I wasn’t at the EuropComm 2011 opening session, I only showed up at the workshops where I started to hear about how this speech was great, witty and inspiring. The following weekend saw the video being shared on my teammates’ facebook profiles and, of course, I had to watch it – with many interruptions due to the complicated lifeflow of my typical Sunday.

Yes, I don’t have a life. I have a lifeflow.

Simon Anholt is not someone I knew. He’s « an independent policy adviser working with Heads of State and Government and with national or regional administrations to develop and implement strategies for enhanced economic, political and cultural engagement with other countries. As a keynote speaker for EuroPCom 2011 he pointed out what the EU should do to regain its communication 'sense of purpose' in the 21st century. »

That’s what the video description says about him. A nice Wikipedia addition says he is best known for his work on the image and reputation of countries, cities and regions, and as the author who coined the term 'nation brand' in a 1996 academic paper.

Now, if you haven’t seen his speech, now would be a good time.

It’s like exposing a secret fraternity we all can relate to.

The nicest elements of the whole speech come from the fact Simon Anholt is speaking out loud some communication 101 basics most EU communication officers have known since they graduated but which have always remained, somehow, alien to the institutional culture – to say the least. Listening to him provides you with the feeling that everything one’s been defending in an infinite number of meetings was true. It’s like exposing a secret fraternity we all can relate to. All those quick faces we exchanged, the complicated handshakes and the discreet marks of belonging were not in vain – there is a truth out there and Simon Anholt just lifted the veil up.

Now, I don’t agree fully with him on everything – and that’s maybe the best feeling. There is room for discussion, debate, expert exchanges on a subject that most of my friends, family, domestic pets and acquaintances find quintessentially boring.

So, when Mr Anholt says:
« Creativity which is needed in order to communicate with enormous number of people to attract their attention is wasted if it’s simply exercised at the communication end of the process. Creativity only works when it’s exercised at the development of policies. » 

We’re the waiters and maître d’ in the European restaurant and we deliver the food cooked by the Master Chiefs.

I humbly disagree. Not with the fact that creative policies are, indeed, more powerful and more needed than anything else to, among many other and bigger ends, beef up your brand’s purposes and your communication mix. Of course, we, as civil servants in charge of communicating the EU, we need creative and inspiring policies. But can we actually make that happen?

No.

We’re not the senior officials and politicians Mr Anholt rightly targeted his speech at during the EuroPCom event. We’re the waiters and maître d’ in the European restaurant and we deliver the food cooked by the Master Chiefs. If the meal of the day is not inspiring, fresh, interesting, if it does not taste good, shall we just quit doing our job until the cooks come up with a better recipe?

Well, that’s always an option. Or we can run a campaign to be elected as MEP and change the world – some do, congrats and good luck to them.

But there is also the possibility to keep doing our job the best way we can, which involves being creative « at the communication end of the process. »

In order to do so, we may well get inspired by Mr Anholt’s precise definitions of communication and brand and define what definition of communication applies to our work and mission. We may identify our brand purposes since we are it. This will clarify and answer a question we tend to get more and more during the presentations our EP Web team gives on our activities.

The question is: « What’s your strategy ?» and our typical answer until now is: « Our strategy? Well, we have one, it’s locked in a safe and we lost the key. »    

Which communication category concerns us?

Mr Anholt identifies three completely different realities behind the word « communication: »

• information provision
• advertising
• propaganda

Most of the job of our Web team concerns the information provision about the news and activities of the European Parliament. Now, when Mr Anholt states that « information provision is only possible when there is a demand for information » in other words that « Attempting to provide information when it has not been asked for on a subject that people are not interested in is quite simply a waste of money » I don’t agree again.

I strongly believe the institutions have the duty to provide information about the EU affairs whether or not there is a demand for this information. First, because we live in an age not only of information overabundance but also of information confusion. My view is that, in the mælstrom of voices that express themselves online, there is a need for a neutral, politically balanced speaker on European affairs. This is part of what defines us as a public service. This is also a pillar of democracy and transparency: full information about what the European Parliament does, discusses and votes must be available and accessible in an understandable way.

Second, I don’t believe in a constant expressed need for any kind of information. I never buy a travel book about a country until I plan to actually go there. On many occasions, I bought the said travel book when I was already in the country. Thanks to the travel book publishing industry, they don’t wait for my need to arise before writing the book – otherwise I’d need to postpone a hell of a lot of trips.

Most of people don’t express any interest for the news we are publishing daily in twenty two languages. Until they do. Until the day the subject concerns them – and since the European Parliament is dealing with an awfully large range of subjects, this day always arrives.

So, our EP Web Team supplies information – that’s our communication job.

Now, what’s our brand purpose?

Again, I can only praise the quality of Mr Anholt’s very articulated speech. No powerpoint presentation and, yet, a perfect definition of what lies behind the generic « brand » word.

• Brand image: « my perception of your product » therefore not controlled by the product’s owner.
• Brand identity: « what my product looks like »
• Brand purpose: what you do, produce, sell and, by extension, what you are. « The art of getting lots of people to behave as if they were one person »

I really like this clear distinction of values for an overused word such as « brand ». Again, I’d like to apply Mr Anholt’s medicine to our case, the EP Web team.

Not to the European Parliament, mind you.

I have a lot of ideas about what the institutions should do to communicate better, to engage with the public on social media or to improve our daily life. But I ain’t a guru nor a senior official. I’m a feet on the ground kind of professional who believes you can improve the whole starting with your part. And our part is the EP Web team’s mission and work.

The EP Web team’s brand purpose is to provide the general public, aka « normal people » with information about the European Parliament in a way they can understand and even be interested. And we do that online only. Other teams share similar purposes for different audiences or via different media: TV, journalists, events. We’re online.

By defining our brand’s purpose, we can deduce the social media strategy we are asked so often for. Our social media strategy is to provide understandable and interesting information to people wherever they are online. And since the digital world simplifies feedback, conversations, interactions, by nature we report those elements to our stakeholders until the day they will naturally directly  exchange with the general public.

This is what we do and we do it in a creative way – or so we hope. One hint keeping us doing so is that 95% of our 172,000 facebook fans don’t live in Belgium.

95% of them.

The reason we are reluctant in detailing our strategy, with action plans, expected results, deadlines lays in the ever changing environment we work on. The digital world is faster than any previous territory for communication. We believe an unwritten constitution à l’anglaise serves better our brand’s purposes. By the time we would have a detailed written strategy ready and approved, facebook will be closed. People will have digitally migrated somewhere else.

The part I liked the most.

"Why so serious?" - The face behind the mantra

The most inspiring bit of Mr Anholt’s keynote speech is rightly quoted by Ronny Patz on his blog:

"[civil servants and politicians] make the fatal error of believing that because their job is so serious they also have to be boring. Actually, it is the most irresponsible thing on Earth for policy-makers and civil servants to be boring because it’s the boring policies that fail to grasp the imagination, fail to communicate themselves and consequently fail to do any good."

Lip-Dub Friday I'm in love from Web Com on Vimeo.

« Why so serious? » should become our team’s mantra.

****

For more about the EuroPComm speakers and speeches, French readers might appreciate this post by La Communication européenne: EuropCom 2011 : quelles étaient les présentations qu’il ne fallait pas manquer ?