Alliance Name thread

Some Alliance name ideas

Hi all,

Using email as a chat function for on the fly suggestions. Some additional options for the name of the mechanism --

Global Alliance for Social Change Communication

Global Alliance for the Advancement of Social Change Communication in Development

Global Alliance for Social Good Communication

Alliance for Social and Behavior Change Communication

______________________________
President, International Social Marketing Association
patrick@cooksow.com |

In defence of “informed and engaged societies”

Getting the field taken seriously: in defence of “informed and engaged societies”

This is a contribution to the discussion on the new name for what has so far been called the “Communication for Development Mechanism”. A proposal has been made for it to be called the “Communication Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies”. I want to reiterate the case for this (to add to the existing justification which I agree with).

The name should reflect the purpose of the initiative. As I understand it, the principal purpose is to better prioritise communication programming in development action. The name therefore needs to resonate with – and across - the development community.

I have spent around 30 years involved in different efforts to prioritise communication in development action. Very few efforts that put its focus on communication first has succeeded in doing that (the exceptions tend to be celebrity focused or digital focused initiatives). Those that have succeeded have been very clear about the problem they are trying to solve.

I have helped organise or fed into numerous UN Communication for Development Roundtables – with few exceptions they have achieved little, and the most notable exception had a very clear problem focus (HIV).

The challenge is always the same – if you focus the discussion on supporting communication to solve a particular problem (boosting maternal health or improving agricultural practices or reducing violent extremism), then those not interested in that problem won’t come. If you focus the discussion on communication, then only those interested in communication take part (not those with the money and decisionmaking power to do something about the issue).

I have taken part in numerous attempts to bring donors together to talk about support to communication – donors have either not come, been dissatisfied with the results or not followed up. That is because they have all had different interests in communication, different reasons for coming and different problems they were trying to solve.

Any name that talks about Communication for Social and Behaviour Change (there are other good ideas listed) or variant on it will, I fear, fail to find a home in the development community because it’s not clear what problem it is trying to solve and will appeal principally to communication people. Initiatives of this kind have been tried repeatedly for decades and none has had the impact on development policy they hoped. Such initiatives also tend to find themselves talking a lot about what is and isn’t communication (for social change, for behaviour change, for empowerment, for development etc) and less time about the development problem they are trying to solve.

Added to that is that such names are anathema to many in the journalist community when the linkages across fields is paramount. Take a problem like corruption. There is a good deal I believe can be achieved in shifting social norms around corruption, especially in fragile states. Also in using communication to encourage citizen action. And in supporting good journalism, including investigative journalism (although that is very risky in fragile states). I don’t see the logic in having separate media and communication strategies here but I know that journalist organisations will not want to associate themselves with an effort that says it is trying to achieve behaviour change.

The proposition I put forward at the meeting in New York can be summarised as follows.

Communication will be indispensable to solving the most pressing problems the development field faces over the next decades. The development field (or more accurately world governments) have articulated and organised their priorities into 17 sustainable development goals. Unlike the MDGs, these cover most development problems communication has a value in addressing. A strong argument can be made that communication will be vital in addressing 14 of the 17 SDGs.

The international development sector organises its policy and funding debates (mostly) around these SDGs. The most promising way of exerting influence and ensuring that communication is properly prioritised in development debates is to engage in those debates as they take place. That requires us to have a development debate first and a communication debate second. To be successful in influencing a debate about making progress around improving water and sanitation (Goal 6), we will need to understand the parameters (the evidence, focus, language, actors etc) involved in shaping that debate, and then bring all the data and evidence we have about how communication can contribute to solving that problem, and organise in a disciplined way to influence it. To be successful in achieving Goal 16 (e.g. living in peace) similar efforts will need to be made but that will involve bringing an entirely different set of evidence and skills and arguments to the table with an entirely different set of policy makers.

That requires a name that is resonant across the development agenda. The work on communication and development has one thing in common regardless of the problem it is designed to solve – it is focused on people. The strapline of this new initiative should be “Putting people at the heart of the development agenda”.

And it is focused on supporting the creation of an engaged society (so people can take control of the issues that shape their lives) and an informed society (so they have the right information to take and shape the decisions that affect their lives).

