I’m suspicious of people who ask for charitable contributions, but I wasn’t always this way. I used to trust them.
Things took a turn for the worse a couple of years ago after a CBC story reported on some Canadian NGOs that were farming out their fund-raising activities to pros, who then skimmed off a healthy percentage for their efforts.
The report has since been widely discussed and responded to by the sector, but the impact was swift and significant. In marketing jargon, the brand was damaged.
Now Environment Minister Peter Kent has accused charities of laundering funds.
This not only ratchets-up Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s charge that environmentalists are “radicals,” it moves the issue to a whole new level. It is one thing to accuse people of having fanatical views, quite another to say they are engaged in activities usually associated with organized crime.
Oliver, we should note, has declined to follow Kent in this escalation: “No. I’m not suggesting a criminal intent at all,” he told Power & Politics in an interview on May 3rd.
Of course, Kent will insist that he’s not talking about all charities, just some. But, as we learn from the CBC story, this ignores how branding works. It’s all about trust and trust is not a very discriminating sentiment. We may be told that “Not all apples in the barrel are rotten,” but one worm in one apple is usually enough to turn us off the whole barrel.
When I first heard Kent’s interview, I couldn’t help but wonder what Human Resources Minister Diane Finley thought of it. She too has things to say about the voluntary sector, but her message is quite different.
Finley is championing an effort to build new “social partnerships” that will help Canadians achieve social goals, such as poverty reduction, community health or literacy. She wants the voluntary sector to take on a bigger role in this task.
Her idea is that many people are willing to devote their time and energy to good causes, if they believe the effort isn’t wasted. This, in turn, means they must have confidence in the effectiveness of the organizations that seek to tap them for effort and/or contributions. In short, brand matters.
Yet, while Finley struggles to reposition the government’s approach to social policy, Kent seems oblivious — or perhaps indifferent — to the fact that his attack on charitable organizations is nothing short of a broadside to her efforts. What should we make of this?
In fact, this is only the most recent example of a troubling trend in the government’s communications.
The Government of Canada has a variety of roles, and a successful communications approach should seek a balance between them. As an agent of social policy, for example, we expect that government will interact with us as a caring and trusted source of help and support, often when we are in need.
At other times, we look on government more as a policeman or enforcer. For everything from paying taxes to meat packaging standards, its job is to ensure that we comply with the rules and regulations.
In yet another context, government is like a referee that arbitrates between our differences. Thus it creates rules in the marketplace that aim at creating a level playing field. Finally, it is also an agent of security, protecting us from domestic and foreign threats.
The lesson from the Kent story is that an exaggerated emphasis on any one of these roles distorts the public’s view of the government as a whole, which, in turn, can interfere with other ministers’ ability to play their roles.
Finley is a case in point. Kent’s hyperbolic assault on charitable organizations exaggerates the government’s role as an enforcer. This not only damages these organizations’ brand, but undermines Finley’s efforts to vouch for the credibility of the sector.
Or consider Tony Clement. He has the unenviable task of selling an Open Government initiative on behalf of a government that is widely viewed as the most secretive and controlling in memory. Any further erosion of trust on this front would make the whole project seem ironic.
Finally, consider Foreign Affairs and Defence. On one hand, the government is re-equipping the military to build a modern battle machine; on the other, it wants the public to see this as a tool in the service of human rights, democratic development and collective security. Canadian values, it argues, are shaping government policy. But we will see it this way only insofar as we trust the government.
In the end, democratic governments depend on trust at least as much as fear. Yet the government’s communications strategy seems designed to raise fear above trust by accentuating the role of the enforcer. In this view, the government is like an advancing phalanx that plunges at its opponents, overwhelming them with its superior strength.
Presumably, this is what is behind Kent’s attack on the charitable organizations. Whether he was following someone’s plan or just improvising is unclear, but the act is consistent with the overall pattern.
As a strategy, this may succeed in the short term, but it contains a fatal flaw. Government is not a monolith, nor does the public relate to it as such. Acting as one will only confuse and frustrate citizens, at the same time that it sows doubt and dissension within the government’s own ranks.
