who wrote the book ‘Connected’ about the impact of social networks on behaviour.

These sound like exciting times in public health, despite the financial pressures. Indeed it is in the interests of all public bodies to assist the NHS in reducing some of the future demand pressures on health with evidenced based, value for money, behaviour change campaigns.

Professor Jeff French, a non-executive Director of The Campaign Company, will be posting further guest blog posts here in coming weeks exploring some of the behaviour change issues that public bodies will need to address in order to deliver this new agenda effectively.

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

LGA Poll: The voter is always right?

“The customer is always right” is often the mantra for low-margin customer focused companies in very competitive environments. But do public sector bodies say the same about voters?

Perhaps the level of competition is lower, the stakes too high and the culture all about managing conflicts between difficult and controversial priorities when it comes to public policy?

The Local Government Association (LGA) Poll yesterday, showed that the public in effect wanted to protect most large expenditure services, such as Police, Education and Health, whilst cutting NHS managers, Quangos and Overseas Aid. The latter are unlikely to secure the savings required. Interestingly they then said they felt local Councillors (62%) should make local decisions on cuts compared to letting MP’s (18%) or officials (2%) do it. Will this perhaps lead to an increased turnout in local elections as we saw in the 1980′s, when local Council’s were dealing with rate-capping, privatisation and the Poll Tax.

The Government Spending Challenge website is asking public sector staff to suggest ideas as to how they could help with savings. It will be interesting to see what suggestions threatened staff come up with. It is important to understand initial expectations from stakeholders as to the impact of cuts, so we can see how they eventually compare to their overall experience of the cuts process?

We could of course hold a referendum to decide priorities, but, as the LGA poll shows, it is likely it would lead to answers we can already predict as people indicate they want to see resources spent on predictable and safe options.

Why should we expect the public to be fully informed? After all many people would say they pay their taxes for others to think about this in detail. As a result we need to recognise:

• A lack of detailed understanding about financial challenges
• A lack of detailed understanding of Council structures
• An unwillingness to give the Council the “benefit of doubt”
• A reluctance to articulate cost savings
• A tendency to hold contradictory views at the same time

When intermittently asked, people will often hold contradictory or poorly thought out opinions. They:

• Want devolution of services, but also want services to be universal
• Recognise the need for cuts in public services, but will then choose easy options
• Want high levels of welfare services, but low levels of taxation
• Want more social housing, but not built near them
• Support action to tackle climate change, but not significant personal environmental  behavioural change

As a result of many of these potential contradictions, public bodies do need to take people on a journey that avoids:

• The tyranny of the articulate dominating an issue – its why TCC works with Values based segmentation to ensure a wider range of views out in the community are heard
• Getting hijacked by the latest issues, which may be driven by a small number of people in a specific area, with a sympathetic local media
• Having people focus on the immediate and specific rather than the ‘big picture’, which, whilst understandable, will mean that longer-term service transformation and options like mutualisation and co-production might not be able to develop as much some might want.

But first of all we need to start with where people are at present.

That requires insight research utilising segmentation to really understand the community. This has the advantage of enabling you to:

• Communicate the challenges more effectively through segmented messages
• Engage target groups about choices in a language  and in a way they will understand
• Involve them in the solutions that are developed by finding appropriate ways for them to act

In conclusion, values based segmentation can make insight and engagement more of a dynamic two-way process, not just a passive activity:

• Recognising the challenges to engagement–  which require us to engage with people at a deeper level
• Understanding  different world views at a local level –  through effective engagement and deeper insight
• Application to key messages – enabling them to be clearly understood by a wider range of people
• The conversation continues – having developed the segmented message, the organisation needs to “live it” through its words and behaviour

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company

Conference gets to grips with Influence

The “Beyond the Usual Suspects – real Influence matters” conference proved a very successful day. Hosted by London Civic Forum and TCC, it was attended by over 100 people representing 20+ London Boroughs as well as a range of government agencies, think tanks, NGOs and third sector organisations

The keynote speaker was Phillip Blond of the think tank ResPublica, well-known as a key thinker involved in concepts such as the Big Society, who gave his vision of the future of local services and local engagement, sparking off an animated debate on how the practicalities of empowering civic associations could work on the ground. Phillip described the TCC report as starting to fill the middle ground between where we are and the vision he outlined, and welcomed the practical emphasis on front line staff interactions and the real potential for councils to turn reactive encounters into proactive engagement

Cultural Dynamics asked attendees to fill in a questionnaire to determine their values set. They were then able to show immediately and visually the extent to which the values of those whose job it is to engage differ markedly from the majority of the communities which they are trying to engage. Indeed over 67% of people present at the conference were in one the sub-segments with the most inner directed values, whilst Cultural Dynamics own research shows that up to 60% of the population do not have such values as their principal values set, being far more driven by extrinsic or security and safety values.

Ipsos MORI provided a detailed picture of the national research around influence, using their ‘frontiers of performance’ modelling to compare statistical expectations of different local authority areas with reality, highlighting some difficulties with measuring influence and suggesting some possible ways forward, and reinforcing the importance of perceptions of influence as a driver of satisfaction and quality of life.

TCC‘s key findings and recommendations drew insights from Values Modes segmentation and fall into three points:

• The need for councils to understand different people’s motivations for and expectations of involvement and how these are driven by their values,
• The need to change the culture of institutions to build trust through effective, personal front line interactions,
• The need to open up engagement to embrace a more discursive model where people can air their views about the issues that concern them, set the agenda and disseminate their positive experiences and messages by word of mouth

Workshop sessions produced a great deal of consensus around challenges and responses, and interesting and innovative ideas around
making better use of front line staff to engage with the public and improving internal understanding of the role of engagement

The final speaker of the day was Sam McLean of the RSA who provided a powerful speech which he was unable to deliver in person but which was previewed by TCC‘s David Evans. Drawing equally from philosophy and his own roots and experience, the speech explored the importance of civic health previewing a forthcoming RSA report .

Finally instant feedback from participants was given from a VideoQube “diary room” held at lunchtime on the themes of the workshop was shown at the end to round off the day.

Further information, including videos,  presentations and documents will shortly be loaded on to the TCC website.

Charlie Mansell is Research and Development Officer for the Campaign Company He would like to thank TCC Project Officer Majeed Neky for his work both delivering the conference and the information that contributed to much of this blog posting