Skip to main content

GAO's Confusing Conclusions About Federal Communications

This report just came out (http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680183.pdf). Here is some information provided that concerns me, because it is confusing at best and misleading at worst.
  • The GAO refers to “public affairs” series staff (GS-1035) as “public relations” staff. Employees who are employed as communicators, but not within this series, are not counted in the report. So by default all federal communicators are now PR folks. Which is not “bad” but is not what the public is expecting taxpayer money to be spent on either, because this sounds very close to “spin,” or propaganda.
  • The authors admit that they haven’t defined their terms. They use: “advertising” defined as either “community relations,” “image,” “messages intended to persuade”; public relations as “an effort to develop and disseminate information to explain the activities of and the issues facing an organization”; and “public communications” as “agency communications that are directed to the public.” (p. 4). 
  • There is no distinction made in the report between what federal employees do and what contractors do (e.g. information vs. advertising; education vs. persuasion). 
  • Most examples of “federal advertising and public relations activities” will be recognizable to federal communication experts as politically neutral and neutral in terms of providing information as versus persuasion, but the report never clarifies how it is that individuals who are supposedly employed to persuade are more likely to be disseminators of information. (p. 3)
  • The report’s authors concede that they’re not sure if they got the numbers on contract spending right (they only selected certain categories in the Federal Procurement Data System). The total is almost $1 billion in FY2015 alone (pp. 11-12), but given the methodology it is probably under-counted. It is not difficult to see that if you have very few empowered federal communicators, and you don’t coordinate communication across agencies or even departments, you’ll need to spend a lot of money to get the word out.
  • There are very few federal communicators, at least in the GS-1035 series. With ~5,000 employees across the federal government, GS-1035s only make up ~.3% of the total federal civilian workforce. However, the amount of spending on their salaries per year (~$500 million). That is a very click-worthy amount, but it’s also misleading.
  • The Department of Defense spends by far the most money on staff (2,123 in FY2014 and $160 million per year in salary on average), as well as contract obligations ($590,800 in FY2015); most of the remainder of the federal government pales in comparison. Again, it’s very easy to lump everybody in together, but the conclusion is inappropriate when you consider the average agency.



All opinions are my own.






Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …

Should I Add My Beer-Focused Instagram Account To My LinkedIn profile?

This is my response to a question originally posed on Quora.

The answer, like lawyers tend to say, is: “It depends.”

Not knowing what you do for a living, let’s assume that your LinkedIn profile is typical, meaning that it reflects the image of a corporate professional.

Would your boss, or a prospective employer, think badly of you for promoting your passion for beer?

Traditional product branding says that you should focus on your unique selling proposition fairly single-mindedly. Your goal is to create a space in the customer’s mind dedicated to your brand so that when they want to purchase something like it, they shortcut all alternatives and go straight to you.

So from a product branding point of view, putting a personal beer account on your professional profile is distracting. It tells an employer that you’re not totally focused on the encyclopedic and ever-evolving knowledge, skills and abilities required to do your valuable type of job.

However, people are not products, and appl…