By focusing on society, we immediately focus on the problem we are trying to solve, not the process through which we are trying to solve it. It means we don’t spend huge amounts of time defining what communication is or isn’t but spend that time on saying precisely how communication can address the problem we are focused on.

A Communication Alliance for Informed and Engaged societies will resonate as much with those trying to reduce corruption or open defecation, those seeking to improve uptake of health services or a new agricultural technique, empower girls or reduce violent extremism.

I can certainly live with alternatives (like Communication Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change). I just don’t think those outside our community will find it, or the debates emanating from the Alliance, immediately relevant to their problems.

But perhaps we should pretest different titles with different development audiences to see.

Additional thoughts/input from the social marketing community

Hi all, Look forward to talking in a few minutes. In the meantime, I wanted to add some additional input that I gathered from some of our seasoned members who have a long history in international social and behavior change work. A quick summary of their collective thoughts:

Preferred Name Features

-Includes "Global"

-Includes "social and behavior change"

-Does not include "Informed and Engaged" -- "too conceptual and is unclear" and "too warm and fuzzy and paternalistic"

-Does not include "communication." Too limiting and only speaks to one of our tools -- "Many SBC experts argue that communication is just one tool among many (e.g. advocacy, social marketing, behavioral economics, etc.) when trying to shift individual and normative behaviors and policies."

Two Additional Suggestions --

Global Alliance for Social and Behavior Change

Global Alliance for Social and Behavior Change Progress

Draft text for the 10 people about the name

To: The "Naming" Group

Rafael, James, Patrick (and Sue by submitted comment) - As the naming sub-group we met this morning to discuss the Alliance name. We also had input through the New York meeting in June, the original draft implementation plan, the prior discussions within the review and planning group and the contributions to the online thread at this link.

We agreed to extend the consultation process about the name. As this is such an important issue the opinion of the sub-group was that we need to test some possible Alliance names with some of the people who could be possible partners, stakeholders and (though I hate this word!) targets for the work that the Alliance will undertake. Members of the group are going to identify 10 people with whom we will engage concerning the name.

Below as promised is the draft text of the possible note to those people for their input on the name issue. These are the four preferred names for each of the people on the sub-group where they did not agree with any other names being suggested by their colleagues. Please let me know any suggested edits.

***

DRAFT note to 10 people who will be asked to provide their feedback on the best name for the Alliance. People still to be identified by the naming group (please see above).

Dear (name),

Working with a number of development organisations we are engaged in a concerted effort to develop a global alliance that will seek to increase the scale, efficiency, effectiveness and policy engagement of a range of closely related development strategies and action including, for example, community participation, entertainment-education, social marketing, facilitating dialogue and debate, behaviour change, communication for development, social change, media for development, health promotion, social networking and others. There are tens of thousands of development initiatives working through those strategic lines across the full spectrum of development priorities and contexts.

One major issue we face is the name for this global alliance. On that issue we would very much welcome your feedback and input. Before outlining the specific options we are presenting for your guidance these are some of the parameters within which we are seeking to work.

The name needs to:

- Work across all development issues;

- Contain key strategic elements (and hence strong identification points) for the sub-groups in this field of work (for example the ones outlined in the opening para above);

- Be outcome related - what we are working together to achieve;

- Have a high degree of intuitive understanding and relevance on "first sight" by people not familiar with this field of work; and

- Enhance the positioning of this field of work relative development policy debates and dialogue.

From your perspective, experience, role and understanding of Development which of the following names would you endorse and why?

Global Alliance for Engaged Social Change

Global Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies

Global Alliance for Social Change

Global Alliance for Engagement and Change

Other? - please feel free to suggest an alternative name

Thanks - your input and guidance on this matter is hugely important.

Rafael Obregon and Warren Feek (or others sign?)

***

The above is the suggested draft that we send to the 10 agreed people. We would then engage them in person to obtain their perspectives and views.

