Looking after the reputation of the government is a rather different proposition to managing corporate reputation, and yet there are similarities.
The way in which reputation can have a direct impact on the bottom line, for instance. “How government is perceived can have an impact on credit ratings,” says Jimmy Manyi, chief spokesperson for the national government and the head of the Government Communication and Information System.
Sovereign credit ratings (which, in the case of a developing country like South Africa, are inordinately influenced by the perceived political risk, and therefore the government’s ability to keep things stable, or preferably growing economically) determine how much debt costs.
A fraction of a percentage point either way can translate into a great deal of money when you are borrowing, to build, for example, a whole series of coal-fired power stations, or constructing new roads or replacing an ageing rail fleet. That’s before you even consider less direct impacts, such as tourists attracted or repelled by how they perceive the government, or foreign direct investment, or even hot foreign money that seeks a temporary home that offers high interest rates.
Local reputation feeds into global reputation and so there could, perhaps, be an economic argument that the national government would be justified in embarking on the most traditional of brand-building exercises: brand advertising. Even ignoring the political uproar such a campaign would cause, and the potential backlash from citizens who would see the money as poorly spent, Manyi isn’t a fan of the idea.
“We are of the firm view that the provision of services and information sharing should take care of the brand, as opposed to trying to glamourise government,” he says. “We wouldn’t go that route, we wouldn’t do brand advertising per se.”
So how does the government end up among the top 30 advertising spenders in the country? Through job adverts, primarily. Vacant government positions are advertised nationally, and while that is cheaper than full-page brand adverts, there are a great many jobs to fill every year.
Then there are brochures providing detailed information on healthcare, housing subsidies or safe sex, the issue billboards and the tactical adverts around upcoming deadlines or new services. Manyi says job adverts are important, regardless of regulation that requires them in the interests of transparency.
Likewise, he considers sharing information a key function of the government, and sometimes such information is best spread through traditional marketing channels. But while direct intervention to manage the national government brand isn’t on the table, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be an area of focus.
“To have zero brand management for the government would be irresponsible. There must be some level, the only thing you can argue is the extent. It can never be to the same extent as a commercial company, but we have to do reinforcement [of the reputation established through service delivery].
Government is under attack most of the time, and a lot of these attacks damage the government brand. There must be some process of dealing with that… It is important to highlight some of the successes of government, so that we do not reinforce the doom and gloom other people are hellbent on.”
If you hear a hint of stronger intervention in that sentiment, and can envisage that such responses would be best handled centrally rather than by individual government departments, you may not be entirely mistaken.
Manyi turns coy when asked whether a strong central clearing house, something similar to a corporate head office at least looking over the shoulders of its subsidiaries, isn’t a natural next step for the government to take. Similar ideas have been floated in the past, and it seems they may come under discussion again.