{"id":3857,"date":"2017-02-24T08:40:44","date_gmt":"2017-02-24T13:40:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2017-02-24T15:59:06","modified_gmt":"2017-02-24T20:59:06","slug":"a-permanent-revolution-in-think-tank-communications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/a-permanent-revolution-in-think-tank-communications\/","title":{"rendered":"A permanent revolution in think tank communications"},"content":{"rendered":"
Communications is not just about content.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s about relationships. It\u2019s about values. It\u2019s about timing.<\/p>\n Those of us who work in think tank communications have been slightly obsessed over the last few years with going \u201cdigital first\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n Mike Connery\u2019s 2015 article <\/span>The Digital Think Tank<\/span><\/a> remains the best explanation of the reasons behind this shift and some of the changes we can expect. As Mike says: <\/span><\/p>\n Today, audiences are used to <\/span>information finding them<\/b>. It\u2019s a model sprung from digital media, and one that privileges brevity, shareability and a highly visual approach to content.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So we\u2019ve all spent an awful lot of time thinking about content and ways to deliver it.<\/span><\/p>\n At Soapbox, that meant that we spent much of 2015 writing, designing and building scrolling, media-rich, longform microsites \u2013 like <\/span>this one<\/span><\/a> for the International Rescue Committee.<\/span><\/p>\n Then in \u00a02016, we built several different ways for think tanks to deliver long-form research content from within their own websites. This included a multichannel publishing solution for <\/span>Chatham House<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n This year we have started rolling out websites built with modular content management systems, an innovation well described in a <\/span>recent article<\/span><\/a> by Joseph Miller:<\/span><\/p>\n You write, edit, and approve a single source of content. Since the content is modular, you can create different combinations of modules. And \u2026 you can push different content combinations to different platforms.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The first modular content management system we built was for the LSE\u2019s <\/span>Urban Age<\/span><\/a> site. The latest is the new <\/span>Nuffield Trust<\/span><\/a> site, but there are others in the works, each one building on the last.<\/span><\/p>\n Digital first has unstoppable momentum and \u2013 while we have still have a long way to go before we are actually producing content in this way as standard \u2013 there is a fairly good consensus on what the content will look like when we get there.<\/span><\/p>\n But, as I said, communications is not just about content. <\/span><\/p>\n In his 2016 RSA lecture Matthew Taylor offered a critique of what he dubbed \u00a0\u201cthe policy presumption\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n By this I mean an assumption among ministers, civil servants and policy advisors, but equally all of us \u2026 that, on the whole, the most effective way to accomplish social change is to pull the big levers of central government policy.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes, policy still needs to be evidence-based. But that is not sufficient. People are mistrustful of political elites. They feel let down and not listened to. In massive numbers, they are looking elsewhere for change. We are realising that successful policy involves engaging with values, feelings and relationships \u2013 and with the lived experience of people who deliver and receive public services. <\/span><\/p>\n Policy impact often means changing the conversation gradually over years but it also means acting opportunistically when the time is right. And it can mean building coalitions to stand up for what we believe and challenging those in power when they act against evidence and against progress. <\/span><\/p>\n Politics has changed. The public perception of politics \u2013 and by extension policy \u2013 has changed. The ways that policy is delivered on the ground and that services are designed has changed.<\/span><\/p>\n In a <\/span>recent publication<\/span><\/a> on think tank impact, Julia Slay writes that: <\/span><\/p>\n Some think tanks are beginning to look beyond government as the source of change and towards other organisations and activists that can build grassroots support among the public, campaigners and organisational partnerships.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Think tanks have always been good at public affairs and media communications \u2013 working directly with political decision-makers or through the media to create impact. But we\u2019ve rarely been very good at capturing the public imagination. And we\u2019ve never been very good at mobilising mass support. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s because we never had to. Until now. <\/span><\/p>\n I believe that digital first is actually part of a wider movement towards the professionalisation of think tank communications which has been going on for over a decade now \u2013 a kind of ongoing revolution in think tanks comms.<\/span><\/p>\n I often tell young Soapboxers that when I started working on think tanks reports they were all A5 size, all typeset in Times New Roman and all had a picture of Big Ben on the cover. It\u2019s only a partial lie. <\/span><\/p>\n Design standards in think tank reports started improving dramatically about ten years ago. <\/span><\/p>\n About seven years ago we started trying to present data in more imaginative, accessible ways. <\/span><\/p>\n Five years ago think tanks started to take their visual identity more seriously. <\/span><\/p>\n Three years ago we started getting report content online in full \u2013 the beginning of the long death of the PDF. <\/span><\/p>\n This year modular content is taking off. <\/span><\/p>\n Constant change. Constant progress. A constant move to more professional communications.<\/span><\/p>\n The change is driven not just by the digital revolution in content, but also by the changing ways think tanks create impact and the much wider range of audiences we seek to engage.<\/span><\/p>\n We need to take a step back and ask what kind of communications framework can meet these challenges. <\/span><\/p>\n What is the next step in our permanent revolution?