The analysis presented in this Scan takes place within the broader context of wide-ranging reforms to public communication across the French public sector. These reforms have contributed to a more effective, co-ordinated, and professionalised communication function. This chapter introduces the national context for France and places the country-level analysis within the broader international trend for more evidence-driven and impactful communication. It also presents the analytical framework used to assess the public communication function and its impact.
Public Communication Scan of France
Evaluating public communication performance to strengthen public trust
Abstract
Public communication can be a powerful means for government institutions to bring about positive change and to achieve policy and organisational goals. For example, the Government of the United Kingdom has defined it as “one of the four main levers government has to affect change, alongside legislation, regulation and taxation” (GCS, 2022[1]). Communication can often be a comparatively simple, cost-effective, or less forceful method for governments to improve the public’s take-up of services or compliance with policy goals.
Many institutions fail to realise the potential benefits of communication for policy because they do not clearly define what their communication efforts are meant to achieve in specific, measurable terms. The OECD Report on Public Communication (2021[2]) pointed to important gaps in the definition of communication strategies among Centres of Government and Ministries of Health, where 43% and 57% respectively had not produced a strategy in the previous three years. These gaps were additionally reflected in findings on the analysis and evaluation practices. It was not surprising therefore that developing communication strategies and evaluating communication outcomes were identified as the second and third most challenging areas for communicators in the 63 institutions surveyed across 46 countries.
The 2025 OECD Survey of Government Communicators confirms that evaluation remains a key area for improvement. Of the 57 senior government communicators surveyed, 72% rely most commonly on the reach of their content as the key indicator of success, whereas only between 21% and 30% measure effects of communication on audiences. Only 5% measure the impact of communication towards policy goals.
The rigorous use of evidence as the basis for setting objectives, and for designing, executing, and evaluating communication activities should be a defining element of professional communication. This Scan therefore emphasises the pressing need for government communicators to address gaps, while making the case for evidence- and measurement-driven communications.
The Government Information Service of France (Service d’Information du Gouvernement, hereafter SIG) – the governmental agency with the primary responsibility for public communication – has put professionalisation, efficiency and impact at the core of its ongoing drive to reform and improve the communication function in France. The SIG has made significant efforts to strengthen interministerial co-ordination, raise standards, and support governmental priorities. Building on these efforts, the SIG aims to improve the use of evidence and measurement across government communication to drive greater impact. This OECD Scan provides actionable recommendations on how to leverage MEL (Macnamara, 2023[3]) to set and achieve objectives across communication offices in French national institutions.
The Scan draws on a comparative analysis of practices and evidence from OECD countries and the communication field more broadly on how to integrate evidence and measurement to build communications that affect positive change. This was applied to 10 communications directorates (hereafter DICOMs, including the SIG) in France’s government ministries and public agencies, as well as the recommendations provided in this Scan.
The Scan outlines how the SIG and the DICOMs conceive and pursue their strategies, how they measure performance, evaluate and learn from their results. It sets out five general recommendations, each with specific actions points, which focus on driving performance and on building a culture of measurement and continuous learning, from the conception of communication activities to their contribution towards achieving policy and institutional objectives. The Scan focuses predominantly on communication campaigns as a priority area for SIG and DICOMs, and one of their most resource intensive activities.
Methodology
The Scan is based on an OECD quantitative survey and qualitative interviews conducted across the SIG, 6 DICOMs (representing 11 ministries out of the 17 total), 3 public agencies and 1 state enterprise. The data collection and interviews were conducted by the OECD Secretariat between November 2024 and January 2025. The survey focused in large part on evaluation practices for communication campaigns by analysing a sample of the five most recent for each respondent, for a total sample of 50 campaigns.
The OECD Secretariat conducted additional qualitative interviews with representatives from the relevant SIG departments, both in the early stages of the project and at the conclusion of the research phase. This helped to gain an in-depth understanding of the context, good practices, and challenges faced by the public communication function at the centre of government. The OECD Secretariat also interviewed 3 private sector suppliers of communication, marketing, advertising, and research services to government ministries and agencies.
The OECD Secretariat also conducted a desk review of public and internal government documents, such as directives, audits, procurement forms, project presentations, internal analyses, and campaign evaluation reports.
Public officials from Canada and the United Kingdom with expertise in the measurement and evaluation of public communication served as peers from OECD Member countries by sitting in most of the interviews and contributing their expertise to the analysis, examples, and recommendations.
The international comparative dimension of the analysis draws significantly on the practices and examples provided by the two peer countries, on top of 10 interviews conducted by the Secretariat with members of the OECD Public Communication Network (PCN).1 The OECD 2020 Survey on Understanding Public Communication (OECD, 2021[4]), covering 63 institutions (Centres of Government and Ministries of Health) from 46 countries, provided comparative quantitative data to contextualise the analysis and interviews. The 2025 OECD Survey of Government Communicators (a perception survey addressed to 57 senior communicators in 25 countries and the European Commission) provided additional comparative data on international evaluation and communication practices.
Note: Each row represents one respondent/interviewee. Some directorates of communication encompass multiple ministries, which is why several ministries can appear in the same row.
