Ministers have finally revealed how much two influencers were paid to promote its 拢3.6 million back-to-school campaign after lockdown – releasing an eight-word response after a two-and-a-half year battle for transparency. The fight is likely to have cost the Cabinet Office thousands of pounds more on top of the 拢13,000 it has now admitted it paid the pair during August 2020. The government department 鈥 previously slammed by MPs over 鈥渟ubstandard鈥 Freedom of Information handling 鈥 was in the process of taking court action over our request for information, but dropped the case at the last minute. TV presenter Kirsty Gallacher used her Twitter and Instagram accounts to 鈥渞eassure parents on the changes and safety measures in place at schools鈥 during the pandemic. She was pictured with Dr Philippa Kaye, a celebrity GP, visiting Charles Dickens Primary in south London to 鈥渉ear about the new measures put in place to make schools as safe as possible on our kids鈥 return鈥. In November 2020, Schools Week submitted a FoI request on costs, including how much the two were paid. But the Cabinet Office claimed disclosure would 鈥減rejudice the commercial interests鈥 of the department, celebrities and MullenLowe Group, the advertising company involved. After Schools Week complained to the Information Commissioner鈥檚 Office (ICO), the department did reveal the overall campaign cost 拢3.6 million. 890 day wait for information The ICO the Cabinet Office to disclose influencer pay, saying: 鈥淎ny celebrity seeking to tender for such a role in a future campaign is likely to submit the most competitive tender/fee, as it is in their interests to do so. 鈥淎dditionally, although some contracts may be similar in nature, they will not be the same, and different factors will be taken into account when pricing and awarding future contracts of this nature.鈥 In October last year, ministers said they would challenge the ICO鈥檚 decision in the first-tier tribunal court. But four months later, after various legal documents had been prepared and submitted by both parties, the department suddenly withdrew its appeal after 鈥渞eassessing its position鈥. Finally 鈥 890 days later 鈥 the Cabinet Office revealed it paid Gallacher 拢10,000 and Kaye 拢3,000. The FOI response contained eight words (see image). Transparency laws state public bodies should respond to requests within 20 working days. Maurice Frankel, the director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said the case was 鈥渨holly unreasonable. There鈥檚 no reason why finding out about government spending should be so difficult. 鈥淕overnment departments would do themselves a lot of good by being more open in the first place. Handing the information over at a very late stage 鈥 is usually a sign that it鈥檚 finally dawned 鈥 that it’s likely to lose its appeal.鈥 Influencer case could cost thousands The Cabinet Office press team refused to say how much it spent challenging the case, claiming details of any legal costs would be in its annual accounts. But Geraldine Swanton, a legal director at Shakespeare Martineau law firm, said legal fees could be 鈥渟ubstantial and depending on the complexity of the matter, can cost thousands of pounds鈥. The department had previously spent at least similar information requests in court, The Times reported last year. MPs on the public administration and constitutional affairs committee last year found there had been a 鈥渟lide away from transparency鈥 on some FOIs. William Wragg, the committee鈥檚 chair, said had 鈥渟ubstandard FOI handling鈥 and must improve compliance and 鈥渞egain public confidence鈥. An ICO spokesperson said withdrawing tribunal appeals can 鈥渨aste鈥 public resources. It would keep the issue under review, they added. Cabinet Office analysis showed that Gallacher鈥檚 social media posts had 1,912 likes and 27 comments. She later deleted one of the tweets that did not disclose it was an advert. The department said her posts and others by the influencer duo This Is Mothership had a reach of more than 800,000. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the ASCL school leaders鈥 union, said: 鈥淪chools take extremely seriously their duty to use public money in a transparent and responsible manner. There is therefore an expectation that the government will do the same.鈥 A government spokesperson said it 鈥渦sed every means possible to keep the public informed during the pandemic. This included our use of social media influencers, who helped us reach a wider audience than using only traditional advertising.鈥 Kaye declined to comment. Gallacher did not respond.
22 April 2023 This is shocking – I don’t know what’s worse, paying “influencers” all of that money, or not releasing the info for almost 3 years? Or worse that I have no idea who these “influencers” are? One was paid 拢10,000 and received less than 2,000 likes. So paid 拢5 per like, with no possible way to show ROI (return on investment). And this is a governmental organisation? How much money has been wasted on other PR projects like this?