<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m going to discuss four concepts which are commonplace for professional communications in other sectors, but which think tankers have struggled to get to grips with, ignored or actively turned up their noses at over the years. <\/span><\/p>\n Corporate communications started taking these concepts seriously in the 1960s and 70s, with big charity and political comms not far behind. So it\u2019s time we got with the picture. I\u2019m afraid we need to talk about:<\/span><\/p>\n The good news is that think tank comms has been secretly making strides in all of these areas for at least ten years now \u2013 but we need to get even better, we need to join up the dots and we need to come out of the closet as communications professionals. <\/span><\/p>\n For many modern corporations the bulk of their equity is vested in their brands \u2013 no wonder they spend billions promoting and protecting them. <\/span><\/p>\n By contrast, in 2005 when I designed <\/span>this<\/span><\/a> logo for IPPR (let\u2019s call it the <\/span>classic<\/span><\/i> IPPR logo), what happened was that IPPR\u2019s then Director, Nick Pearce, stood behind me for about fifteen minutes while we looked at different colours on my screen. Job done.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019ve come a long way since then.<\/span><\/p>\n Wally Olins, who more or less invented the modern practice of branding, used to say that branding is about delivering on promises:<\/span><\/p>\n The only requirement of a symbol is that it have substance underneath: The first thing to do is to try to establish the substance<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, branding is about substance. It\u2019s about giving people something they can trust. <\/span><\/p>\n And as a think tank, you need people to trust you. <\/span><\/p>\n When we worked with ODI in 2012, this was the first think tank rebrand I had been involved in that actually took this notion seriously. We tried to create a brand that reflected the values of the organisation, its personality and unique positioning. We based the visual identity on research with external stakeholders and a lengthy internal dialogue with the organisation. We wanted to make a brand that would help it <\/span>become<\/span><\/i> the organisation it aspired to be. <\/span><\/p>\n Nowadays, that kind of process and aspiration is normal in our branding projects. But we are starting to take it further, producing full-scale brand strategies alongside visual identities. <\/span><\/p>\n If you really want to take your communications to the next level, then you need to understand your organisation\u2019s personality and narrative, what you are promising your audiences and your value proposition in the market. And you need a strategy to maintain, reinforce and grow these positions.<\/span><\/p>\n You need to take branding seriously.<\/span><\/p>\n It is not a very profound observation to note that different groups of people will respond to different types of communications across different channels, but it is an observation that think tanks have struggled to get to grips with.<\/span><\/p>\n Thinking about audiences or markets has often not gone beyond the superficial. \u201cPeople have short attention spans, let\u2019s give them an infographic\u201d is a typical brief from some of our clients.<\/span><\/p>\n We need to do better. We need to segment our markets.<\/span><\/p>\n Think tanks are increasingly asking us to create audience strategies for them, mapping different markets, creating personas and user journeys and making suggestions that influence the type of communications produced. <\/span><\/p>\n On Think Tanks TV produced a <\/span>short film<\/span><\/a> about the New America think tank and their work to communicate education research to different audiences: parents, educators and policy makers. The overall policy message to each group is the same, but New America\u2019s website lets users easily navigate to resources and actions that are tailored to their particular perspective. <\/span><\/p>\n Which brings us to the need to involve users in the creation of our outputs. Thankfully, these days user testing of websites is seldom seen as an optional extra, by think tanks, but we can take user-centred design much further.<\/span><\/p>\n We worked with the <\/span>Making Every Adult Matter<\/span><\/a> coalition on a research project about people with severe and multiple needs. The outputs were codesigned with actual service users, and culminated in an exhibition at the Centre for Voluntary Action in Birmingham rather than a conventional research report. The exhibition ran for five months rather than the planned six weeks. It engaged thousands of service users and practitioners as well as local policy makers.<\/span><\/p>\n We not only need to understand our users, we need to get out and actively engage with them and create alongside them.<\/span><\/p>\n Thinking about markets in this way can help us reconceptualise our work as researchers and communicators around the idea that we are providing a <\/span>service<\/span><\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n Our purpose as think tanks is to carry out research and come up with ideas that change policy. Another way to look at that is that we are carrying out a <\/span>service<\/span><\/i> for those who need or want policy to change. These can be policymakers, practitioners, funders or the wider population who rely on public services.<\/span><\/p>\n So what do we owe to our service users? What service are we offering?<\/span><\/p>\n I would argue that once we conceptualise think tank work in this way, as a <\/span>service<\/span><\/i> with <\/span>users<\/span><\/i>, it becomes entirely impossible to defend any kind of \u201civory tower\u201d model of research whereby clever researchers lock themselves away until they are ready to come out and deliver their brilliant ideas to political elites. <\/span><\/p>\n Regular contributions and day-to-day engagements in policy debates are the very essence of the service think tanks are providing.<\/span><\/p>\nThe digital think tank<\/span><\/h2>\n

Beyond government<\/span><\/h2>\n
Going pro<\/span><\/h2>\n
We need to talk …<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n
Brands<\/span><\/h2>\n


Markets<\/span><\/h2>\n

Services<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n