In France, the SIG serves as a central service to steer and support public communication across all government ministries, and across the many state agencies and regional and local administrations. The SIG, which is situated centrally within the Prime Minister’s Office, was created in 1976, but its role has evolved and expanded to reflect the changing landscape for communication in government (SIG, 2025[5]) (see Box 1.1).2
In the past decade, France has undertaken substantial reforms to make public communication more effective, efficient, and integrated. These efforts stem from a growing recognition that public institutions were not fully meeting citizens’ evolving expectations for information and engagement.
In 2019, the SIG was tasked with co-ordinating the government’s communication across ministries and across the sub-national level of France’s 17 regions (Premier Ministre, 2019[6]; Premier Ministre, 2018[7]). The SIG has since been reforming institutional communication guided by the three principles of “clarity, simplicity and inclusion” to make the government’s voice more accessible (Premier Ministre, 2020[8])
Among the most significant challenges that the SIG has managed over this period is the consolidation of the government’s online presence under a single website extension (gouv.fr) and a streamlined number of official social media handles with a common, highly recognisable brand (Premier Ministre, 2020[8]). This replaced a complex system of over 4 500 websites and 1 800 social media accounts, which used jargon and acronyms that are not readily understandable by the public, and which were often duplicated or overlapping (Cour Des Comptes, 2023[9]).
The above system was among the factors identified in the Grand Débat National3 (2019) as making it difficult for citizens to seek information and understand what their government does for them (Premier Ministre, 2020[8]) (Premier Ministre, 2019[6]). This simplification of the state’s online presence was part of a larger project that included the introduction of a unified “State Brand” for all state entities (see Box 1.2).
The introduction of a state brand paved the way for further expansion of the SIG’s mandate for co-ordinating and overseeing communication across central (and increasingly also sub-national) government. This culminated with a directive and decree reforming its role in 2024 (Premier Ministre, 2024[10]; Premier Ministre, 2024[11]; Premier Ministre, 2024[12]).
Subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic provided new impetus for reforming communication approaches and introducing innovative methods to reach citizens more efficiently and effectively amid challenges to trust in a fragmented information landscape. This led to the establishment of a dedicated partnerships discipline in the SIG and increasingly in DICOMs (see Box 1.1).
Since 27 March 2018, the SIG has been responsible for leading the transformation of government communication to ensure it can communicate with citizens in an accessible, clear, and appropriate way to meet their needs.
The Service works on modernising communication methods through guidance, standards, and co-ordination across ministries and agencies. These modernisation steps include the introduction of a common strategy and communication calendar centred on the demands of citizens, and a reinforced collaboration on joint communication projects.
The SIG is placed under the authority of the Prime Minister of France with a mission to inform citizens about the Government’s actions. The role of the SIG was updated in 2024 to include:
analysing the evolution of public opinion, media content, and social networks;
relaying government news and highlight the concrete implementation of public policies to the general public;
disseminating information on government action to elected officials and the press;
planning and co-ordinating interministerial communication actions related to government action at the national level and, in liaison with prefects and ambassadors, to deploy them within the framework of the State’s decentralised services;
providing support and guidance to public institutions in conducting opinion studies, monitoring and presence on social media, deploying media campaigns, creating websites, and crisis communication, thereby contributing to the professionalisation of State communicators;
defining standards in digital communication in connection with the interministerial digital directorate and to ensure the rationalisation of State websites;
developing and structuring a network of partners to integrate general interest communication into daily life;
consolidating and protecting the intangible assets of State communication, notably the “State brand” in connection with the Mission for Support to the State’s Intangible Heritage (Appui au patrimoine immatériel de l'Etat, APIE);
advising, in the event of a major crisis, the concerned ministries on communication strategy and ensure interministerial co-ordination of crisis communication.
Note: As part of its remit, the Government Information Service ensures that the main actions and means of government communication are accessible to disabled people.
Source: Circulaire n°6120/SG du 14 octobre 2019 relative à l'organisation et à la coordination de la communication gouvernementale
Décret n° 2000-1027 du 18 octobre 2000 relatif au service d'information du Gouvernement – Légifrance
Décret no 2024-410 du 3 mai 2024 modifiant le décret no 2000-1027 du 18 octobre 2000 relatif au service d’information du Gouvernement
Internal documents and interviews with SIG given to the OECD.
Notwithstanding the reforms of recent years, the SIG recognises that citizens’ understanding of public policy and their attribution of policy changes and outcomes to the government are still lacking (Premier Ministre, 2024[11]). This finding matches the perception expressed by citizens in the 2023 Survey on the Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (OECD, 2024[13]), which finds that a minority (41%) of respondents in France feel that the government clearly explains how a reform would affect them.
The SIG is currently acting on the challenge of ensuring public communication is coherent and effective, and contributes meaningfully to furthering policy and governance objectives, a challenge shared by many of its peers across the OECD (OECD, 2021[4]). The SIG is currently implementing several initiatives aimed at building a whole-of-government, well-coordinated and integrated communication function. Notably, these include efforts to monitor performance and ensure efficacy.
