1 / 11

8th INFORM network conference

Feedback from the Mid-Term Assessment (MTA) of Information and publicity activities of operational programmes. 8th INFORM network conference Brussels,7-8 December 2011 Peter Fischer, European Commission, DG Regional Policy. Overview .

tuckerb
Download Presentation

8th INFORM network conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Feedback from the Mid-Term Assessment (MTA) of Information and publicity activities of operational programmes 8th INFORM network conference Brussels,7-8 December 2011Peter Fischer, European Commission, DG Regional Policy

  2. Overview • Analysis of Annual Implementation Report with the help of Geographical units (language issues, sheer volume of reports) • Guidance questions • Presentation is largely based on feedback received from geographical units (response rate was about 67%) • Level of detail provided varied greatly – often a direct reflection of the quality and content of the various Mid Term Assessments.

  3. Click to add text 1. Internal or external assessment? Very mixed picture: • Internal (Managing Authority) assessment (e.g. AT, LV, PT, SI) • Mix of internal and external assessment: (e.g. CZ, FR, IE, LT, RO, SK, UK,) • Examples of countries with external input: CY,DK, ES, HU, NL • ETC programmes: ratio is about 50-50 • External assessment itself did not always produce better recommendations

  4. 2. Did the assessment refer to both quantitative and qualitative data ? • Most assessments included both types of data • Quality of the qualitative data varied greatly –often base line indicators were missing or realistic objectives absent • Qualitative data were often opinion polls (which do not necessarily give answers to the impact of specific communication actions) • -> feedback from specific target groups (such as conference participants, website users) was not always collected, although is relatively easy to do

  5. 3. Examples of major information activities in the reporting period • Various conferences, (often for stakeholders) • Communication campaigns; incl. Project roadshows, TV or radio spots, postcards, newsletters • Europe Day activities: project exhibitions, bicycle tours for journalists/general public • Interactive communication and games: - photo or essay competitions for journalists; school children; general public; • Public opinion surveys • Launch of new website • Flying the flag all-year-round on MA premises

  6. 4. Main target groups? Primary media channels used? • Trend esp. for OPs with smaller communication budgets, focus on potential beneficiaries in the first 2-3 years of programme duration • Primary media channels: no uniform approach • Large campaigns have a multimedia approach, including TV, radio and the web (sometimes also postcards and posters) • Most ETC programmes have a primarily web-based communication approach

  7. 5. Budget spent on communication • Enormous range: e.g. 61% of info&com. allocation already spent in Vorarlberg, Austria, but only 5.2% in Lithuania; • Most programmes: about 20% • But: many MTA did not contain information about the budget spent on communication for 2007-2010, nor on annual basis (and also not in the AIR) - Why? • Total communication budget for some programmes still missing (Spain and most UK regions)

  8. 6. Good / interesting practices • Online voting on best project website (CZ) • Competitions for journalists / school children / general public (PL; EE, CZ) • Project roadshows (e.g. AT, DK, FR) • Quiz (IE) • User friendly websites: e.g. with advice for beneficiaries/applicants how to avoid mistakes with project implementation (RO)

  9. 6. Good practices continued • Press breakfasts (e.g. FR) • Project fairs (e.g. FR, ETC programmes) • Collaboration with regional TV stations (e.g. FR, AT) • Training seminars for potential beneficiaries (e.g. LT, SI) • Awards for strategic projects (ETC programme FR-BE) • Better harmonised visual identity of 4 Dutch OP thanks to work of national communicators network

  10. 7. Validity of Communication plan? Modification necessary? • Very few OPs change the communication strategy (Poland, Hungary) – who else? • Programmes shy away from a modification of the communication strategy, even if recommendations seem to imply it may be needed • Without clear target indicators, it is difficult to measure if you are on the right track…

  11. Your reactions please! • What were your experiences with the Mid-Term Assessment? • In case you outsourced the task, were you satisfied with the result and would outsource again? • In case you made the MTA with internal resources – was this satisfactory and would you do it again? • In view of 2014-2020 (Art. 106 (3)): Are you already making annual assessments of your information and communication activities?

More Related