Warren

Lose 1st option and ask up front

Hi Warren,

This looks good to me. I’d lose the first name option — Global Alliance for Engaged Social Change — unless one of the group felt strongly that we need both this option and four options. Re the draft note to representatives of our audience segment, I might put the ask right up in the first paragraph. I know that I would likely not get through a longish email without knowing what is expected/wanted of me. How about something like, “We are seeking your input on the name of a global alliance that is coming together to increase the scale, efficiency, effectiveness and policy engagement of a range of closely related development strategies and actions ….”

thanks!

patrick
__________________

Comment on draft text

Thanks Warren. This looks good.

The full suggested name on informed/engaged is Global Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies: Putting people at the heart of the 2030 development agenda.

The other option may want the same or similar subtitle.

When we've agreed on names it might be best for those of us who know them to tweak this and write directly (copying others) to improve likelihood of replies.

I had an additional thought on those. Find one person central to policymaking of the top six most relevant SDGs and ask them. E.g. Saleemul Huq on Goal 13 (Climate Action).

All best and in haste

James

Alliance Naming group - 10am EST Tuesday 21st November

Sue, Rafael, James, Patrick - Hi - well... we need to try and resolve the name of this Alliance! Can we please hold a final decision-making meeting on this coming Tuesday, 121st November at 9am EST? (Due to daylight saving changes please check this time against your time zone). This is the one hour before the Summit Secretariat meeting for those involved in both. Only one agenda item - what will be the name of the Alliance?

PS - Call in numbers to follow

12-30pm EST?

Could we make it later that day - I have our annual budget decision making meeting then - 12.30 est?

Thanks for trying to pin this down

Sent from my iPhone

Time clarification

Sorry, my email was truncated. 10am est or 9 am est? Both times are in email. Former would be best for me. Thanks. Patrick

Alliance name conference call - 12-30pm PST

Hi folks - given James's note can we hold the "Alliance name" conference call at 12-30pm EST on Tuesday November 22nd? Does that work for everyone? Thanks - Warren

"Name" group meeting time

Hi folks - for very good reason - late notice, very busy people, USA Thanksgiving travel, etc - it is proving difficult to get a time for us all to see if we can finalise the name of the "Global Alliance ...".

Let me try a different tack. Can you please let me know which of the following you can do. Will then work from there. By prompt reply to this email please put a "yes" next to all of below for which you are available. I will quickly tabulate and get back to you.

Tuesday 21st - 12-30pm EST

Tuesday 21st - 2-30pm EST

Wednesday 22nd - 9-00am EST

Wednesday 22nd - 12-30pm EST

Thanks - Warren

Name discussion - Background note

For our discussion tomorrow or Wednesday (I am compiling your “what time” responses and will get back to you very soon - still waiting on 2 people) I thought that a background note outlining, from past discussions including at the New York meeting, some of the dynamics to take into account when deciding the name of the Global Alliance may be helpful.

Getting to a name is not an easy task. (Stating the obvious!) But it is a really important task for all the reasons we know so well - positioning related to our field, resonance with policy makers, communicating of added value to development, bonding the various strands of our field of work, and others.

So, this is my reminder of a few key things that ahve emerged in this process that we need to take into account as we seek to decide a name for the Alliance. Please correct or add of course. There could be important items that I have missed.

1. The name needs to resonate across the major development issues - for example, economic development; governance and democracy; environment, including climate change; equity; gender; health; education; HIV/AIDS; rights; poverty; justice; infrastructure; freedom of expression; cities; etc. Perhaps the best way to quickly review what the name needs to relate to and resonate with is to match proposed names for the Alliance against the SDGs and ask the quesiton - does this name make sense related to that SDG?

2. One purpose of the “Global Alliance …” initiative is to bring this field of work together in order to take effective action on our commonly shared agenda. Therefore, it will be really important that the name chosen does not by design or implication appear to favour or endorse one element of our field over others. If you just take the different names used by the orgs involved in the Review group for this Alliance this demonstrates the issue - for example, Media Action (BBC Media Action), Social and Behaviour Change (USAID - noting that they recently dropped Communication from SBCC), Communication for Development (UNICEF), Social Marketing (ISMA), Social Justice (Soul City) Community health (CORE), Media and Communication (IAMCR), Communication Programs (JHUCCP). That is just a few. There is a significant variety. If one view of this field looks favoured in the name then we will potentially lose other important elements of this field of work from our endeavours. This will undermine our very purpose for creating the Alliance.