Under this reform drive, the SIG is seeking to make the actions of government more transparent, clear and relevant to all citizens, while also pushing for a more strategic approach to communication. This strategic approach is mandated by the directive issued in July 2024, which calls for a yearly planning cycle that will set major communication priorities linked to public policies to which all ministries will be asked to contribute (Premier Ministre, 2024[11]).
As part of the implementation of this directive, the SIG is supposed to obtain annual communication plans from each ministry at the start of each year. These plans would be used to identify potential for interministerial communication actions on cross-cutting topics, optimise the timing of activities to avoid overcrowding the information space with dissonant institutional messages, and ensure that each activity is co-ordinated, monitored and measured for efficiency and performance purposes (see Chapter 3).
The new role of the SIG reinforces co-ordination mechanisms in several ways. Regular steering committee meetings and a growing share of interministerial communication projects support more cross-government alignment. Moreover, a strengthened mandate to approve communication actions by public entities enhanced harmonisation of practices and assets. This applies to procurement via centrally negotiated markets (for advertising, creative, and research services), digital or multi-channel communication operations, and creation or modification of public websites and official social media handles.
Measurement and evaluation at the core of the 2024 reforms to the SIG
Since the 2024 decree noted above, the SIG has received a mandate for central oversight of the evaluation of communication campaigns (Premier Ministre, 2024[10]). A new rule requires all ministries and public agencies to develop evaluation reports for all campaigns with a budget of over €50 000 (the minimum threshold triggering the approval procedure for the procurement of any external services and advertising spend). The rule additionally sets the requirement for all campaigns with a budget above €300 000 to carry out a post-test4 and share its results with the SIG (SIG, 2024[14]). The directive gives the SIG the responsibility to monitor ministries and public agencies’ compliance with these new requirements.
Building on this reinforced oversight role, the SIG is working to introduce tools and guidance to foster better evaluation practices, including the potential introduction of a common set of performance indicators to apply in the planning and evaluation of all government communications. The present study and its recommendations are intended to contribute to the above objectives for the reinforcement of evaluation and evidence-based strategic communication more widely.
As detailed in the following section, the rigorous use of evidence, analysis and measurement is the foundation of strategic approach to communication (Alfonsi et al., 2022[15]; OECD, 2021[4]) The focus in this Scan on measuring the performance and impact of public communication against tangible objectives forms a key part of this overarching reform and improvement drive led by the SIG.
Introduction of a State Brand in France (Marque de l’État)
In 2019, the national consultation (Grand Débat National) highlighted the perceived difficulty for citizens to understand and benefit from the policies and initiatives of the State. The State branding project sought in part to address one of the sources of this confusion. The State Brand was launched in February 2020, for central administrations services, interministerial delegations, prefectures, ambassies, and all agencies of the State. It involves a graphic charter, a charter of writing principles for accessible public communication, and a charter for social media content.
With over 20 000 web domains names, the Design System (Système de Design de l’Etat, 2021) is the digital application of the State Brand which states that every website of the French administration needs to use the same design principles, and its domain name should contain “.gouv.fr”.
To make sure the Brand was adopted across the state, the SIG presented the strategy to administrations, designated one or two referents per DICOM, and organised steering committees every two weeks during the first year of implementation as well as frequent bilateral meetings.
The perception of the new unified branding has been subsequently tested with citizens. A study in May 2021 found that more than nine out of ten citizens recognised the brand (Gouvernement, République Française), 93% found it clear and understandable, and 86% believed it to be representative of France. The project has also yielded considerable savings for the public sector, both in terms of financial resources and time.
The introduction of a dedicated partnerships department in the SIG
In recent years, the SIG has also adopted the increasingly common practice of communicating via intermediaries to enhance the visibility and trustworthiness of government messages, particularly among hard-to-reach audiences. This approach has been initially developed during COVID-19 pandemic to increase the visibility of government messages in everyday,
The SIG has developed strategic partnerships, primarily with private-sector organisations and some non-profits, to help institutions to reach bigger and more diverse audiences while benefitting from association of their campaigns with well-known and trusted brands. Partners amplify public-interest campaigns by leveraging their existing communication channels and audiences. This includes everyday settings like stores, apps, and social media.
Partnerships have thus become a pillar in multiple recent communication campaigns, where they complement other communication activities to drive greater impact. For example, during the 2024 legislative elections, fitness and dating apps were used to engage younger voters, while earlier voter mobilisation efforts involved platforms such as Airbnb, BlaBlaCar, cinemas and tobacconists to embed civic messages into everyday settings.
Similarly, an energy saving campaign during winter 2022/23 leveraged partnerships with a wide range of established brands to adapt content to different formats and contexts. Other campaigns have used partnerships to promote youth sports participation, raise awareness of consumer rights, and support women’s safety, illustrating how collaborations can leverage partner’s established sectoral voices in areas where the government is not the primary or only voice.
To co-ordinate this expanding area of activity, the SIG established a Partnerships Division, composed of four project managers and a division head. Each manager oversees thematic areas, maintains a portfolio of partners, and liaises with relevant ministries. This Division is part of a larger Networks and Partnerships Department.
