The term policy communication is becoming fairly prevalent in Brussels. While it means something else in most other places (communicating about policy to publics), in the bubble it refers to utilising a range of communications activities to support an organisation’s policy goals and build political capital.
Two factors explain why policy communication is on the rise: the need for noise and the need to build constituency (AKA a group of people with shared interests or political opinions).
The need for noise
There are more issues on the agenda than ever before. Competition for attention is, as a result, higher. Generating noise (no negative connotation implied) is therefore useful for those seeking to get noticed and remembered. In other words, organisations should – usually – strive for message repetition across several channels.
Organisations seeking to influence the Brussels machine are getting more expansive on this front. I’ve recently seen briefs for ambitious out of home (outdoor) advertising and multi-market broadcast media campaigns aimed squarely at affecting policy.
This is all good, if an organisation’s challenge is lack of awareness and understanding. It very often is. I’m delighted that organisations are getting more ambitious and professional, and dare I say, creative, in how they approach policy communication in order to raise awareness and understanding.
But having said all that, awareness and understanding is often not the challenge. “Policymakers just haven’t heard our message,” we keep hearing. Actually, they have, in scores of meetings, at events, and plastered across Politico and social media. But they don’t care, because no influential or sizeable constituency supports the organisation or sector in question.
The need to build constituency (support)
There are not just more issues on the agenda in Brussels. They are also more ‘political’ in nature given greater EU competency on issues that are inherently political, from climate to health.
In a sense, the ‘bubble’ is no more. What the proverbial woman and man on the street thinks really matters. We’re even seen that bastion of technical policy making, the Commission, being driven more by politics than ever before.
In practice, it means that organisations seeking to influence Brussels need to demonstrate that they have the support of sizeable and/or influential constituencies. It makes no political sense for policymakers to offer support without constituency, no matter how good an organisation’s message is. We tear our hair out when organisations insist on word-smithing press releases or tweets read by 5 people in Brussels, when their challenge is lack of support amongst key constituencies, usually beyond Brussels.
In other words, organisations should therefore be using policy communication (or whatever they choose to call it to) identify, build and mobilise communities of support for their public affairs activities, rather than just repeat the same message to the same audience.
Organisations are more likely to win over policymakers if they can demonstrate support amongst communities in which they are important employers. Or from lots of people in a profession that relies on the product or service they provide. And so forth. Far more than their lobbyist leading a war of attrition in which they repeat an ineffective message across 7 channels over and over.
“Ah but we do that already”, I hear. “We quoted an academic in proof point 12 and a consumer group expressed support once.” Yes, of course we’ve always identified and leveraged relevant others in the public affairs profession. But not at scale, or with a view to building NEW or BIGGER communities of support that can actually help shift the political tide.
At Rud Pedersen, we work with NationBuilder, the global leading tech provider for political campaigns, to run public affairs campaigns that look a bit like political campaigns. We try to identify publics that will be affected by an issue but may not know it. We inform them (AKA policy communication) in order to build a community of supporters (even if just a few hundred people). We encourage them (if they so wish) to write letters, make calls, inform their communities, attend meetings and events, or at least to provide testimonials and case studies.
If trying to shape an issue that is highly political in which ‘demonstrating public support’ is an essential determinant of success, this type of activity is essential.
Yet it remains a tough sell in Brussels. “Let’s just commission another report that AGAIN proves that we’re right and then make lots of noise about it.” You may be right, but it doesn’t matter if no one likes you.
So in summary: noise is great, and done well, usually makes one more likely to succeed. But if the challenge is political viability, not just awareness or understanding, being more ambitious about building political constituency is key to success.
Steffen Moller 