31/05/2026
“A couple of cans of Red Bull.”
That was the Secretary of State’s contemptuous dismissal of concerns raised about the “cost” of her department’s latest, disastrous social media campaign.
But while this was her flippant response… what our analysis shows is that the DfE is now spending at an unprecedented scale on communications and PR.
Tens of millions here.
Tens of millions there.
And there.
And there.
Across separate contracts, separate frameworks, multiple cost lines — with key documents redacted and questions met with dismissals. Every pound spent primping this Minister’s image is a pound not spent on the children it exists to serve.
So. The public can see the campaign.
But.
They cannot see the brief.
They cannot see the objectives.
They cannot see the KPIs.
They cannot see who is assessing whether any of it is working, or what success even looks like.
That is not an accident. That is, it seems, how this department now operates.
And here’s how they’re doing it…
_____________________________
Step One: Follow the money.
£90.7 million. That is the value of the contract we already shared last year, awarded to media buying agency Manning Gottlieb OMD by the DfE in January 2025… covering just 15 months of services. Yet staggeringly, this largely covers just the purchasing of advertising space. View this as the 2026 version of renting Billboard space and magazine ads 🤯.
It is also worth noting that this enormous, unprecedented DfE contract was awarded through what is described as a non-competitive tender process.
In simple terms: one lot, but just one supplier, one contract.
This is a legitimate tool within the government’s procurement framework — it allows a department to choose to appoint a single preferred supplier without running any competitive process, designed to make the process slick and responsive (and quick). And we’ll leave the public to decide how they feel about that decision, in this particular context 🤨
The creative content… the campaign strategy, concepts, the scripts, the production, the talent — well it seems that sits on entirely separate cost lines, under entirely separate contracts. Both internally and externally. The DfE spent £35.3 million on external creative communications between July 2024 and March 2025 alone, confirmed separately in a parliamentary answer earlier this year.
And separately, we also know that the DfE's total marketing spend in 2024-25 was also confirmed at £49.8 million — already up 43% in just two years. And that was last year. Current expenditure levels are, as yet, undisclosed. The Association of School and College Leaders have noted that this £49.8 million spend alone, equates to the salaries of around 1,000 teachers. [TES, March 2026]
But the really important point here: These are *not* the same figures.
They are separate cost lines, across separate contracts, across separate frameworks. Fragmented. Opaque. Impossible to total from the outside.
Tens of millions here.
Tens of millions there.
And there.
And there.
The end result is that neither the public, nor MPs can easily construct a single clear picture of total DfE comms expenditure… because it is spread across multiple lines internally and externally with key documents redacted.
Frankly- it’s as clear as mud.
The Secretary of State's answer? Cans of Red Bull.
That is not transparency. That is its opposite.
She knew the *real* question.
She knows the concern.
She also knows the answer.
…and still she chose to deflect and dismiss.
_____________________________
Step Two: The Structural Problem
In PR, there is a well-worn, cynical principle: there is no such thing as bad publicity.
👍 Reach is reach.
👍 Engagement is engagement.
👍 2.6 million views is 2.6 million views… whether people are cheering or furious.
That principle may have its place in the commercial world. But absolutely NO place in government — most especially when public trust and confidence are already at a historic low.
Where paid media is being used, the DfE contract's own documentation requires media choices to be justified against stated outcomes — not *just* reach.
… But the brief that actually sets those outcomes has been redacted 🤐
Yes. The Government has made certain that we don't know what outcomes were set. We don't know what KPIs were agreed. We don't even know who within the DfE is assessing whether they are being met.
The DfE's own job advertisement for their Director of Communications (appointed earlier this year) described the role's priority as "innovative communications using digital, social media, and AI, focusing on *audience-first engagement*."
"Audience-first" is a commercial content principle, designed to build reach, maximise engagement, and to literally… grow an audience. It is the logic behind product launches, brand campaigns, and building large influencer followings.
It asks: what will this audience respond to?
Not: what does the public need to know, and how will we know they understood it?
… And in our view, once again, it has absolutely NO place as the guiding principle for public service communications.
Bottom line? Whether managing paid space, social media content, advertisements or influencer content- KPIs matter. Outcomes matter. But these have been hidden from view.
So when last week's posts generated millions of views but attracted thousands of comments dominated by anger… and this department still decided to double down and just keep posting… we cannot say whether that decision was made despite the metrics, or *because of them*.
That is the question that now demands an answer. As a government department spending tens of millions of the public purse on PR that cannot — or will not — distinguish between public outrage and public confidence has a problem that goes well beyond a poorly received video.
_____________________________
Step Three: So- What can be done?
This is a department responsible for £95.5 billion of public spending. £45.7 billion funds mainstream schools. £10.6 billion supports children with special educational needs and disabilities. £2.9 billion is Pupil Premium — money specifically for the most disadvantaged children.
That is what this department is for.
Against that purpose, a communications and marketing budget rising (at least) 43% in two years…. now running into tens of millions, spread across contracts the public cannot fully see… this expenditure is a choice. Every pound spent running “audience first” comms plans to manage the department’s public profile is a pound *not* being spent on the children it exists to serve.
Given the NAO describes its remit as responding to "concerns where value for money may be at risk”… we would suggest this ☝️ to be precisely that concern.
So for us, this is no longer a debate about the optics of a celebrity video.
It is a question of strategy, accountability, financial management and ministerial honesty.
And in our view, the questions that now need answers are actually simple:
→ Will the Secretary of State publish the total annual cost of all DfE communications and marketing activity for each of the last three financial years, including a comprehensive breakdown by main category and identifying spend delivered in-house versus through external suppliers?
→ What objectives and key performance indicators govern this expenditure — and will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the briefs that set them?
→ Who within the Department is responsible for assessing whether this spending delivers value for money, and against what measures? Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the outcome of any such review?
→ Does the Secretary of State consider “audience-first engagement” — the priority set out in her own Director of Communications job description — an appropriate guiding principle for publicly funded communications for a Government Department?
→ And, given all of this, does the Secretary of State stand by her characterisation of this particular campaign expenditure as amounting to “a couple of cans of Red Bull”?
The Public Accounts Committee can call DfE officials to give evidence on the record and demand Departmental expenditure, contract terms, KPIs and performance metrics are examined publicly.
Your MP can write to the PAC Chair and to the NAO's Parliamentary Relations team at [email protected] to raise their concerns and request that scrutiny.
The public can also raise concerns directly with the NAO at nao.org.uk/contact-us.
And you can write to your MP today.
This is your money.
These are your institutions.
They answer to you.
Use them.
Measure what Matters
Uncover • Inform • Empower