In 2025, SIG formalised its approach through a Partnership Charter with the goal of structuring collaborations and defining their parameters around transparency, neutrality, CSR alignment, and impact monitoring. In defining its approach, the SIG has chosen to favour unpaid (in-kind) partnerships with organisations, which unlike influencer marketing are deemed more cost-effective, safe, and reliable. By establishing a formal path to collaboration the SIG also ensures the co-operation is better structured, ethical and transparent.
Source: Circulaire du Premier ministre du 24 septembre 1999 relative à la création d’une marque graphique commune à l’ensemble des ministères, https://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/content/download/194551/file/Note%20application%20charte%20graphique%20gouvernementale.pdf; Circulaire n° 6144/SG du 17 février 2020 relative à la nouvelle stratégie de marque de l’Etat, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf/circ?id=44935; Rapport de la Cour des Comptes 2022, Site d’information du gouvernement, Marque de l’Etat, https://www.info.gouv.fr/marque-de-letat; Background note on partnership activity provided by SIG to the OECD Secretariat (2025).
The above reform efforts led by the SIG in France echo a shift towards more strategic and impactful communication visible at international level and across sectors. The OECD’s international report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward (2021[4]) documents a shift across countries towards more co-ordinated, whole-of-government communication, grounded in strategies and plans that serve specific organisational objectives. The report additionally emphasises better insights and evaluation as the foundations to build such strategic and impactful communication, while highlighting the gaps that persist across countries in this domain (2021[4]).
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift towards more evidence-driven communication as it became a primary component of the government’s action to inform citizens amid proliferation of misinformation. Public communication should be responsive, inclusive and compelling to be effective, which implies measuring communication activities’ performance against those parameters (Alfonsi et al., 2022[15]).
Technological advances are continuing to expand the realm of possibilities and lowering the cost of collecting and processing evidence for communication. Big Data5 brought about some key innovations for strategic communication in the 2010s and is becoming even more central thanks to the ability of AI to automate monitoring and analysis tasks and reduce the cost of acquiring valuable insights.
There are several reasons why an evidence-driven approach ought to be a priority for professionalising and improving the communication function in government. First, insufficient evidence of the communication objectives to achieve, of the audiences to reach, of the communications’ performance and final results, means that government communicators can keep using ineffective approaches that under-serve citizens and misallocate public finances. Without evidence and measurement, communicators cannot know if they are achieving the desired changes, nor can they learn from what works or doesn’t.
Second, if government communicators are not able to measure and demonstrate the results of their work against concrete outcomes and the goals of their institutions, they risk undermining their own relevance in government. The communication function has long struggled with recognition and credibility in the eyes of other disciplines and of decision-makers, who tend to question its value added or view it as a publicity or reputation management tool (Sanders and Canel, 2013[16]; WPP, 2016[17]; Macnamara, 2013[18]).
By not providing proof of their contribution towards institutional goals, communicators perpetuate this scepticism and fail to correct it. This, in turn, can relegate communication to an ancillary (rather than strategic) role in government, and in the long run it can expose the function to budget cuts.
Finally, taking evidence-based decisions is becoming increasingly important in a rapidly changing media landscape, where governments need to adapt quickly to new platforms and rethink how they listen and deliver messages to all audiences. Governments need to not only provide accurate and timely information but also ensure their messaging is accessible, relevant, and aligned with public expectations. This can only be achieved with thorough evaluation at all stages of communication planning and delivery. Without robust evaluation mechanisms, governments risk misaligning their communication strategies with citizens' evolving needs, potentially undermining policy effectiveness and eroding public trust.
Evidence-based communication at the core of the analytical framework for public communication
Over at least two decades, public communication has evolved far beyond its traditional role of broadcasting government messages and information. Today, it increasingly serves as a powerful policy instrument and a vehicle for transparency, accountability, and citizen participation that can equally help institutions build public trust (OECD, 2021[4]; Sanders and Canel, 2013[16]; OECD, 2024[13]). This new or updated role of communication in government was distilled through discussions with the OECD Public Communication Network and is captured in Box 1.3.
In parallel to its evolving role, public communication is also challenged by the transformation of the information ecosystem, through continuous technological disruption and negative trends including information manipulation and polarisation (OECD, 2024[19]; Matasick, Alfonsi and Bellantoni, 2020[20]). Thus, while communication is becoming more important as a lever of government policy, its effectiveness is increasingly challenged by its operating environment, thereby making rigorous measurement and analysis even more needed.
Public communication fulfils three primary roles in government and in service to democracy. These are:
1. Inform the public, so that individuals and groups in society can make better choices and provide input on matters of public interest.
2. Support the design, implementation and evaluation of policies and services.
3. Build trust in public institutions and help further social cohesion by:
a. Enabling government-citizen/stakeholder dialogue.
b. Countering information manipulation.
To analyse the function and how it performs these roles, the OECD has developed an analytical framework, which is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The framework (based on a program logic model) illustrates how a set of inputs and a set of processes or activities carried out by public institutions produces communication outputs that generate desired outcomes in the audiences (i.e. the individuals and groups that receive and interact with the information). In turn, these outcomes contribute to positive impacts linked to policy goals, improved trust, and democratic resilience.
Source: Adapted from OECD, Public Communication Scan of the United Kingdom, 2023.
