Examination of Witnesses (Questions 63
- 79)
THURSDAY 15 JUNE 2000
MR DAVID
CLAYTON-SMITH,
MR KEITH
FAULKNER AND
MR ADRIAN
HOSFORD
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
for coming to see us here today. We will go right into the questioning
and I will call Claire Ward first.
Ms Ward
63. Good morning. The first question is mainly
on the submissions by both BT and Manpower but, of course, I will
be interested to hear from Boots as well. In both your submissions
you make reference to the media. Manpower say "We therefore
regret the general tendency of the media to talk down the Dome"
and BT says "We are disappointed by the mainly negative media
response to the Dome especially given the overwhelming positive
visitor reaction". What do you think, as sponsors, NMEC could
have done to change that? What do you think as significant powerful
companies and sponsors in your own right you could have done to
change that position?
(Mr Hosford) Obviously we are doing,
as sponsors, and the NMEC, as management, an awful lot on PR.
What specifically more can be done is difficult to speculate on.
It is certainly a priority within the NMEC management now and
it is certainly a priority for the sponsors for the true story
of the visitor response to this because it clearly is very disappointing
that the enormous success this is with visitors and the fact that
even at seven million it is twice as popular as the nearest paid
for attraction is clearly very disappointing. We accept the responsibility
as sponsors to try and help in the PR behind that and we are doing
things on that as, indeed, the management is.
(Mr Faulkner) I would only echo what Adrian has said.
I think it is very difficult, as has already been acknowledged,
to drive the media response in one direction or another. In a
sense we would not wish to do so. What we would merely wish, as
Adrian said, is that the reaction of all the people that we meet
at the Dome and meet through the Dome, both general visitors and
business visitors, is very, very positive. We are not managing
to get that story out. I think we, like BT, are doing a lot of
work within our workforce and our client base and within our general
media activity to get that story across.
(Mr Clayton-Smith) If I can add from our side, we
are obviously disappointed by the level of visitor numbers which
are lower than the estimates made originally but, having said
that, the levels of satisfaction in the surveys of people who
have visited indicated that 85 per cent of people said they were
satisfied or very satisfied with the day they had there. So the
numbers are disappointing but the impact it has had on the visitors
does seem to be positive.
64. That certainly seems to be the response
that I have had as well. People who have been at the Dome have
enjoyed it. Given that you are companies with a good track record
of PR in your own right, do you think there is anything else that
you can do? Is there anything else you can do from now on to try
and reverse the situation?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) We have undertaken direct communication
with 2 million of our customers through our customer magazine
to inform them of particular availability and facilities at the
Dome. We have made some moves to be able to generate visitors
for it. I think that the consistency and depth of the opinion
in the media will be a very hard task to turn around.
65. Do you feel that sponsorship of the Dome
has represented good value for your companies?
(Mr Faulkner) Certainly from our point of view it
has represented, and continues to represent, very good value.
Our decision as one of the founding sponsors was not predicated
on any particular level of visitors. We are quite satisfied, though
like everyone we would like to see more people enjoying that experience,
that as a purely commercial decision the Dome is successful for
us. We had an event there just last night in conjunction with
the CBI. We had a group of 50 business people there, that is exactly
how we saw the Dome. We were talking about the future world of
work and we used it as a backdrop to get our business message
across, so in that sense it works very well.
(Mr Hosford) In BT's case we do see it as good value
for money. The Talk Zone is getting a very positive visitor response.
94 per cent of people who go to Talk are satisfied or very satisfied.
The sorts of messages that they are taking out are exactly the
sort we could hope for, the possibilities of better communication
in the 21st Century and so on. We are very satisfied with the
visitor reaction. We believe that on the seven million projection
we will get roughly two and a half million people through the
Talk Zone which is for an investment of £12 million about
£5 a head. For a half hour experience which is overwhelmingly
positive it represents on any marketing or any industry standards
very good value for money. Obviously we would like the whole thing
to be seen as a success and we would like to get more value for
money through brand association and what have you but in terms
of the bare facts and figures as it now stands it represents good
value for money.
(Mr Clayton-Smith) From our point of view, rather
like Keith, we did not evaluate this in conventional marketing
terms but certainly we were keen, I think, as Boots really are
the chemist of the nation it made sense for us to be involved
in the one amazing day and a large national prestigious event.
