The desk research has revealed two examples of good practice.
SQA s Skills for Scotland S S project won an award for the best use of publicity in a European
funded project. SQA were recognised for the innovative use of the European logo in GamesSpace a virtual game-based assessment system. The award was organised by the Scottish Government, and the ICT Education Partnership Award at the 2011 BETT Awards, and presented by the Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning and two European Commissioners of DG Employment and DG Regional Policy. The project was reported as a good practice in the 2012 evaluation of the communication strategy.
Online booklet. The use of the main results of the previous OPs formed an important part of
publicity for the 2014-20 programmes and highlighted a new approach to embracing digital technology. An online booklet was produced highlighting the achievements of the 2007-13 programmes through a series of case studies from different parts of Scotland. The booklet also introduced the new ERDF and ESF OPs in 2014-20 along with the main priorities for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. The book was launched in March 2015 at an event at the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, which was organised to highlight a £76 million scheme focusing on Scotland s low carbon economy and co-financed with ESIF. The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities attended the event in order to promote the fund and launch the book, and several media and press representatives attended (Mendez, Dozhdeva and Bachtler 2016).
Many interviewees have found it difficult to identify examples of communication good practices, which would highlight and increase the positive perception of the EU dimension in Scotland.
Local programme websites, e.g. for the Leader programme, are seen as generally well received and present a good way of promoting at local level the co-funded activities. In addition, setting-up a dedicated website covering specific activities part financed by ESIF at a council level, as opposed to including this information on generic council websites, has been highlighted as a good practice14. This allows users to navigate better in the content and, presenting information in a more detailed but also consolidated way, potentially raise the awareness and profile of the Structural Funds contribution to local development. Inclusion onto such websites of case studies highlighting how the activities co-funded by ESIF have helped individuals are also an example of good practice in communication. In general, case studies focusing on particular projects and showcasing how people, communities and businesses have benefitted from European support have been noted as an effective and attractive communication tool as they make success stories more concrete and help people relate to them.
14 For instance, a dedicated website https://www.workeastren.co.uk showcases the work of the East Renfrewshire Council s employability and skills team, many of the activities being part financed by the European Social Fund; among other things, the website includes a separate page (https://www.workeastren.co.uk/case-studies) highlighting specific case studies on how the activity helped individuals to progress in their employment or training.
The importance of evaluations has also been highlighted in this regard, as evaluations of ESIF co- funded activities are able to provide good material for compiling case studies apart from providing evidence that could be used in other different ways for communication purposes.
The use of social media has also been mentioned as an example of good practice in communication. The main focus has been on Twitter announcements and signposting to announcements on the programme website.
The importance of consistent branding has been highlighted (e.g. consistent use of logos), as well as potential value of distributing marketing materials (e.g. pens, cups, mouse mats etc.) for communication purposes (e.g. during open day events).
Capacity building seminars for the policy community, particularly at earlier stages of programme
life cycle, have been mentioned as a good example of positive internal communication activity. The generally more proactive engagement and publicity activities pursued by the rural networks under the EAFRD has also been noted. The implication is that it would be appropriate to encourage more learning and dissemination of good practices across different Funds within programmes.
When questioned about the effectiveness of different communication measures in increasing
citizens awareness of Cohesion policy (Table 21), stakeholder survey respondents considered that the most effective sources were television, radio and the associated media campaigns with many rating them as potentially very effective. However, they are also among the least widely used tools, which may relate to the actual costs and the cost/benefit ratio.
The potential of newspapers in increasing citizens awareness of the policy is evaluated as relatively high, although the actual use of this communication channel is assessed as being significantly lower, which may point to some room for improvement in terms of the relationship with the press. Some communication tools viewed effective are also reported to be used most often including plaques/billboards with EU flag and publications such as brochures, leaflets and newsletters indicating to a good exploitation of the perceived potential. Interestingly, programme website, identified through the interviews and the stakeholder survey as the most widely used tool, is viewed as ineffective by 22 percent of respondents although those assessing it positively are still in majority.
There appears to be need in exploring more the potential of social media as well as events, as 50 and 78 percent of respondents respectively indicated them as effective or very effective communication tools.
Table 21: Stakeholder survey Q14. How effective do you think each of these communication measures are in increasing citizens awareness of EU Cohesion Policy?
Very effective
Effective Neither effective nor ineffective Ineffective Very ineffective Don´t know Not used in my region Television 27.8% 5.6% 27.8% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0% 22.2% Radio 16.7% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0% 22.2%
Local and regional
newspapers 16.7% 38.9% 27.8% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1%
National newspapers 16.7% 27.8% 22.2% 16.7% 0.0% 11.1% 5.6% Programme website 5.6% 38.9% 27.8% 11.1% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0%
presentations
Plaques/billboards with
EU flag 0.0% 66.7% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6% 11.1% 0.0%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube) 22.2% 27.8% 22.2% 11.1% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% Media/advertising campaigns on television or radio 11.1% 27.8% 38.9% 5.6% 0.0% 11.1% 5.6% Press releases 5.6% 44.4% 16.7% 22.2% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% Brochures, leaflets, newsletters, other publications 5.6% 55.6% 27.8% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% Events 16.7% 61.1% 11.1% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0%
Source: COHESIFY Stakeholder Survey 2017, N=18