The analytical framework for the contribution of public communication to government impact is split into two main components. The first measures inputs and processes/activities which serves to assess the capacity of the organisation itself to perform its role by looking at the institutional prerequisites, the working methods and resources available. The second component measures the volume of communications deployed across information channels (outputs), how they trigger reactions and change perceptions or behaviours among the target audience (outcomes); and the resulting impact of those perceptions or behaviour changes towards achieving policy and services goals (impact, see Figure 1.1).
This programme logic model is commonly used in the design and evaluation of policy and programmes and serves as the basis for the agency for Government Communications of the United Kingdom (hereafter GCUK) own evaluation framework for example (see Chapter 2). As the exact definition and breakdown of outputs, outcomes, and impact can differ slightly from one organisation to another, for the purpose of this work the following definitions are adopted, based on those common to program evaluation theory as reported by Macnamara (2024[21]):
Output metrics refer to information ‘put out’ and the potential audience exposure to the information. These can be measured in terms of attendance, reach, traditional and digital media impressions, and metrics such as website visits.
Outcomes, which can be measured in terms of short-term outcomes (often referred to as outtakes) and medium to long-term outcomes, measure changes in the audience resulting from exposure to the communication. At a basic level, these include evidence of audience reception such as likes, shares, reposts, and comments, sometimes referred to as engagement. More advanced outcomes show audience response such as clickthroughs for more information, registering, subscribing, or voting (referred to as conversions in marketing), graduating to medium and long-term outcomes such as increased awareness, changed attitudes, or evidence of the desired behaviour. These include superficial (or short-term) changes that relate to the communication outputs only.
Impact is the flow-on effect of communication, usually occurring long-term, such as improved public health, increased investment, improved safety through adoption of a policy. Impact is often multi-causal being the result of multiple influences. The aim of impact level evaluation is to show the contribution of communication.
To contextualise these concepts in a practical example, during the spring of 2024, in the lead-up to the European elections, the French government prepared a communication campaign to encourage eligible voters to vote. Ahead of the campaign, low recollection of the election date and modality emerged as problems communication could address to contribute to voting turnout. The campaign was rolled out through organic and sponsored social media posts, radio and TV spots, as well as partnerships with public and private actors (outputs). Based on the campaign messages and visibility, recollection of the election date and modalities increased, as well as reported interest to vote (outcomes). The campaign therefore may have helped at least some citizens know when and how to vote, contributing to a higher turnout in the European elections (impact).
As this Scan emphasises throughout, there is great value in measuring all three dimensions of communication’s effects. However, measuring of outputs as well as some superficial, short-term outcomes, is mainly useful to communicators to make decisions about which approaches to prioritise or which outputs perform better than others on information channels. Output indicators, on their own, cannot inform about the results of a communication activity, which is why relevant long-term outcome indicators and impact measures are essential to determine what change the activity achieved.
For this reason, this Scan emphasises closing the gap in the evaluation of outcomes and impact. These two dimensions of evaluation are the ones that matter to the efficacy of communication as a lever of government, and which can demonstrate communication’s value to the policymakers and government leaders who rely on it to achieve their goals.
The next sub-section builds on the analytical framework to summarise the theory and standards in the field of communication evaluation as the framing for the analysis of approaches across French public communication departments.
The foundations of measurement, evaluation and learning in public communication
The concept of measurement, evaluation and learning (MEL) (Macnamara, 2023[3])as an integrated process provides a strong basis to capture the core actions that, along with research and insights, underpin evidence-based communication approaches. The three steps are recommended in a model proposed by one of the leading researchers in the field of communication evaluation, Professor Jim Macnamara, to expand the conventional understanding of the evaluation of communication.
The MEL model applies a cyclical lens to the recurring collection and measurement of data, which is analysed at different stages to assess the performance and results of a given communication activity. Notably, it places equal emphasis on the use of this analysis to make decisions, whether for the subsequent steps of the same activity or for the planning of future ones (Figure 1.2). This chapter draws on the MEL model to structure the analysis of French and international practices for evaluating the performance and impact of their communications.
Source: Adapted from: Macnamara, J. (2024), p.3. Jim Macnamara’s MEL Manual for public communication. University of Technology Sydney. https://www.uts.edu.au/about/faculties/arts-and-social-sciences/research/fass-research-groups-and-centres/our-research-reports and https://amecorg.com/resources/measurement-evaluation-and-learning-mel-manual-for-public-communication/.
The accent on learning is especially important, as too often the practice of evaluation is motivated by the need to show success (Macnamara refers to “vanity” metrics in this regard) than by a humble curiosity to learn what works or doesn’t and improve continuously.
This relates to another primary concern that emerges from the literature on measurement and evaluation of communication: the timing of evaluation. Indeed, evaluation tends to be commonly understood as the final step of a process, whether for communication, policy, or programmes. However, evaluating each stage of a communication process is recognised as best practice, insofar as it enables to understand how communication is performing in the early stages to revisit and finetune specific approaches (Buhmann and Likely, 2018[22]; Macnamara, 2024[21]). In this regard, literature breaks down stages of evaluation into formative evaluation (related to baseline analysis of the problem to solve, insights and listening to shape the communication activity), process evaluation (pre-testing content and messages, interim KPI measurement), and summative evaluation that captures the aggregate results and lessons from the activity (Buhmann and Likely, 2018[23]).