From that point of view we have to be slightly disappointed that
the visitor numbers are not what were expected, perhaps also because
the perception of those people, who have not visited the Dome,
is not as upbeat as it might have been, probably due to press
comment.
66. We are now half way through the year and
you, I am sure, would hope that the NMEC does not require to have
any more funds and the projection of visitor numbers does not
go below that which they hope to get in the remainder of the year
to allow them to balance the books. If, however, that was not
to be the case, as companies, as sponsors, what would you want
the New Millennium Experience Company to do? Close the Dome? Go
back to the Commission for more money? Or, provide some additional
funds yourselves?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) Certainly from our point of view,
we made a commitment to the Dome project and we would certainly
want to see it remain open. There are still a very large number
of visitors who are going there and, as we have said, twice the
next level of attraction, so we would certainly want to see the
Dome remain open. As far as putting more funds ourselves into
the Dome, we would not consider that.
(Mr Faulkner) I think that the thing that we would
say is that, like Boots, we would not consider putting greater
cash investment. I think as both I and Adrian have already indicated,
our organisations are making considerable investments in getting
this message across about what a good experience it is and there
is a great deal of management time which is not part of the original
package that we continue to put in in working with the NMEC to
achieve a good outcome. We would be extremely disappointed if
it closed before the end of the year because I think that would
be a public statement that it was not a successful experience.
I think several members of the Committee have already indicated
in overall terms it is a success.
(Mr Hosford) I would simply add that we would support
the NMEC in trying to get the true story across about how the
visitors can enjoy this. I think the great British public actually
want to judge for themselves, they are not going to be totally
led by the media. We think it will open for the rest of the year
and we want to support that in any way we can. Certainly we would
not put additional cash into the sponsorship, we have an agreement
and that is it. As a company, we will be very supportive of making
sure that for the visitors who have not been they get a chance
to go and experience it for themselves, which is a very important
opportunity for everyone in the UK.
67. Finally, are you all now satisfied that
the changes that it was reported that you wanted over the last
few months to the content and organisation of the Dome have taken
place?
(Mr Faulkner) I think in answering that I would like
to just disassociate ourselves from the remark that we wanted
those changes. We have worked closely with the NMEC management
team throughout. We have made known those areas where we require
stronger performance. Those issues have been addressed. It is
not a matter of management changes, it is a matter that the NMEC
have consistently, over the last two years, been responsive to
us. At times we might have liked greater change or faster change
but the bottom line has always been as it is today, that we are
satisfied with the outcome.
(Mr Hosford) We are very happy with the current management
team. We recognise the achievements of the previous management
team in getting the Dome up. We are very satisfied and I endorse
very much what Keith has said.
(Mr Clayton-Smith) At the risk of being repetitive,
of course we were very impressed with getting the thing opened
on time. It was a huge venture. There were some operational issues
identified very early on in January, particularly around the Body
and queuing and issues like that. We identified 16 particular
issues with the management team and the new management team and
those have all been resolved, so we are quite happy.
Chairman
68. It is a fact, is it not, Mr Clayton-Smith,
as you readily acknowledge, that if one looks at the other projects
which certainly I admire a great deal, like the London Eye, that
did not open on time, it has had problems, it has had to close
some of its capsules; if you look at the Millennium Bridge, an
admirable project which will be a great asset to the capital,
it opened late, it has had to close again but again it will be
a very great asset. The Dome opened on time and on budget and
is a much larger project than those.
(Mr Clayton-Smith) I would agree. I think the scale
of the task was impressive.
Mr Maxton
69. There have been some stories that not all
of the sponsors so far have actually put their money up front,
shall we say. Is this still the case or has everybody now paid
up the sponsor money they contracted to pay?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) We had an agreed schedule of payments
with NMEC. The final payments were related to the resolution of
the issues I referred to earlier. Those are now resolved and the
payments fully on schedule.
70. The payments have now all been made?
(Mr Clayton-Smith) Will be made shortly.
71. In terms of sponsorship more generally,
how does this compare to, say, sponsoring major musical events
or sporting events for your companies? Is it better, worse, is
there a better way of spending your money?
(Mr Hosford) On the last question, can I say we have
fully paid up and I think that is the case with sponsors in general.