If this is the government’s path, ultimately, the enemy, it seems, will be found within.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Don Lenihan
Things took a turn for the worse a couple of years ago after a CBC story reported on some Canadian NGOs that were farming out their fund-raising activities to pros, who then skimmed off a healthy percentage for their efforts.
The report has since been widely discussed and responded to by the sector, but the impact was swift and significant. In marketing jargon, the brand was damaged.
Now Environment Minister Peter Kent has accused charities of laundering funds.
This not only ratchets-up Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver’s charge that environmentalists are “radicals,” it moves the issue to a whole new level. It is one thing to accuse people of having fanatical views, quite another to say they are engaged in activities usually associated with organized crime.
Oliver, we should note, has declined to follow Kent in this escalation: “No. I’m not suggesting a criminal intent at all,” he told Power & Politics in an interview on May 3rd.
Of course, Kent will insist that he’s not talking about all charities, just some. But, as we learn from the CBC story, this ignores how branding works. It’s all about trust and trust is not a very discriminating sentiment. We may be told that “Not all apples in the barrel are rotten,” but one worm in one apple is usually enough to turn us off the whole barrel.
When I first heard Kent’s interview, I couldn’t help but wonder what Human Resources Minister Diane Finley thought of it. She too has things to say about the voluntary sector, but her message is quite different.
Finley is championing an effort to build new “social partnerships” that will help Canadians achieve social goals, such as poverty reduction, community health or literacy. She wants the voluntary sector to take on a bigger role in this task.
Her idea is that many people are willing to devote their time and energy to good causes, if they believe the effort isn’t wasted. This, in turn, means they must have confidence in the effectiveness of the organizations that seek to tap them for effort and/or contributions. In short, brand matters.
Yet, while Finley struggles to reposition the government’s approach to social policy, Kent seems oblivious — or perhaps indifferent — to the fact that his attack on charitable organizations is nothing short of a broadside to her efforts. What should we make of this?
In fact, this is only the most recent example of a troubling trend in the government’s communications.
The Government of Canada has a variety of roles, and a successful communications approach should seek a balance between them. As an agent of social policy, for example, we expect that government will interact with us as a caring and trusted source of help and support, often when we are in need.
At other times, we look on government more as a policeman or enforcer. For everything from paying taxes to meat packaging standards, its job is to ensure that we comply with the rules and regulations.
In yet another context, government is like a referee that arbitrates between our differences. Thus it creates rules in the marketplace that aim at creating a level playing field. Finally, it is also an agent of security, protecting us from domestic and foreign threats.
The lesson from the Kent story is that an exaggerated emphasis on any one of these roles distorts the public’s view of the government as a whole, which, in turn, can interfere with other ministers’ ability to play their roles.
Finley is a case in point. Kent’s hyperbolic assault on charitable organizations exaggerates the government’s role as an enforcer. This not only damages these organizations’ brand, but undermines Finley’s efforts to vouch for the credibility of the sector.
Or consider Tony Clement. He has the unenviable task of selling an Open Government initiative on behalf of a government that is widely viewed as the most secretive and controlling in memory. Any further erosion of trust on this front would make the whole project seem ironic.
Finally, consider Foreign Affairs and Defence. On one hand, the government is re-equipping the military to build a modern battle machine; on the other, it wants the public to see this as a tool in the service of human rights, democratic development and collective security. Canadian values, it argues, are shaping government policy. But we will see it this way only insofar as we trust the government.
In the end, democratic governments depend on trust at least as much as fear. Yet the government’s communications strategy seems designed to raise fear above trust by accentuating the role of the enforcer. In this view, the government is like an advancing phalanx that plunges at its opponents, overwhelming them with its superior strength.
Presumably, this is what is behind Kent’s attack on the charitable organizations. Whether he was following someone’s plan or just improvising is unclear, but the act is consistent with the overall pattern.
As a strategy, this may succeed in the short term, but it contains a fatal flaw. Government is not a monolith, nor does the public relate to it as such. Acting as one will only confuse and frustrate citizens, at the same time that it sows doubt and dissension within the government’s own ranks.
If this is the government’s path, ultimately, the enemy, it seems, will be found within.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Don Lenihan
No comments:
Post a Comment