Source: Adapted from Buhmann, Alexander; Likely, Fraser (2018): Evaluation and Measurement. In: R. Heath, W. Johansen (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication. Wiley-Blackwell, based on the work of Rice, R., & Atkin, C. (Eds.). (2013). Public communication campaigns (4th ed.). Sage, p. 13.
These elements come together in the use of a programme logic model and theory of change approach as the basis for the design of communication activities and of their evaluation (Macnamara and Gregory, 2018[24]).
These models, including the analytical framework for the public communication function presented above (Figure 1.1), distinguish between the inputs and actions that are internal to the communication teams and the outputs, outcomes and impact, which are visible across information channels, audiences, and society respectively (see Figure 1.4). This format has been adopted across numerous frameworks for evaluation developed by governments and international organisations alike, as illustrated in detail later in the next chapter.
The growing popularity of the programme logic model in government communication stems from the need to better articulate how communication supports institutional goals. According to Macnamara (2019[25]), if evaluation of communication cannot provide evidence of outcomes and impact, communication will be seen as a “cost-center” in an organisation and its value-add put in question. In interviews with the Secretariat, several government communicators noted that increased budget pressures have motivated better evaluation practices in the pursuit of efficiencies and estimation of value-add and return on investment.
The model breaks down where the changes are taking place that result from communication activities. It sets apart the outputs that institutions and third parties share and the changes that occur for the audiences as a result, which contribute towards policies’ impact for society.
Source: Author’s work based on Macnamara, J. (2024). Jim Macnamara’s MEL Manual for public communication. University of Technology Sydney. https://www.uts.edu.au/about/faculties/arts-and-social-sciences/research/fass-research-groups-and-centres/our-research-reports.
The focus on measuring outcomes and impact and the more rigorous definition of what types of indicators refer to outcomes and impact, rather than to outputs, are a major contribution of the scholarship on communication evaluation. The proposed performance indicators for France included in Figure 1.5 are developed based on this model. To support the definition of communication strategies that set out to plausibly achieve tangible outcomes and impact, scholars have additionally borrowed the “theory of change” (TOC) model from the field of policy programming (Macnamara, 2024[21]; NATO, 2013[26]).
The TOC model forces communicators to break down the assumptions that underpin their proposed communication strategies by working backwards from the intended impact. As Figure 1.5 illustrates, using the model requires answering the questions of which changes in behaviour or perception are required to achieve a given policy or organisational goal, and which of these changes can be incited via communication interventions. This in turn prompts communicators to design and test the most effective strategy, messages and content to incite the desired changes.
To borrow the example in above, memorising the European election date and modalities are actions that can be influenced by communication and would plausibly contribute to higher electoral turnout, among other factors. Evidence of the causes that underlie a policy problem (in this example, testing if lack of awareness of the date or of non-registration or other factors are main barriers to voting in the election) can help test and validate these assumptions. Likewise, testing the chosen communication strategy and outputs can validate the assumptions about the viability of the strategy to drive the desired changes in awareness and behaviour.
One of the key implications of using the TOC model to develop communication is that if the assumptions that link the communication strategy to the change in the audience and then to the desired impact are weak or cannot be validated, then the strategy is unlikely to work and will certainly be difficult to evaluate. Using the TOC rigorously is therefore a good practice to force more strategic decisions for communication.
The final key contribution from the literature for evidence-based communication and for its measurement and evaluation is the definition of SMART objectives (Doran, 1981[27]). The acronym SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound objectives, a concept that has spilled from the field of management to a wide range of disciplines. SMART objectives remain the framework of reference for communication planning and are found in guidance used by multiple governments and intergovernmental organisations reviewed for this Scan.
Defining SMART objectives requires to consider upstream a baseline and the means of measuring change from the baseline, which are essential considerations for identifying the key performance indicator of the activity and measuring its effects. The framework nudges careful reflections about what communication can and cannot achieve and favours strategic choices.
The TOC model draws on assumptions to work backwards from the desired impact of communication to specify which outcomes (behaviour change, awareness, etc) can contribute to such impact and develop a communication strategy that can plausibly drive these outcomes.
Source: Adapted from NATO Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre (2013) Framework for the Strategic Planning & Evaluation of Public Diplomacy, https://www.jallc.nato.int/application/files/4416/0261/6142/A_Framework_for_the_Strategic_Planning_and_Evolution_of_Public_Diplomacy.pdf.
Much of the above concepts and methods are distilled in the Barcelona Principles 4.0 (Box 1.4). These principles, developed by the industry experts that make up the international Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC), capture the industry’s consensus on what constitutes sound evaluation for evidence-based communication. The fact that they have been revised twice since their original introduction in 2010 attests to the rapid development of this discipline, the need for better guidance, and the growing demands for impactful communication.
