Advocacy Working Party Meeting Minutes

Notes from the meeting held at the LSE.

Present: Máire Lanigan (St. Mary's & Chair), John Gilby (LSE - Minutes), Marysia Henty (LSE), Julie Howell (London Metropolitan University), Paul McLaughlin (SHL), Mary Nixon (Goldsmiths), Madura Rasaratnam (LSE), Monica Rivers-Latham (Westminster).

Apologies: Apologies were received from Frances Norton (Wellcome Library), Janet Percival (UCL).

MN and MRL were welcomed to their first meeting and ML gave an overview of the work of the group.

1. Previous Meeting Minutes and Matters Arising

The minutes from the meeting held on 13 May 2005 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

Review of actions:

• Action 2.1 - complete, ML had reported on the group's activities at the M25 AGM.
• Action 6.1 - complete, see notes under Item 2 below.
• Action 6.2 - complete, MR had organised a group meeting on 10 August 2005 to finalise the Annual Report.
• Action 6.3 - complete, see notes under Item 2 below.
• Action 7.1 - ongoing, ML will take to the Steering Group the proposal to use the Press Release and Short Document Templates where appropriate.
• Action 7.2 - MR presented draft Working Group Reporting Guidelines and received various comments. New Action 1.1, MR to revise draft document following comments and send to ML for presenting to the Steering Group.
• Action 8.1 - complete, MH and JG had circulted ideas for the poster display unit and see also Item 3 below.
• Action 8.2 - PM, JP, JH, MH to consider content of poster - action continues as New Action 1.2.
• Action 9.2 - complete, MR had arranged future meeting dates.

2. M25 Annual Report

For the benefit of new group members, ML recounted the background to previous actions regarding the production of the M25 Consortium's Annual Report.

MH presented three options for a new designer, all based on designing and printing (4 colour) a four page cover and eight page inner document as per the 2003/04 report. Design prices ranged from £750 to £5560 and print from £1080 to £3340.

The wide variation in price prompted a discussion about available budget, the cost of design/printing and also what the different suppliers might be able to offer the Consortium. All agreed that the mid-range designer price option was preferred for this year. MH had an extensive list of M25 'values' that should be included in the design brief.

Action 2.1 MH to circulate draft Annual Report design brief to group for comment and discussion at the next meeting (10th August).

Action 2.2 ML to gain confirmation of budget at the next Steering Group meeting, in order to confirm that a mid-range designer can be commissioned.

The group then discussed the relative merits of engaging a photographer to create an M25 'image bank' that could be used in the Annual Report, other promotional literature and the website. The group agreed that having photos that were readily available and appropriate to M25 business would be useful and also suggested that the successful designer should be approached to clarify benefits of using stock photos compared with M25 having its own image library.

Action 2.3 ML to gain approval at the next Steering Group meeting for a budget for photography, after which a photographer could be commissioned.

ML reminded the group that the Annual Report is sent to heads of services in M25 libraries plus a long 'hit list' that includes Vice Chancellors and senior staff at other key London bodies.

3. M25 Promotional Banner

MH and JG reported on their investigations into promotional banner suppliers and the group looked at two suppliers websites. Generally the are quite a number of options with differing unit bases, whether the banner could be changed at a later date and method of assembly. JG demonstrated an IBSS banner to help with discussions. Weight of the banners varied depending on type and most were approximately 2m high and 60-100cm wide. Cost of banners and studio charges were fairly similar between the different suppliers. The group agreed that this work should continue and that the next stage would be to invite a supplier in to demonstrate different products to help decide on which actual banner type to purchase.

Action 3.1 MH/JG to invite a supplier to demonstrate products at the next meeting.

Regarding banner content, it was agreed that the banner should not be too wordy and a suggestion was to refer to the report produced by Synectics on the Key Messages Meeting held in 2002 for ideas. There also might be some ideas from the current on-going web review activity.

4. Update on e-Bulletin

MR showed the group her first draft of the e-Bulletin that had been designed to be emailed (in HTML format) and also would be available on the website. The draft was well received and prompted discussion of ideas for future content. The next stage would be to send the draft to the M25 Steering Group and once final comments on content have been received, the bulletin can be distributed.

5. Review of AWG Action Plan

This item was deferred until the September meeting.

6. Update of Review of the Website

ML gave the group an update on recent activities undertaken by the web review group and what would be happening next.

7. AOB

There was none.

8. Next Meetings

The next meeting was arranged to be on 10 August 2005, 2-5pm, room R09 in the LSE Library and the key agenda items would be to finalise the Annual Report and Promotional Banner(s). The following meeting would likely be in late September 2005.

Minutes by JG