Agenda item

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure which was conducted into the future marketing of Gloucester that the City Council commissioned following the liquidation of Marketing Gloucester Ltd in February 2020. Furthermore, the report also outlines the proposed steps to implement the recommendations of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee made at the meeting held on the 10^th of March 2020.

8.1       The Cabinet Member for Culture & Leisure introduced the report and highlighted key elements. He then welcomed Steve Brown,Destination Management and Marketing Consultant and the author of the report to present his findings. Steve Brown outlined that the report was based on two pieces of evidence; a consultation exercise and an extensive review of place marketing in other cities. From this he had concluded that place marketing was important for a City, and Gloucester perhaps had a weak brand identity despite the City ‘s rich heritage and history. Additionally, a collaborative approach to any future place marketing activity would be important. Steve Brown added that different models worked equally well in different cities, and thus the model adopted was less important than the resources assigned to place marketing. Further, he explained that many place marketing organisations were struggling with budgets, and increasingly reducing public subsidy, and the COVID-19 pandemic had exacerbated these issues. Steve Brown pointed to the recommendations of the report and the principles upon which these were based. Finally, he thanked the City Council for the opportunity to carry out the work and welcomed questions from the Committee.

8.2      Councillor Wilson sought to clarify that the reference to grants in the previous recommendations of the O&S Committee meant the grants provided by GFirst LEP towards the UKDRIC rather than the loan facility provided to MGL by Gloucester City Council. He then added that the report was a good piece of work and informative. In particular, he pointed to the feedback from the different stakeholders suggesting that the City had a weak brand identity which he stated was disappointing. His view was that collaborative work was crucial in any future work as well as what he described as repairing the damage left behind by MGL. Lastly, he agreed that prioritising an online presence was key, and asked whether the proposed £25,000 for the Digital Upgrade Project would be enough. In response to the issues raised by Councillor Wilson, the Corporate Director acknowledged and accepted Cllr Wilsons clarification in respect of UKDRIC grants funding. Steve Brown advised that the £25,000 budget for the Digital Upgrade project was enough and was based on a quotation provided by a place marketing digital supplier.

8.3    Responding to Councillor Hyman’s query on pursuing a City of Culture Bid, Councillor Morgan stated that the City of Culture bid remained an aspiration. However, the City Council would need to wait and see what the government was proposing, and whether there would be assistance for councils who expressed an interest in the bid. The current priority was getting the place marketing arrangement in place. Councillor Haigh submitted that the aspiration to pursue the City of Culture bid was not shared by all Members and suggested that it would be antithetical to the principle in the report of doing a few things well.

8.3      Councillor Morgan responded to Councillor Haigh‘s question about Steering Board  accountability by indicating that  he would expect the Cabinet Lead to be a member of the Board and to act as a conduit between the Council and the Board. On the topic of staffing, the Head of Cultural Services confirmed the Council’s understanding that that TUPE regulations did not apply in respect of staff formerly employed directly by MGL, however, these staff would be able to apply for the proposed new roles,

8.4      Councillor Stephens stated that he endorsed Steve Brown’s report and echoed the proposals put forward.  Councillor Morgan agreed with Councillor Stephens  that, as a Cabinet Member, he should not be the person to Chair the proposed Steering Board and that this role should be given to the best candidate and he agreed that residents should be involved in the future arrangements for place marketing in the City and stated that this would form a part of the Steering Board‘s work. Lastly, in relation to the £40,000 contingency fund allocation, Steve Brown outlined that it was expedient to have a contingency fund when embarking on a plan of this nature and it was a general figure.

8.5      Councillor Pullen welcomed the report and agreed with many of the proposals including having an in-house place marketing team, building a brand identity for the City, and involving stakeholders and residents in any future plans.  Furthermore, Councillor Pullen endorsed the recommendation to develop a suite of KPIs and a baseline for measurement and asked how this would be developed and who would develop this.  Additionally, he raised his concerns about the fact that Gloucester did not have a Visitor Guide, for example, in The Tourist Information Centre. Councillor Morgan outlined that Officers would respond to his query about KPIs.  On the topic of the Visitor Guide, he agreed that it was an important element of marketing in a City which would be taken on board. It was clarified that whilst there was a map of the city, there was not a Visitor Guide.

8.6      Steve Brown responded to a number of points raised by Councillor Hilton. Firstly, the report outlined a plan to have a distinct events team and a distinct marketing team.  Although the teams would have different job descriptions and individuals undertaking those roles, he believed there would be an advantage to the teams physically sitting together and having knowledge of the work being undertaken by the other team. Secondly, on the question of the appropriate budget for the place marketing function, he did not believe that there was an easy answer to this. Rather, his view was that the budget allocated depended on the City ‘s ambitions. Moreover, as the plan evolved there was the possibility that the place marketing team would develop a campaign to promote the city which partners could buy into. Thirdly, he outlined that the City of Culture bid was out of the scope of the report and was a consideration for Members perhaps at a future date. Lastly, he explained that developing a strong brand for the City was an important element of building the City ‘s place marketing function. Developing this could involve carrying out consultations with key organisations and residents as well as hiring a specialist. He then pointed to places such as Ipswich and Plymouth which were referred to the in the report as good examples of places with a strong brand identity.

8.7     Councillor Hilton asked Councillor Morgan for assurance that the Steering Board would have cross party membership and that Cabinet would consult with the opposition groups before finalising the governance arrangements for the Board. Councillor Morgan provided his assurances that this would be the case.

8.8      Councillor Hyman proposed a recommendation stipulating that the City Council would not procced with a City of Culture bid for the duration of the current Council.  The Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer outlined his view that whilst the Committee could make any recommendations it wished, the City of Culture bid was not on the agenda and the Committee could set a regrettable precedent by bolting other matters onto agenda items. Similarly, the Committee had not received a report on the City of Culture, and Committee Members had not come to the meeting prepared for a debate on the issue. Thus, he suggested that the Committee should proceed with caution before formalising Councillor Hyman’s recommendation. Councillor Lewis emphasised Councillor Morgan‘s earlier comments stating that the City of Culture bid was not being pursued at this moment in time but perhaps in the future, and thus suggested that it was beyond the remit of the present meeting.  Councillor Hyman stated that he wished to procced with the recommendation.

8.9     In response to the questions raised by the member of the public during Public Question Time, the Corporate Director outlined that the Steve Brown report identified a lack of quality, up to date and effective marketing collateral material which compared poorly with elsewhere.  This had not been a conscious or approved change in the City’s requirements of MGL but reflected the overall findings that MGL had lost focus.  In relation to the second question raised, he explained that festivals and events did not feature in the report as a decision had been taken by the Council earlier in the year to separate festivals and events from place and destination marketing. Festivals and events and place and destination marketing would each have a separate budget.

8.10    RESOLVED; - that that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee RECOMMENDS that: Gloucester City Council does not proceed with a City of Culture bid between now and May 2021.