The Barcelona Principles are intended as the “the foundational basis on which communication measurement and evaluation takes place”. They comprise seven overarching principles:
1. “Setting clear, measurable objectives is a critical prerequisite for effective communication planning, measurement, and evaluation”. The principle recognises that setting “SMARTER” (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, Time-bound, Evaluated and Reviewed – see Chapter 3 for further details) objectives is a prerequisite that goes hand-in-hand with defining what will be evaluated from the very beginning. AMEC emphasises the importance of using measurement tools to assess the impact of communication activities at each stage of the process. The principle also highlights the need for flexibility throughout the communication process, allowing for continuous assessment and adjustment of objectives in response to changes in the target audience.
2. “Defining and understanding all stakeholder audiences are essential steps to plan, build relationships and create lasting impact”. The second principle recognises that in-depth and ongoing audience research is essential for developing a meaningful understanding of stakeholders. This, in turn, supports the selection of more targeted and impactful activities and measures to engage them effectively. Ultimately, the goal is not only to reach and influence stakeholders, but to build trust and long-term relations with them.
3. “Comprehensive communication measurement and evaluation should be applied to all relevant channels used to understand and influence audience stakeholders”. Beyond simply leveraging all channels relevant to key stakeholders, the third principle also highlights the importance of comprehensive understanding of the stakeholder ecosystem. It advocates for directing measurement efforts towards outcome-driven metrics, such as enhancing awareness, transforming perceptions, and shaping behaviours, to ensure meaningful and effective evaluation.
4. “Effective measurement and evaluation of communication require qualitative and quantitative analysis”. The fourth principle emphasises that combining numerical data with qualitative insights provides a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness of communication activity. While qualitative analysis is often overlooked, it is deemed to play a crucial role in answering the “why” questions and adding context to quantitative findings.
5. “Invalid measures such as advertising value equivalents (AVEs) should not be used. Instead measure and evaluate the contribution of communication by its outcome and impact”. The fifth priciple encourages organisations to move beyond the use of AVEs by adopting robust, industry-recognised metrics that more accurately reflect the value and impact of communication activities.
6. “Measurement and Evaluation should report outputs, outcomes, and impact related to the organisation and stakeholder audiences”. The sixth principle states that communication outputs, outtakes, outcomes, and impacts should not be assessed in isolation. Rather, they must be evaluated together to provide a holistic understanding of their influence on both the organisation and its audiences. Additionally, to ensure that measurement is meaningful, communication objectives the principle urges alignment with the organisation’s overarching strategy.
7. “Ethics, governance, and transparency with data, methodologies and technology builds trust and drives learning”. The seventh principle recognises the need for responsible practices in the use of personal data as well as transparency and awareness of possible biases in the tools, methods and interpretations of measurement and evaluation.
Source: AMEC (2025) Barcelona Principles 4.0, https://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Barcelona-Principles-V4.0-%E2%80%93-FINAL30.6-compressed.pdf.
The SIG has been leading reforms to professionalise public communication in France, with a focus on enhancing efficiency, co-ordination, and impact.
The SIG’s own role has evolved following a series of decrees and internal directives since 2018 which have expanded its mandate. Today the SIG has a central remit for co-ordination at interministerial level, including the approval of communication campaigns, digital channel creation and use, procurement, and the application of the state brand.
Reforms introduced in 2024 require ministries to develop annual communication plans and have also introduce requirements for evaluation reports on campaigns exceeding EUR 50 000. The threshold making post-tests mandatory was likewise lowered to campaigns with a budget of EUR 300 000.
However, implementation of these reforms needs to be strengthened to address challenges with clarifying the strategic objectives and linking evaluation of communication to policy impact.
The above efforts in France mirror an international trend towards more strategic, evidence-driven communication. This trend is made more urgent by the need to cope with challenges like misinformation and declining trust.
The literature on communication evaluation emphasises the need to move beyond superficial metrics to measure real outcomes and impact of activities. These elements are important to demonstrate that communication adds value for government and to protect it from budget cuts.
French DICOMs can draw from the helpful frameworks and tools that emerge from the literature on evaluation to enhance their practices for the design and measurement of their activities. Frameworks like the Theory of Change (TOC), SMART objectives and the project logic model are already in use across several OECD governments and leading organisations. They could help French institutions evaluate their strategies more rigorously.
References
[15] Alfonsi, C. et al. (2022), “Public communication trends after COVID-19: Innovative practices across the OECD and in four Southeast Asian countries”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cb4de393-en.
[22] Buhmann, A. and F. Likely (2018), Evaluation and Measurement in Strategic Communication, Wiley-Blackwell, https://www.academia.edu/35851832/Evaluation_and_measurement_in_strategic_communication.
[9] Cour Des Comptes (2023), “Service d’information du Gouvernement - Exercice 2017-2022”, Rapport de la Cour des Comptes, https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2024-01/20240111-S2023-1323-Service-information-Gouvernement-SIG_0.pdf (accessed on February 2025).
[27] Doran, G. (1981), “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives”, Management Review, Vol. 70/11, pp. 35-36, https://community.mis.temple.edu/mis0855002fall2015/files/2015/10/S.M.A.R.T-Way-Management-Review.pdf.
[1] GCS (2022), Performance With Purpose: Government Communication Service Strategy, https://strategy.gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/gcs-strategy-2022-25.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
[23] Heath, R. and W. Johansen (eds.) (2018), “Evaluation and Measurement”, R. L. Heath, W. Johansen (eds): The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, Vol. The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, pp. 652-640, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322959272_Evaluation_and_Measurement_in_Strategic_Communication.
