Communications & Marketing Working Group

Communications & Marketing Working Group

Questions and Answers:

1)Who are the members of the Communications and Marketing Working Group (C&M WG):

MFRC and MFS staff make up the Communications & Marketing Working Group. There is a mix of MFRC Executive Directors, Boards members and communications and marketing staff, along with a family member, and MFS communications staff. Participants are geographically dispersed and from across the three environments of Canadian Armed Forces.

From MFRCs:
- Nancy Callahan, Comox, Marketing, Communications &Welcome Services Coordinator

- Colleen Calvert, Halifax, Executive Director

- Angela Duckworkth, Edmonton, Senior Communications Coordinator

- Dana Glover, Winnipeg, Community Outreach Services

- Angella Pawliw, Meaford, Marketing & Program Facilitator

- Dany St-Laurent, Valcartier, Information & Referral Officer

- Seija Suutari, Toronto, Executive Director

- Terry Telford, Kingston, Marketing Coordinator

From MFRC Board:

- MWO Moira Jackson (North Bay MFRC Board)

- Sarah Dusseault (Gagetown MFRC Board)

From Military Family:

- Cyndi Millsor Denise Rochat, Canadian Military Family Magazine
From MFS:
-Caterina Perry, Senior Manager
From MFS Communications:
- Julie Leblanc, Senior Communications Manager

- Chantal Beauchamp, Digital Media Manager

- Richard Séguin, Digital Media Coordinator

- Antonina Rizzo, Corporate Communications Manager

- Karen Dooks, Web Operations Manager

- Michelle Squires, Multimedia Specialist

2)What is the objective of the Working Group?

Develop an integrated strategic communications and marketing plan for the Military Family Services Program for 2014-2017;
Share best practices, resources and approaches in communications and marketing;
Develop a national approach and campaign to improve awareness of resources;
Develop a shared lexicon and key messages;
Develop shared tools and resources that can be used by all partners; and
Champion the work of the Communications and Marketing Working Group with MFRC peers, community partners and military families.

3)What are the challenges identified by the Working Group vis-à-vis better communicating with families?

The C&M WG confirmed that the current state of communications between service-providers/program-deliverers and families is generally inconsistent and/or disjointed, requiring appreciable improvement.

This assertion aligns closely with the external and internal catalysts (ie. CRS and Ombudsman’s Report, released fall 2013) that led to the WG’s inception.

Communication to families has traditionally been conducted by communicating through the CAF member, and communication often does not reach families as a result.

4)What outcomes for families is the Working Group seeking to achieve?

To generate greater awareness among military families, both those who currently access programming as well as those who do not, of the range and scope of services on offer to them;
To communicate with families across a larger range of channels, platforms and devices;
To initiate and sustain a responsive, dynamic two-way dialogue with families across the community, seeking feedback about the issues that matter to families; and

The WG also determined that these outcomes were likely dependent upon two prerequisites:

Secure both CAF and MFRC leadership/governancecommitment of the importance of communicating a unified and coherent support-to-families narrative, including more common methodologies and branding; and
Secure within MFS and MFRC leadership/governancea more intensive commitment to integrated, sustained and appropriately resourced communicationsat the national and regional/local levels in direct support of service-provision andprogram-delivery.

5)What are some of the conditions that need to be in place to achieve these desired outcomes?

A need to recalibrate institutional and constituency support-to-families expectations that are fair, reasonable and achievable;

Solve/reconcile existing governance, programing and communications issues and irritants impeding collaboration between the MFS and MFRC sub-communities in order to strengthen the MFS/MFRC partnership;

Positionthis enhanced MFS/MFRC partnership as the integrated face of the support-to-families function;

Reassess the persistent investment imbalance between executing programing to families and communicating that programing to them;

Modernize the support-to-families narrative into coherent, holistic institutional messagingreflective of the needs and realities of today’s military families, within which MFRCs can seamlessly inject specific regional/local messaging;

Enhance the role and prominence of visuals/imagery into support-to-families messaging and information products;

Implement systemic evaluation/measurement of the C&M function;

Enhance the technological interfaces between MFS, MFRCs, partners and the community;

Improve internal communications within the service-provider/program-deliverer community; and

Initiate discussion on the continued appropriateness of the current MFRC identifier.

The WG fully acknowledges that several of these prerequisites fall beyond the purview of the communications and marketing function. However, without addressing these fundamental imperatives, there is unanimity among participants that tangibly improving interaction with families was not viable.

6)What role can CAF senior leadership affect the institution’s relationship with military families, and directly influence interaction between service-providers/program-deliverers and the constituency?

Initiate consideration for enhanced integration of military family awareness into the CAF recruiting process;

Initiate consideration for enhanced integration of military family awareness intocore CAF training and developmental processes;

Initiate consideration of CAF’s role and influence vis-à-vis the fragmented support-to-families fundraising environment; and

Initiate dialogue with regards to CFMWS identifier through chronicled military family dissatisfaction with the existing version, specifically about the use of the word “welfare” as used in the organization’s identifier.

7)What are the significant next steps for the Communications and Marketing Group?

Consensus was reached on the following next steps:

Initiate NLT end-Oct 2014 a monthly communication opportunity for the C&M WG to sustain and advance the work of the WG, starting with a teleconference + email format to be replaced with a more efficient platform once one is available and practicable to all participants;

Initiate as of Dec 2014 a monthly communication opportunity for all members of the MFS/MFRC C&M community of practice. The format will also begin with a teleconference + email format before being replaced with a more efficient collaborative platform once available/practicable to all participants; and

Provide to all WG participants a working draft of the National Military Family Integrated Communications Marketing Strategy 2015+NLT 30 Nov 2014 for collective review and input. This document will address head-on the outcomes and prerequisites determined by the WGoutlined above.