3. That same dynamic applies in relation to the present networks, partnerships, major programmes and/or associations that are generally considered to be important parts of our overall field of work. The name of the “Global Alliance …” has to ensure that a platform is provided that, through its very name, draws those elements into a more coherent and substantive process. The name has to create that space and provide the foundation for that to happen. This will not take place if the name adopted either overly identifies with one part of this field of work and/or appears similar to an existing network, partnership, major programme or association.

4. Another key purpose of the “Global Alliance …” is to present and argue for the body of work, strategic analysis and policy proposals and ideas for this field of work to governments and other local, national or international policy makers and funders. So the name adopted has to facilitate that goal. The name itself has to help make both the argument for what we are seeing to “progress” in development, and resonate with the interests of the constituencies with whom we engage. Essentially we want to be able to say, through the name, that “you” (policy maker, community, funder, etc) should really do much more of “this” (what we want them to do, fund, expand, use as the basis for policies, etc. The name should both provide direction towards and open the space for that “this” to take place.

Hope that this helps. Please add.

Thanks - Warren

"Name" group - Wedensday 22nd at 9am EST - call-innumbers

Sue G, Patrick, James, Rafael, - Hi folks - thanks for your responses. The Alliance "name" sub-group will take place Wednesday, 22nd November at 9am EST. The call-in numbers are below. The background note is here. Thanks - Warren

Join by phone

United States : +16467571480 (Global)                          English (United States)
Switzerland : +41225083200 (Global)                             English (United States)
Hungary : +3617909400 (Global)                      English (United States)
United Kingdom : +443300102423 (Global)                   English (United Kingdom)
Jordan : +96265509679 (Global)                      Arabic (Saudi Arabia)
Panama : +5073017399 (Global)                      English (United States)
Cambodia : +85523260206 (Global)                                English (United Kingdom)
South Africa : +27879403508 (Global)                            English (United Kingdom)
Bulgaria : +35924928220 (Global)                    English (United Kingdom)
Denmark : +4578793993 (Global)                    English (United States)
France : +33176542732 (Global)                      French (France)
Netherlands : +31705680050 (Global)                            English (United States)
Australia : +61730628687 (Global)                   English (Australia)
Brazil : +556136860910 (Global)                      Portuguese (Brazil)
Belgium : +3228087101 (Global)                      French (France)
Greece : +302112340299 (Global)                   English (United Kingdom)
Italy : +390697632494 (Global)                        Italian (Italy)
Albania : +35544548424 (Global)                     English (United Kingdom)

Find a local number

Conference ID: 55925573
Forgot your dial-in PIN? |Help

[!OC([1033])!]
...........................................................

Final thoughts/idea on Alliance name

Some quickly put together final thoughts in advance of our call tomorrow……

We’re hopefully coming to a decision tomorrow on the name of what has so far been called the Communication for Development Mechanism.

As you know, I’ve been arguing (together with Warren) that this be called something like the Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies.

This suggestion came from the discussions we had in New York earlier in the year which concluded that this effort needed to be focused on engaging and persuading those who were not currently convinced by the value of communication that they should be.

The alternative suggestion – that we be called something that best describes organisations already involved in the field (like Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change Communication) seems less likely to engage those not involved or engaged in this field. As we’ve discussed, this decision as much about what this effort is designed to achieve as it is what it is to be called. If it is to cohere a community of practice around things like standard setting (which we concluded in NY was not the highest priority) then we should call it something that reflects its makeup. If it is to talk to an audience beyond this group, we need to call it something that will resonate with that audience – and “informed and engaged societies” is, think, a term that resonates with a wide variety of development policy makers.

As I’ve said before I can live with either….but I do think what we call it will shape what it will do.

I have two further reflections. We could call it DAIES standing for “Development Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies” (implying a “dais” or “platform”, although “daies” is literally the archaic plural of “days”).

I offer this in case it prompts other better last minute ideas (I’m conscious it sounds very similar to “Daesh” as in Islamic State). And this idea is partly prompted by the request from Sarah Lister not to call it “Global Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies” because there is already a Global Alliance on SDG 16.

