Council in charm offensive

The Christchurch City Council is embarking on a public charm offensive to win over residents – with staff being taught how to write clearer letters and emails and how to be more friendly and helpful on the phone.

Council staff have attended workshops and taken part in roleplaying exercises to improve the way they come across, as part of a major project to change the culture and develop a new identity at the council.

The rebranding exercise has taken two years, has cost $54,000 for external ‘‘mentors’’ and will eventually see every member of the 2500-strong organisation – including the team of top council executives – trained in how to communicate better with the public.

It even includes a change of font and tone on its website and in its printed literature, moving to one that best captures ‘‘who we are’’ and ‘‘lets us tell our story’’ as a council. A section on the council’s internal staff webpage includes ‘‘tone of voice examples’’.

The project, which started in July, 2016, and has been rolled out gradually this year, covers everything from changing the colour of the city’s logo to creating friendly road signs warning people of work.

Other changes include:

A new ‘‘colour palette’’ and visual branding for council marketing on bus shelters, billboards and leaflets, with different colours for different types of message; The council logo will remain the same but will only be black or white, surrounded by different colours; Doing away with individual logos for scores of council events and organisations – such as Swim-safe or Kidsfest – to bring them under one banner; Established bodies run by the council, such as the art gallery and the botanical gardens, will retain their own identities but have better council branding; Signs at public facilities and parks being upgraded when needed to reflect the new identity, with the introduction of te reo names; Eliminating ‘‘visual inconsistencies’’, rewriting letter templates and doing away with jargon to ensure language is more positive and upbeat rather than ‘‘heavy-handed and bureaucratic’’; New fonts in emails, letters, booklets and leaflets – changing from ‘‘meta serif pro’’ to variations of ‘‘source sans pro’’ – because the old typeface couldn’t be fully used online.

The new identity was unveiled to staff in a message from chief executive Karleen Edwards at the end of June.

She told them it would ‘‘strongly align to our vision and values’’, saying: ‘‘Our new identity symbolises change, a shift in the way we do things and a new era for the council.’’

Urging staff to reduce red tape, be approachable, and have a ‘‘can-do attitude’’, she said the new identity ‘‘tells a story about who we are as an organisation and as a city . . . I want citizens to find us responsive, easy to deal with, helpful and friendly.’’

And she asked staff to think more about their communication with the public, saying: ‘‘Before you send an email, check it first – is your content easy to understand, written in plain language and in a friendly, helpful tone? If you received it, would you understand it? How would you feel?’’

More than 100 staff have been involved in the project, while two external ‘‘marketing mentors’’ were drafted in for about a month over the two years to run training and help develop the strategy.

They were paid about $54,000, money which came from existing budgets. More work was done on a pro bono basis.

Communications manager Diane Keenan said the cost compared favourably to a planned $171,000 rebrand of Whangarei District Council and a controversial $500,000 project in Auckland two years ago.

Keenan said the work needed to be done but that ‘‘we were very mindful of cost’’, saying the project would allow for future savings that would recover the bill for the mentors.

The change of identity was partially triggered by public feedback on long-term plans and residents’ surveys.

Councillors were also briefed early on and gave the project their backing, Keenan said, and mayor Lianne Dalziel said they ‘‘welcomed’’ the work.

Edwards said it would help ensure the council was fit for purpose and the better communication would be a benefit for people.

‘‘It’s not frivolous, because it’s actually about how we engage our community, how they value where their rates go and and what the council does for them and their understanding of that.’’