WB: Looking for that connection with your outside world, looking for contact and entering into the connection. Is this experienced by the stakeholders in the way we think? What do they think of the way we do that? What do they think about the reputation of the IND?  

We don't do that kind of research very often, but they are always useful to see where you should invest. You get that from an investigation, but also from a conversation. Get feedback. Listen and see how you can improve the process. We conducted a survey in 2020 and that was among all key stakeholders. This year we want to do a lighter version to see where we are now.

MD: We are now in the process of tendering for a reputation survey, a baseline measurement. This is part of our new organisational strategy. We haven't done any research like this for a while. The last time was a few years ago, with the emphasis on RVO's name recognition. Now we deliberately approach this differently and it is more about reputation, about how we are known by important stakeholders.  

This also shows the change that we as an organisation are making towards reputation management. We also conduct a great deal of research from the point of view of services and customer communication. This is not carried out by my team, but by the customer communication department in order to improve the service and customer communication. So we are rolling the reputation survey out again to find out we stand, how do important stakeholders view RVO and what can we formulate as a goal for the coming years to improve our reputation? 

WB: With regard to customer communications, we also do a lot of surveys, customer panels and other ways to get that information. The migration domain is broader than just the IND: the Ministry of Justice and Security regularly conducts flash polls to see how the Dutch view immigration policy. We do not always have direct influence on it, but it is an indicator for us. 

How do you view communication from other public organisations? Do you look at any public organisations with envy? As far as you are concerned, is there a textbook example that has set up a good brand? 

MD: I think that UWV has developed nicely in communication in recent years. Proactive, transparent, clear in their own position and with their own vision on the role of the organisation.  

UWV is very good at reputation management. In fact, you don't see the type of advertising in the government that commercial brands often use. We are using more information campaigns on certain topics, for example, look at ‘Van A naar Beter’. It is also more about the field of labour market communication, as the Ministry of Defense does, or ‘Working for the Netherlands’, where the national government presents itself as an employer, where you can see the branding more clearly. 

WB: I think Rijkswaterstaat is a good example. They communicate very visually. Of course they have nice stories and pictures to show. They harness the power of images and they can tell a thousand stories. That is what we at the IND are trying to do. 

In your case, can you speak of a brand asset? 

WB: No we don't. And Ter Apel is not a brand asset. 

MD: No, we don't really have that either. I do think that, for example, that blue lion, the logo, certainly has an influence on the brand. What we do have are brands with a partnership, which are presented more as their own brand, in which RVO plays a role as a partner, such as the Brexit desk. 

Are there branded campaigns from the commercial sector that you admire? 

WB: Coolblue. It seems so simple what they do, but it is just very well thought out and it is consistently implemented. That smile is everywhere. It's so simple, but I like it so much. 

MD: Dopper, with a clear social motivation. They also add a high-quality product that contributes to their social point of view, and also provides added value for their customers. I like that very much. 

The feeling of a brand does not necessarily say anything about the organisation. Isn't that the essence of building a brand? 

MD: No, there is also a big difference in the way you can establish that brand. Real advertising for your brand is different at a government organisation than at a commercial party. Creating that reputation purely for your brand, you have to do that in a very different way as a public service provider.  

For a government organisation it is important to show what you contribute to society and how you do that, that is the accountability you have to demonstrate. These are elements that make the brand slightly different. 

WB: The association is very important to us. It is not my concern that the whole of the Netherlands knows that the IND exists. The image they have of the IND, and the associations they have, that’s what is important to me. Because that improves the service. The IND still has some work to do in this regard. 

WB: I think the IND should never do that alone. Then the partners in the alien’s domain, such as the COA, the Repatriation and Departure Service, the Ministry of Justice and Security and the IND, should do this together when we talk about asylum policy. Then I think two things: there is a lot of ignorance among the general public about immigration policy, so we could look at how you can change that and create understanding. 

MD: You always have to consider whether you can justify the budget publicly. I see opportunities to set up a brand campaign by means of labour market communication. You can tell a different story there than from your service. It is more about who you are and what you stand for as an organisation. That way you can still sell your organisation a bit. 

But is the fact that the IND is not the only one operating in that sector a reason not to or not be able to cover the subject matter? 

MD: I think you should look at the goal you want to achieve and then be able to justify that. There I see the power of collaboration, for example, on a theme that is widely accepted in society. You never work alone as a public service provider. If you then think that you should do something with several service providers, then I can justify that better than if you tackle it alone as an organisation. Then you also radiate the image of one government. 

WB: I think that the Dutch citizens are not waiting for so many different brands from the government. They are waiting for a national government that functions well. It is up to the national government to provide good services in all the different domains where they work and to ensure that the association and image are good. But you're not going to do that as a separate brand. 

What influences the reputation score of your brand? 

MD: Of course that starts with your service, which has to be really good. It is also very important to be transparent and clear about the choices you make, what you can and cannot do, and also be transparent if things don't work out. That builds trust and that is an important part of your reputation.  

A good example is our working method for the Fixed Charge Allowance: we have ensured that various stakeholders have a different image of RVO with regard to how we set up the services and also how we collaborated and communicated with clients and stakeholders there. 

WB: I agree with that. It is important to clarify what is and what is not possible. Then you also have the independence of the implementing organisations.  

This year we have released the status of the implementation for the first time. More organisations are doing this that clearly indicate to politicians and to the client where the problems lie and how the service should be improved. That is important for your reputation.  

In addition, your service must also be good. Making sure that goes as well as possible, being transparent and proactive, even if something goes wrong. Then tell us what is not going well and why it is not going well. And especially how you want to solve it. We are all realistic enough to know that if 95% of the service is good, but 5% is not and that 5% is widely covered by the media, it affects your reputation. 

Can you fix that with brand investments? 

