Agenda item

Mr Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment and Place Marketing for Leicester and Leicestershire, will be attending for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which provides an update on the work of the Place Marketing Team for Leicester and Leicestershire.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment and Place Marketing for Leicester and Leicestershire, to the meeting.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)             Enquiries received by the Place Marketing Team (PMT) were largely data driven and much investment made as a result.  However, proactive steps were also taken to seek out and attract new investment into the area.  This included building relationships with existing businesses and developers and identifying clusters of businesses to understand where opportunities with their supply chain might exist, promoting opportunities wherever possible.

(ii)            It was clear a lot of work was taking place, but there was a need to capture more data in a more coordinated way across the County to demonstrate how effective this work was.  It had been recognised that good data was being obtained across some service areas across some districts, but this varied.  Work to adopt a more consistent approach across all local authority areas was therefore being undertaken.  This would enable performance to be measured more effectively, links with other organisations to be captured (e.g. referrals by the PMT to the Job Centre), and show what activity was working where, and how best to target this in the future.

(iii)          A Member commented that, from their personal experience, the MIPIM real estate market event held in Cannes was not a constructive place to do business but was a very expensive event and a waste of officers’ time.  The Member commented that it was concerning to see a number of public sector organisations still attending the annual event which in their view was a fundamental waste of public money. 

Mr Denby explained his experience of attending MIPIM as a public sector employee and provided assurance that the event was regarded as useful to build contacts directly with a number of senior representatives across the sector.  Members noted that the total cost of attending was in the region of up to £2,000 (including flights and accommodation and entry to the property show).  He provided assurance that spend was kept to a minimum as it was recognised that this was public sector money.  Members noted that whilst the Leader had attended MIPIM previously at the request of local private businesses, since then the County Council’s attendance had been through one officer from Strategic Property Services.  The Assistant Chief Executive confirmed that the benefits of attending were reviewed each year.

(iv)          Members noted that the PMT had been established some years ago following a review of the previous outsourced arrangements.  It had been identified that a more strategic approach was needed and that this could best be delivered in house by the City and County Councils working together.  The PMT had developed over time and had been working well in delivering at that strategic level.  Its work balanced with the tactical support delivered directly to businesses by other organisations.  It was also now looking to take advantage of some further strategic opportunities, such as acting as a pilot Destination Development Partnership, which if chosen by Government would be very good for the area.

(v)           Whilst the creation of new jobs in the County was welcomed, Members questioned whether in practice businesses had been able to fill those positions given current recruitment pressures and if so, whether these had been filled locally.  It was suggested that people travelling long distances from out of the County was less sustainable and did not support the green agenda.  It was suggested that it would be beneficial to capture such data to provide a full and clearer picture in future.

(vi)          Promoting small businesses particularly in rural areas was a key area of focus for the PMT.  Campaigns had been developed to be as inclusive as possible to capture both large and small enterprises and to ensure there was a good geographical spread across the City and County areas.  Members noted in the last three big campaigns delivered by the PMT the percentage of businesses engaged across County compared to the City was: Uncover the Story (68% in County), Travel Trade Guide (71% in County), and Fitcation (80% in County).

(vii)         The PMT shared information with partners and they also then promoted its activities amongst its own contacts.  It was not therefore just reliant on online activity.  The organisation worked in partnership with businesses to pull together campaigns to maximise interest and investment to the area as well as running its own.  Members noted that on average marketing spend by the PMT had been around £100,000 per annum, split 50/50 between the City and County Councils covering a wide range of activity from targeted social media campaigns to leaflets and literature material.

(viii)       The single biggest barrier across tourism venues in Leicester and Leicestershire was currently the ability for organisations to share information to promote events in a more collaborative way.   Better coordination and collaboration was needed and the PMT was working to develop this.

RESOLVED:

That the update now provided be noted.