Communications 101 is always worth re-iterating. Such as this: what are the non-negotiable components of any communications programme?
(NB: in this post, I mainly consider communications in support of EU public affairs programmes).
Lots of upfront work
Successful communications should do more than inform: it should stimulate opinion and/or behavior change, and action. But bringing about change and action is bloody difficult. Communications that manages to do so is invariably inspiring and motivating in some sort of way.
We must therefore spend time figuring out what is likely to inspire and motivate those that we target, by determining:
- Their values, challenges and priorities.
- The opinions or preferences of their key constituencies (those who influence them).
- What others are up to in the same space, to understand what to imitate or avoid.
How do we acquire this knowledge? By speaking to people and asking questions, shockingly. Polling’s another option: we do too little polling in Brussels. Or benchmarking, to see what’s worked well and less well in the past.
But the method doesn’t matter, as long as we’re able to acquire some lessons that we can feed into our strategy and message.
Many organisations set communications objectives that are either too vague or too ambitious. Objectives need to indicate a shift, and should start with clear terms that demonstrate change, like increase or reduce. And they need to be measurable, ideally within the next 3-6 months.
While objectives should be realistic, they should not be unambitious. “Increase awareness of our organisation’s message amongst our target audience” is frequently listed as a key communications objective. Snooze.
Increasing awareness amongst a target audience can be an initial objective, but there must be other objectives that can be tied more directly to genuine public affairs success, like “increase number of decision-makers who publicly endorse our position.”
Narrowly defined audiences
“Policy-makers, media, and general public.” These are often listed as target audiences in public affairs land. Unless an organisation has a seven-figure budget or is on the right side of the debate on the 1 in a 1,000 issue that everyone really cares about, it will be impossible to reach all of them.
Impossible, and not even desirable. Why do we want to reach a target audience? In order to help meet an objective, and not every audience member can help us do so. Policy-makers should be targeted if they actually influence the outcome of our issue. Usually, only a narrow set of policy-makers actually do so. Journalists should be targeted if they will be likely to say nice things, less likely to say unpleasant things AND if the aforementioned policy-makers actually care about the publications they write for.
General public should NEVER be a target audience. A segment of the general public can of course be if they are relevant to the policy-maker who ultimately decides our fate. But while influencing the general public in order to support our public affairs programme indirectly is highly desirable, it is also very difficult and time-consuming. If we choose to do it, ‘publics’ need to be defined narrowly. Maybe it’s: people who work in a certain company, sector or locality; people in a specific demographic and locality; or people with a history of interest in a specific issue. It might be parents, perhaps students, or the elderly, or trade unions. But it’s never everyone.
It’s become a cliché to state that communications ‘strategy’ is a misused term. Yet true. A plan isn’t a strategy. A list of objectives with some activities isn’t a strategy. Strategy lists in just one or a couple of sentences HOW communications will help meet stated objectives. It starts with words like position, reposition or harness and NOT with words like change, increase, decrease, create or develop.
An easy way to frame communications strategy for public affairs is to do so around issue, positioning and people, as we’ll likely need a strategy for each:
- Issue: The key determinant of interest group success in Brussels is the provision of high-quality technical information. So to some extent, expertise can deliver success on an issue: plenty of organisations have flourished in Brussels without a whiff of strategy, especially if their issue is primarily handled in expert groups behind closed doors. But strategy will make success more likely if the issue is political and public. Strategic positioning on an issue should involve answering questions such as: Do we own the issue or work with others? Do we make it our key issue or one of many? What are we willing to forgo? How forceful do we wish to be?
- Positioning: Beyond issue specifics, how should we position our actual organisation towards audiences in order to help build political capital? In an ever-more political EU, this is essential. How are we different? Are we nicer, more innovative, more sustainable, the smartest kids in the class, or helpful conveners? Or how are we positioning ourselves around market power and public support, other key determinants of interest group success, in a manner that is relevant to our target audiences?
- People: Simply, who will speak on our behalf? Will it be our own people? If so, who? Lobbyists or experts? Lofty folk or mid-level staff? Should a single, respected leader be the main face of the organisation? Or should it be someone external? These are not overly difficult decisions to make, and it may be a mix of all of the above, but in any case, each should be thought through.
