Not putting their house in order

In the aftermath of two No referenda, the European Commission is trying to change its image to listen, communicate, and go local. It has a long way to go, writes Conor Brady

Last month the office of the European Commission in Dublin sent editors and journalists the new "Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe by the Commission." There was a press-release summarising the plan, a table of contents, followed by 12 pages of outline proposals and an "annexe."

These, we were told, are precursors to a white paper that will be published by the Commission later in the year.

The white paper would want to be a whole lot better than what has emerged so far. We got a document, laden with jargon, clumsily-expressed and littered with non-sequiturs. It bears all the signs of a hastily-assembled response to the tide of angst that that has arisen within the EU institutions over the French and Dutch rejection of the so-called EU Constitution.

"Listen, Communicate, Go Local – New Commission approach to dialogue and communication with European citizens," the document proclaims.

So far, so good. And if the EU can follow through on that prescription, it won't go too far wrong. Mind you, one would have thought that this ought to be – broadly – the task of those who already staff the Commission's extensive press and media departments. Every directorate has its media section. Every member of the Commission has his or her porte parole – some have several. The Commission President has a large press and media department attached to his office.

But one is not far into the text before one encounters the flannel. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom had this to say:

"Today we took a decision on a working method which will lead to a modern approach to communicating across all departments. This is essential if we are serious about the need for more dialogue, consultation and debate about the role of the Union. Yet, of course it is a task that goes beyond the Commission's remit; its success depends fundamentally on a partnership with all other key players in European politics inside the EU…"

Then the action plan tells us: "the White Paper will launch a reflection on how to work in partnership with member states, the European Parliament and the other institutions and bodies. It will indicate ways to develop a European Public Sphere particularly through audiovisual media as well as a European narrative. The role of civil society and their active contribution to European dialogue and debate will also be addressed."

I have read this and re-read it many times. But the language gives me no clear idea of what is meant. I think it is telling us that the EU has not heretofore regarded itself as having ANY responsibility to communicate its activities or its mission to the citizens of its member-states. But that it is going to start now.

There are, in fairness, occasional flashes of clarity. Here is one. "The Commission needs therefore to put its own house in order, through a more efficient organisation and a better use of both human and financial resources and communication tools and services."

There is another where the action plan describes shortcomings in the EU's communications policies in the past. There had been "continuous fragmentation of communication activities by insufficient co-ordination and planning, therefore loosing (sic) efficiency," while campaigns comprised "messages reflecting political priorities but not necessarily linked to citizens' interests, needs and preoccupations: current campaigns focus on the political elite and media and fail to portray the benefits and consequences for day-to-day life in a direct and understandable manner."

The Commission will primarily focus…on priority actions, the plans says, "establishing communication priorities agreed by the College…" But who or what is this "College" that mysteriously appears out of nowhere?

The EU is squaring up to the reality that its communications policies have been poor. Having got the kicking it did in the French and Dutch referendums it can hardly be in much doubt about it. But what is apparent here is a rush – almost a panic – to be seen to be doing something about a problem. The result is incoherent, irritating and – worst of all for the EU – it reinforces the impression of an organisation that doesn't know how to communicate with its primary stakeholders.

Many organisations fail to understand that media policy and communications are not things that can be left to take care of themselves.

I have known CEOs and others in leadership positions who pride themselves on having a hands-on grasp of every aspect of their business or organisation. But when it comes to media and communications, they are often disconnected. They understand how to handle the finance function. They have a good grasp of modern human-resources thinking. They understand how to manage the supply-chain. But they have no sense or feel for communications issues, often beyond a vague assumption that if something goes wrong there are plenty of PR companies out there looking for business.

And of course when the proverbial manure hits the ventilator, it is usually too late to start looking for help. Reputation assets are ephemeral. They will disappear much more quickly than physical assets and they may be very much more difficult to recover. A contrived response, put together under fire-brigade conditions, is impossible to camouflage. The media, other observers and the general public are quick to recognise the symptoms of panic and of a hurried attempt to put a good gloss on things that have gone horribly wrong. So it has been with this exercise on the part of the EU.

I am an EU enthusiast. For all its bureaucracy and clumsiness, I believe that the European Union represents the high point of statecraft, the best model so far evolved on the planet for co-operation and mutual development among peoples. But as a practitioner in media, I grieve to see it sell itself so short. In business terms, it might be said that the EU is a great product. But even the finest product needs promotion, sales and marketing. And it needs them consistently, not just when things go sour.

Conor Brady is Editor Emeritus of The Irish Times. He is a senior teaching fellow at the Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business at UCD where he lectures in modern media