Finally, there is quite a bit of discussion going on among donors in the governance and democracy space working more closely together on issues of media support (like SIDA, NORAD, UNDP, SDC, OECD and separately Omidyar, OSF etc). While the energy for that has come from concerns over misinformation/disinformation/”fake news” etc, some of those have said that they don’t want a walled garden where they only talk about media and democracy/governance – they want to talk about media, communication and people. I'm hoping at some point we have a real opportunity to join up the communication for development and media development debates which have, for so long, been often unnecessarily siloed.

First question - "Name" group meeting

To: The Alliance "name" sub-group - Rafael, James, Patrick and Sue - cc others as an FYI.

Hi folks - look forward to chatting at 9am EST Wednesday. Many thanks to those who have been flexible in order to accommodate the commitments of others, ensurign the full subgroup can meet.

The background note can be accessed here along with the thread of comments and ideas.

The dial in numbers are at this link.

A quick heads-up. To start the meeting I am going to ask everyone to provide the name you prefer and recommend. No ifs, no buts , no maybes, no perhaps, no "or", no "on the one hand" or "the other hand". Just state your preferred name - actual wording.

We can them move forward from there.

Thanks - much appreciated - look forward to chatting at 9am EST Wednesday 21st.

"Name group" - Outcome from November 22nd meeting

Hi folks and thanks for engaging this morning. A really difficult task and we are making progress.

1. The Alliance names proposed by everyone in the round-robin were:

Sue - Communication Alliance for Social Change - building informed and engaged societies

Rafael - Communication Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change - building informed and engaged societies

Patrick - Global Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change

James - Development Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies - Putting people at the heart of the development agenda

Warren - Global Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies - communication, media and social change for effective and equitable development action

Carla: Alliance for engagement, social and behaviour change

2. We agreed to put Sue and James's proposed names forward for decision by the Baltimore meeting.

So, the names to be put forward in Baltimore are:

Communication Alliance for Social Change - building informed and engaged societies

Development Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies - Putting people at the heart of the development agenda

3. Process

a. One person will succinctly present the argument for each option

b. Discussion

c. If necessary a vote

Thanks - Warren

Name proposals - on further review?

James, Rafael, Sue, Patrick - Hi - sorry to do this but will explain why below.

But first, Rafael has written me and wants a clarification re the name Sue suggested. I took the guidance at the end of our meeting literally and went with Sue's original formulation in our round robin - so no "and behaviour". Should I have included "and behaviour" as was suggested by Rafael in his one name provided. Then the name to go to the meeting next week would be: "Communication Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change - building informed and engaged societies" rather than "Communication Alliance for Social Change - building informed and engaged societies". Sue - perhaps I can ask you to please advise?

My other issue is perhaps a little more fundamental. It is diffficult when a new element is placed into an initiative such as this and it has not received some scrutiny over time. Plus I was so wrapped up with the facilitation of the process and being James's "explainer" that I forgot an important principle for us all in this work - that what is developed will add to, that it will not duplicate or compete with what is already in place.

This is Sue's name proposal with the Rafael amendment:

(The) Communication Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change - building informed and engaged societies

And this is The Communication Initiative:

The Communication Initiative - convening the communication and media development, social and behaviour change community

That is far too close for our comfort particularly in the way in which these will be commonly referred to - The Communication Alliance and The Communication Initiative.

This issue is comounded by the way the criteria for the Alliance are being shaped. The key and core principles from the New York meeting, namely being an alliance of the existing networks and partnerships and/or an alliance of issues based networks (with the UN Standing Committeee as a long term goal) are gradually being replaced/complemented with a focus on indivdual organisations (see attached).

There are a few ways out of this dilemma perhaps - just 2 ideas.

1. Could Sue's name suggestion be changed to, for example (The) Global Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change - building informed and engaged societies. This would create a sharper distinction - in short form - The Global Alliance and The Communication Initiative.