Good messages and a compelling storyline
At this point, we get to actual communications output. What will we say and how? Ideally, having nailed all of the above, this becomes relatively easy, but we’re often guilty of over-reach here.
Messaging needs to be simple and limited only to what will help meet objectives. It must align with our audience analysis and our strategic approach. Nothing else can slip in.
Using messaging models that impose brevity is highly recommended, such as the 27/9/3 approach: 3 messages max, 9 seconds to read one of them out, 27 words max each.
Likewise, we must keep messages jargon-free and simple. We do not dumb down by making something understandable. And we must focus on results over process, and stress relevance, utility and vision.
In addition, we should as far as possible articulate messages through real-life examples involving actual people, rather than fact-sheets, as trite as this may sound to the seasoned PA professional. Stories work. They release dopamine in the brain, making us feel splendid. They make information more memorable through a process of neutral coupling, which means we subconsciously associate a story with our own perceptions and experience.
But what goes into a story? A story should be people-focused, framed around a ‘hero character’. Classic hero characters in EU public affairs include the teacher, the farmer, the doctor, or the steelworker. If a hero character is an employee, all the better. And ideal themes include: European history and heritage (the beer industry is great at utilising its legacy in its public affairs output, for instance); human impact through purpose; and exciting products and services developed through smart innovation.
Some communication fails because the research and strategy aren’t right. Plenty more fails because the message and storylines are not compelling enough. What a shame then when all of the above hit the spot, but organisations have not thought about a clear and comprehensive distribution strategy.
Strategy, ideas and output are not end points. Distribution is, meaning: how are we going to make sure our target audience sees or reads our stuff? Do we speak to people directly, deliver through media, digitally, or through advertising? Probably a bit of all of the above. How can we use networks and influential folk to enhance reach and credibility? How do we encourage affected people to get involved?
Given that the previous elements are quite difficult to nail, distribution is too often treated as an afterthought. Just a bit of spray and pray: a few meetings, a speaking slot, a press release and some tweets. Job done.
This may again sound evident, but distribution has to be wide-ranging, multi-channel, and very well though through. And in particular, it needs to involve an ‘influencer’ strategy. Not naff, celebrity influencers, but rather: the direct involvement in our communications efforts of relevant, credible people with their own, decently sized networks. Run-of the-mill examples include: pharma companies teaming up with patient groups to create content; or agri-chems companies doing so with farmers.
Useful, actionable measurement
What is the point of measuring communications? To prove success and justify one’s existence of course, but mainly, to adapt and improve. Hence we should track metrics tied to objectives, not stuff that looks nice because the numbers are going up.
As public affairs activity is not as patently transactional as other forms of communications (like marketing) and involves an awful lot of variables beyond our control (the whim of politicians, mainly) it is often hard to tie communications objectives directly to genuine policy influence.
But metrics can be applied to relationship building and popularity amongst key constituencies, which are the forerunners of policy influence. Hence why we need to track things like: key people who have expressed a positive opinion about us; key people who have pledged support; key people who have pledged to do something (speak on our behalf or table and amendment). And so forth.
They key term being key people. We should not just track useless vanity metrics like media coverage or social media followers, although there can be some value in keeping an eye on them, namely to evaluate why they are going up or down.
Other important lessons for useful measurement:
- Don’t measure everything, or we end up with reams of stuff that mean nothing. Measure around 5 things that truly matter.
- Don’t rely on hard numbers. In public affairs, anecdotal evidence is just as important e.g. a Commissioner telling you that you have a license to lobby them because your communications on innovation is really compelling (a true story).
- Report regularly (monthly is fine) and include insight and recommendations: what does it all mean and how can we improve?
A final, brief point on budgeting: good communications does not come cheap. Communications leaders within organisations should have plenty of experience and will cost a few bob. High-quality and ongoing external counsel should be sought. In Brussels, communications budgets remain trifling. If communications is to deliver genuine influence, budgets must reflect this.