WB: The question then is, what is a brand investment for a public organisation? We invest in contacts with the outside world and contacts with the media. I think that's our most important investment. We also invest in employees being able to tell the story of the IND when they get together with their families on birthdays, and to be proud that they work for the IND. Investments are therefore difficult, for us it is mainly about internal and external dialogue. 

MD: I link it very much to trust. It's like building a buffer. If people have confidence in your organisation, when things don’t go well, everyone understands that. If you only see the things that are not going well and then try to fix them, that is not sincere. No one will be fooled by that. 

Do the competencies change in the latest additions to your communication team? If not, which competencies would you like to add and why? 

MD: On my team, the change to positioning and reputation management is starting to come. In the past, the focus was of course on customers, information, products and services. Reputation-oriented thinking was not really part of corporate communication, but we are working on that now.  

We are now also working together with the reputation group that helps us with positioning, and then also drawing up guidelines for communicating this. So that's one of the parts that's developing right now.  

What I would also like to do is take a broader approach to stakeholder management and issue management from a reputation perspective. A third component is the focus on internal communication, which has also been a major component within RVO from the past. But it is now more important to include the entire organisation in the change we want to make.  

Outward looking, proactive and truly based on reputational thinking. This is not only in communication, but also mainly in the behaviour of employees and the organisational culture. This also requires corporate communication to draw attention to this internally and to guide it, change communication. 

WB: You see new positions in customer communication, such as customer journey specialists, people who look at customer behaviour and how we can improve the service. In corporate communication, in my team, we started working with content directors this year.  

Content is one of the most important things that determine our reputation and positioning. These are actually the resources that you have as a communication department. The content director plays an important role in this. Both in internal and external communication. How can you communicate the content as optimally as possible to your target group. So those are new features that we've added to the team. We will also structurally invest in stakeholder communication in the team. 

Can you give us a cross section of your team? 

WB: The corporate communication team now consists of approximately 35 FTE, of which about half are communication advisors who support the various divisions of the IND in their internal and external communication. The other half are colleagues who deal with external communication such as spokespersons, social media and other forms of content such as the intranet.  

That's how the team is built. My view is that the ratio has always been about the same. On the one hand advice, on the other hand the news editors, so content, but also spokespersons. 

MD: At RVO it is arranged in a slightly different way. My team consists of 15 communication advisors; the corporate communication team. We work very closely with a team from the customer management, where all customer communication takes place. That team includes specialists from content, social and webcare. All kinds of specialists who also carry out corporate communication.  

Communication is also on the customer side. This communication is organised traditionally with a focus on that customer communication. Now we are making the change to more from a reputation management perspective. You can see that in the collaboration, that it is very close to corporate communication. 

WB: You can see that there is a discussion that is taking place in many organisations; corporate versus customer. You have had periods when that was merged, but also periods when they are really two separate departments. I think in many customer organisations it is necessary that your customer communication and corporate communication are close to each other. 

Do you notice that many people are applying to join you who have made their mark in the commercial world? 

WB: It's really hard to find people. The labour market is very tight. The permanent staff often comes from the national government, but that is not a must. I also have interim colleagues who have worked in the commercial world. It is not a must for me that they only have experience with the national government. 

Based on the idea that as a public organisation you could or should behave more as a brand. Do you see that people who have experience in commercial organisations are interested in building the public brand? 

MD: A lot of our colleagues come from government and semi-government. I see a change there in the younger generation. Working on a socially responsible task, having meaningful work, that seems to be becoming more important for young people. There is more interest from the commercial world, especially in starter positions and positions requiring only a few years of work experience. I agree with Werner, you notice that it is a bit easier to attract interim colleagues from the commercial world and that you still get the commercial knowledge in that way, but I would like it if it was a bit more available. 

How do you reconcile the dilemma between the human dimension in the relationship between government and citizen and digitisation? 

MD: We have just formulated the vision on services from the customer department. You see both needs reflected here. On the one hand, gaining a quick overview and insight into the service and, on the other hand, wanting to be helped throughout the entire process or indeed towards customisation. We know that speed, effectiveness, proactivity and personal contact (digital or non-digital) are very important. 

WB: The same goes for us. A lot can be automated in the service sector. Then you can go even further when it comes to the one-stop idea. It is still the case that you have to go to one government institution for one thing, and to another for the next. So that one-stop shop idea is something we want to explore to see how we can contribute.  

At the same time, we also have something like a tailor-made counter. This is an initiative where more complex cases can be handled by having direct contact with the customer and working closely together to find a solution. 

What do you get externally in terms of inspiration and learning points? 

WB: We do it, Marloes was just talking about the Reputation Group, last week there was a meeting of the three chain partners: COA, DT&V and IND. Paul Stamsnijder spoke there. We sometimes do such things at a board level, looking at how you can hold inspiration sessions for the management team. We don't do that enough for my own team. You can learn so much from others and be so inspired. We really don't do that enough. 

MD: I do recognise that. We also very consciously chose to involve an external party in the repositioning process. For example, last year we had a session with the team about impact-driven communication. We also invited an external speaker for this, to get us thinking about what that actually means. You notice that it also inspires and gives you a different perspective. That really helps us further. We can do that a lot more often in the team. 

Where do you get your inspiration from? 

WB: I get inspiration from colleagues, by watching what others are doing. We have a collaboration body where we as public organisations come together. I think we can do that much more by connecting our teams. I also mainly follow the national media, which really deal with political and social reporting. I follow trade media less. 

MD: I do indeed look a lot at colleagues. The emphasis is also on government issues, which I follow through various networks and newsletters. I also attend the Academy for Government Communication and go to a meeting sometimes. Communication Online, occasional Adformation. More in the form of a newsletter, or if an interesting message comes in.