This compares as a unique one-off special so it is very hard in
commercial and marketing analysis of the opportunity versus the
costs. It is a very difficult one to judge. It is a unique time.
Our judgment was really in the vein of enlightened-self-interest.
We felt at this point in time, as we headed to the new century,
that the opportunities that enhanced communication can bring,
which was very, very complementary to what the Dome was trying
to do and point out all the opportunities that are available to
the UK, that it was enlightened self-interest to invest in it.
As I said before, it represents value for money on sheer cost
per head per quality of impact. It does cost in in business terms.
It also costs in because as a market leader in communications
in the UK we would like to support how the UK develops its communication
capability. It is an essential part of the UK how competitive
we are. It is important for our customers. You have to judge it
as a one off and you have to look at it with both a cold eye of
commercial logic and look at the greater enlightened opportunities
that exist. On both those criteria for us it costed in.
72. When you sponsor a major sporting event,
particularly when it is on television, your sponsorship reaches
millions in one go whereas the Dome is for those who actually
go or get a letter from you which has got the logo on top who
know you are the sponsors.
(Mr Faulkner) May I just pick that one up because
my organisation, or at least my European counterparts, did sponsor
the last World Cup so we have a direct comparison. You are quite
correct, we were very fortunate in having our name on a lot of
television screens in front of a lot of people but it does nothing
other than communicate the name and raise awareness of the organisation.
The unique feature of the Dome for us is it allows us to communicate
a much wider message, both to business people, who are potential
clients, and to potential workforce members because we employ
over 100,000 people in the UK and it is very important to us that
we communicate this message that we are a quality supplier that
offers both training and real work opportunities. The Dome has
given us a chance, exactly as Adrian has done, at in fact very
low cost per capita to get a very comprehensive message across
to the public about what sort of business we are. I think in response
to your question it is an excellent piece of sponsorship.
73. You have all expressed disappointment at
the number of visitors going to the Dome. To what extent in your
own organisations and your own outlets etc, do you make a conscious
effort to try and persuade people, your customers, that they ought
to go to the Dome? Obviously it is in your interests to get more
people going but do you play an active part in that?
(Mr Hosford) Certainly from BT's point of view we
are very active in encouraging people to go to the Dome. We take
a lot of people there.
74. Do you put leaflets in your bills?
(Mr Hosford) We put leaflets in our bills. We do all
the sorts of things you would expect. We support the Dome fully
and try to make the opportunities that it represents to people,
make them aware of it. I think you will see a change of tone in
terms of the media clearly have taken one attitude and we need
to communicate above the media that the experience is being enjoyed
by millions of visitors who have gone and it is a unique opportunity
which has a time expiry. After December you do not have an opportunity.
So we would like to help encourage customers to avail themselves
of the opportunity in any way that we can and we use our publicity
as the channel to do that.
75. Looking at your bills would convince me
I could not afford to go to the Dome.
(Mr Hosford) I am sure that is not the case.
76. You have not seen my telephone bills. Lastly,
directly to you, Mr Hosford, can I ask you, you are in the front
line in terms of changing technology, are you changing the Talk
Zone as you go along to make sure that your introduction of ADSL
technology and so on and other forms of technology are actually
reflected in that Zone?
(Mr Hosford) Yes.
77. So people are aware of what you are doing?
(Mr Hosford) Yes. The content is changed throughout
the year, not vastly but we keep adding new technology and new
areas that people might like to see. We listen to what visitors
say and we try and change the things that are not working as well
as other bits. The satisfaction levels have risen throughout the
year and our plans are to make the latest technology integral
to what is happening in there.
78. And lots of it hands-on?
(Mr Hosford) Lots of interactive. For instance, people
send 10,000 e-mails from the Talk Zone in the Dome to their friends
every week. We have thousands of people who are scanned on to
the Internet as avatar versions of themselves. There are lots
of things happening there —
79. With ET.
(Mr Hosford) — which people can push and play
with. You can get your photograph taken with ET.
Mr Maxton: I know. I hate to admit it
but I have done it.
Derek Wyatt: Sad man.
Chairman: Could you tell one from the
other?
Mr Maxton: Do not be so cheeky, could
you tell one from the other.
Mrs Golding: No!
|