2. Do we need to have a better appreciation of and agreement concerning where The Communication Initiative fits in all of this moving forward. (By way of further example many of the individual organisations being suggested for the Alliance table are The CI partners and many are funders; all of course are within the network). We have played a significant role in getting many of them around the table for the NY meeting and the regional and online consultations.) I realise that this is outside the scope of this "name" group, but these thoughts are prompted by the name issue above and I would welcome your guidance and insight.

Sorry to throw this at you now. I was perhaps too slow on my feet at 6am yesterday. That allied to the fact that that was a new sugggestion from Sue so high up the possible name ranking, having to explain the James proposal as he was on mute, and facilitating the process meant that The CI implications of our deliberations were way down the attention list. Hope we are not penalised for that.

Whatever name we agree is best, we do need to do the same check for other organisations - so for example does "Development Alliance for Informed and Engaged Societies - Putting people at the heart of the development" seem close to the name of any other processes in this field?

Thanks for considering above - Warren

From the perspective of both social marketing and myself

Hi Warren. Thanks for these incredibly thoughtful clarifications and meditations. From the perspective of both social marketing and myself, I would be most supportive of the slight amendment to Sue’s name — Global Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change - building informed and engaged societies.

I always preferred Global rather than Communication Alliance because the latter sounds as if we have gotten together to communicate, which is partly true but not the whole story. But the cautionary tale told at the beginning of our meeting earlier this week made me more accepting of Comm Alliance.

Bottom line? I say we put forward the above option as one of two names to be voted on by the working group.

Thanks!

Patrick

Thanks Patrick - Other responses?

Patrick - many thanks for your response to my note - much appreciated. James, Rafael, Sue - if you can respond asap that would be excellent. I need to urgently complete the papers for the meeting in Baltimore next week. Thanks - Warren

Alliance

Hello all

Sorry again that I was in silence on the last call....I wasn't on mute and my tech was working fine and could hear everything but somehow it didn't work.

If the choice is to go with Alliance fo Social and Behaviour Change (or similar), let's remember Sarah (Lister or UNDP) especially asked that it not be called a "Global Alliance" because they have just helped establish "Global Alliance on Promoting Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies" - and I have hopes that will have at least some focus on media/freedom of expression issues around SDG target 16.10.

I also think calling it "Communication Alliance" takes it too close to CI and it's very important that this complements but does not compete in any way with CI. One of my arguments for "Informed and Engaged Societies" is that it solves this issue of potential confusion with existing initiatives (not just CI but also people may understandably ask how this differs from the Communication for Social Change Consortium)".

But to be clear and repeat I am not hostile to it being called the "Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change: building informed and engaged communities" (or possibly "Development Alliance for Social and Behaviour Change: building informed and engaged societies", but if it is to be called that I think it becomes even more imperative to work out in Baltimore what it's principal purpose is, what problems in the next two or three years it sets out to solve, and to be completely clear how it will support and complement existing initiatives and what it's principal USP is. I think the ideas I've set out before around using the most relevant Sustainable Development Goals as the organising focus for its advocacy and the UN High Level Political Forum as a useful principal focal point for that advocacy still make sense regardless of the name.

But the issue of potential duplication or competition is a real concern. This is an issue for CI but also for other organisations like ourselves. There are quite a few networks we are involved in and trying our best to support with time and money or both - the Communication Initiative, the Communication for Disaster Affected Communities Network, the Global Forum for Media Development and BOND (the UK international development NGO Network) as well as the the C4D Network, and other more specific initiatives (like SBCC, the OECD DAC Govnet).

And finally, one of the rationales I had understood behind the new initiative was that it would in some way and as part of its mission reinvigorate or take forward the space and function that has been vacated by the collapse of the UN Communication for Development Roundtable process. I won't repeat all my earlier reflections on that other than to say that the Roundtable could very rarely find a way of making communication meaningful to a broad range of development actors across the development agenda. We need to make sure whatever we call the new Alliance that it doesn't face the same problem.

I('m very sorry I won't be joining you in Baltimore. I hae a long standing commitment as a board member of Global Voices to attend their Summit in Colombo at the same time, and then go on my main annual leave (I managed to miss having a summer holiday). My colleague, Yvonne MacPherson, will be there and I'll brief her on all this before hand.

Good luck in Baltimore with this important moment. I look forward to catching up afterwards.

All best

James