The Stirrer

1. Birmingham City Council has a legislative duty to inform, consult and engage with residents
2. The council provides more than 800 services, which need to be promoted
3. At 7p per unit, per issue (£1.68 per household, per year) Forward provided good value for money
4. Local papers don't provide unlimited space and deliver to an estimated 420k households
5. Good communications always looks at research, analysis, feedback and evaluation - hence consultation
6. Consultation with councillors and focus groups will help us shape frequency, look, feel, tone of publications
7. Forward advertised jobs - especially useful in the current economic climate
8. Many citizens using our services don't access information published electronically - the alternative to a printed Forward
9. It increases our recycling target!
10. We have a platform that doesn't use such inflammatory language as online bloggers!

If you as Director of Comms are so in favour of Forward, why has it been suspended since July?

Which it doesn't always do.

800 and falling.

Neither does Backwards. I've not had a copy delivered in two years.

Can you provide the methodology for this consultation? Which groups are being consulted?

Always a good justification and a strong argument for retaining the newsletter.

*scratches head* So pushing sheets of paper through every door in Birmingham (plus libraries, etc) is a good thing because it then enables us to recycle that paper? This argument might need a little more thought.

I think you'll find that bloggers aren't required to work as mouthpieces of the city council. I think you'll also find that Adrian doesn't make quite as much money from the Stirrer as the professional spin merchants on the PR team for BCC.

And, as PT asks - if it is such a good idea, why has it stopped?

Yes, but this is not synonymous with promoting Cllr Whitby at every opportunity - how informative or engaging is the reiteration of his beaming visage on most pages and would the people of Birmingham want such visual torment if they were consulted?

And uses many other means to do this, including a staggeringly expensive website, billboards and other signage

At 0p per unit since its demise I think the value for money has increased exponentially

As padded-out as it was with self-promotion of our dear leader, Forward did not provide unlimited space - for this we would need to turn to our website. As for the circulation, perhaps some consultation of the readership who would actively seek to stop delivery of the organ might warrant an approach that differed from the carpet-bombing strategy of old.

This is an argument for consultation, not Forward, unless the decision has already been made to reinstate the thing in which case consultation is superfluous.

See response above

So useful that in the midst of this economic meltdown publication was halted.

And thus a more sustainable strategy would be to explore why this is the case, rectify and improve the situation and then consider whether everyone needs their letterbox sullied with the organ.

Very good. See also making your own cat litter, impromptu packing materials and windbreaks for cycling down mountains

I'm sure we are all only a consultation fee away from moderating our language accordingly.

Surprised to see the Director of Comms commenting publicly on this (if indeed it is her).

If the political decision is taken not to bring back the paper, is the same officer going to have to come up with 'Ten good reasons to get rid of Forward'?

Can you argue that producing and distributing 20,000,000+ newspapers per annum (52 * 400,000) is good for the environment? Thanks for a real world example of the perverse incentives that can be caused by targets.

Um.... I do feel a few words of welcome might be in order - in addition to that 'robust' debate which is a feature of the forum.

Here are two such.

"Welcome Debra."

It was a fortnightly publication Dom if I recall correctly so a mere 10 million (approx) were produced...

I doubt it is Debra.

Should we have just one Forward thread??

No, the more we have, the more we can recycle our opinions.

So by this logic, it should go weekly - if not daily. Just think how good our recycling figures would be if that was the case.

oh my god...
I am hoping you aren't the same £100,000 a year Debra Davis, or even worse, someone who happens to work for her.



would it be fair to suggest that independent "research" and robust "analysis" of the Forward publication, both internally in the council and externally to residents would have given the "feedback" you need.
Much of which was that it was irrelevant and unneccessary expenditure which is made worse by it's content.

The Council newspaper is coming back, but the debate within the Council is in what format. Monthly, fortnightly or weekly? How much of the paper should be constituency based - 100%, 50% or zero? Should it be a tabloid or A4? Should it be delivered to every single household or targeted at households whom we know will read it?

I'll put my hand up now and admit that I never read the Forward newspaper, BUT I know lots of people who read it each week.

The Council does need some form of paper communication with the residents of Birmingham. The debate should be in what format.

The Council has a duty to 'inform, engage and consult' with residents. There's no reason at all why this has to be via a taxpayer funded, city council run, printed newspaper.

If this is indeed Debra Davis, then it is, in my view, a very serious lapse in judgment for her publicly to comment on this issue.

It is for politicians not officers to make the decision about the future of Forward. My understanding is that no decision has yet been taken about its future. It is, now, no secret that there are many councillors who want to see this 'newspaper' scrapped. It is, in my view, highly improper for an officer publicly to wade into that debate. Highly improper and I, for one, am pretty damn angry about it.

Thanks for rolling out the carpet, Sibyl.
But I have to say that I suspect the likelihood of Ms. Davis dropping by on a regular basis is, erm, nil!
One letter from on high is probably the best we can hope for.
Or is this a sign of change within the council - a bit more tuned in and joined up?

Well then, we'd best figure out who's posting under that name.
Is LS back amongst us perchance?
Or even a certain other poster - who 'always' posts under his own name - having a change of mind?

the last time i remember checking the jobs section in forward, there were naff all half decent jobs in there.

granted, many of the jobs are in schools, and function specific roles, which don't immediately shout out at you. but then shouldn't
these jobs be advertised primarily in job centres and other avenues where the public go to access info. aswell as on the internet.
all of these places are the avenues you pursue when looking for a job, you go out and get at the info.

i've long given up on the idea that a well paid, rewarding, and interesting role will be advertised by BCC either on the website
or in print. so what's the point ? i certainly don't bother checking now. even if it were posted through the door.

Plus, isn't the jobs section just a duplicate of what's supposed to be available on the website. again the last time i checked
the jobs section of which appears to be rather thin. Now that could be to do with the economic climate, or it could be the new normal.