What are you like?

Construction’s poor reputation with the public will weigh against it in the tough times ahead. How can the industry counter it? Elaine Knutt reports.

Mr & Mrs Average have some decisions to make. They’re thinking of signing a petition against a new eco-village, fearing the shiny new houses will be beyond locals’ budgets. Their children’s school is fundraising for a new multi-purpose hall, but they think the head should just focus on the SATs. They’re considering a loft extension, but are nervous about the “cowboys” they’ve seen on TV, and lack confidence in the local builder who gave them a pretty steep quote.  

If you’re mentally shouting advice to Mr & Mrs Average, then you probably believe that their best interests and the industry’s are aligned. You’d be right: the much-needed new houses will be no more expensive than average and cost less to run; the school hall will enhance learning and be an asset to the community; the loft extension could dramatically improve the quality of family life. But if Mr & Mrs Average live in a world where construction is invisible, inaccessible and even intimidating, it won’t be surprising if their decisions go against the industry’s interests – and their own.

Sadly, negative sentiments are typical of the public’s view of construction. Six months ago, when the Considerate Constructors Scheme surveyed 1,016 members of the public, 51% scored the industry at 5 or less out of 10, and the average was a lacklustre 5.5. When they have work done on their homes, the result is so poor that in 2008 it attracted 68,000 complaints to government organisation Consumer Direct  (see box, p20). And in a listing of 140 UK firms by the Reputation Institute, the highest ranked construction companies were services group Amec at 34 and housebuilder Berkeley at 70.   

In the days of high demand and rising output, the industry could safely view the issue as a low priority. But in the current climate, it is a different story. When the business case for both private and public sector projects is more marginal, the non-monetary case must be more persuasive. And if the new government is promoting “pay as you save” incentives to householders to retrofit their homes, the industry will fail to benefit unless six million Mr & Mrs Averages feel confident about “having the builders in”.

Sections of the industry are at least registering the issue, even if they’ve yet to formulate a coordinated response. The CIOB is planning a number of initiatives it hopes will hook the public’s attention, including the “Art of Building” photo competition and a possible TV documentary series. The survey by the Considerate Constructors Scheme was part of its campaign to extend awareness of its brand to the general public, and London’s Building Centre is planning a series of seminars to encourage the public to “look under the bonnet” of their homes.  

But construction has a long way to go catch up with architecture, which has shown what can be achieved by leveraging pubic opinion. Public and private sector clients have taken up its rallying cry that “design adds value”, an idea driven home through positive TV programmes such as Grand Designs, the high-profile Stirling Award, features in the mainstream press and architecture festivals that engage the public. By doing so, architecture has managed to position itself in the public consciousness as well as the physical world.

Show and tell

But despite having an in-built advertising and communication medium in the form of site hoardings, the construction sector has failed to follow architecture’s lead. “People see hoardings and it’s like closing the door, they’re excluded. You need to tell people about the project and the difference it will make, and put a bit of the community budget into taking people on the journey,” says Victoria Thornton, founding director of the Open-City charity and an expert at engaging the public’s interest. “The industry says, ‘oh, people aren’t interested in construction’. But the fact is, we’re not told about it!”

Perhaps not  surprisingly, she suggests the industry could take a leaf out of her organisation’s Open House scheme, book by offering tours of buildings just before completion. “Why can’t you have all the different trades represented, and explaining to the public why it’s ‘my building’? The public aren’t aware of all the various people in the team, they just think about the architect and we’re not really explaining the construction process,” she says. On the open days, Thornton suggests that materials and components should be made visible and display information labels. “It’d show how we’re eco-friendly, and be a simple way to help people be more informed.”

In general, sustainability gives the industry the opening for a conversation with the public, she says. “The bigger contractors will have sustainability consultants, so can’t they be more accessible? We could get them in the press and on TV, talking about it. If you’re building houses, you have lots of information relevant to the public.”

The Considerate Constructors Scheme is also keen to promote the flow of information from site to street. “Our standpoint is that the more information you give to passers-by, the better,” agrees chief executive Edward Hardy. “We’ve started suggesting that contractors publicise their environmental credentials on their hoardings. People assume sites are creating huge amounts of waste, so they would find [information on recycling policies] interesting, and it promotes a positive image.”

The CCS is placing a new emphasis on communication with the public, realising that its considerable success in raising sites’ standards of presentation and professionalism mostly takes place behind the hoardings. “We found our members wanted us to raise the profile of the scheme, and for the public to know the efforts they’re going to,” Hardy says. So he’d like to see members experiment with site webcams, websites that offer technical information as well as marketing blurb, and registration for site open days.

The CIOB is also trying to reach new audiences. As well as the photography competition, it’s taking its own advertising onto the London Underground and into non-construction publications. There are plans for informal “coffee and conversation” events in high street cafes,  and it is forming a group of senior construction marketing professionals to co-ordinate action on raising the industry’s profile. “We want to move outside our comfort zone and put ideas and thinking from the industry into a wider circle,” says Saul Townsend, press and communications manager.

