4th February 2007, 09:26 PM
In terms of PR, it is often more reasonable to advise a client on how to avoid negative PR than to claim that you can achieve positive PR. If you can do both then great, but the first can be more important from a client's point of view. If some positive PR can be generated then this is a bonus - one way to do this is to set up extensive outreach during and after fieldwork - this can not only benefit the client but also the local population - after all it is [u]their</u> archaeology.
I usually try to emphasise to a new client that my role is to guide their development through the planning process, whether that is EIA or straightforward pre-determination evaluation and possibly further mitigation. Many developers are wise enough to know how to play the system now - their main concern is not how much will the archaeology cost directly (i.e. the cost of the contractor / consultant) but whether it will affect buildability, either in terms of programme of of developable area.
I think that in your BAJR editorial it is important to stress the benfits that a decent programme of archaeological work could bring to a developer, such as those given by Vulpes and Tom, in particular the maximisation of engagement with the locals who may well be key customers.
I think that it was Troll who said something on another thread along the lines of being frustrated by the quasi-legal language that we have to use in this post-PPG16 world. Spot-on Troll - it is very frustrating - but that is what happens when we use the legal system to proptect our heritage - developers will always be happy to pay some smart-arse lawyers to find the loopholes in the system.
Beamo
I usually try to emphasise to a new client that my role is to guide their development through the planning process, whether that is EIA or straightforward pre-determination evaluation and possibly further mitigation. Many developers are wise enough to know how to play the system now - their main concern is not how much will the archaeology cost directly (i.e. the cost of the contractor / consultant) but whether it will affect buildability, either in terms of programme of of developable area.
I think that in your BAJR editorial it is important to stress the benfits that a decent programme of archaeological work could bring to a developer, such as those given by Vulpes and Tom, in particular the maximisation of engagement with the locals who may well be key customers.
I think that it was Troll who said something on another thread along the lines of being frustrated by the quasi-legal language that we have to use in this post-PPG16 world. Spot-on Troll - it is very frustrating - but that is what happens when we use the legal system to proptect our heritage - developers will always be happy to pay some smart-arse lawyers to find the loopholes in the system.
Beamo