A Case for Communication Spending

One of Sébastien Lecornu’s first decisions after being appointed Prime Minister was to announce a freeze on the communication spending by the Government and its public agencies. The 2026 budget confirmed and even reinforced cuts in this area. Judging by the difficulties faced by many agencies, companies had not waited for the new head of government’s initiative to cut back or limit their communication activities. Indeed, in times of economic or financial crisis, the first reflex is to cut expenses deemed least essential, communication spending usually ranks first. This is a classic but serious mistake. It is precisely when economic conditions deteriorate that communication becomes most strategic, both for public institutions and for companies.

Public communication is not just political messaging

It would be wrong to see the communication efforts of the State and its agencies merely as another vehicle for political, or even personal, expression by ministers or their representatives. While such a dimension undeniably exists, this perspective is clearly reductive and overlooks the essential point: public communication is a factor of social cohesion and connection, as well as a powerful driver of behavioural change, and therefore a key factor in the effectiveness of public policies. The example most frequently cited, rightly so, is road safety. Since the Prime minister Jacques Chaban-Delmas made reducing road deaths and injuries a national priority in 1970, often innovative communication campaigns have accompanied the substantive measures implemented by successive governments, local authorities, and manufacturers. The results speak for themselves: 17,000 deaths in 1970, compared with roughly 3,000 annually over the past decade. Another example, perhaps even more telling because it was not accompanied by strong governmental enforcement, is the comprehensive ban on smoking in restaurants and cafés introduced in 2007, which has made Claude Sautet’s movies look like relics of a bygone era. This success owes much to three decades of repeated public communication about the harms of smoking. Such communication is an essential tool for behavioural change and prevention, generating long-term savings. It should be seen as an investment rather than a simple operating expense. The same logic applies to businesses.

For companies, communication matters most when demand contracts

When economic activity slows and demand contracts, competition almost always intensifies. Rather than cutting communication spending, companies should increase it or at least maintain it. Two examples, nearly a century apart, illustrate this clearly. During the Great Depression following the 1929 crash, while Post Cereals, Kellogg’s main competitor, reduced its communication spending, particularly advertising. Kellogg’s, by contrast, doubled its own and went on to establish itself as the long-term market leader. More recently, during the pandemic, Coca-Cola reduced its marketing spending by nearly 35%, while Pepsi maintained its own. In 2020, Coca-Cola’s revenue fell by 11%, whereas Pepsi’s increased by 4.8%.
Yet corporate communication is not just about customers. In times of economic turbulence, all stakeholders seek to understand how a company is adapting to a more uncertain environment. Employees want to know what strategy is being implemented to safeguard activity and jobs. Shareholders and analysts expect clarity about management decisions. Banks and financial partners question the resilience of the business model. Silence, or hesitant communication, fuels uncertainty and can amplify the effects of a crisis. Facing a deep financial and strategic crisis in 2023-2024, Atos adopted minimal communication, which sustained investor mistrust and contributed to the collapse of its share price, further complicating the group’s financial restructuring.

The solution is not to communicate less, but to communicate more effectively

Should communication budgets therefore be protected at all costs? No. But real discipline does not consist in cutting spending indiscriminately; it requires rethinking both its purpose and its methods. Good management is not about reducing expenditures across the board. It is about distinguishing priorities, adapting resources to the context, and focusing on initiatives that deliver the best cost-effectiveness. In doing so, communication can fully play the role it should have in turbulent times: a tool for guidance, resilience and trust.

Eric Giuily
President of CLAI