Make information easy to find

If Mr & Mrs Average have had their confidence boosted by better communications from the industry and want to do some research on the loft extension, their obvious first port of call is the internet. But, while there is a wealth of information out there, the problem is finding it. “Maybe the Construction Industry Council or some other body has produced good information sheets, but no one knows about them. We could do with an industry-wide information campaign – even if it’s just a pointer to a user-friendly website,” says Thornton. 

And the provision of clear, step-by-step information has to continue when contractors cross the threshold. “When someone comes round to your house to do an estimate, you don’t necessarily feel  they’re giving you proper information,” says Thornton. “It’s about feeling the builders are professional – they need to differentiate themselves from cowboys.”

Mr & Mrs Average might then want to see some products and technologies they’ve read about – and here it helps if they’re within driving distance of Swindon. That’s where you’ll find BuildStore, a showroom and demonstration centre aimed at self-builders that draws 25,000 visitors a year.

“People can familiarise themselves with different elements in a project, so when they’re talking to builders, they’re more informed,” says PR manager Jaclyn Thorburn. “We’ve got people in the centre you can speak to about getting the most out of your builder. It’s about knowing which trades come in which order, or when your materials need to be on site – basic knowledge like that.”

In the past, the construction sector had a similar shopfront. In the 1960s, there were no fewer than 10 industry-backed Building Centres around the country, showcasing products and providing technical information for the public and professionals. But as Andrew Scoones, director of the surviving Building Centre in London explains, they either closed or morphed into “built environment and architecture” centres with a focus on design and planning. “The idea of having a building and technology-based approach was superseded by public interest in architecture, and that’s also where the [Arts Council] grants were,” he says.

To reassert a technology-led understanding of the built environment, the Building Centre is planning a seminar series for members of the public that will encourage them to “look under the bonnet” of their houses. “There are a lot of people who are inspired by architecture, but they can be very disappointed if they’re not well informed on the technology, as well as on the design side,” he says. Scoones is discussing the idea with DIY chains and a newspaper to provide the sponsorship and PR profile the scheme will need.

How do you change attitudes?

But the challenge for the industry goes beyond giving Mr & Mrs Average the information and confidence to undertake domestic projects – there’s still the question of their attitude to proposed new housing developments, or investing public money in bricks and mortar when there are so many competing priorities. Here, structural engineer Chris Wise of Expedition Engineering highlights the industry’s failure to draw the link between buildings as physical artefacts, and as catalysts that can improve quality of life,  communities or business efficiency.

“People mistake the object for the value, but a building is like a pound coin – it only has a value if you can do something with it. Everybody focuses on the physical artefact, but not the effect it has on people. But you can use Crossrail to transform the working and social lives of millions,” he points out. “The key for construction is to take it beyond the product, and that’s an easy story to tell.” 

The most effective medium for the industry to “tell its story” to a mass audience is still TV. In recent years, a few documentaries have conveyed the social and human side of projects: the BBC2 series on St Pancras, The 800 Million Pound Railway Station (2007), or Channel 4’s series on the regeneration of Castleford in Yorkshire, Kevin McCloud and the Big Town Plan (2008). The story of McCloud’s new housing development in Swindon, featuring Willmott Dixon as contractor, is also in production.

Meanwhile, National Geographic Channel’s Megastructures also puts the technical challenge of construction on our screens, and is currently filming at the Olympic Park. But considering the sector employs 2.6m people and represents 10% of GDP, it is still underrepresented on TV. 

Recognising the problem, the CIOB is in early talks with a TV production company about a documentary series looking at history through the stories of great builders. “It would highlight the impact on the public  and the people who used the buildings,” explains Saul Townsend. “A lot of people who have an emotional attachment to buildings in their lives. That’s an untapped resource.”

TV producer Andrew Millington highlights another TV tactic. He’s director of PAWS, or Public Awareness of Science and Engineering, which aims to seed TV writers’ and producers’ imaginations with innovative ideas from real-world labs and offices. It puts together themed speaker evenings for audiences of researchers, writers and producers – most recently in March, on the low carbon economy. “The media can’t write about things or produce programmes if they don’t know what’s going on,” he says. “We’re sure our work is having an effect in educating producers and researchers. But it has to be a drip, drip process of keeping it in front of people’s eyes.”

PAWS receives most of its funding from charities and representative bodies in the sector, including the New Engineering Foundation. Its operations director, Michelle Medhat, believes it is money well spent. “You can’t see a direct benefit, but it is something you have to do if you want to drive public opinion.”

With negative perceptions to overcome, the variable quality among domestic builders and a culture of “closing the door” on the public, it won’t be easy for construction to positively influence Mr & Mrs Average. But it also has many things on its side: people’s “how did they do that” curiosity; a growing interest in sustainability; and a post-credit-crunch sense that the economy needs to focus on real jobs creating tangible assets.

