P. C. PAPER No. 36.
Poster Campaign

Note by Deputy Secretary on Sir Kenneth Clark's Memorandum of 1/5/40 (P. C. Paper No. 30)

1. This question has to be considered in the light of (i) the general need for economy in the sense of wise spending, and (ii) the particular need for economy in paper consumption.

2. As to the first point, the test of any scheme of expenditure in war-time should be: “Is this expenditure necessary to the tack of winning the war, in the sense that if we forego it our war-effort will be seriously handicapped?” Admittedly this test is not an easy one to apply to expenditure on publicity, which is so largely a matter of opinion; but it should at least help us to arrange our proposals in some order of priority. It suggests, for example, that we should distinguish between publicity for a definite objective, and background publicity designed to keep up public morale.

3. It is hard to believe that, in the present state of public opinion in the country, the national war-effort will suffer if there are no “background publicity” posters on such subjects as The Empire's Strength, We're going to see it through, etc. The fact - if it is a fact considering the National Savings Committee's activities - that the majority of important poster sites have been empty since the beginning of the war - is not a convincing argument for an expenditure of £100,000 in time of war. And it is hard to believe that there really exists, as Sir Kenneth Clark suggests, any widespread feeling that the Government ought to be using these sites to keep up public morale. It is much more likely that if we did so we should be accused of wasting public money and paper.

4. As regards paper, the position is that a Committee has been set up by the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury, under the chairmanship of Sir James Rae, to examine the paper consumption of all Government Departments. They will meet on Monday, May 6th, and will probably send out a circular to all Departments later in the week, asking them to review all their services and effect economies in all possible ways. They will probably suggest the arranging of services requiring the consumption of paper in an order of priority, with a view to giving up the least important. They will also probably suggest that every new proposal for the consumption of paper should be reviewed in the light of the present shortage, with the knowledge that since the supply of paper is literally limited to a certain quantity which cannot possibly be exceeded, any increase in consumption by A means that B and others must go short pro tanto. Later on, they may recommend a ration for each Department, but not immediately, I gather.

5. It must of course be expected that the Treasury, with these considerations in mind, will be very critical of any proposals by us involving a large consumption of paper. But quite apart from Treasury pressure, we ought to review our own policy in the light of these facts. It is suggested that we should endeavour to concentrate more in future on means of publicity which do not require the use of additional paper in this country, e.g. broadcasting, films, public meetings and lectures, press advertising, (which the Press have said they will still welcome but which must be fitted into the revised limits of paper prescribed for newspapers), and the printing overseas of pamphlets etc. required for distribution abroad. Under such a policy, posters, which consume fairly large quantities of paper (the proposals in Paper No.30 would require 22 tons per quarter) would presumably come low in order of priority.

6. It is not suggested that we should put up no posters at all. But it is recommended that we should on principle confine ourselves to poster publicity for a specific objective, e.g. Anglo-French unity, the Road Safety campaign, etc. and rule out background publicity altogether.

4.5.40.