[21] Macnamara, J. (2024), Jim Macnamara’s MEL Manual for Public Communication.
[3] Macnamara, J. (2023), Measurement, evaluation + learning (MEL): New approaches for insights, outcomes, impact., Routledge.
[25] Macnamara, J. (2019), “Embracing evaluation theory to overcome “stasis”: Informing standards, impact and methodology”, Corporate Communications – An International Journal, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339748221_Embracing_evaluation_theory_to_overcome_stasis_Informing_standards_impact_and_methodology.
[18] Macnamara, J. (2013), “‘The toe bone to the head bone’ logic model: An approach to connect PR and corporate communication to organisation and business outcomes”.
[24] Macnamara, J. and A. Gregory (2018), “Expanding evaluation to enable true strategic communication: Beyond message tracking to open listening”, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Vol. 12/4, pp. 469–486, https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1450255.
[20] Matasick, C., C. Alfonsi and A. Bellantoni (2020), Governance responses to disinformation, OECD.
[26] NATO (2013), Framework for the Strategic Planning & Evaluation of Public Diplomacy, https://www.jallc.nato.int/application/files/4416/0261/6142/A_Framework_for_the_Strategic_Planning_and_Evolution_of_Public_Diplomacy.
[19] OECD (2024), Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d909ff7a-en.
[13] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.
[2] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[4] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[11] Premier Ministre (2024), Circulaire n° 6453/SG du 4 juillet 2024 relative à la mise en cohérence de la communication de l’Etat, https://www.info.gouv.fr/organisation/service-d-information-du-gouvernement-sig/les-raisons-detre-du-sig (accessed on February 2025).
[10] Premier Ministre (2024), Décret n° 2024-410 du 3 mai 2024 modifant le décret n° 2000-1027 du 18 octobre 2000 relatif au SIG, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIARTI000049505545/2024-05-06/ (accessed on February 2025).
[12] Premier Ministre (2024), Note d’application de la circulaire n°6453/SG du 4 juillet 2024, https://kiosque.communication.gouv.fr/documentation/circulaire-ndeg6453sg-du-4-juillet-2024?tca=aPG0llIWErM-tVHuuqKjTcniZE_iy1We0qyW5DCWnUw (accessed on 11 March 2025).
[8] Premier Ministre (2020), Circulaire n° 6144/SG du 17 février 2020 relative à la nouvelle stratégie de marque de l’État, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/circulaire/id/44935 (accessed on February 2025).
[6] Premier Ministre (2019), Circulaire n°6120/SG du 14 octobre 2019 relative à l’organisation et à la coordination de la communication gouvernementale, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/circulaire/id/44867 (accessed on February 2025).
[7] Premier Ministre (2018), Circulaire n°18-005575-D du 14 février 2018 relative à l’organisation et les missions de la communication.
[16] Sanders, K. and M. Canel (eds.) (2013), “Government communication in 15 countries: Themes and challenges”, Government Communication - Cases and Challenges, No. 16, Bloomsbury Publishing, https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/government-communication-9781849666121/.
[5] SIG (2025), Les services du Premier ministre, https://www.info.gouv.fr/organisation/ (accessed on February 2025).
[14] SIG (2024), Note d’Application - mise en œuvre de la circulaire du Premier ministre n°6453/SG.
[17] WPP (2016), The Leaders’ Report: The Future of Government Communication, https://govtpracticewpp.com/report/the-leaders-report-the-future-of-government-communication/.
← 1. The Public Communication Network is an informal body that reports to the OECD’s Working Party on Open Government. It was formed as a platform to steer international dialogue, facilitate multi-lateral co-operation and promote a more citizen-centred and effective use of the public communication function as an instrument of policy-making and open government. It aims to expand knowledge and evidence on emerging public communication issues and practices, while supporting the development of capacity and competencies needed to succeed in a changing communication landscape. The PCN includes officials working on public communication, primarily within the centre of government, in OECD member and non-member countries.
← 2. It was originally called the “Information and Diffusion Service” with a mission to lead, co-ordinate and oversee information campaigns at interministerial level and communicate about the actions of public administrations to elected representatives and media. It became the SIG in 1996 and expanded its remit further in 2000, to include the monitoring of public opinion and media, and the primary responsibility for communication with the public on the government’s actions. The latter includes leading on interministerial public interest campaigns.
← 3. Public consultation organised in France by the president from January 2019, following national protests which highlighted discontentment with public action. There were four topics to be discussed: green transition, fiscal and public spendings, democracy and citizenship, State organisation and public services. Information available on the website: https://granddebat.fr/.
← 4. A post-test is a typically survey-based method used at the end of a communication or advertising campaign to assess the extent to which a targeted population was exposed to a message, their retention and recall of the message, and if they changed their mind or they plan to take any action as a result of seeing the message.
← 5. Defined as “the Information asset characterized by such a High Volume, Velocity and Variety to require specific Technology and Analytical Methods for its transformation into Value” (De Mauro, Greco and Grimaldi, 2016, p. 122).