As with many issues that affect our fragmented industry, the inevitable question is who should take responsibility for addressing it. Individual organisations, including the CIOB, are already taking up the challenge. But as Millington and Medhat of PAWS point out, driving public opinion needs to be a constant  “drip drip” process. Keeping up with the Averages will involve effort from every company, organisation and individual that cares about the industry’s future. cm

What do you think is the best way forward? Email elaine@atompublishing.co.uk with your ideas.

How three PR consultancies would communicate with Mr & Mrs Average  

Thomas.Matthews

Our cities are full of building sites; new superstructures growing from foundations, scaffolding hiding additions, new communities being constructed from scratch. Imagine if we had more dialogue with the people who were creating them (see photomontage, above). Even the busiest people have moments of curiosity when they walk past a site and see something that makes them think “I wonder how they do that?’ But the tall boards around the site, albeit sometimes with peepholes, can halt engagement. No matter how many images of happy people you paint on them and how many meetings in town halls are organised, we still have no real understanding of the complexity and skill going on. There is a missing voice from the individuals in construction. We want to hear about the pride in building a beautiful wall from recovered bricks, or how effective it is when you insulate the walls of your Victorian terraced house. Just as the back of a van invites comments on it’s driving, so can a builder encourage a chat. Let’s open up doors, invite conversation, unlock knowledge and encourage curiosity. These are our cities, we live here!

Sophie Thomas, director

Camargue

Contractors can no longer ignore the fact that the general public can and will influence decisions wherever possible. Community engagement and consultation mean that the choice of contractor has to tick all the right boxes. This now extends beyond cost/delivery/quality and includes new factors such as corporate social responsibility, community stewardship and sustainability. The notion of “brand values” will be increasingly important to major contractors. If three are contesting a tender, and one has a brand and reputation that extends beyond the boundaries of the industry, it could be a differentiator. The only solution is for contractors to drop their traditional conservative approach and see the bigger picture. The brand needs to be understood and valued outside of the industry and take the stage in the communities in which it operates.

Mike Conway, director

The Think Tank

TV is still a mass medium, and
with the opportunity to offer a “tell me more” option with content-rich web applications, it’s a great way to get a more universal message across. A factual TV series, perhaps in conjunction with ConstructionSkills, could follow the progress of trainees learning traditional skills such as bricklaying and plastering, along with the  ones needed for 21st century new-builds. In addition, a TV show in the style of Scrap-heap Challenge where builders would create or enhance facilities for their local community using “waste” materials, could work well. WRAP could be involved, as could building materials manufacturers, along with selected teams of willing tradespeople! 

Samantha Dawe, director

Cowboy shows are chance to play good guys

Mr & Mrs Average can watch two TV shows about cowboy builders at the moment: the second series of BBC1’s Cowboy Trap is on weekday mornings, and Channel Five is drawing a primetime audience of 1.5 million for Cowboy Builders on Tuesday evenings.

Cowboy Trap invites local building professionals to visit the property, score the work out of 10 and advise on putting it right. Chrissi McCarthy MCIOB, who has taken part in two shows, says the industry can’t wish them away, so should make the best of them.

“I want viewers to understand there are people out there who are proud of being builders. Our industry needs to get the message across that it is a profession, one that people are trained in,” she says. “If you don’t know what’s what, and one firm offers to do the work for less, then of course you go for the lowest price.”

So how widespread is the cowboy problem? Kevin Dawson MCIOB, head of building control at Peterborough City Council, says 10% of the 600-700 domestic jobs his team encounters a year have serious – but solvable – technical problems. Only 1% are disasters of the type  on TV. “We are finding a few more cases [than normal] because of the recession, but no more than half a dozen,” he says.

But Brian Smith, spokesman for the Trading Standards Institute, says the incidence of cowboy rip-offs varies around the country. While he’s relieved the problem hasn’t worsened in the recession, he says most consumers are no better protected than 10 years ago.

That was when the government set up the rigorous Quality Mark scheme for approved domestic contractors, but it failed to build critical mass. It was superseded by TrustMark, which aggregated approved contractor schemes run by 34 trade organisations.  

However, standards of monitoring and complaints-handling vary according to the scheme operators. Plus, with only 16,000 members each paying £25 a year, it does not have the finances to promote itself. 

Now, trading standards departments are setting up their own schemes under the Local Authority Assured Trader Network, as Smith says. “These are far more local, and we get real responses from real people. But it’s patchy – there’s no national funding and in the current climate it’s unlikely to expand much.”. 

He warns: “If the new government wants to push the refurbishment of existing stock, it needs to make sure the work is encompassed by Building Control and Building Regulations. We see holes [for cavity wall insulation] where there isn’t a cavity! To make it a cowboy’s charter would be nuts.”